A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM: A PARENTING STYLE



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 16th 05, 04:31 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM: A PARENTING STYLE

"CHAPTER FOURTEEN
RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM: A PARENTING STYLE
Religious organizations generally address our common need for spiritual
sustenance, and
for community. They uphold the concept of 'family' in an era when
economic rationalism
is tearing families apart. Historically, religions have spawned and
championed countless
humanitarian causes, such as the anti-slavery and (American) civil
rights movements,
Ghandist non-violence and the Islamic zakat (alms tax for the needy),
to mention but a
few. In modern times religious institutions have often been at the
forefront of human
rights and social justice movements. For instance, church authorities
have stood up
against repressive regimes in Latin America, and in Australia they are
an essential part of
the fight to protect the rights of asylum seekers.
This chapter, however, is not about religion per se. It is about the
use of religious
extremism, radicalism or fundamentalism as a rationalisation for
repressive or punitive
child-rearing styles. In contrast to mainstream religion, religious
extremism has
historically been associated with increased social and international
violence. I simply
wish to pose the question 'Might this have anything to do with the
way religious
extremist communities relate to children?'"



http://nospank.net/grille-ch14.pdf

  #2  
Old July 21st 05, 12:52 AM
Carlson LaVonne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kane,

I agree with everything you are saying, but there are Christians who
know how to read and interpret the Bible, and who abhor the practice of
hitting children in the name of discipline.

For anyone interested, I would suggest parentinginjesusfootsteps.org.

LaVonne

wrote:
"CHAPTER FOURTEEN
RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM: A PARENTING STYLE
Religious organizations generally address our common need for spiritual
sustenance, and
for community. They uphold the concept of 'family' in an era when
economic rationalism
is tearing families apart. Historically, religions have spawned and
championed countless
humanitarian causes, such as the anti-slavery and (American) civil
rights movements,
Ghandist non-violence and the Islamic zakat (alms tax for the needy),
to mention but a
few. In modern times religious institutions have often been at the
forefront of human
rights and social justice movements. For instance, church authorities
have stood up
against repressive regimes in Latin America, and in Australia they are
an essential part of
the fight to protect the rights of asylum seekers.
This chapter, however, is not about religion per se. It is about the
use of religious
extremism, radicalism or fundamentalism as a rationalisation for
repressive or punitive
child-rearing styles. In contrast to mainstream religion, religious
extremism has
historically been associated with increased social and international
violence. I simply
wish to pose the question 'Might this have anything to do with the
way religious
extremist communities relate to children?'"



http://nospank.net/grille-ch14.pdf


  #3  
Old July 21st 05, 05:57 AM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


And all other christians who don't agreed with you are going to hell
right, LaVonne?

BTW, where are the studies that you said you posted and Kane0 said he
found them. Are you both liars? ;-)

Doan


On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Kane,

I agree with everything you are saying, but there are Christians who
know how to read and interpret the Bible, and who abhor the practice of
hitting children in the name of discipline.

For anyone interested, I would suggest parentinginjesusfootsteps.org.

LaVonne

wrote:
"CHAPTER FOURTEEN
RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM: A PARENTING STYLE
Religious organizations generally address our common need for spiritual
sustenance, and
for community. They uphold the concept of 'family' in an era when
economic rationalism
is tearing families apart. Historically, religions have spawned and
championed countless
humanitarian causes, such as the anti-slavery and (American) civil
rights movements,
Ghandist non-violence and the Islamic zakat (alms tax for the needy),
to mention but a
few. In modern times religious institutions have often been at the
forefront of human
rights and social justice movements. For instance, church authorities
have stood up
against repressive regimes in Latin America, and in Australia they are
an essential part of
the fight to protect the rights of asylum seekers.
This chapter, however, is not about religion per se. It is about the
use of religious
extremism, radicalism or fundamentalism as a rationalisation for
repressive or punitive
child-rearing styles. In contrast to mainstream religion, religious
extremism has
historically been associated with increased social and international
violence. I simply
wish to pose the question 'Might this have anything to do with the
way religious
extremist communities relate to children?'"



http://nospank.net/grille-ch14.pdf




  #4  
Old July 21st 05, 08:24 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You are a twisted human being who should be sectioned
without delay - is
it really normal to create such drivel on the net

This is a Foster Parent Support newsgroup. Give it
back to the foster parents and stop with the childish,
inane crap. Do not go away mad, just go away;



"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...
Kane,

I agree with everything you are saying, but there are
Christians who know how to read and interpret the
Bible, and who abhor the practice of hitting children
in the name of discipline.

For anyone interested, I would suggest
parentinginjesusfootsteps.org.

LaVonne

wrote:
"CHAPTER FOURTEEN
RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM: A PARENTING STYLE
Religious organizations generally address our common
need for spiritual
sustenance, and
for community. They uphold the concept of 'family'
in an era when
economic rationalism
is tearing families apart. Historically, religions
have spawned and
championed countless
humanitarian causes, such as the anti-slavery and
(American) civil
rights movements,
Ghandist non-violence and the Islamic zakat (alms
tax for the needy),
to mention but a
few. In modern times religious institutions have
often been at the
forefront of human
rights and social justice movements. For instance,
church authorities
have stood up
against repressive regimes in Latin America, and in
Australia they are
an essential part of
the fight to protect the rights of asylum seekers.
This chapter, however, is not about religion per se.
It is about the
use of religious
extremism, radicalism or fundamentalism as a
rationalisation for
repressive or punitive
child-rearing styles. In contrast to mainstream
religion, religious
extremism has
historically been associated with increased social
and international
violence. I simply
wish to pose the question 'Might this have anything
to do with the
way religious
extremist communities relate to children?'"



http://nospank.net/grille-ch14.pdf




  #5  
Old July 21st 05, 08:25 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

GROW SOME HAIR ON YOUR BALLS!!!!
YOU'RE A PUSSY!!
WHEN IN DOUBT WHIP IT OUT AND DRAIN YOUR LITTLE VEIN!!!

This is a Foster Parent Support newsgroup. Give it
back to the foster parents and stop with the childish,
inane crap. Do not go away mad, just go away;

"Doan" wrote in message
...

And all other christians who don't agreed with you
are going to hell
right, LaVonne?

BTW, where are the studies that you said you posted
and Kane0 said he
found them. Are you both liars? ;-)

Doan


On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Kane,

I agree with everything you are saying, but there
are Christians who
know how to read and interpret the Bible, and who
abhor the practice of
hitting children in the name of discipline.

For anyone interested, I would suggest
parentinginjesusfootsteps.org.

LaVonne

wrote:
"CHAPTER FOURTEEN
RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM: A PARENTING STYLE
Religious organizations generally address our
common need for spiritual
sustenance, and
for community. They uphold the concept of 'family'
in an era when
economic rationalism
is tearing families apart. Historically, religions
have spawned and
championed countless
humanitarian causes, such as the anti-slavery and
(American) civil
rights movements,
Ghandist non-violence and the Islamic zakat (alms
tax for the needy),
to mention but a
few. In modern times religious institutions have
often been at the
forefront of human
rights and social justice movements. For instance,
church authorities
have stood up
against repressive regimes in Latin America, and
in Australia they are
an essential part of
the fight to protect the rights of asylum seekers.
This chapter, however, is not about religion per
se. It is about the
use of religious
extremism, radicalism or fundamentalism as a
rationalisation for
repressive or punitive
child-rearing styles. In contrast to mainstream
religion, religious
extremism has
historically been associated with increased social
and international
violence. I simply
wish to pose the question 'Might this have
anything to do with the
way religious
extremist communities relate to children?'"



http://nospank.net/grille-ch14.pdf






  #6  
Old July 21st 05, 09:53 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Screeeeeech screeeeeech" screeches the hysterical monkeyboy.

  #7  
Old July 22nd 05, 02:54 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
"Screeeeeech screeeeeech" screeches the hysterical
monkeyboy.

SF Words and Prototype Worlds
One of the central features of SF after John W.
Campbell's reinvention of the field in the late 1930s
has been an expository style in which, rather than
being directly told the important features of a
fictional world, the reader is encouraged to
half-consciously deduce them from clues dropped by the
writer. Thus, for example, a writer who wishes to
establish that most people are telepaths in his future
might make his viewpoint character's first line "What
would it be like to wake up in the morning and be
unable to read minds?". Or (to cite a well-known
example due to Samuel Delany) a writer wishing the
reader to imagine with him a future of intense space
industrialization might throw in a casual reference to
"the monopole mines in the asteroid belt".

Reading SF is, accordingly, a learned skill of some
complexity. First, one has to learn to actually see
sentences like "What would it be like to wake up in the
morning and be unable to read minds?" rather than
editing "unable" into "able" and missing the point.
Then, one has to develop at least casual, imagistic
knowledge about things like the asteroid belt and
magnetic monopoles, in order to be able to interpret
"the monopole mines in the asteroid belt" as something
more meaningful than (as Delany puts it) a gaudy purple
word-noise.

It is thus clear that the process of reading SF
involves merging the stream of prose presented by the
writer with a rather large amount of special context.
To some extent, of course, this is true of any genre of
fiction or art not set in the reader's everyday
world -- readers of Westerns (for example) need to know
what a Peacemaker is, and why a vaquero might throw a
lariat, and what he throws it at. But the context an SF
reader (and writer) needs is unusual in some important
respects.

First, there's a lot more of it. To fully decode "the
monopole mines in the asteroid belt" it's not
sufficient merely to know what the asteroid belt is and
what a monopole is (a theoretically possible but not
yet observed particle with an isolated "north pole" or
"south pole" charge). You need to have a fair idea why
people might want them enough to mine them (for use in
tiny but very powerful motors, as it happens). You need
to know something about the history and economics of
extractive industries in frontier areas, enough to
predict that Belt miners are going to be a pretty
rough-necked crowd to be playing around with all that
space technology, and that there's likely to be
something not totally unlike the wild and wooly Nevada
mining camps of the late nineteenth century going on
out there among the flying mountains.

Second, a lot of that context is about things that
don't exist yet. A novice reader of Westerns has a fair
chance of having enough knowledge about the American
West to read a Louis L'Amour novel without tripping
over unknown concepts. The American West existed --
perhaps not as dramatically and mythically portrayed,
but it existed. There's lots of implicit and explicit
knowledge about it floating around in the general
culture. You can go into any hat store and buy at least
a reasonable imitation of a ten-gallon hat.

A reader of post-Campbellian SF has none of these
advantages. It's not sufficient to understand a single
history; one needs to have a working grasp of a large
number of possible futures -- to be able to draw
inferences from the text of an SF work that are roughly
parallel to the author's intended ones, even though
both author and reader are imagining a world that has
never existed!

So stated, the task before writer and reader seems
well-nigh impossible. And yet, SF writers do
successfully communicate with their readers (if perhaps
only with their readers...). And experienced SF readers
show every sign of being able typically to synchronize
with a writer's world vision without even mental effort
significant enough to be noticeable. How can this be?

The answer, almost never stated as such but implicitly
understood by all SF fans, is that the SF genre over
the last fifty years has evolved a sophisticated code
of shared signifiers for describing counterfactual
worlds. The gravamen of this essay is that these
signifiers (the jargon of SF) function not merely as a
set of isolated signs but as descriptions of a stock
set of prototype worlds which they logically and
conventionally imply, and which permit writers to
specify mainly what (if anything) is unique about their
world vision rather than what is shared with the rest
of SF.

Critics unfamiliar with the field (and even some
familiar with it) frequently miss this point. To see
why, we need to take a look at the different ways a
reader or critic may respond to SF jargon.

In looking at an SF-jargon term like, say, "groundcar",
or "warp drive" there is a spectrum of increasingly
sophisticated possible decodings. The most naive is to
see a meaningless, uninterpretable wordlike noise and
stop there.

The next level up is to recognize that uttering the
word "groundcar" or "warp drive" actually signifies
something that's important for the story, but to lack
the experience to know what that is. The motivated
beginning reader of SF is in this position; he must,
accordingly, consciously puzzle out the meaning of the
term from the context provided by the individual work
in which it appears.

The third level is to recognize that "ground car" and
"warp drive" are signifiers shared, with a consistent
and known meaning, by many works of SF -- but to treat
them as isolated stereotypical signs, devoid of meaning
save inasmuch as they permit the writer to ratchet
forward the plot without requiring imaginative effort
from the reader.

Viewed this way, these signs emphasize those respects
in which the work in which they appear is merely
derivative from previous works in the genre. Many
critics (whether through laziness or malice) stop here.
As a result they write off all SF, for all its
pretensions to imaginative vigor, as a tired jumble of
shopworn cliches.

The fourth level, typical of a moderately experienced
SF reader, is to recognize that these signifiers
function by permitting the writer to quickly establish
shared imaginative territory with the reader, so that
both parties can concentrate on what is unique about
their communication without having to generate or
process huge expository lumps. Thus these "stereotypes"
actually operate in an anti-stereotypical way -- they
permit both writer and reader to focus on novelty.

At this level the reader begins to develop quite
analytical habits of reading; to become accustomed to
searching the writer's terminology for what is implied
(by reference to previous works using the same
signifiers) and what kinds of exceptions and novelties
convey information about the world and the likely plot
twists.

It is at this level, for example, that the reader
learns to rely on "groundcar" as a tip-off that the
normal transport mode in the writer's world is by
personal flyer. At this level, also, the reader begins
to analytically compare the author's description of his
world with other SFnal worlds featuring personal
flyers, and to recognize that different kinds of flyers
have very different implications for the rest of the
world.

For example, the moderately experienced reader will
know that worlds in which the personal fliers use wings
or helicopter-like rotors are probably slightly less
advanced in other technological ways than worlds in
which they use ducted fans -- and way behind any world
in which the flyers use antigravity! Once he sees
"groundcar" he will be watching for these clues.

The very experienced SF reader, at the fifth level, can
see entire worlds in a grain of jargon. When he sees
"groundcar" he associates to not only technical
questions about flyer propulsion but socio-symbolic
ones but about why the culture still uses groundcars at
all (and he has a reportoire of possible answers ready
to check against the author's reporting). He is
automatically aware of a huge range of consequences in
areas as apparently far afield as (to name two at
random) the architectural style of private buildings,
and the ecological consequences of accelerated
exploitation of wilderness areas not readily accessible
by ground transport.

The better an SF writer is, the more subtly and
effectively he will play off against the experienced
reader's analytical skills. At the highest levels,
SFnal exposition takes on the nature of a delicate,
powerful intellectual dance or game between writer and
reader, requiring much from both and rewarding both
very richly.

Indeed, to true aficionados of the genre this game is
the whole point of SF, the unique quality which
elevates it above other fictional forms. This attitude
explains much about the genre that outsiders find
obscure and annoying -- the intimacy between fans and
writers; the indifference or outright hostility to
conventional "literary values"; the pervasive SF-fan
complaint that outsiders "just don't get it" and (when
they deign to approve of SF at all) like all the wrong
books for all the wrong reasons.

It is not, however, the purpose of this essay to issue
a general apologia for SF and the attitudes of its
fans. Rather, we are concerned here with the rules of
the game -- the ways in which the shared context which
makes SF intelligible evolved, is represented in the
minds of writers and readers, and is communicated to
new readers and writers.

SF readers and writers have only finite memory and
processing time to spend on the genre. Therefore they
can have only a finite set of templates or archetypes
to use as references in the game of communicating
constructed worlds with each other. How (one may
reasonably ask) can one particular finite set of
prototypes have become established as the references
that hold the genre together?

The set of possible prototypes is, first, strongly
constrained by the way the universe works. No SF fan
would, for example, believe without a lot of explicit
convincing argument in a culture that uses both laser
cannons and stone-throwing catapults as war weapons.
Techno-logic says this doesn't happen, and the central
constraint of the SF game is that the author gets only
a very limited number of implausible premises before
the suspension bridge of disbelief collapses.

To the extent we understand a "logic" in history and
social structures, that constrains prototype worlds as
well. A writer can erect a Galactic Emperor, or can
describe by implication a relatively un-coercive
interstellar society with secure property rights,
unrestricted travel, a free press, etc; but if they're
both going to be in the same world at the same time,
the Emperor had better be a consitutional monarch
rather than a bloody-handed despot casually shipping
people off to the thorium mines.

At this point we must explicitly admit that to speak of
prototype worlds is a bit of an oversimplification.
Prototype worlds do exist (and there are reasons we'll
discuss in a bit to cast the discussion in terms of
them) but there are many possible-world templates of
less than whole-world size. An excellent example,
taking off from the previous discussion of "groundcar",
is the template for "flitter technology", which we can
express partly as the following series of statements
and implications:

a.. Flitters have roughly the speed and altitude
limits of a light plane but are capable of vertical or
very-short-field operation.
b.. Flitters have about the cost range of a
present-day automobile.
c.. Flitters effectively never fall out of the sky.
(Otherwise they would be deemed too dangerous for
widespread personal use.)
d.. For the previous statement to be true, flitters
probably use some unknown form of no-moving-parts
antigravity technology or reactionless drive. Be
unsurprised if the world features other possible
applications of exotic physics and force field
technology, such as force shields, exotic energy
weapons, and a faster-than-light drive
e.. If ground transport is still used at all, either
the reasons are ceremonial and sentimental (as with
horse transport today) or something about flitter
technology makes it uneconomic for long hauls of large
payloads.
f.. Roads no longer exist, except possibly as
isolated museum pieces for groundcar fanciers.
g.. Urban architecture is no longer structured by a
street grid; expect lots of parks and pedestrian malls
instead.
h.. There is virtually no habitable untouched
wilderness left on Earth.
i.. Sub-planetary governments probably no longer
exist. If they do, they somehow manage it despite being
effectively unable to control cross-border transit.
j.. And more...
Notice that this prototype has both a defining logical
consistency and hooks to other prototypes -- for
example, the fourth item implies the existence of a
"force field" or "exotic physics" template that groups
together antigravity, energy weapons, and a
faster-than-light drive.

When enough of these prototypes hook together, one has
a prototype world. And this is in fact often what
happens in an SF reader's head as he comprehends the
clues a writer has scattered about in a work of SF. But
previous discussion has centered on the idea of a
prototype world because those, too are entities
recognized by readers -- and, in fact, every prototype
of less than whole-world size started out life as a
fragment of a prototype world!

Thus, for example, one of the prototype dystopias in SF
looks like this:

a.. The society is rigidly stratified along
birth-caste lines.
b.. Birth castes are produced by technological
manipulation in creches.
c.. Either caste is obvious from physical appearance,
or people wear uniform-like clothes which display their
caste affiliation.
d.. Having a child outside the creche system is
highly illegal.
e.. Conformity is maintained by inculcation of a a
religious or quasi-religious ideology in which the
mythic founders of the society play a central role,
with an effective secret police as backstop.
This prototype dystopia may be set on a starship, in a
hivelike fortress-city, or on an ecologically
devastated future Earth. The background technology may
be nearly that of present-time Earth or include
interstellar travel and nanotechnology. Nevertheless,
it's hard for anyone who has read the original to miss
that this prototype is essentially a fragment of Aldous
Huxley's Brave New World (1934) running around loose.

In some cases (like this one), most SF fans can
instantly name the source story of a prototype world or
fragment in some seminal work of the genre. Indeed,
perhaps the best single-sentence definition of a
seminal work in SF would be this: one that originated a
still-recognized template world or major fragment.

In other cases, the prototype world becomes
sufficiently detached from its original source(s) that
they are no longer readily identifiable. For example,
here is a prototype world that has been extremely
widespread in SF since at least the early 1950s. One
might call it the "Galactic Federation" template:

a.. Earth humanity has faster-than-light interstellar
travel and has spread to dozens or hundreds of
extra-solar planets (transit times on the order of
weeks).
b.. Key technologies include FTL, personal flyers,
and energy weapons; may include forcefields; do not
generally include advanced biological manipulation,
matter transmission, or nanotechnology (or there may be
taboos that prevent application of these to humans).
c.. Human space is dominated by a single political
unit with a democratic federal structure, with
individual planetary governments sending
representatives to a galactic senate.
d.. The federation government has a military
monopoly. but lacks either the capability or authority
(or both) to routinely interfere in events below
planetary level.
e.. Planetary law varies, but most worlds share a
common legal framework including property rights,
freedom of speech and assembly, and unrestricted
travel.
f.. The older worlds, closer to Earth (the "core" or
"core worlds") are wealthy, heavily urbanized, and (for
story purposes) boring.
g.. The frontier (the "fringe") is a rough,
challenging environment (most stories are set there).
New worlds are constantly being scouted and opened to
colonization. There is usually a specialist service of
the federation government, quasi-military in structure
but distinct from the military, dedicated to exploring
new worlds.
h.. The economic structure is a relatively
laissez-faire capitalism. In the core regions,
planetary governments are more powerful than
corporations. On the fringe the reverse is occasionally
true.
i.. The federation may be in occasional or regular
contact with nonhuman aliens beyond its frontiers. If
so, relations are generally peaceful (otherwise the
federation's political structure would become more
centralized and militarized than in the standard
prototype) though there may be tension, occasional
minor flare-ups and may have been a significant war
within historical memory.
j.. And more...
All these implications are present, to an experienced
SF reader, the instant a writer says "the Federation"
or anything recognizably similar. Among other
instances, this is the prototype of the Star Trek
universe's "United Federation of Planets".

From E.E. "Doc" Smith's space operas in the 1930s
through William Gibson's original cyberpunk novels in
the early 1980s, the most important works in SF have
been those that created or solidified new prototype
worlds -- and with them, new jargon, new signifiers
that eventually became signatures of the prototypes as
they drifted free of their sources to be used and
transformed and re-worked in new works of SFnal
imagination.

This is why the shared jargon of SF is so important to
understanding the field as a whole. It maps in
miniature the structure of the prototype worlds that
readers and writers hold in common.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to SF Words



  #8  
Old July 22nd 05, 02:56 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
"Screeeeeech screeeeeech" screeches the hysterical
monkeyboy.


Manybe because it's amongst its own relatives or so it
thinks. But there ARE human beings here too.

This is a Foster Parent Support newsgroup. Give it
back to the foster parents and stop with the childish,
inane crap. Do not go away mad, just go away;


  #9  
Old July 22nd 05, 11:58 PM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"RRRRR" murmurs the little "never-spanked" boy. :-)

Doan


On 21 Jul 2005 wrote:

"Screeeeeech screeeeeech" screeches the hysterical monkeyboy.



  #10  
Old July 23rd 05, 01:28 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

and puke puke go the abhorrant kaners of the manure
pile.

"Doan" wrote in message
...
"RRRRR" murmurs the little "never-spanked" boy. :-)

Doan


On 21 Jul 2005 wrote:

"Screeeeeech screeeeeech" screeches the hysterical
monkeyboy.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PUNISHMENT FOSTERS AGGRESSION IN CHILDREN, STUDY SHOWS Ivan Gowch Spanking 9 November 3rd 04 11:51 PM
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Foster Parents 3 December 9th 03 12:53 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Spanking 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.