On Sun, 18 May 2008 02:06:55 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sorry if I sounded a bit aggressive the last time around - I generally
>> don't take kindly to people questioning my wife's judgment.  She's a
>> very
> 
> 	No apologies needed. I didn't know the situation, and I still 
don't.
> 	;-)

Fair enough - in past conversations, I hadn't noticed that behaviour 
before from you, so it caught me a little off guard. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Fair enough - in past conversations, I hadn't noticed that behaviour 
> before from you, so it caught me a little off guard. ;-)

	I was just testing some waters.

	I did find the original comment to be quite judgmental, and I was a bit 
reactive to it, because I often hear such stuff locally. Given the local 
context, I felt most of them are unjustified (and if I wanted, could 
often find plenty of flaws in their own parenting...). Some people just 
have certain "rules". If you don't hug your kid, you're a bad parent. If 
you don't throw birthday parties, you're a bad parent. If you don't buy 
your daughter dolls, you're a bad parent. Those rules are applied 
without looking at the whole picture.

	Based on your reply, that didn't seem to be the case there.

-- 
The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:18:42 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Fair enough - in past conversations, I hadn't noticed that behaviour
>> before from you, so it caught me a little off guard. ;-)
> 
> 	I was just testing some waters.

Well, no fault there - I do that myself enough as it is. :-)

> 	I did find the original comment to be quite judgmental, and I was 
a bit
> reactive to it, because I often hear such stuff locally. Given the local
> context, I felt most of them are unjustified (and if I wanted, could
> often find plenty of flaws in their own parenting...). Some people just
> have certain "rules". If you don't hug your kid, you're a bad parent. If
> you don't throw birthday parties, you're a bad parent. If you don't buy
> your daughter dolls, you're a bad parent. Those rules are applied
> without looking at the whole picture.
> 
> 	Based on your reply, that didn't seem to be the case there.

Oh, no, absolutely not.  We're not the kind of people who reach a 
conclusion (generally - of course we do slip from time to time, but it is 
rare) without looking at the whole situation - we've been on the 
receiving end of that more than once (we home-schooled Ken through high 
school, you want to talk about being on the receiving end of snap 
judgments, that's one way to become a target, especially living so close 
to the school he used to go to).  It's extremely rare that we come to a 
conclusion like that on an individual basis (though we do see trends of 
that behaviour all around us - Utah is a place where large families are 
frequently the norm, and often times this leads to burn-out on the part 
of the mom and kids end up raising each other, but without the kind of 
family support structure that was present a couple generations ago.  And 
yes, it is usually mom burning out - since the dad's the primary 
breadwinner in many of these families.)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> receiving end of that more than once (we home-schooled Ken through high 
> school, you want to talk about being on the receiving end of snap 
> judgments, that's one way to become a target, especially living so close 
> to the school he used to go to).  It's extremely rare that we come to a 

	Yes, I've heard homeschooling tends to be opposed for no good reason. 
If I ever have kids, I'd like to homeschool them as well. The 
feasibility of either (for me) remains to be seen.<G>



-- 
"Scotty, beam us a board!" (2x4 drops from sky)


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 May 2008 18:17:15 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> receiving end of that more than once (we home-schooled Ken through high
>> school, you want to talk about being on the receiving end of snap
>> judgments, that's one way to become a target, especially living so
>> close to the school he used to go to).  It's extremely rare that we
>> come to a
> 
> 	Yes, I've heard homeschooling tends to be opposed for no good 
> reason.

We've heard everything from "it turns kids into sociopaths" to "it turns 
kids into homicidal maniacs".  Having done the homeschooling thing, the 
most important thing we found was making sure to provide as broad an 
experience as possible.  Many parents who homeschool limit the kids' 
exposure to the world at large in order to further ingrain their values 
in their kids (teaching kids values is always a good thing; but doing so 
by not exposing them to the world can be damaging/problematic when they 
encounter the real world).  For us it was a no-brainer, because the 
values that we have are that the best way to talk with people is to 
understand them, and you can't do that by not interacting with them.

> If I ever have kids, I'd like to homeschool them as well. The
> feasibility of either (for me) remains to be seen.<G>

It does take a lot of time, and there are costs involved.  One of the 
other very important things is to ensure the child doesn't become 
isolated from others their age.  For us that wasn't a problem because Ken 
started out in public school, then went to a private school for a few 
years, so he had a few friends.  We homeschooled out of necessity (he was 
more advanced than the public school kids at his age, so he couldn't go 
back there, and we pulled him out of the private school because of some 
safety issues that became apparent in their required outdoor program - 
and some problems with the headmaster lying to us about those safety 
issues).  The only other reputable private school was booked up, so our 
options were fairly limited if we wanted to keep Ken interested in 
learning.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 16 May 2008 20:33:28 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:12:49 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Thu, 15 May 2008 20:41:13 +0100, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 23:12:11 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 23:58:45 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is true of many drugs in general, IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>> Yup, at least here in the USA. Every drug has a theme and a catchy new
>>>> name for a disorder that's been around for a long time. But the one
>>>> with the catchiest words gets prescribed.
>>>
>>> Yeah, and that's a huge societal problem.
>>
>> Just because the people being advertised at have no ability to make an
>> objective choice over these medications doesn't mean they shouldn't be
>> advertised in the same way as shampoo or washing powder. Just as for
>> them if the product doesn't work for you just switch; no harm done
>> right? [cough]
>
> Heh, better watch out, your sarcasm tags are showing, Phil. ;-)

Me sarcastic? No, you must have me mistaken for someone else.

But seriously what next "Ask your doctor to use PhilCo extra-sharp  
needles", "Did you know 1 in 20 Americans get a reaction from alcohol  
swabs, why not ask your doctor to use PhilCo anti-allergen swabs", "Why  
weren't your test results processed in a PhilCo machine? Get your results  
back faster and with a greater degree of precision then compared to other  
leading test machine brands", or "Is your doctor using standard seat  
cushions in their waiting rooms? Tests show that normal seats can retain  
germs for up to two days. Ask for a PhilCo seat because you don't want to  
catch what they've got"

[snort] My my the way my mind works - "Is your airline using standard seat  
cushions in their planes? Tests show that normal seats can hide terrorists  
for up to two days. Ask for a PhilCo seat because you don't want you and  
your family to end up dead"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:15:29 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Heh, better watch out, your sarcasm tags are showing, Phil. ;-)
> 
> Me sarcastic? No, you must have me mistaken for someone else.

Oh, I don't think so. ;-)

> But seriously what next "Ask your doctor to use PhilCo extra-sharp
> needles", "Did you know 1 in 20 Americans get a reaction from alcohol
> swabs, why not ask your doctor to use PhilCo anti-allergen swabs",

Hey, that could help with my allergy shots.

> "Why
> weren't your test results processed in a PhilCo machine? Get your
> results back faster and with a greater degree of precision then compared
> to other leading test machine brands", or "Is your doctor using standard
> seat cushions in their waiting rooms? Tests show that normal seats can
> retain germs for up to two days. Ask for a PhilCo seat because you don't
> want to catch what they've got"

LOL

> [snort] My my the way my mind works - "Is your airline using standard
> seat cushions in their planes? Tests show that normal seats can hide
> terrorists for up to two days. Ask for a PhilCo seat because you don't
> want you and your family to end up dead"

Why am I suddenly hearing George Carlin? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 19 May 2008 16:16:59 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:15:29 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Heh, better watch out, your sarcasm tags are showing, Phil. ;-)
>>
>> Me sarcastic? No, you must have me mistaken for someone else.
>
> Oh, I don't think so. ;-)
>
>> But seriously what next "Ask your doctor to use PhilCo extra-sharp
>> needles", "Did you know 1 in 20 Americans get a reaction from alcohol
>> swabs, why not ask your doctor to use PhilCo anti-allergen swabs",
>
> Hey, that could help with my allergy shots.

PhilCo, serving the needs of tomorrow yesterday.

>> "Why
>> weren't your test results processed in a PhilCo machine? Get your
>> results back faster and with a greater degree of precision then compared
>> to other leading test machine brands", or "Is your doctor using standard
>> seat cushions in their waiting rooms? Tests show that normal seats can
>> retain germs for up to two days. Ask for a PhilCo seat because you don't
>> want to catch what they've got"
>
> LOL

"Is this you stuck in a queue at your local megamarket? If so chances are  
they're using a slow and outdated till. See this like-for-like comparision  
between two queues, one using a standard till and the other a PhilCo 8000.  
Your time is precious, why wait, ask your megamarket to buy a PhilCo 8000  
today."

I mean it's nuts nobody would think about getting customers to suggest a  
store invest in a particular brand of till, or CCTV camera, or floor tile  
and advertisers won't bother targetting them. Yet talk about  
pharmaceuticals and bam everyone's a bleedin' expert based on a one-minute  
infomercial on the benefits of Bendroxalphaltimine over other brands.

Meh I'm just weary of this I caught a Ch4 thing on the claims of cosmetic  
companies. 'So long as they don't make medicinal claims then they can say  
what they like without any clinical studies being published' I just love  
to read the small print they have to publish '75% of women said they  
noticed a difference' - based on a survey of 52 women; wooh that's  
statistically valid.

The funny part was that Ch4 blind-tested some women with cheap to  
expensive products and most of the ones seemed to claim a difference after  
four weeks. That was until they were re-examined by dermatolgists who came  
back with the results that a few had improved, a few had not changed, and  
a few had got worse; with no apparent difference between the £5 tube of  
moisturiser and the £100+ complete skin care range.

Oh and all the companies asked to comment on this result came back with a  
'well our surveys/studies were larger then yours, but we're not going to  
let you see them'

>> [snort] My my the way my mind works - "Is your airline using standard
>> seat cushions in their planes? Tests show that normal seats can hide
>> terrorists for up to two days. Ask for a PhilCo seat because you don't
>> want you and your family to end up dead"
>
> Why am I suddenly hearing George Carlin? ;-)

I don't know, has he just rung you? :-P

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:58:44 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Hey, that could help with my allergy shots.
> 
> PhilCo, serving the needs of tomorrow yesterday.

Better that than "serving the needs of yesterday tomorrow". :-)

>> LOL
> 
> "Is this you stuck in a queue at your local megamarket? If so chances
> are they're using a slow and outdated till. See this like-for-like
> comparision between two queues, one using a standard till and the other
> a PhilCo 8000. Your time is precious, why wait, ask your megamarket to
> buy a PhilCo 8000 today."

LOL, if I start laughing and have to explain to coworkers.  Bugger, 
forgot to mute my phone and had to explain about cats fighting outside....

> I mean it's nuts nobody would think about getting customers to suggest a
> store invest in a particular brand of till, or CCTV camera, or floor
> tile and advertisers won't bother targetting them. Yet talk about
> pharmaceuticals and bam everyone's a bleedin' expert based on a
> one-minute infomercial on the benefits of Bendroxalphaltimine over other
> brands.

Yep, I agree with this.  Then you get people who have no background in 
pharmacology or chemistry making claims about drugs based on those 60-
second spots.

> of women said they noticed a difference' - based on a survey of 52
> women; wooh that's statistically valid.

Heh, yeah, gotta love that.

> The funny part was that Ch4 blind-tested some women with cheap to
> expensive products and most of the ones seemed to claim a difference
> after four weeks. That was until they were re-examined by dermatolgists
> who came back with the results that a few had improved, a few had not
> changed, and a few had got worse; with no apparent difference between
> the £5 tube of moisturiser and the £100+ complete skin care range.

I see this kind of thing fairly regularly - it's amazing what you can 
sell people on, and how gullible the average person really is.

> Oh and all the companies asked to comment on this result came back with
> a 'well our surveys/studies were larger then yours, but we're not going
> to let you see them'

Yeah.  Get 'em on video saying that, that'll tank their marketing as long 
as enough people see it.  Get Newsnight to do an expose on it. ;-)

>> Why am I suddenly hearing George Carlin? ;-)
> 
> I don't know, has he just rung you? :-P

Heh, wishful thinking - he doesn't know me from Adam.  I was thinking 
about his bit on jumping up and down on seat cushions...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:15:29 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>[snort] My my the way my mind works -

You flatter yourself <g>
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message