[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte] I don’t think that would prove anything except that Toyota drivers are timid. [/quote]

I don’t know, svelte. I’ve bought four Toyotas in the last seven years. Hasn’t done a thing to calm me down. Camrys, minivans, even a Prius finally – doesn’t matter. They could all be ’68 Plymouth Road Runners as far as I’m concerned. I think I was inspired by the Beach Boys’ “Little Old Lady From Pasadena” as a kid.

[quote=svelte] I curse every time I get behind a white Camry because I know that person is going to drive under the speed limit and be afraid of every movement of every vehicle around them. Other color Camrys and most Corolla drivers are almost as bad, but white Camrys are the absolute worst.[/quote]

However, I do think there’s something to your white Camry theory. I’d go so far as to say any driver of a white sedan, at least here in the east. Really strange phenomenon.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte] I don’t think that would prove anything except that Toyota drivers are timid. [/quote]

I don’t know, svelte. I’ve bought four Toyotas in the last seven years. Hasn’t done a thing to calm me down. Camrys, minivans, even a Prius finally – doesn’t matter. They could all be ’68 Plymouth Road Runners as far as I’m concerned. I think I was inspired by the Beach Boys’ “Little Old Lady From Pasadena” as a kid.

[quote=svelte] I curse every time I get behind a white Camry because I know that person is going to drive under the speed limit and be afraid of every movement of every vehicle around them. Other color Camrys and most Corolla drivers are almost as bad, but white Camrys are the absolute worst.[/quote]

However, I do think there’s something to your white Camry theory. I’d go so far as to say any driver of a white sedan, at least here in the east. Really strange phenomenon.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Raybyrnes]I use to think Craigslist was pretty cool and I think people were fairly reasonable when posting their junk and charging appropriately. But recently when looking at cars, I noticed about 90% of the adds are from dealers and even worse is the fact that owner adds are rediculously priced.

Kelly Blue Book is similar to Zillow. It is a guide not a hard and fast rule. But I will state that the majority of owners are trying to use Private party sales price from KBB to price their cars. Think what you want but I am not going to pay that for a used car. The reality is that Good Condition Trade In value is about what should be expected when selling a car. Go to a dealer and they will typically be about 500 to a 1000 less then that value on KBB.[/quote]

I don’t know about their cache. Their cachet, perhaps.

I’m with svelte. If it’s a car that appeals to you, contact the seller and ask if the price is firm. If they’re willing to deal, go see it. Just make sure that you have a range of prices in mind when you go, dependent upon the condition of the vehicle.

Most people’s definition of “worth” is how much money they want in their hot little hands. The concept that an item is worth exactly what a buyer wants to pay is foreign to many of them. I can’t blame people for asking high prices for their things: there are plenty of people out there who don’t do their homework before shopping, and they don’t have a clue. If the seller is lucky enough to get one of those on the line, often all he has to do is show them the Kelly BB price, and reel them in.

But these days, I think that there are far more people out there learning hard lessons about the “worth” of their possessions.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Raybyrnes]I use to think Craigslist was pretty cool and I think people were fairly reasonable when posting their junk and charging appropriately. But recently when looking at cars, I noticed about 90% of the adds are from dealers and even worse is the fact that owner adds are rediculously priced.

Kelly Blue Book is similar to Zillow. It is a guide not a hard and fast rule. But I will state that the majority of owners are trying to use Private party sales price from KBB to price their cars. Think what you want but I am not going to pay that for a used car. The reality is that Good Condition Trade In value is about what should be expected when selling a car. Go to a dealer and they will typically be about 500 to a 1000 less then that value on KBB.[/quote]

I don’t know about their cache. Their cachet, perhaps.

I’m with svelte. If it’s a car that appeals to you, contact the seller and ask if the price is firm. If they’re willing to deal, go see it. Just make sure that you have a range of prices in mind when you go, dependent upon the condition of the vehicle.

Most people’s definition of “worth” is how much money they want in their hot little hands. The concept that an item is worth exactly what a buyer wants to pay is foreign to many of them. I can’t blame people for asking high prices for their things: there are plenty of people out there who don’t do their homework before shopping, and they don’t have a clue. If the seller is lucky enough to get one of those on the line, often all he has to do is show them the Kelly BB price, and reel them in.

But these days, I think that there are far more people out there learning hard lessons about the “worth” of their possessions.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Raybyrnes]I use to think Craigslist was pretty cool and I think people were fairly reasonable when posting their junk and charging appropriately. But recently when looking at cars, I noticed about 90% of the adds are from dealers and even worse is the fact that owner adds are rediculously priced.

Kelly Blue Book is similar to Zillow. It is a guide not a hard and fast rule. But I will state that the majority of owners are trying to use Private party sales price from KBB to price their cars. Think what you want but I am not going to pay that for a used car. The reality is that Good Condition Trade In value is about what should be expected when selling a car. Go to a dealer and they will typically be about 500 to a 1000 less then that value on KBB.[/quote]

I don’t know about their cache. Their cachet, perhaps.

I’m with svelte. If it’s a car that appeals to you, contact the seller and ask if the price is firm. If they’re willing to deal, go see it. Just make sure that you have a range of prices in mind when you go, dependent upon the condition of the vehicle.

Most people’s definition of “worth” is how much money they want in their hot little hands. The concept that an item is worth exactly what a buyer wants to pay is foreign to many of them. I can’t blame people for asking high prices for their things: there are plenty of people out there who don’t do their homework before shopping, and they don’t have a clue. If the seller is lucky enough to get one of those on the line, often all he has to do is show them the Kelly BB price, and reel them in.

But these days, I think that there are far more people out there learning hard lessons about the “worth” of their possessions.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Raybyrnes]I use to think Craigslist was pretty cool and I think people were fairly reasonable when posting their junk and charging appropriately. But recently when looking at cars, I noticed about 90% of the adds are from dealers and even worse is the fact that owner adds are rediculously priced.

Kelly Blue Book is similar to Zillow. It is a guide not a hard and fast rule. But I will state that the majority of owners are trying to use Private party sales price from KBB to price their cars. Think what you want but I am not going to pay that for a used car. The reality is that Good Condition Trade In value is about what should be expected when selling a car. Go to a dealer and they will typically be about 500 to a 1000 less then that value on KBB.[/quote]

I don’t know about their cache. Their cachet, perhaps.

I’m with svelte. If it’s a car that appeals to you, contact the seller and ask if the price is firm. If they’re willing to deal, go see it. Just make sure that you have a range of prices in mind when you go, dependent upon the condition of the vehicle.

Most people’s definition of “worth” is how much money they want in their hot little hands. The concept that an item is worth exactly what a buyer wants to pay is foreign to many of them. I can’t blame people for asking high prices for their things: there are plenty of people out there who don’t do their homework before shopping, and they don’t have a clue. If the seller is lucky enough to get one of those on the line, often all he has to do is show them the Kelly BB price, and reel them in.

But these days, I think that there are far more people out there learning hard lessons about the “worth” of their possessions.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Raybyrnes]I use to think Craigslist was pretty cool and I think people were fairly reasonable when posting their junk and charging appropriately. But recently when looking at cars, I noticed about 90% of the adds are from dealers and even worse is the fact that owner adds are rediculously priced.

Kelly Blue Book is similar to Zillow. It is a guide not a hard and fast rule. But I will state that the majority of owners are trying to use Private party sales price from KBB to price their cars. Think what you want but I am not going to pay that for a used car. The reality is that Good Condition Trade In value is about what should be expected when selling a car. Go to a dealer and they will typically be about 500 to a 1000 less then that value on KBB.[/quote]

I don’t know about their cache. Their cachet, perhaps.

I’m with svelte. If it’s a car that appeals to you, contact the seller and ask if the price is firm. If they’re willing to deal, go see it. Just make sure that you have a range of prices in mind when you go, dependent upon the condition of the vehicle.

Most people’s definition of “worth” is how much money they want in their hot little hands. The concept that an item is worth exactly what a buyer wants to pay is foreign to many of them. I can’t blame people for asking high prices for their things: there are plenty of people out there who don’t do their homework before shopping, and they don’t have a clue. If the seller is lucky enough to get one of those on the line, often all he has to do is show them the Kelly BB price, and reel them in.

But these days, I think that there are far more people out there learning hard lessons about the “worth” of their possessions.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Lordy, that post made me cringe!!!!!

:([/quote]

I completely understand, CA renter. At that time I just made sure my busboy and bartender were taken care of and rolled my coins and stacked up my cash daily (like with like denominations and all the same direction), which I deposited weekly with a walk-up human teller. In other words, laughed all the way to the bank 🙂

btw, this was a very skilled job. Not only did you have to possess an extraordinary memory, but needed to be able to handle a 50#+ serving tray or 25#+ cocktail tray with one arm and hand, carrying the tray stand with the other. You also needed to have table service skills, including wine stewarding, shelling lobster tails, instructing on how to crack and disengage crab from its shell and slice roast beef steaks for your customers, all the while remaining poised and making everything look effortless.

We weren’t even allowed to let more than two cig butts accumulate in an ashtray before silently replacing it or allow a lady customer to rise without first assisting with her chair, so we had to stand like statues in the corner of our stations when not serving customers :)[/quote]

bearishgurl, i remember those days well. Even once certain laws were passed, the discriminatory behavior and habits continued to flourish because employers didn’t understand them or were totally unaware of their existence. Among those employers who were informed, not many took the laws seriously. There weren’t a lot of low-wage employees (and there was a shortage of females receiving high wages in those days) who had the extra money to pursue a discrimination suit that would probably be heard by an unsympathetic judge. It wasn’t until the mid-80s that women were part of the landscape in formerly male-dominated career territory, and even then, their motives were often questioned (a la UCGal’s “getting an EE degree as part of getting your M.R.S.”)

Loved your story…..reminds me of the Gloria Steinem essay on her undercover stint as a waitress in one of the old Playboy Clubs back in the mid-60s. I had my own issues while waiting tables in college in the mid-70s. Not nearly as titillating a story as yours and Gloria’s, but I worked in a fine French restaurant where I and the other female staff were able to work the lunch shift, but not the dinner hours, which is where you made the real money. The owner didn’t make up for it by increasing our hourly wage, with (that was 35 cents an hour) either. We worked just as hard, if not harder, than the dinner waiters, for about 25% of what they were able to earn in a shift. I remember wishing that I was a male, but not thinking that there was anything discriminatory in the owner’s policy.

Waiting tables was a great way to make money for school, and a good builder of character. My experience has been, when I come upon someone of adult age saying “But it’s not fair!”, that individual has never worked in food service. I think everyone should have to do it for three months.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Lordy, that post made me cringe!!!!!

:([/quote]

I completely understand, CA renter. At that time I just made sure my busboy and bartender were taken care of and rolled my coins and stacked up my cash daily (like with like denominations and all the same direction), which I deposited weekly with a walk-up human teller. In other words, laughed all the way to the bank 🙂

btw, this was a very skilled job. Not only did you have to possess an extraordinary memory, but needed to be able to handle a 50#+ serving tray or 25#+ cocktail tray with one arm and hand, carrying the tray stand with the other. You also needed to have table service skills, including wine stewarding, shelling lobster tails, instructing on how to crack and disengage crab from its shell and slice roast beef steaks for your customers, all the while remaining poised and making everything look effortless.

We weren’t even allowed to let more than two cig butts accumulate in an ashtray before silently replacing it or allow a lady customer to rise without first assisting with her chair, so we had to stand like statues in the corner of our stations when not serving customers :)[/quote]

bearishgurl, i remember those days well. Even once certain laws were passed, the discriminatory behavior and habits continued to flourish because employers didn’t understand them or were totally unaware of their existence. Among those employers who were informed, not many took the laws seriously. There weren’t a lot of low-wage employees (and there was a shortage of females receiving high wages in those days) who had the extra money to pursue a discrimination suit that would probably be heard by an unsympathetic judge. It wasn’t until the mid-80s that women were part of the landscape in formerly male-dominated career territory, and even then, their motives were often questioned (a la UCGal’s “getting an EE degree as part of getting your M.R.S.”)

Loved your story…..reminds me of the Gloria Steinem essay on her undercover stint as a waitress in one of the old Playboy Clubs back in the mid-60s. I had my own issues while waiting tables in college in the mid-70s. Not nearly as titillating a story as yours and Gloria’s, but I worked in a fine French restaurant where I and the other female staff were able to work the lunch shift, but not the dinner hours, which is where you made the real money. The owner didn’t make up for it by increasing our hourly wage, with (that was 35 cents an hour) either. We worked just as hard, if not harder, than the dinner waiters, for about 25% of what they were able to earn in a shift. I remember wishing that I was a male, but not thinking that there was anything discriminatory in the owner’s policy.

Waiting tables was a great way to make money for school, and a good builder of character. My experience has been, when I come upon someone of adult age saying “But it’s not fair!”, that individual has never worked in food service. I think everyone should have to do it for three months.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Lordy, that post made me cringe!!!!!

:([/quote]

I completely understand, CA renter. At that time I just made sure my busboy and bartender were taken care of and rolled my coins and stacked up my cash daily (like with like denominations and all the same direction), which I deposited weekly with a walk-up human teller. In other words, laughed all the way to the bank 🙂

btw, this was a very skilled job. Not only did you have to possess an extraordinary memory, but needed to be able to handle a 50#+ serving tray or 25#+ cocktail tray with one arm and hand, carrying the tray stand with the other. You also needed to have table service skills, including wine stewarding, shelling lobster tails, instructing on how to crack and disengage crab from its shell and slice roast beef steaks for your customers, all the while remaining poised and making everything look effortless.

We weren’t even allowed to let more than two cig butts accumulate in an ashtray before silently replacing it or allow a lady customer to rise without first assisting with her chair, so we had to stand like statues in the corner of our stations when not serving customers :)[/quote]

bearishgurl, i remember those days well. Even once certain laws were passed, the discriminatory behavior and habits continued to flourish because employers didn’t understand them or were totally unaware of their existence. Among those employers who were informed, not many took the laws seriously. There weren’t a lot of low-wage employees (and there was a shortage of females receiving high wages in those days) who had the extra money to pursue a discrimination suit that would probably be heard by an unsympathetic judge. It wasn’t until the mid-80s that women were part of the landscape in formerly male-dominated career territory, and even then, their motives were often questioned (a la UCGal’s “getting an EE degree as part of getting your M.R.S.”)

Loved your story…..reminds me of the Gloria Steinem essay on her undercover stint as a waitress in one of the old Playboy Clubs back in the mid-60s. I had my own issues while waiting tables in college in the mid-70s. Not nearly as titillating a story as yours and Gloria’s, but I worked in a fine French restaurant where I and the other female staff were able to work the lunch shift, but not the dinner hours, which is where you made the real money. The owner didn’t make up for it by increasing our hourly wage, with (that was 35 cents an hour) either. We worked just as hard, if not harder, than the dinner waiters, for about 25% of what they were able to earn in a shift. I remember wishing that I was a male, but not thinking that there was anything discriminatory in the owner’s policy.

Waiting tables was a great way to make money for school, and a good builder of character. My experience has been, when I come upon someone of adult age saying “But it’s not fair!”, that individual has never worked in food service. I think everyone should have to do it for three months.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Lordy, that post made me cringe!!!!!

:([/quote]

I completely understand, CA renter. At that time I just made sure my busboy and bartender were taken care of and rolled my coins and stacked up my cash daily (like with like denominations and all the same direction), which I deposited weekly with a walk-up human teller. In other words, laughed all the way to the bank 🙂

btw, this was a very skilled job. Not only did you have to possess an extraordinary memory, but needed to be able to handle a 50#+ serving tray or 25#+ cocktail tray with one arm and hand, carrying the tray stand with the other. You also needed to have table service skills, including wine stewarding, shelling lobster tails, instructing on how to crack and disengage crab from its shell and slice roast beef steaks for your customers, all the while remaining poised and making everything look effortless.

We weren’t even allowed to let more than two cig butts accumulate in an ashtray before silently replacing it or allow a lady customer to rise without first assisting with her chair, so we had to stand like statues in the corner of our stations when not serving customers :)[/quote]

bearishgurl, i remember those days well. Even once certain laws were passed, the discriminatory behavior and habits continued to flourish because employers didn’t understand them or were totally unaware of their existence. Among those employers who were informed, not many took the laws seriously. There weren’t a lot of low-wage employees (and there was a shortage of females receiving high wages in those days) who had the extra money to pursue a discrimination suit that would probably be heard by an unsympathetic judge. It wasn’t until the mid-80s that women were part of the landscape in formerly male-dominated career territory, and even then, their motives were often questioned (a la UCGal’s “getting an EE degree as part of getting your M.R.S.”)

Loved your story…..reminds me of the Gloria Steinem essay on her undercover stint as a waitress in one of the old Playboy Clubs back in the mid-60s. I had my own issues while waiting tables in college in the mid-70s. Not nearly as titillating a story as yours and Gloria’s, but I worked in a fine French restaurant where I and the other female staff were able to work the lunch shift, but not the dinner hours, which is where you made the real money. The owner didn’t make up for it by increasing our hourly wage, with (that was 35 cents an hour) either. We worked just as hard, if not harder, than the dinner waiters, for about 25% of what they were able to earn in a shift. I remember wishing that I was a male, but not thinking that there was anything discriminatory in the owner’s policy.

Waiting tables was a great way to make money for school, and a good builder of character. My experience has been, when I come upon someone of adult age saying “But it’s not fair!”, that individual has never worked in food service. I think everyone should have to do it for three months.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Lordy, that post made me cringe!!!!!

:([/quote]

I completely understand, CA renter. At that time I just made sure my busboy and bartender were taken care of and rolled my coins and stacked up my cash daily (like with like denominations and all the same direction), which I deposited weekly with a walk-up human teller. In other words, laughed all the way to the bank 🙂

btw, this was a very skilled job. Not only did you have to possess an extraordinary memory, but needed to be able to handle a 50#+ serving tray or 25#+ cocktail tray with one arm and hand, carrying the tray stand with the other. You also needed to have table service skills, including wine stewarding, shelling lobster tails, instructing on how to crack and disengage crab from its shell and slice roast beef steaks for your customers, all the while remaining poised and making everything look effortless.

We weren’t even allowed to let more than two cig butts accumulate in an ashtray before silently replacing it or allow a lady customer to rise without first assisting with her chair, so we had to stand like statues in the corner of our stations when not serving customers :)[/quote]

bearishgurl, i remember those days well. Even once certain laws were passed, the discriminatory behavior and habits continued to flourish because employers didn’t understand them or were totally unaware of their existence. Among those employers who were informed, not many took the laws seriously. There weren’t a lot of low-wage employees (and there was a shortage of females receiving high wages in those days) who had the extra money to pursue a discrimination suit that would probably be heard by an unsympathetic judge. It wasn’t until the mid-80s that women were part of the landscape in formerly male-dominated career territory, and even then, their motives were often questioned (a la UCGal’s “getting an EE degree as part of getting your M.R.S.”)

Loved your story…..reminds me of the Gloria Steinem essay on her undercover stint as a waitress in one of the old Playboy Clubs back in the mid-60s. I had my own issues while waiting tables in college in the mid-70s. Not nearly as titillating a story as yours and Gloria’s, but I worked in a fine French restaurant where I and the other female staff were able to work the lunch shift, but not the dinner hours, which is where you made the real money. The owner didn’t make up for it by increasing our hourly wage, with (that was 35 cents an hour) either. We worked just as hard, if not harder, than the dinner waiters, for about 25% of what they were able to earn in a shift. I remember wishing that I was a male, but not thinking that there was anything discriminatory in the owner’s policy.

Waiting tables was a great way to make money for school, and a good builder of character. My experience has been, when I come upon someone of adult age saying “But it’s not fair!”, that individual has never worked in food service. I think everyone should have to do it for three months.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Zeitgeist]It is not popular, but separate classes for girls and boys is one suggestion. I also think the food we eat contributes to children’s dispositions. The crap sugar and hormone over loaded, fat choked fast food diet is not healthy. Boys are totally over diagnosed as ADD and medicated. Women dominate elementary teaching and they prefer tractable kids (girls) or boys who act like girls. Lastly, teachers are not allowed to discipline kids, so medication is recommended where teachers of old would actually lay hands on bratty boys. The whole idea that the sexes are the same is idiotic. They are not. Their brains are different and so are they. It is a DNA thing. That does not make one better than the other, but ask anyone who has one or two of each if they are the same. The same idea that brought equal pay for equal work (a good thing), brought the idea that equal means the sexes are the same and learn the same way (not a good thing). Teaching needs to change or it will go the same way as the print media and children will be taught by distance learning and maybe not by teachers. Many of the schools are failing to deliver despite massive amounts of tax dollars invested in them and the instituions of higher learning are almost unaffordable for many segments of society. Something has to change.[/quote]

Zeitgeist, I agree with the separate class suggestion. Anything that will help get our kids better educated has my vote, and I think this might help. There’s no question that the “food” we give our kids is a problem, and it’s compounded by our kids engaging in stationary activities using computers and other electronic play devices, with no time given over to anything resembling physical exercise. And ADD is, as you say, “totally overdiagnosed”, by unqualified and untrained health practitioners and education administrators. However, except for classroom segregation, these are all things that parents can, and should be changing. Today’s parents treat their pets better than they care for their kids. They’re afraid of their children, so they give them anything they want to eat, exert no discipline, and load them up with electronic devices so that they won’t have to interact with them. They misinterpret normal childhood exuberance and play as hyperactivity, and backed up with endorsements from their friends with similarly-afflicted children, they go to the doctor and demand an ADD diagnosis. Then they use that as an excuse to do nothing when their child misbehaves, and makes life for the rest of the civilized world a living hell.

Some day, when you are feeling particularly masochistic, watch an episode of Supernanny or Nanny 911, and observe how you feel and the level of your blood pressure after the show is over. Multiply the one or two Satan’s spawn you saw on the show by 8 or 9 (maybe more), and imagine being stuck in a closed room for 5 or 6 hours a day with them. Welcome to the lives of most of America’s elementary school teachers. And they’re the ones who have it easy: what do you think these monsters are like by the time they get to junior high or high school?

The schools have their problems, but the vast majority of them are being caused by irresponsible parents who palm their uncontrollable brats off on their local school systems, and refuse to take ownership of them and their problems. And I’m not sure when the last time was that you spent any time in a classroom during school hours, but the girls are far from easy to handle. They are foul-mouthed, insubordinate bullies who learn how to work the system in their tender years.

I’m tired of paying high taxes, and having nothing to show for it. When all those little monsters misbehave (and their parents threaten the school for attempting to discipline them in any way), they’re violating my child’s right to an education. Like I said, the schools have their issues, but nothing’s going to make a difference until their teachers and administrators have some recourse in handling these problem students.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Zeitgeist]It is not popular, but separate classes for girls and boys is one suggestion. I also think the food we eat contributes to children’s dispositions. The crap sugar and hormone over loaded, fat choked fast food diet is not healthy. Boys are totally over diagnosed as ADD and medicated. Women dominate elementary teaching and they prefer tractable kids (girls) or boys who act like girls. Lastly, teachers are not allowed to discipline kids, so medication is recommended where teachers of old would actually lay hands on bratty boys. The whole idea that the sexes are the same is idiotic. They are not. Their brains are different and so are they. It is a DNA thing. That does not make one better than the other, but ask anyone who has one or two of each if they are the same. The same idea that brought equal pay for equal work (a good thing), brought the idea that equal means the sexes are the same and learn the same way (not a good thing). Teaching needs to change or it will go the same way as the print media and children will be taught by distance learning and maybe not by teachers. Many of the schools are failing to deliver despite massive amounts of tax dollars invested in them and the instituions of higher learning are almost unaffordable for many segments of society. Something has to change.[/quote]

Zeitgeist, I agree with the separate class suggestion. Anything that will help get our kids better educated has my vote, and I think this might help. There’s no question that the “food” we give our kids is a problem, and it’s compounded by our kids engaging in stationary activities using computers and other electronic play devices, with no time given over to anything resembling physical exercise. And ADD is, as you say, “totally overdiagnosed”, by unqualified and untrained health practitioners and education administrators. However, except for classroom segregation, these are all things that parents can, and should be changing. Today’s parents treat their pets better than they care for their kids. They’re afraid of their children, so they give them anything they want to eat, exert no discipline, and load them up with electronic devices so that they won’t have to interact with them. They misinterpret normal childhood exuberance and play as hyperactivity, and backed up with endorsements from their friends with similarly-afflicted children, they go to the doctor and demand an ADD diagnosis. Then they use that as an excuse to do nothing when their child misbehaves, and makes life for the rest of the civilized world a living hell.

Some day, when you are feeling particularly masochistic, watch an episode of Supernanny or Nanny 911, and observe how you feel and the level of your blood pressure after the show is over. Multiply the one or two Satan’s spawn you saw on the show by 8 or 9 (maybe more), and imagine being stuck in a closed room for 5 or 6 hours a day with them. Welcome to the lives of most of America’s elementary school teachers. And they’re the ones who have it easy: what do you think these monsters are like by the time they get to junior high or high school?

The schools have their problems, but the vast majority of them are being caused by irresponsible parents who palm their uncontrollable brats off on their local school systems, and refuse to take ownership of them and their problems. And I’m not sure when the last time was that you spent any time in a classroom during school hours, but the girls are far from easy to handle. They are foul-mouthed, insubordinate bullies who learn how to work the system in their tender years.

I’m tired of paying high taxes, and having nothing to show for it. When all those little monsters misbehave (and their parents threaten the school for attempting to discipline them in any way), they’re violating my child’s right to an education. Like I said, the schools have their issues, but nothing’s going to make a difference until their teachers and administrators have some recourse in handling these problem students.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Zeitgeist]It is not popular, but separate classes for girls and boys is one suggestion. I also think the food we eat contributes to children’s dispositions. The crap sugar and hormone over loaded, fat choked fast food diet is not healthy. Boys are totally over diagnosed as ADD and medicated. Women dominate elementary teaching and they prefer tractable kids (girls) or boys who act like girls. Lastly, teachers are not allowed to discipline kids, so medication is recommended where teachers of old would actually lay hands on bratty boys. The whole idea that the sexes are the same is idiotic. They are not. Their brains are different and so are they. It is a DNA thing. That does not make one better than the other, but ask anyone who has one or two of each if they are the same. The same idea that brought equal pay for equal work (a good thing), brought the idea that equal means the sexes are the same and learn the same way (not a good thing). Teaching needs to change or it will go the same way as the print media and children will be taught by distance learning and maybe not by teachers. Many of the schools are failing to deliver despite massive amounts of tax dollars invested in them and the instituions of higher learning are almost unaffordable for many segments of society. Something has to change.[/quote]

Zeitgeist, I agree with the separate class suggestion. Anything that will help get our kids better educated has my vote, and I think this might help. There’s no question that the “food” we give our kids is a problem, and it’s compounded by our kids engaging in stationary activities using computers and other electronic play devices, with no time given over to anything resembling physical exercise. And ADD is, as you say, “totally overdiagnosed”, by unqualified and untrained health practitioners and education administrators. However, except for classroom segregation, these are all things that parents can, and should be changing. Today’s parents treat their pets better than they care for their kids. They’re afraid of their children, so they give them anything they want to eat, exert no discipline, and load them up with electronic devices so that they won’t have to interact with them. They misinterpret normal childhood exuberance and play as hyperactivity, and backed up with endorsements from their friends with similarly-afflicted children, they go to the doctor and demand an ADD diagnosis. Then they use that as an excuse to do nothing when their child misbehaves, and makes life for the rest of the civilized world a living hell.

Some day, when you are feeling particularly masochistic, watch an episode of Supernanny or Nanny 911, and observe how you feel and the level of your blood pressure after the show is over. Multiply the one or two Satan’s spawn you saw on the show by 8 or 9 (maybe more), and imagine being stuck in a closed room for 5 or 6 hours a day with them. Welcome to the lives of most of America’s elementary school teachers. And they’re the ones who have it easy: what do you think these monsters are like by the time they get to junior high or high school?

The schools have their problems, but the vast majority of them are being caused by irresponsible parents who palm their uncontrollable brats off on their local school systems, and refuse to take ownership of them and their problems. And I’m not sure when the last time was that you spent any time in a classroom during school hours, but the girls are far from easy to handle. They are foul-mouthed, insubordinate bullies who learn how to work the system in their tender years.

I’m tired of paying high taxes, and having nothing to show for it. When all those little monsters misbehave (and their parents threaten the school for attempting to discipline them in any way), they’re violating my child’s right to an education. Like I said, the schools have their issues, but nothing’s going to make a difference until their teachers and administrators have some recourse in handling these problem students.

[Author]

Posts