Assuming you're male, if you think that breasts are not functional in copulation for a woman, then I have to question whether you 1) have had access to a real set in your life, or 2) knew what do with them once you had them.:)
Here's a hint: woman's breasts are wired just a wee bit differently than male breasts.
Re:Purple Moon, John Romero, and sexist games
on
Sims the New Dolls?
·
· Score: 1
How do you know that your little girl hadn't simply been brainwashed to like pink because of the society she lives in, instead of being genetically pre-disposed to a particular color?
Who cares? How do you know you haven't been "brainwashed" into liking video games? How, exactly, is it harming her by liking pink and frilly things? Not everything in the world has to be gray and utilitarian.
On the subject of princesses: Now that's definitely brainwashing, and you are asking for trouble by exposing your kids to that garbage!
Man, I'd hate to be your kid. The horror of imagination! The horror of fantasy! How terrible to allow one's child to imagine fairy godmothers! I suppose you're one of those people who think allowing a child to imagine Santa Clause is some sort of grand lying conspiracy.
Why not raise your little girl to be a scientist or a prime minister, instead of a princess?
Maybe because I'd rather not destroy my child's childhood and rush them into adulthood? One of the greatest evils of modern times is this notion that we have to program them from day one to live in reality, and crush whatever imaginative spirit they might have.
Sure, when she gets older, we'll talk about careers and what she wants to do with her life. But guess what? If her goal is to be the best mother she can be to her children, I would support her 100%. But I suppose you would consider your daughter a failure if she isn't Margaret Thatcher or Marie Curie.
If you really want to raise your daughter to be like her, then go right ahead, but you'll regret it. But I simply can't agree that girls are genetically pre-disposed to like pink or act like princesses.
Jesus, listen to yourself! No one is talking about growing up to be a literal princess. It's fantasy, man! I wanted to be Superman when I was a boy, but that doesn't mean I got all screwed up when I realized I was never going to fly like him.
As for your princess friend, who cares? Again, who is talking about raising their daughter to be a LITERAL princess?? I know a lot of ngineers who are screwed up socially; does that mean I should steer my children away from any engineering field?
I think you have some definite issues with fantasy, which is utterly bizarre coming from someone who makes video games.
So tell me again why it's acceptable for a guy to go topless 'round here but everyone gets all bent out of shape if a woman does?
A woman's breasts are more sexually sensitive than a male's, hence they're more of a sex organ than for a male, which makes them subject to similar rules of other sex organs.
you forget the one most important feature that NO cable DVR has. [...] 30 second skip.
You're right, I should've mentioned that one. The truth is, my DVR's fast-forward mode is pretty well designed. When you stop it, it flips back 10 seconds. The fast forward is so fast then I can typically skip past everything in 3 or 4 seconds. I think it actually works out better than the 30 second skip, though I have to pay more attention. The FF on the Tivo doesn't seem to work as well, though I can't at this second define for you why exactly (I think it moves back as well). It might be that the DVR seems to flash more frames than the Tivo, so I can pick out where the program has started again.
Either one works for me, though I admit it'd be nice to have the 30 second option on the DVR.
Being someone who has both a Tivo unit and a Cox DVR (the Tivo is in my living room, the other is my hi-def plasma in the game room for the home theatre), I have to say that the Tivo doesn't really do anything the DVR doesn't do. The primary differences are:
1) The Tivo will download "recommendations" (which I have yet to ever use). Advantage: Tivo (I guess)
2) The DVR has a way better guide that has a nice preview screen (Advantage: DVR)
3) The DVR has two-channel capability (watch one show while the other records). Advantage: DVR
4) The Tivo has to use the serial input, which makes channel changing slow, versus the DVR which is integrated with the cable box. Advantage: DVR
5) The DVR can do HDTV. Advantage: DVR (those I suppose these new Tivos might do it)
6) The user interface on the Tivo is way simpler. Advantage: Tivo.
All in all, I'd say my existing DVR is way better than the Tivo, though if they added what's good about the DVR, maybe it would be OK. I suppose my point is that the Tivo isn't so far ahead of the DVR that it's going to make some huge difference.
"No, I get it. If you want me here 76 hours a week. You make me a new compensation offer and I will consider it, because you're right. You pay me."
But that's not how these things typically work. Salaried is salaried -- you agreed to a set amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of work, and typically a "reasonable" and "occasional" amount of overtime. If the overtime becomes excessive, or if they are unreasonable about balancing that out with some time-off when you need to go to the doctor, kid's are sick, etc, then you have the sit-down with them to see if you can work it out.
If you can't work it out, you don't make threats and get that "note in the file", you just find another job.
In other words, you're smart about it. You don't act like a prima donna, you just be aware that employment is a two-way street. Just like they have the right to fire you, you have the right to fire them.
Why are you excusing HTTP and FTP while condemning gnutella and fasttrack?
Cheese Us Christ, I guess I do need to repeat myself. -sigh- (is this the third or fourth time?)
HTTP and FTP are primarily used for legitimate purposes. Gnutella et al are primarily used for illegal purposes. Once again, butter knives and switchblades can both cut bread, but only one of them is illegal in many locations.
But I guess you don't want to accept that people have to accept responsibility for their actions, not some convenient target that is easy to find and sue.
On the contrary, I'm all for targeting the people who do the actual sharing, but unlike you, I'm also interested in people accepting responsibility for their actions who profit from the illegal activity of others. Just because I'm only running the camera for the child molester doesn't mean I'm not also a part of the crime.
Re:Purple Moon, John Romero, and sexist games
on
Sims the New Dolls?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, many females like pink and princess and what-all. But many don't, and actually are repulsed by them, and are genuinely insulted by the assumption that they would like it.
Exactly who assumes that all females are exactly the same? No one, that's who. This is what bugs me -- that somehow it's wrong for some girls to like pink, and that there are idiots out there who are "insulted" that someone might make something that appeals to a "girly" girl. These women need to get over it. If they don't like it, that's fine -- it's not intended for them. To get insulted about it is just stupid and arrogant.
Re:Purple Moon, John Romero, and sexist games
on
Sims the New Dolls?
·
· Score: 1
It seemed like a cop-out that pandered to the built in prejudices and problems of society, instead of trying to transcend them.
I was with you until this point. What's wrong with games that are specifically target toward girls who like very frilly (i.e., pink) things? Just as there's nothing wrong with making shooters that appeal primarily to certain boy segments, there's nothing wrong with creating games that appeal primarily to certain girl segments.
Speaking as a father of a four-year-old girl who loves pink, I submit that trying to say that girls have to "transcend" liking frilly pink, princesses, etc is just as prejudiced and wrong. Every game doesn't have to be reduced to the lowest common denominator so as to appeal to every child. If you try and please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one.
You are advocating the shutdown of any protocol that is used to widely pirate stuff. Which means you are advocating the shutdown of FTP, Bittorrent, HTTP, and instant messaging -- all of which are widely used to infringe copyrights.
Rather than repeat myself, just go back and reread my previous posts which specifically DON'T talk about the "shutdown of any protocol".
Apparently you're not reading my previous posts. What's important is whether the large majority of the purpose is legitimate or illegitimate.
And yet a VCR is usually used to record copyrighted programming off TV and most tape decks are used to record copyrighted sounds from the radio. They're still legal.
First of all, recording a show for personal use is legal under fair use. Second of all, VCRs are primarily used legitimately. If almost everyone used them to copy tapes and then sell those tapes, they'd be illegal, too.
They're still legal. Guns are often used to kill people and yet are still legal (with usage and ownership restrictions, but still legal).
Yes, and P2P is still legal. It's only when they're used for illegitimate purpose that they're illegal (as with guns).
Cars can be used to kill people, but are still legal. Poisons (rat, etc) are used in murders but are still legal.
And once again, they PRIMARY purpose of these items is legitimate.
If any of these items are misused, it's not the fault of the builder or provider of any of them, it's the fault of the person who did something illegal.
It's the fault of the person who did something illegal AND it's the fault of the person who drove the getaway car, I mean, the one profiting from the 99% pirate activity.
Placing restrictions on the sale of an item does not make that item illegal in the way you seem to want it to be.
Of course, this has nothing to do with my point. You're simply pulling unrelated information in order to prove a strawman.
You missed the point. [...] Neither of the two companies in question has any control what the users do with the communications service in question.
No, you missed the point. Just because a switchblade can also be used to cut bread, that doesn't mean it's primary purpose isn't to be a weapon. That's why switchblades are typically illegal, while butter knives are not.
A phone network's primary purpose is legitimate communication. Bearshare's primary purpose is piracy. Just because they wink their eye at their users doesn't mean they're not responsible.
Or to put it another way, if you knowingly buy stolen merchandise, you're still in legal trouble even though you didn't do the stealing. A pizza parlor that launders money is still guilty of racketeering even though they're selling pizza. Even if you're only driving the getaway car and didn't rob the bank, you're still guilty of robbery.
makes me uneasy is that Bearshare did not infringe anyone's copyright (the spyware is another matter) yet they still went down in court; why not go after the phone companies for transferring the data next?
Because 99% of Bearshare's activity was piracy, and 99% of the phone company's activity is legitimate.
But I've found that I was happiest where I also had a good working relationship with my employer; management saw me as an asset, and did their best to accommodate me.
The key word there is "accommodate". Friends "care" about each other. Employers "accommodate" employees. It's not that your boss doesn't care if you live or die; he cares in the normal human sense, not in the sense of friends or family. A good employer fosters a good "working relationship" (to use your words), but that's still part of the "work in exchange for money" relationship.
In other words, I don't look for my employer to "allow" me to take time off when I need it because they "care" about me. I take personal time off when I need to, because it's what I insist on in a working relationship. It doesn't matter what their motivation is for accommodating my needs, and that's key. The original poster seemed to be whining that the motivation of his employers was "wrong", and I'm saying that motivation doesn't matter. All that matters is what you negotiate with your employer as far as your working relationship.
People may be happy when they get a employer that "gives" them a lot of accommodation, but I submit that people are happiest when they feel they have control over their part of the relationship, and aren't mentally depending on the good will of what they perceive as their "superior".
What I see in the industry is a definite trend toward companies caring much less about their employees.
What I've never got -- even from my first job at age 13 -- is why people like you EXPECT employers to "care" about you? What, are they your surrogate parents or something? What *I* notice is a definite trend toward people being unwilling to take care of themselves, and so they are constantly looking for someone that will "care" for them (employers, the government, etc).
You have a simple contract with your employer. You give them work, and they give you money + benefits in exchange. When the relationship is no longer mutually benefitial (either by you or them), you both move on.
Grow up, take care of yourself, and stop looking for a new parent.
Sure, everything might turn out fine. But if they loved you, they would BE SURE.
I apologize; this is probably too harsh. Just because they're bad parents doesn't mean they don't love you. More accurate would be to say, if they were good parents, they would be SURE things were going OK, and wouldn't be just sitting around hoping you turn out OK.
I'm a good, smart, responsible person, my parent's havent disiplined or watched over me since I was 9, and they have no reason to.
That you haven't run into problem is despite your parents, not because of them. Parents like yours make me sick.
You won't understand this now, but someday you'll look back and you won't be thankful they were so permissive, you'll be pissed off at them for not caring enough to watch over you and making sure things were going OK. Sure, everything might turn out fine. But if they loved you, they would BE SURE.
And what, exactly are you going to threaten them with?
Grounding, taking away their video games, music, phone privileges, Internet access, innumerable things. If I need to escalate it, I'll take the freaking door off their room so they have no privacy. And, if necessary, I'll institute the ultimate punishment -- follow them around school.:)
It's not a game you can win.
Oh, I'll win. There's no question about it. And it's not like I'm planning to be some controlling a-hole. It's just a question of following my reasonable rules. And if they don't follow them, then they WILL face consequences. Just like in real life -- imagine that! Lack of responsibility brings consequences.
It made life a hell of a lot harder for me, but it was so worth it. I don't take kindly to anyone treating me like a fucking beast of burden, even now at 28.
Some kids are going to be too screwed up to fix once they're teenagers. If you're getting violent, then you're parents probably did the right thing by chucking you out (I know that you flatter yourself by saying you left, but if you're not an adult, you do what you're allowed to do by your parents). Personally, I'd have either done that, or I would have had your ass put in jail, or I would have sent you to military school. It would have depended on how much baggage their was.
I only have your posts to go on, but it sounds like you have a serious attitude personality problem and you haven't gotten over it, even at 28. Who knows if it's just your innate personality, but I suspect that the seeds of the problem were planted in early childhood. Good parenting has to start from the beginning so they're prepared to handle being teenagers.
But back to the point, don't judge everyone's experience by your own. Just because you're screwed up doesn't mean that any sort of telling a kid "no" is automatically going to turn them into foaming rebels looking to deck their parents.
How are you going to know that they've broken the rules if they're doing it from a friend's house? (Hint: You won't)
Yes, I will. (Hint: they'll screw up, and I'll be checking). Depending on how big a violation of trust it was, they will pay some pretty heavy consequences.
Believe me, as much of a control freak as you'd like to be, your kids will either get what they want or end up losing all respect for you and severing all ties, all the while wishing they weren't damaged goods. (I did the latter).
Just because your parents were dumb-asses doesn't mean all are. What part of "equal parts of love and discipline" did you miss? (hint: the "love" part).
But hey, some kids are going to be screwed up no matter what you do. If they "sever ties" with me because I didn't let them stay out all night, or take drugs, or skip classes, or whatever, that's the breaks. It won't be my fault that they're screwed up.
Right. Treat you're kids like dogs. Train them to be "obedient."
No, you treat them like kids. What, are you one of those people who think kids should be able to run around and do anything they want to? That's exactly why we have so many screwed up kids these days. Kids are not adults. They need boundaries in which to grow.
Do you treat your wife/husband/significant other the same way? How about your employees?
Um, wives and employees are adults, and kids are not.
Perhaps too many parents simply have more respect for their children than you.
There are two kinds of screwed up children. Ones that come from abusive parents, and ones that come from permissive parents. You seem to think that opposite of abusive is permissive -- and that's dead wrong. The truth is that permissive is just another form of abuse: it's called neglect.
Love and discipline in equal amounts. That's how you get healthy children. They need to feel loved, and they need to feel guided.
How, exactly do you think you're going to enforce that?
You give them rules, and you check up from time to time. They know if they break the rules, then they get punished. Sure, being teenagers, they'll test the limits, but if you're consistent in enforcing the punishment, they'll learn not to push it.
They'll know if they violate my trust (like going to their friend's house to break the rules, rather than in my house), that's going to result in a big punishment.
I'm sorry but these two sentences tell me you don't actually have teenage kids, or you're a very gullible parent
Why's that, exactly? My kids are 4 and 6, so I don't have to worry about it yet, but I guarantee you I will know what they're up to, and they'll know what the rules are. In this case, they'll have a MySpace account IF and ONLY IF I have total access to view what they're writing.
And if they break the rules, they will suffer the consequences.
This ain't that hard. You just have to be willing to enforce rules and enforce punishments when rules are broken. Unfortunately, too many parents are intimidated by their kids these days, and too many kids see their friends manipulate their parents and get away with it, which makes them spoiled brats. Well, it ain't happening in my family.
Love and discipline in equal amounts, and the kids are kids, and the parents are parents.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming you're male, if you think that breasts are not functional in copulation for a woman, then I have to question whether you 1) have had access to a real set in your life, or 2) knew what do with them once you had them. :)
Here's a hint: woman's breasts are wired just a wee bit differently than male breasts.
Who cares? How do you know you haven't been "brainwashed" into liking video games? How, exactly, is it harming her by liking pink and frilly things? Not everything in the world has to be gray and utilitarian.
On the subject of princesses: Now that's definitely brainwashing, and you are asking for trouble by exposing your kids to that garbage!
Man, I'd hate to be your kid. The horror of imagination! The horror of fantasy! How terrible to allow one's child to imagine fairy godmothers! I suppose you're one of those people who think allowing a child to imagine Santa Clause is some sort of grand lying conspiracy.
Why not raise your little girl to be a scientist or a prime minister, instead of a princess?
Maybe because I'd rather not destroy my child's childhood and rush them into adulthood? One of the greatest evils of modern times is this notion that we have to program them from day one to live in reality, and crush whatever imaginative spirit they might have.
Sure, when she gets older, we'll talk about careers and what she wants to do with her life. But guess what? If her goal is to be the best mother she can be to her children, I would support her 100%. But I suppose you would consider your daughter a failure if she isn't Margaret Thatcher or Marie Curie.
If you really want to raise your daughter to be like her, then go right ahead, but you'll regret it. But I simply can't agree that girls are genetically pre-disposed to like pink or act like princesses.
Jesus, listen to yourself! No one is talking about growing up to be a literal princess. It's fantasy, man! I wanted to be Superman when I was a boy, but that doesn't mean I got all screwed up when I realized I was never going to fly like him.
As for your princess friend, who cares? Again, who is talking about raising their daughter to be a LITERAL princess?? I know a lot of ngineers who are screwed up socially; does that mean I should steer my children away from any engineering field?
I think you have some definite issues with fantasy, which is utterly bizarre coming from someone who makes video games.
A woman's breasts are more sexually sensitive than a male's, hence they're more of a sex organ than for a male, which makes them subject to similar rules of other sex organs.
You're right, I should've mentioned that one. The truth is, my DVR's fast-forward mode is pretty well designed. When you stop it, it flips back 10 seconds. The fast forward is so fast then I can typically skip past everything in 3 or 4 seconds. I think it actually works out better than the 30 second skip, though I have to pay more attention. The FF on the Tivo doesn't seem to work as well, though I can't at this second define for you why exactly (I think it moves back as well). It might be that the DVR seems to flash more frames than the Tivo, so I can pick out where the program has started again.
Either one works for me, though I admit it'd be nice to have the 30 second option on the DVR.
1) The Tivo will download "recommendations" (which I have yet to ever use). Advantage: Tivo (I guess)
2) The DVR has a way better guide that has a nice preview screen (Advantage: DVR)
3) The DVR has two-channel capability (watch one show while the other records). Advantage: DVR
4) The Tivo has to use the serial input, which makes channel changing slow, versus the DVR which is integrated with the cable box. Advantage: DVR
5) The DVR can do HDTV. Advantage: DVR (those I suppose these new Tivos might do it)
6) The user interface on the Tivo is way simpler. Advantage: Tivo.
All in all, I'd say my existing DVR is way better than the Tivo, though if they added what's good about the DVR, maybe it would be OK. I suppose my point is that the Tivo isn't so far ahead of the DVR that it's going to make some huge difference.
But that's not how these things typically work. Salaried is salaried -- you agreed to a set amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of work, and typically a "reasonable" and "occasional" amount of overtime. If the overtime becomes excessive, or if they are unreasonable about balancing that out with some time-off when you need to go to the doctor, kid's are sick, etc, then you have the sit-down with them to see if you can work it out.
If you can't work it out, you don't make threats and get that "note in the file", you just find another job.
In other words, you're smart about it. You don't act like a prima donna, you just be aware that employment is a two-way street. Just like they have the right to fire you, you have the right to fire them.
Cheese Us Christ, I guess I do need to repeat myself. -sigh- (is this the third or fourth time?)
HTTP and FTP are primarily used for legitimate purposes. Gnutella et al are primarily used for illegal purposes. Once again, butter knives and switchblades can both cut bread, but only one of them is illegal in many locations.
But I guess you don't want to accept that people have to accept responsibility for their actions, not some convenient target that is easy to find and sue.
On the contrary, I'm all for targeting the people who do the actual sharing, but unlike you, I'm also interested in people accepting responsibility for their actions who profit from the illegal activity of others. Just because I'm only running the camera for the child molester doesn't mean I'm not also a part of the crime.
Exactly who assumes that all females are exactly the same? No one, that's who. This is what bugs me -- that somehow it's wrong for some girls to like pink, and that there are idiots out there who are "insulted" that someone might make something that appeals to a "girly" girl. These women need to get over it. If they don't like it, that's fine -- it's not intended for them. To get insulted about it is just stupid and arrogant.
I was with you until this point. What's wrong with games that are specifically target toward girls who like very frilly (i.e., pink) things? Just as there's nothing wrong with making shooters that appeal primarily to certain boy segments, there's nothing wrong with creating games that appeal primarily to certain girl segments.
Speaking as a father of a four-year-old girl who loves pink, I submit that trying to say that girls have to "transcend" liking frilly pink, princesses, etc is just as prejudiced and wrong. Every game doesn't have to be reduced to the lowest common denominator so as to appeal to every child. If you try and please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one.
Rather than repeat myself, just go back and reread my previous posts which specifically DON'T talk about the "shutdown of any protocol".
And yet a VCR is usually used to record copyrighted programming off TV and most tape decks are used to record copyrighted sounds from the radio. They're still legal.
First of all, recording a show for personal use is legal under fair use. Second of all, VCRs are primarily used legitimately. If almost everyone used them to copy tapes and then sell those tapes, they'd be illegal, too.
They're still legal. Guns are often used to kill people and yet are still legal (with usage and ownership restrictions, but still legal).
Yes, and P2P is still legal. It's only when they're used for illegitimate purpose that they're illegal (as with guns).
Cars can be used to kill people, but are still legal. Poisons (rat, etc) are used in murders but are still legal.
And once again, they PRIMARY purpose of these items is legitimate.
If any of these items are misused, it's not the fault of the builder or provider of any of them, it's the fault of the person who did something illegal.
It's the fault of the person who did something illegal AND it's the fault of the person who drove the getaway car, I mean, the one profiting from the 99% pirate activity.
Placing restrictions on the sale of an item does not make that item illegal in the way you seem to want it to be.
Of course, this has nothing to do with my point. You're simply pulling unrelated information in order to prove a strawman.
No, you missed the point. Just because a switchblade can also be used to cut bread, that doesn't mean it's primary purpose isn't to be a weapon. That's why switchblades are typically illegal, while butter knives are not.
A phone network's primary purpose is legitimate communication. Bearshare's primary purpose is piracy. Just because they wink their eye at their users doesn't mean they're not responsible.
Or to put it another way, if you knowingly buy stolen merchandise, you're still in legal trouble even though you didn't do the stealing. A pizza parlor that launders money is still guilty of racketeering even though they're selling pizza. Even if you're only driving the getaway car and didn't rob the bank, you're still guilty of robbery.
Because 99% of Bearshare's activity was piracy, and 99% of the phone company's activity is legitimate.
The key word there is "accommodate". Friends "care" about each other. Employers "accommodate" employees. It's not that your boss doesn't care if you live or die; he cares in the normal human sense, not in the sense of friends or family. A good employer fosters a good "working relationship" (to use your words), but that's still part of the "work in exchange for money" relationship.
In other words, I don't look for my employer to "allow" me to take time off when I need it because they "care" about me. I take personal time off when I need to, because it's what I insist on in a working relationship. It doesn't matter what their motivation is for accommodating my needs, and that's key. The original poster seemed to be whining that the motivation of his employers was "wrong", and I'm saying that motivation doesn't matter. All that matters is what you negotiate with your employer as far as your working relationship.
People may be happy when they get a employer that "gives" them a lot of accommodation, but I submit that people are happiest when they feel they have control over their part of the relationship, and aren't mentally depending on the good will of what they perceive as their "superior".
What I've never got -- even from my first job at age 13 -- is why people like you EXPECT employers to "care" about you? What, are they your surrogate parents or something? What *I* notice is a definite trend toward people being unwilling to take care of themselves, and so they are constantly looking for someone that will "care" for them (employers, the government, etc).
You have a simple contract with your employer. You give them work, and they give you money + benefits in exchange. When the relationship is no longer mutually benefitial (either by you or them), you both move on.
Grow up, take care of yourself, and stop looking for a new parent.
I apologize; this is probably too harsh. Just because they're bad parents doesn't mean they don't love you. More accurate would be to say, if they were good parents, they would be SURE things were going OK, and wouldn't be just sitting around hoping you turn out OK.
That you haven't run into problem is despite your parents, not because of them. Parents like yours make me sick.
You won't understand this now, but someday you'll look back and you won't be thankful they were so permissive, you'll be pissed off at them for not caring enough to watch over you and making sure things were going OK. Sure, everything might turn out fine. But if they loved you, they would BE SURE.
Grounding, taking away their video games, music, phone privileges, Internet access, innumerable things. If I need to escalate it, I'll take the freaking door off their room so they have no privacy. And, if necessary, I'll institute the ultimate punishment -- follow them around school. :)
It's not a game you can win.
Oh, I'll win. There's no question about it. And it's not like I'm planning to be some controlling a-hole. It's just a question of following my reasonable rules. And if they don't follow them, then they WILL face consequences. Just like in real life -- imagine that! Lack of responsibility brings consequences.
Some kids are going to be too screwed up to fix once they're teenagers. If you're getting violent, then you're parents probably did the right thing by chucking you out (I know that you flatter yourself by saying you left, but if you're not an adult, you do what you're allowed to do by your parents). Personally, I'd have either done that, or I would have had your ass put in jail, or I would have sent you to military school. It would have depended on how much baggage their was.
I only have your posts to go on, but it sounds like you have a serious attitude personality problem and you haven't gotten over it, even at 28. Who knows if it's just your innate personality, but I suspect that the seeds of the problem were planted in early childhood. Good parenting has to start from the beginning so they're prepared to handle being teenagers.
But back to the point, don't judge everyone's experience by your own. Just because you're screwed up doesn't mean that any sort of telling a kid "no" is automatically going to turn them into foaming rebels looking to deck their parents.
Yes, I will. (Hint: they'll screw up, and I'll be checking). Depending on how big a violation of trust it was, they will pay some pretty heavy consequences.
Believe me, as much of a control freak as you'd like to be, your kids will either get what they want or end up losing all respect for you and severing all ties, all the while wishing they weren't damaged goods. (I did the latter).
Just because your parents were dumb-asses doesn't mean all are. What part of "equal parts of love and discipline" did you miss? (hint: the "love" part).
But hey, some kids are going to be screwed up no matter what you do. If they "sever ties" with me because I didn't let them stay out all night, or take drugs, or skip classes, or whatever, that's the breaks. It won't be my fault that they're screwed up.
No, you treat them like kids. What, are you one of those people who think kids should be able to run around and do anything they want to? That's exactly why we have so many screwed up kids these days. Kids are not adults. They need boundaries in which to grow.
Do you treat your wife/husband/significant other the same way? How about your employees?
Um, wives and employees are adults, and kids are not.
Perhaps too many parents simply have more respect for their children than you.
There are two kinds of screwed up children. Ones that come from abusive parents, and ones that come from permissive parents. You seem to think that opposite of abusive is permissive -- and that's dead wrong. The truth is that permissive is just another form of abuse: it's called neglect.
Love and discipline in equal amounts. That's how you get healthy children. They need to feel loved, and they need to feel guided.
You give them rules, and you check up from time to time. They know if they break the rules, then they get punished. Sure, being teenagers, they'll test the limits, but if you're consistent in enforcing the punishment, they'll learn not to push it.
They'll know if they violate my trust (like going to their friend's house to break the rules, rather than in my house), that's going to result in a big punishment.
Why's that, exactly? My kids are 4 and 6, so I don't have to worry about it yet, but I guarantee you I will know what they're up to, and they'll know what the rules are. In this case, they'll have a MySpace account IF and ONLY IF I have total access to view what they're writing.
And if they break the rules, they will suffer the consequences.
This ain't that hard. You just have to be willing to enforce rules and enforce punishments when rules are broken. Unfortunately, too many parents are intimidated by their kids these days, and too many kids see their friends manipulate their parents and get away with it, which makes them spoiled brats. Well, it ain't happening in my family.
Love and discipline in equal amounts, and the kids are kids, and the parents are parents.
Yeah, I realized that after I made the post. :)
Or perhaps 'The PIMP' (Plastic Immersive Modeling Product)
Or "PDNC" (Play Doh's Not Clay)
Clearly they needed someone like RMS back in the 50s to help them out.