latest from mothering.com

[geni]

Mercury seems to be getting tons of coverage. When that deal is settled and we win , we need to go after another ingredient. We'll dismantle the vaccine industry ingredient by stupid ingredient if we have to.

Who is with me ?

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=311872

not one desenting post in the entire thread. Mildly depressing.

[Goshawk]

Eh, Geni, your link won't let me view the thread unless I register.

[geni]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Eh, Geni, your link won't let me view the thread unless I register.

I know but I can't really copy the whole thread. The most depressing respoce is:


Eh, every time we win on one though, they'll just throw another creepy ingredient in.

[joobie]

i registered just to see that thread, and let me tell you this - that board is terrifying.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by geni
...not one desenting post in the entire thread. Mildly depressing.

From Eos' experience dissenting views are not allowed, so this is not surprising. It is the same as many homeopathy boards, the "Curezone" and many of the anti-vax message boards (see http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/vaxliars/avnban.htm ).

But people still lurk on them (just like you). This is a comment on one full of lots of vitriol: http://www.neurodiversity.com/evidence_of_venom.html

Since that there have been a few hoards who have visited blogs who post the same canned messages without reading the blog's content. One of my favorite content free comments is on http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/06/on-uselessness-of-chelation-therapy.html...
Anonymous said...
Dr Buttar cured his son, he formulated this cream for him.

7/05/2005 8:17 AM
Orac said...
You wouldn't happen to have any scientifically verifiable evidence to support that claim, would you?

I didn't think you did.

7/05/2005 9:08 AM

If what this blogger says about how "unbiased" one of their latest heroes, things could hit the fan... but I doubt the anti-vaxers would be deterred: http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=241

By the way, the blogs I have been watching (and posting, no extra points guessing who I am... I don't check the hotmail account very often):

http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/home.php .. of course

http://www.oracknows.blogspot.com/ (know him from Usenet)

http://www.autismdiva.blogspot.com/ (the Diva posts on Healthfraud listserv)

http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/ (he's new)

http://skeptico.blogs.com/ (our very own RichardR)

The first three and the last one in the list have been hit by the anti-vax hoards in their comment sections. (edited for grammar)

Edit to add: This is another blog that I check occasionally:
http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/index.php?cat=2

[CFLarsen]

From the "mothering.com" site:

"Mothering.com has teamed up with Astrology.com to give you a full range of family astrological insight."

Baby profiles:
Scan the profiles to see whether your baby might be the next President of the United States (if she's a Leo, she might)
Source (http://www.mothering.com/interactive/astrology/astrology.html)

No, "she" won't.

PISCES/AQUARIUS George Washington: Feb. 22, 1732 (Feb. 11, 1731/2, old style)
SCORPIO/LIBRA John Adams born on Oct. 30 (Oct. 19, old style), 1735
ARIES Thomas Jefferson: April 13 (April 2, old style), 1743
PISCES James Madison: March 16, 1751 (March 5, 1750/1, old style).
TAURUS James Monroe: April 28, 1758
CANCER John Quincy Adams: July 11, 1767
PISCES Andrew Jackson: March 15, 1767
SAGITTARIUS Martin Van Buren: Dec. 5, 1782
AQUARIUS William Henry Harrison: Feb. 9, 1773
ARIES John Tyler: March 29, 1790
SCORPIO James Knox Polk: Nov. 2, 1795
SAGITTARIUS Zachary Taylor: Nov. 24, 1784
CAPRICORN Millard Fillmore: Jan. 7, 1800
SAGITTARIUS Franklin Pierce: Nov. 23, 1804
TAURUS James Buchanan: April 23, 1791
AQUARIUS Abraham Lincoln: Feb. 12, 1809
CAPRICORN Andrew Johnson: Dec. 29, 1808
TAURUS Ulysses Simpson Grant: April 27, 1822
LIBRA Rutherford Birchard Hayes: Oct. 4, 1822
SCORPIO James Abram Garfield: Nov. 19, 1831
LIBRA Chester Alan Arthur: Oct. 5, 1829
PISCES Grover Cleveland: March 18, 1837
LEO Benjamin Harrison: Aug. 20, 1833
AQUARIUS William McKinley: Jan. 29, 1843
SCORPIO Theodore Roosevelt: Oct. 27, 1858
VIRGO William Howard Taft: Sept. 15, 1857
CAPRICORN Woodrow Wilson: Dec. 28, 1856
SCORPIO Warren Gamaliel Harding: Nov. 2, 1865
CANCER Calvin Coolidge: July 4, 1872
LEO Herbert Clark Hoover: Aug. 10, 1874
AQUARIUS Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Jan. 30, 1882
TAURUS Harry S. Truman: May 8, 1884
LIBRA Dwight David Eisenhower: Oct. 14, 1890
GEMINI John Fitzgerald Kennedy: May 29, 1917
VIRGO Lyndon Baines Johnson: Aug. 27, 1908
CAPRICORN Richard Milhous Nixon: Jan. 9, 1913
CANCER Gerald Rudolph Ford: July 14, 1913
LIBRA James Earl Carter, Jr.,: Oct. 1, 1924
AQUARIUS Ronald Wilson Reagan: Feb. 6, 1911
GEMINI George Herbert Walker Bush: June 12, 1924
LEO William Jefferson Clinton: Aug. 19, 1946
CANCER George Walker Bush: July 6, 1946

The different areas of the United States changed at different times:

Along the Eastern seaboard: With Great Britain in 1752.
Mississippi valley: With France in 1582.
Texas, Florida, California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico:
With Spain in 1582
Washington, Oregon: With Britain in 1752.
Alaska: October 1867 when Alaska became part of the USA.
Source (http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-countries.html)

If we go with the new Gregorian calendar, then we end up with this tally:

AQUARIUS: 5
ARIES: 2
CANCER: 4
GEMINI: 2
CAPRICORN: 4
LEO: 3
LIBRA: 4
PISCES: 4
SAGITTARIUS: 3
SCORPIO: 5
TAURUS: 4
VIRGO: 2

Some "insight".

[Chaos]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
*snip*
AQUARIUS: 5
ARIES: 2
CANCER: 4
GEMINI: 2
CAPRICORN: 4
LEO: 3
LIBRA: 4
PISCES: 4
SAGITTARIUS: 3
SCORPIO: 5
TAURUS: 4
VIRGO: 2

Some "insight".

Off the top of my head (and showing off what I`ve learned about Statistics); I`d say we can claim with reasonable certainty that the presidents are equally distributed among the signs - the expected valus being 3.5 (42 presidents, 12 signs).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Chaos
Off the top of my head (and showing off what I`ve learned about Statistics); I`d say we can claim with reasonable certainty that the presidents are equally distributed among the signs - the expected valus being 3.5 (42 presidents, 12 signs).

Given the small sample size, I agree.

[dissonance]

It's not just the vax area of mothering.com that is scary; there's a LOT of self-righteous stuff about their chosen parenting practices. "Oh, my heart hurts for the poor babies whose mothers don't cosleep/don't breastfeed/don't cloth diaper/use strollers/let them cry for longer than .01 nanoseconds."

It reminds me of a lot of woos, actually, how utterly convinced they are that they are following the One True Path to Parenting Perfection, and everyone else is raising future serial killers.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by dissonance
It reminds me of a lot of woos, actually, how utterly convinced they are that they are following the One True Path to Parenting Perfection, and everyone else is raising future serial killers.
To be fair isn't that just parents in general?

As soon as someone has a baby they have God given right of way on pavements, their rearing methods are perfect, their knowledge of nutrition is encylopaedic, their child has way above average intelligence, if they want to stop and talk to another parent with a pram in the middle of a pedestrian crossing then they damn well will, they will give you filthy looks as you sit smoking in a smoky pub into which they brought their child...

And as for those Baby on Board stickers... :mad:
I have no intention of crashing into any car! I couldn't care less whether you have a baby/'cheeky monkey'/'little princess'/'small person' on board or not, I don't want to hit another vehicle!

I'm sure it's all a very joyful time but new parents can be really annoying.

[sophia8]

Originally posted by Ashles

And as for those Baby on Board stickers... :mad:
I have no intention of crashing into any car! I couldn't care less whether you have a baby/'cheeky monkey'/'little princess'/'small person' on board or not, I don't want to hit another vehicle!
Ashles, Baby On Board stickers aren't aimed at you - unless you're an emergency rescue worker. If the car gets totalled in a pile-up, rescuers know there might be a small human hidden in the wreckage.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by sophia8
Ashles, Baby On Board stickers aren't aimed at you - unless you're an emergency rescue worker. If the car gets totalled in a pile-up, rescuers know there might be a small human hidden in the wreckage.

Really? I always thought they were aimed at other drivers.

One of my favorite Simpsons episodes used the idea for a song:

Baby On Board
How I've adored
That sign on my car's windowpane
A bounce in my step
Loaded with pep
'Cause I'm driving in the carpool lane
Call me a square
Friend, I don't care
That little yellow sign can't be ignored
I'm telling you it's mighty nice
Each trip's a trip to paradise
With my Baby On Board

[Ashles]

Originally posted by sophia8
Ashles, Baby On Board stickers aren't aimed at you - unless you're an emergency rescue worker. If the car gets totalled in a pile-up, rescuers know there might be a small human hidden in the wreckage.
That is the first I have ever heard of that. I cannot see how a sticker in the back would help recovery in the event of a pile up of the extent to which you required information that a child might be in there.
And lots of them say "Drive carefully" etc.

I don't buy that claim.

And after a short search on the internet it seems I am not alone:
Babies on board a sticky topic (http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Serena_de_Souza/0,,2-1630-1709_1651957,00.html)
This didn't ring true for me, as I've seen first-hand what happens to rear windscreens in mere bumper bashings. I also can't imagine that a small triangular sticker would be a clearer indication of a baby on board than, say, a car seat.

So I did a bit of research. The frozen baby story is apocryphal. It's been attributed to the creator of the Baby on Board stickers, who is a multi-millionaire as a result of their proliferation in the United States, but never lost a child in a terrible accident.

In fact today, even in the United States - Paranoia Central - these stickers' popularity has waned as just too much bother about nothing much at all, and you see very few, humorous or not, in the traffic.

It appears to me to be a way of basically announcing proudly "I have a new baby".
I don't believe there is any safety benefit to such stickers and I can't find any professional organisation which believes there is any benefit.

Is there one?

The Automobile Association (http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/safety/childseats/child_dos_donts.html) certainly don't mention anything about such a sticker in their child safety section.
Nor do the
Royal Automobile Club (http://www.rac.co.uk/carcare/advice/safety_security/motorists_at_risk)

So i'm sorry sophi8, but I am sceptical of your claim.

It sounds to me like a made up scenario (that doesn't logically make much sense) to sort of justify having one of these stickers.
And then it's almost as though you aren't allowed to criticise them because you would be criticising child safety.

But in reality it doesn't appear that they have anything to do with child safety.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by sophia8
Ashles, Baby On Board stickers aren't aimed at you - unless you're an emergency rescue worker. If the car gets totalled in a pile-up, rescuers know there might be a small human hidden in the wreckage.
Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/parental/babysign.htm) disagrees.

In 1984, Michael Lerner founded Safety 1st for the purpose of manufacturing "Baby on Board" signs.
(...)
''Our concept was to really improve driver awareness of child safety,'' he said. ''Car accidents are the number one cause of child deaths in the United States.''

Edited to add quote

[Neutiquam Erro]

Originally posted by Ashles
To be fair isn't that just parents in general?

As soon as someone has a baby they have God given right of way on pavements, their rearing methods are perfect, their knowledge of nutrition is encylopaedic, ....


Hmmm, I must be one of the unlucky ones. For me, parenting has been the most humbling activity I've ever experienced. Honestly, any notions I might have once had about "perfect" child-rearing methods were shattered those first few sleepless weeks. Brute survival instinct is a wonderful fallback position.

Nutrition? "OK, whatever. Tonight, ice cream is a vegetable."

[patnray]

The Baby On Board stickers were intended to provide notice to emergency workers. They were very popular for a short time even though there is no evidence (1) there was a problem finding babies in crashed vehicles, or (2) that the stickers were any help at all. Furthermore, once the sticker is applied it can not be easily removed, so people were driving around with the stickers even when there was no baby on board. Thus the stickers were no help to emergency personnel.

They did, however, spawn a host of joke stickers (Ex-husband in trunk, etc).

[Ashles]

Neutiquam Erro, you do realise that my post was not supposed to genuinely be indicative of parents in general don't you?
Only the annoying ones.

[CurtC]

I was always amused at the Baby On Board signs. The ones I saw were plastic signs hung up by a suction cup stuck to the inside of the window, not stickers.

And I thought the purpose was to make a nearby driver on the freeway maybe think twice about the risks of aggressive driving. Instead of changing lanes with 10 cm to spare in front of that car, just maybe they would realize that it wasn't worth it. In that regard, it might have done some very small amount of good.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by patnray
The Baby On Board stickers were intended to provide notice to emergency workers. They were very popular for a short time even though there is no evidence (1) there was a problem finding babies in crashed vehicles, or (2) that the stickers were any help at all. Furthermore, once the sticker is applied it can not be easily removed, so people were driving around with the stickers even when there was no baby on board. Thus the stickers were no help to emergency personnel.
I honestly think the stickers were invented to make money. That they did so by creating a potential frightening (if unrealistic) scenario for new parents was a bonus to sales.

Of course, far more good would be done by driving safely and fitting child seats properly, but these stickers might give some kind of psychological (and false) security to the drivers of the car. As though everyone around the car will drive more safely as a result of seing these stickers.

I guess I'll agree with CurtC - if one single accident was averted by someone thinking twice about a stupid manouver as a result of a sign then they will have been worth it.

But I still find them irritating.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Given the small sample size, I agree.

Yup. The variance is going to be rather big... oh what the hell, it is (7*(0.5)^2+5*(1.5)^2)/12, roughly 1.0833...

Since Statistics exams are coming up in two weeks, I might actually calculate the statistical certainty (the Alpha about which JZS has been blathering endlessly in the Dembski thread over at Skeptic Forum) with which we can say that the presidents are equally "distributed" over the astrological signs - just for the fun (and practice of it). ;)

[Neutiquam Erro]

Originally posted by Ashles
Neutiquam Erro, you do realise that my post was not supposed to genuinely be indicative of parents in general don't you?
Only the annoying ones.

Maybe it was the "To be fair isn't that just parents in general?" comment that threw me.

Obviously, what annoys us all (and the subject of this thread) are parents who cling to the perfection of their ideals (i.e. "woo"), rather than accept the messy reality of raising children.

Because parenting can be such an all-consuming activity, we do tend to lose our perspective. For example, I send my kids off to school every day with bookbags they can barely manage to drag along. All the parents are up in arms about it, myself included. Then I stop to think how many children around the world, and throughout history, have started their days hauling fifty-or-so pounds of firewood or water on their backs, and I realize I'm complaining about my kids having too many books!?!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by patnray
They did, however, spawn a host of joke stickers (Ex-husband in trunk, etc).

I thought the ex-husbands helped spawn the babies...
Oh, right. Gotcha. My error...

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Neutiquam Erro
Maybe it was the "To be fair isn't that just parents in general?" comment that threw me.
Sorry, I see what you mean. I meant that to imply that it wasn't just 'woo' parents - in the sense of being believers in the paranormal and weird health stuff with no scientific basis, (although I've never really been keen on that word as a description), but a cross section of parents in general that behaved in an annoying way.
I didn't really mean all parents overall. But I see how it looked like that. Apologies.

Obviously, what annoys us all (and the subject of this thread) are parents who cling to the perfection of their ideals (i.e. "woo"), rather than accept the messy reality of raising children.
I couldn't agree with you more.
I am not yet a parent (although I hope perhaps to be in the not too distant future...) but it has always struck me as about the hardest thing imaginable. Probably unlike anyone ever thinks it is going to be. Complicated, scary, exciting, and, as you say 'all-consuming'.
I have never understood those who claim to be doing it all right and knowing all about the process, as mistakes would be inevitable.
The whole thing sounds and looks messy (in every sense) and that's how it should be. A learning experience every step of the way.

Because parenting can be such an all-consuming activity, we do tend to lose our perspective. For example, I send my kids off to school every day with bookbags they can barely manage to drag along. All the parents are up in arms about it, myself included. Then I stop to think how many children around the world, and throughout history, have started their days hauling fifty-or-so pounds of firewood or water on their backs, and I realize I'm complaining about my kids having too many books!?!
A post that will stay in my mind for a long time.

Again apologies if it appeared I was in any way criticising new parents in general. My post was only meant in a light-hearted way.
I certainly have great respect for your comments.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
http://www.oracknows.blogspot.com/ (know him from Usenet)
My problem is, every time I head "orac", I'm reminded that that's how Wilhelm Reich abbreviated orgone accumulator (http://www.rogermwilcox.name/Reich/accumulators.html).

[tracer]

Originally posted by tracer
My problem is, every time I read or hear "orac", I'm reminded that that's how Wilhelm Reich abbreviated orgone accumulator (http://www.rogermwilcox.name/Reich/accumulators.html).

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by CurtC
And I thought the purpose was to make a nearby driver on the freeway maybe think twice about the risks of aggressive driving. Instead of changing lanes with 10 cm to spare in front of that car, just maybe they would realize that it wasn't worth it. In that regard, it might have done some very small amount of good. There's a sort of point to it, and even to the "show cats on board" and similar. Like a horsebox. If you have an animal or an infant on board who isn't in a position of being able to watch the road and compensate in advance for a sudden change of speed or direction, you really want to try to avoid making such changes. So, it's sort of "don't force me to brake or swerve suddenly please".

And there's the question of recovering an infant from a crash.

But personally, I think the things are useless, and are in fact simply a way of announcing, look, I've reproduced!!! And I dread to think of the danger to emergency workers trying to get into a stickered car on fire to rescue a baby who is in fact safe in his cot back home.

Rolfe.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Rolfe
There's a sort of point to it, and even to the "show cats on board" and similar.

Rolfe.
"Show cats on board" is supposed to prevent people from driving poorly around you? Maybe it's cause I'm more of a dog person, but I'd think it'd have the opposite effect. :D

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Donks
"Show cats on board" is supposed to prevent people from driving poorly around you? Maybe it's cause I'm more of a dog person, but I'd think it'd have the opposite effect. :D I think it's really just a novelty sticker, hey look, I'm not just a spectator, I have entires in this show here!

But it's a serious point that when driving with animals you really don't want to be forced to brake or swerve suddenly. Most important with horses, really.

Rolfe.

[Drooper]

In my experience, a "baby on board" sign is licence to drive like a complete idiot.

[sophia8]

Originally posted by SwissSkeptic
Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/parental/babysign.htm) disagrees.
Well, I won't disagree with Snopes. But that was what I've been told by a police officer, who should know.
Anyway, the Baby On Board notices we have here in the UK are'nt stickers, but attached with suction cups and the like, so they can be easily removed.

[sophia8]

Originally posted by tracer
My problem is, every time I head "orac", I'm reminded that that's how Wilhelm Reich abbreviated orgone accumulator (http://www.rogermwilcox.name/Reich/accumulators.html).
Showing my age - I instantly thought of Blake's Seven (www.cultv.co.uk/blakes7.htm )

[Darat]

Originally posted by sophia8
Showing my age - I instantly thought of Blake's Seven (www.cultv.co.uk/blakes7.htm )

Didn’t everyone except tracer? ;)

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Drooper
In my experience, a "baby on board" sign is licence to drive like a complete idiot.

"You need new 'Baby on Bumper'!"

[CurtC]

Originally posted by sophia8
Well, I won't disagree with Snopes. But that was what I've been told by a police officer, who should know.Maybe he should know, but police officers are as susceptible as everyone else to falling for, and passing on, urban legends.

[Jas]

Originally posted by Ashles

And as for those Baby on Board stickers... :mad:
I have no intention of crashing into any car! I couldn't care less whether you have a baby/'cheeky monkey'/'little princess'/'small person' on board or not, I don't want to hit another vehicle!


"I was going to rear-end you out of spite, but now that I see that you've already gone ahead and reproduced, why bother?"

The people with those on their cars seem to be worse drivers than average...or maybe that's just minivans in general?

[Lisa Simpson]

Marge, showing Homer her new baby on board sign:

"Look what I got. Now people will stop intentionally ramming our car!"

[hodgy]

I am not yet a parent (although I hope perhaps to be in the not too distant future...) but it has always struck me as about the hardest thing imaginable. Probably unlike anyone ever thinks it is going to be. Complicated, scary, exciting, and, as you say 'all-consuming'.


Ashles, don't worry about it - its great! I used to think along those lines but the reality is that you get used to it really quickly (its natural and instinctive after all). Its easy - don't let anyone tell you different.

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by hodgy
[Parenting...] Its easy - don't let anyone tell you different.

How old are your kids?

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by Phaycops
How old are your kids?

My guess is that his first child was conceived about three months ago and is still in the womb. :p

[dissonance]

Originally posted by hodgy
Ashles, don't worry about it - its great! I used to think along those lines but the reality is that you get used to it really quickly (its natural and instinctive after all). Its easy - don't let anyone tell you different.

Maybe I'm still in the sleep-deprived newborn stage (daughter is 2 1/2 months old), but 'easy' isn't exactly how I would describe parenting at this point! Sure, each individual task is easy (nursing, changing, bathing, entertaining), but the whole process is exhausting and demanding and HARD. Especially when you know the baby is tired, the baby knows she is tired, but she just. can't. sleep.

I assume a lot of things get easier as the little munchkin gets older, but then a lot of other things get harder.

On another note, now that my daughter has had her first vaccinations, I can kind of see how some anti-vaxers are so irrational about it. It SUCKS watching your kid get her shots, and the look on her little face changing from contentment to shock to pain to screaming. A baby crying in pain just hits you at a really fundamental instinctive level (it's a totally different kind of crying from fussy crying or tired crying), so I can kind of see how someone might do anything to justify not inflicting that on their baby again.

[CurtC]

Originally posted by dissonance
I assume a lot of things get easier as the little munchkin gets older, but then a lot of other things get harder.Every age has its challenges, but the <6 months age is particularly exhausting. On the other hand, sometimes I think that the reason we think it's less exhausting when they're older is just that the parents are getting used to having no life. Those first few months are equivalent to the Army's boot camp, where you're put through an ordeal to make you forget about your previous life and be ready for what's up ahead.

[Neutiquam Erro]

Like I tell every new parent -- "Don't worry! The first eighteen years are the hardest!"

[exarch]

Originally posted by Drooper
In my experience, a "baby on board" sign is licence to drive like a complete idiot.
I guess only a "Taxi" sign on top of your roof gives you more rights :D

[Neutiquam Erro]

Originally posted by exarch
I guess only a "Taxi" sign on top of your roof gives you more rights :D

"Pizza"?

[tdn]

In my experience, a "baby on board" sign is licence to drive like a complete idiot.
I'm sure there is no data to back this up. I'm betting all you have is anecdotal evidence. Like this:

Yesterday my girlfriend was driving me home, and we took a 2-lane offramp. We were in the right lane. Ahead of us was an SUV in the left lane, almost completely stopped. We slowed, then slowly started to pass the SUV. At the last second it cut us off, and we managed to brake just in time to avoid a collision. The SUV then proceeded in the right lane at 2 mph, with its left turn signal on. We patiently waited behind, waiting for it to change lanes. Then the turn signal stopped. We decided to change to the left lane to pass, after cautiously making sure the SUV was staying put in the right lane. As we started to pass, the SUV cut us off once again by changing lanes. And then leaving its left turn signal on. As we finally passed, I noticed the BoB sticker in the rear window.

To be fair, every driver yesterday was a maniac, no matter who was on board.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by CurtC
Every age has its challenges, but the <6 months age is particularly exhausting. On the other hand, sometimes I think that the reason we think it's less exhausting when they're older is just that the parents are getting used to having no life. Those first few months are equivalent to the Army's boot camp, where you're put through an ordeal to make you forget about your previous life and be ready for what's up ahead.

That's the physical challenge. It may prepare you for the physical challenge ahead, but does nothing for the mental and emotional challenges that are to come. It's kind of like how boot camp will prepare you physically to fight the battle, but gives you no preparation on how to run the war.

Discipline, curfews, school, friends, all these massive social issues that your kids will face, and you have to figure out the best way to have them handle it.

Everyone I have talked to have basically said they are running things by the seat of their pants, and have no clue if what they are doing is right, or best, or whatever. They just hope things work out.

I don't have any kids yet, but from what I have heard, any parents who claim they know the way it should be done or claim it is easy is not to be believed in the least.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
...Everyone I have talked to have basically said they are running things by the seat of their pants, and have no clue if what they are doing is right, or best, or whatever. They just hope things work out.

I don't have any kids yet, but from what I have heard, any parents who claim they know the way it should be done or claim it is easy is not to be believed in the least.

It also does not help that each child is completely different.

I thought I was the perfect mom because Number 1 child was such a sweet toddler... he ate his vegies and his terrible twos lasted just one week.

Then Number 2 came along. AAARH!!! The child was a fussy eater AND his terrible twos lasted from the time he was 18 months old until he was 7 years old.

NOW as teenagers: Number 1 child has a weight problem and is shy, withdrawn and does not like to do much outside of the house... he has had friends call him but he will not call back. BUT... Number 2 child eats only what he needs (he eats vegies but no fruit except grapefruit juice), AND he likes to sail, has lots of friends.

Go figure.

By the way, have you seen my signature below?

[exarch]

Originally posted by Neutiquam Erro
"Pizza"?Until Luc Besson makes a movie about it, I don't think so ...

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by dissonance
A baby crying in pain just hits you at a really fundamental instinctive level (it's a totally different kind of crying from fussy crying or tired crying), so I can kind of see how someone might do anything to justify not inflicting that on their baby again.

Just picture that same baby dying of whooping cough though. One second of pain vs life snuffed out. One in 500 die of whooping cough. One in three will die of tetanus. One in ten will die from Diphtheria. These people will watch their children get a vaccine preventable disease and be happy they spared them from a quick shot. Sigh. Think of how much these children cry and how they cry before they die, in horrible pain from a vaccine preventable disease.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Just picture that same baby dying of whooping cough though. ....

To add to that... this page has the sound of a child with pertussis:
http://www.pertussis.com/ ... the intake whoop can send chills down your back.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
To add to that... this page has the sound of a child with pertussis:
http://www.pertussis.com/ ... the intake whoop can send chills down your back.
That DOES sound rather nasty ...

[Eos of the Eons]

Yeah, but WE'RE just a bunch of fearmongers. Never mind that vaccines have spared us from hearing such coughs from children around us. Never mind that vaccines have prevented millions of deaths. WE'RE the fearmongers.

[dissonance]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Just picture that same baby dying of whooping cough though. One second of pain vs life snuffed out. One in 500 die of whooping cough. One in three will die of tetanus. One in ten will die from Diphtheria. These people will watch their children get a vaccine preventable disease and be happy they spared them from a quick shot. Sigh. Think of how much these children cry and how they cry before they die, in horrible pain from a vaccine preventable disease.

Well, yeah. I'm not saying it's rational, I'm just saying that when your child is lying there crying in pain from the vaccine, it sucks, and I understand why people would seize on a justification not to use any further vacines.

Thankfully, most people are still vaccinating. But anti-vax stuff seems to be becoming more widespread (thanks to the internet). Combine the ready availability of the anti-vax 'information' with how much it sucks to hear your baby cry after being vaccinated and with the fact that most parents nowadays probably have little to no experience with the diseases we vaccinate against, and I can understand why people find anti-vax arguments compelling.

[Eos of the Eons]

Yes, the fact that vaccines are now the victims of their own success is sad. We all need to be aware of what we are now missing out on because of vaccine. Yet, as I just said, we are then called the "fearmongers".

That is another reason that mothering commune is so scary. They claim their alternatives will make their kids into superkids that won't get any diseases, and thus don't even need vaccination. All the misinformation and ignorance on there does result in dead and injured children though. Does that make them angry? No. They just make excuses about the "child's time to go". I'll dig up some links if need...