--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 17, 2007, at 1:46 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > My point was that *even as a single incident* it could > > be traumatic for the kids, not just at that moment but > > long term, *especially* if the mother were normally > > highly responsible and rational. Depends a lot on the > > kids' age, though. > > Right, so this incident, far from showing that the mother > was being irresponsible or even neglectful, actually proves > what a *great* mother she was, since presumably, if her > kids were even the least bit taken aback by her behavior, > it could only be because it was such a huge change from the > way she normally acted. It couldn't at all be because > they'd seen examples of how other mothers react to their > kids' needs and kept hoping against hope that one day, > their mother might also.
<boggling> How on EARTH could you possibly have gotten that from what I wrote?? Sal, give your imagination some time off. It's overheating. What's particularly amusing about your fantasy here is that I was in complete agreement with you and Curtis that this story trivialized the potentially negative effect of this woman's experience on her kids. <snip> > > You're exaggerating again. Unless these kids were > > teeny-weeny, they were perfectly capable of grabbing > > something from the kitchen to tide them over. > > Of course they could have--then why didn't they? How do you know they didn't?? > > And if they'd been really terrorized about disturbing their > > mother, they wouldn't have approached her at all. > > That is simply not correct. You've obviously not spent much time > around either kids or neglected kids. Au contraire. I stand by what I said. > > More likely, they weren't hungry so much as they were > > impatient for the promised treat. > > And you know this because...? Where did I say I "knew" it, Sal? Check Mr. Dictionary for the meaning of "likely." > > For that matter, for > > all we know, they were so absorbed in their play they > > weren't even thinking about pancakes until they'd gotten > > tired of whatever game they were playing. > > > > And what game would that be, Judy? Please let me know > so I can get my hands on a copy of it, because when my > kids are hungry, Assumes facts not in evidence. We don't know that they were hungry. <snip> > And to most people, pancakes is not some kind of special > "treat"--it's a normal meal. To most *kids*, pancakes are a treat.
