So much of Free-Range Kids is about fighting the restrictions on kids’ freedom. Here’s skrddenfrh
a video that just might serve as a rallying cry for the kids themselves.
KIDS, LOOK WHAT YOU’RE MISSING! DEMAND SOCIETY GIVE IT BACK!
.
.
Kudso to GO RVing for such a wonderful ad. When our family took our big RV trip a few years back, the campsites were filled with kids running around as if it was an old-fashioned neighborhood. It struck me as odd that parents would let their kids be so free among strangers, but perhaps less so at home. This ad reminds us what it takes to give kids back their “wildhood”: Trust and time.
The only way to get the trust we’ve lost is to let go. Let the kids bike, hike, play, run an errand on their own. Once they do, trust builds — in our kids, our neighbors, our neighborhood.
As for time, we have to reclaim this precious childhood resource from the adult-supervised, structured activities we’ve been told our kids must be in.
Meantime, kids, your job is to push us too do both: Trust and release. Take your wildhood back.
.
It’s not true that you need constant supervision, kids! Demand free time!Â
.
Beautiful video.
Freedom helps kids learn to deal with adversity…and don’t we want them to excel at that?
Most of that would have been nightmare fuel for me as a kid.
“Freedom helps kids learn to deal with adversity…and don’t we want them to excel at that?”
WHAT? And not need to provide them with “safe spaces” and “participation medals”?
How can we control their feeble little minds if we can’t control the rest of them?
Fantastic ad copy! I love all the turns of words. Beautifully done and very persuasive.
Lovely arguments, but not necessary to have an RV for this.
The sad thing is that parents (and society) are so neurotic, scared, judged and judgy these days (me included) that they (we) would only allow for this natural thing to happen if there were reading additional parenting books, studies, and getting proofs and approval. It’s actually an additional burden on parents: to check, study, fight society, fight in court. And a burden of additional worry on the parents who find it hard to let go, the ones who are more worrying by nature.
If a parent is more protective – that’s also OK. Do we have to drive parents into terrible anxieties that they are ruining their children lives and also feel scared of dangers (however imaginary and irrational) so their children would have 20 more minutes of outdoor time?
Helicopter parenting is probably not good, but judgement (and the other side of it – feeling that you have all the answers and that your parenting is ‘perfect’) is worse. It weakens the parents, and that’s not good for anyone, regardless if they are free-ranging or helicoptering. There are extreme cases, but most kids eventually leave the nest, some earlier than others. It would be nice if everyone would be more relaxed and easy, just as it would be nice if everyone was healthy and rich and strong.
As much as this ad has beautiful pictures and wonderful activities that I loved and would love my daughter to be involved in, it, again, judges parents and is an additional parenting philosophy, burden, for parents to carry. So parents are getting the RV for the kids, not because they want to.
Kids will grow happier if their parents do things on vacation that they themselves enjoy. If the parents love art and history – maybe a trip to Europe and museums would be a lot more wild than a few days in a tent, annoyed, hot, sweaty and scratching from mosquito bugs. Not to mention worried about bears – are there any? What do I need to do against them? Studying the internet constantly for solutions. And vice versa. If the parents are nature freaks – the kids will (most probably) enjoy camping, as the parents are experts on it and enjoy showing the kids around. And will be bored in a city environment. Of course kids have their own characters and interests, and as families, we find a compromise of making sure everyone’s interests are met, if not on this outing, then on another outing. But why doesn’t it show how parents enjoy themselves while driving in an RV through beautiful landscapes? Oh, I know. Because parents are not supposed to enjoy themselves, they are slaves to their kids. Either during the school year, when they are scheduling all their activities, or when they have a summer vacation, and they have to finally give some nature to the kids. It’s sad that the ad that would work – is the one that, again, puts the blame on the parents. If you buy an RV – you will undo the harm that you did before. And again – the ad puts the kids in charge and the most important people in the family. Now, parents, you should do the other parenting thing we told you: the children will be without you. This way you can put a checkmark on the emotionally empowering box, so your kids will develop. How about just live and let live?
Sorry this is confusing. Love the ad, don’t love the subtext.
@ Miriam Drukker…
Helicopter parents are not being put in jail and having their kids removed from them because they let them play in their own yard, or in a neighborhood park. People trying to give their kids a little freedom and a childhood similar to their own are.
People will always make judgements on various parenting movements. People will always talk a bit of trash. Attachment Parents fight with those who let their kids cry it out, and in the process someone always comes up with more ridiculous so called studies saying letting your child cry for 5 min causes irreversible brain damage and life long trauma. This is excessive enough, but those suffering from a hysterical need to call the police and scream neglect when they see a child playing are the ones who need a friendly reminder to not judge too harshly or be an irrational jackass. I don’t see people calling the police because a mom is following her child around, holding on to the back of their bullet proof vest, leash, helmet or knee pads as they play on the playground. If people were planning on doing that, they would be doing it already. I can’t say the helicopters are quite as kind to other parents.
Love the ad and love Dingbat’s remark.
FABULOUS! The odd thing is, when we took our 3 week Great American Roadtrip last summer (in a pop-up pulled by our trusty 13 year old minivan) some of those campgrounds (not state parks) had weird rules (if you read the handout) that kids under 12, or 14, or whatever, must be supervised, even (or maybe particularly) in the bathrooms. I was not about to let it stop my 10 year old from walking around the campground or going to the bathroom (daytime – we had an inside potty for ovenight) without us (he’s progressing nicely for a kid on the spectrum with ADHD)! And mostly kids in these parks ARE free-ranging on bikes, etc. I really wondered if it didn’t have to do with bad behavior, but why not say so? If we’d ever been spoken to about these so-called rules, they would have gotten an earful (and a retraction of my credit card payment if we had to leave). In retrospect, I should probably have said a nice little piece to all these places as we were leaving. I promise to do so if we run into the same in the Upper Penisula this summer (Spread the Free-Range Movement!).
@Betsy in Michigan
” promise to do so if we run into the same in the Upper Penisula this summer (Spread the Free-Range Movement!).”
I’ve been to the UP a number of times and it’s the last place I’d expect to go helicopter-y.
(But maybe we have indeed helicoptered the ‘last place’. Alas.)
Reminds me of when I could roam the woods and creek that you could enter from our back yard. My friends and I would be gone for hours.
It’s a good commercial, though I agree you don’t need an RV for this. Also the ad could use more girls.
Great video. I shared it. Thanks!
Fantastic!!!
LOVE this video and agree that children need time and space to be “wild”.
Most of the favorite vacation and family memories are from when they were left to their own devises, no expense of a park admission, mostly just floating in lakes, or fishing/clamming/crabbing and no expectations. Letting them build massive bonfires and satisfy their inner pyromaniacs and eat dinner on sticks or cooked by fire. Getting back to the basics and nature is such a stress reliever and gets the kids to really interact with each other more than anything else. The RV part doesn’t even bother me, it’s such a refreshing message.
Makes me want to cook burnt s’mores right now.
Excellent Video!
However, there is another problem. Not all kids want that. This type of childhood has been absent for so long that many people (not just kids) are ‘afraid’ of experiencing any discomfort. The idea of getting dirty/muddy may come with an uncomfortable temperature.
I get along great with my son. It wasn’t always that way. We had some rough times during the teen years. Anyway, sometimes I tease him about how he was. I mock him.
Me – Daniel. How about I take you to the races?
Me pretending that I’m Daniel – Nah. It might be boring. I might get bored. I don’t want to risk it. I can’t take that chance!
My family will be going camping this weekend to a place we try to go at least once a year. Every time we go, we see kids and grownups alike biking all around (and not always together) and just having a great time. My kids met and visited with other kids and even (gasp!) went into their RVs. No, I didn’t know those families, and no nothing bad happened to my children. The overall atmosphere of the place is of a friendly neighborhood. We let them bike and roam around to the various playgrounds and they had a blast. (Of course, now that they are older, they prefer the fishing to the playgrounds!)
“However, there is another problem. Not all kids want that.”
That’s not a problem. That’s just the way some kids are, and there’s nothing wrong with that. There were kids who didn’t particularly want to go outside and play before I was born. There were kids who didn’t want to go outside and play when I was young, there are kids who don’t want to go outside and play now, and there will be kids who don’t want to go outside and play long after I’m gone.
Kids should have the opportunity to play outside on their own, but if some of them have other ideas of what is fun, that’s their business. Children shouldn’t be robbed of these experiences, but they shouldn’t be forced, either.
Once upon a time, we had something called “Outdoor School”. Take a couple of schools’ worth of sixth-graders, take ’em out into the world (to a summer camp that isn’t being used in the fall and spring) and teach them about nature in a more natural setting. Some of them loved it. Some of them hated it. (Of course, this isn’t a perfect parallel… Outdoor School is still school, after all.)
We’ve had great experiences at state parks, KOAs, etc. I wonder if it attracts lower budget travelers who can’t (or won’t) spent $50 or more a day for their kid to be in an activity camp all day in somewhere like Key Largo (an actual friend did that, very common, Disney is also well known for helicoptering/entertaining kids on cruises in exchange for a decent chunk of change).
I love this commercial, I first saw it a couple years ago; it starts running in the springtime on Canadian TV.
I think some people are reading waaaaay too much into it– of course you don’t NEED an RV and I don’t think GoRVing.ca was trying to imply that parents should be slaves to their kids and henceforth restrict all vacations to RV trips, or that camping is the only way to reach your child’s full developmental potential.
I really don’t think we need to pick apart every detail and analyze all possible messages that can be inferred from the subtext. They’re simply trying to promote RVing, lol. Personally, I couldn’t care less about the RVing part– I just LOVE the free-range message. If only a small handful of parents out there are influenced to go camping with their kids or just loosen the reins a bit on their kid’s freedom in general, I’d be happy.
@James
Ok, I’ll rephrase it. Instead of saying ‘It’s a problem’, I’ll instead say that it is unfamiliar territory
I wonder sometimes if the anti-free range world will even recognize itself one day – either in the rear view mirror, or the one its staring into in that future present.
Wildhood.
What a wonderful word.
I remember being not quite tame.
But what’s it worth? What is its true value?
Does it lead to non-compliance?
It could lead to almost anything imaginable, I suppose.
What’s a kid to treasure? (remembered later in life.) Countless thousands of unsupervised hours – out somewhere in some public realm.
“Free” time. What a lovely concept.
As if……..time isn’t quite ‘free’ anymore.
As if – the cost of it has become quite unaffordable, for some, many, most.
But then, time should always be regarded as a precious commodity.
(on second thought – strike that word, commodity.)
Gift…..as in free (though many do buy it after all, one way or another.)
One other thing. If free time is granted without being demanded, then it becomes a matter of course that such free time come under the ownership of a kid’s imagination.
Do kids live their own lives anymore, or some imagined state of existence of their elders?
Not directly related, but I wonder how much tent camping with kids has gone by the wayside. Those RVs can be expensive, and many require a truck-type vehicle to pull.
We tent camp (although I dream of a pop-up!) and I don’t really see that many tents at our state parks anymore. I hope the lack of an RV is not stopping families from going camping.
Oh everyone. The stories I could tell of restrictive RV campground policies re:children. And not thinly veiled as “for safety.” I don’t even want to join my parents in their RV anymore. So many Boomers who dislike their quite disrupted by my children’s joyful (and reasonably behaved) sounds. Tent and pop-up tent camping is still friendly and that’s where we try to keep it. State and Nat’l parks where stays are limited seem to bring more families in RVs…but I prefer to camp away from extended stay or RV Clubs.
What I see are people who are caught between being helicopter grandparents and adhering to an older “children should be seen & not heard” philosophy. Because helicoptering & restrictive parenting really is societal and not about being a parent of minors.
“Guns don’t make neighborhoods safe.
Knowing our neighbors is what makes for safety at home.”
Go meet the neighbors.
Or, better, send the children out to meet the neighborhood kids and their parents.
What about being allowed to get hungry & thirsty and go find something to eat / drink?
I’m getting mad about a discussion on facebook. A mom/coach says there is a boy on her team who, twice last week, got hungry. She bought him a hotdog and gatorade each time. (I’d get hungry again too if I was that age and got rewarded that way.) The parent drops him off and picks him up, coach doesn’t see the parent as much as she thinks the parent should stay and watch. One time the kid waited an hour after practice to be picked up. No age given, but I’m assuming at least 10yo based on the general context.
Several commenters are encouraging her to “make a call” to the authorities.
I said, oh my, at least talk to the parents first and discuss snack options!
Then one “experienced” commenter said she wouldn’t do that because some parents are mean and will punish the kid for saying he was hungry.
Am I the only person who thinks that is crazy?
Also, am I the only one who thinks, if you did NOT buy the kid a hotdog and gatorade, maybe he would learn to bring a snack in the future?
And also, as a parent who drops off and picks up and does not know exactly when my kid is going to feel hungry, I guess I have one more thing to worry about. :/
I’d love to see an ad like this but with a city lens. Shots of kids walking, biking, and playing in a city (streets, parks, etc.) with similar wording and only some minor changes:
…Kids want their neighborhoods back. They want to play, not have playdates. They want you to get dirty, not sanitized. They want you to trade your helicopter for a bike, your parenting books for a bug net. They want to wander, be left alone for more than five minutes…
…they want to play in a vacant lot, come home when the street lights come on. They want to walk to the corner store, play in the street…
..visit their neighbor without a chaperone, they want to run, skip, and roam free. Let’s give them back what they are truly missing, let’s give them back their NEIGHBORhoods.
SKL, that’s absurd. I can think of no sport where outdoor practices last more than two hours. No kid is going to starve from being unanticipatedly hungry for two hours.
I agree with “ask the parent.” Parents can be clueless; goodness knows I have been at times. For example, if this is the oldest boy (or even the oldest kid) in the family, the parent may not yet have twigged to his rapidly increasing food intake at that age. Maybe the schedule does need to be adjusted so the kid can have a snack before practice, or maybe the kid’s just a bottomless pit who needs to tolerate going without food for two hours between adequate feedings. Or maybe the kid just figured out how to wangle a free hot dog every day after simply uttering the normal teen/preteen complaint of “I’m hungry.”
Going straight to the assumption that there’s a significant likelihood that you have an abusive parent who would punish a kid for “saying he’s hungry” is just insane.
As for him being picked up an hour late, that could be a sign of a problem. Or, it could be a sign that the parent ran into some kind of minor emergency or delay that day. If this mom is on buying food terms with the kid, seems like asking him, “Hey, I noticed your mom was really late the other day, is everything okay?” is a fair question to ask. That would almost be like, gosh, treating the kid and his family like people, instead of like a social problem for someone else to deal with.
My first thought about why kid had to wait (allegedly) an hour for pickup: the parent may have thought they would be playing / practicing longer than they were.
My second thought: a school-aged kid can figure out a way to occupy himself for an hour outdoors! He could practice his sport skills or look for bugs in the grass or figure out a way to make art out of the loose landscape features, like all of us did all day every Saturday! Maybe his mom told him she might be late and he should read a book or something. Well, the social worker commenter did agree that picking the kid up late is NOT neglect.
“I can think of no sport where outdoor practices last more than two hours. No kid is going to starve from being unanticipatedly hungry for two hours.”
Marching band had 12-hour days. The football team and cheer team were comparable. They all share the same field/stadium, and all want to use it, so it’s in use whenever there’s daylight, and there’s a LOT of daylight in August.
—
“My second thought: a school-aged kid can figure out a way to occupy himself for an hour outdoors!”
It’s not uncommon for a coach to stick around until all the kids have been picked up or otherwise accounted for. I wouldn’t DEMAND that this happen, but I wouldn’t be surprised by it and if I knew I would be late picking up the child, I’d want to let the coach know. My kid can sit, but coach may have better things to do.
(In the story, the person knows that the kid wasn’t picked up for an hour. That means that somebody stuck around for an hour to see how long it was before the kid got picked up.)
“I can think of no sport where outdoor practices last more than two hours.”
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/08/28/435416018/the-secret-to-japans-little-league-success-10-hour-practices
Yes I know some coaches are required to stick around until the last kid leaves, but maybe the parents of this child did not know that, or again, did not think the activity ended that early. This happened one time, not habitually.
What I’ve done is told my kids to walk from one activity to another place, if I would not be picking them up immediately after the activity. I’ve told the coach so she doesn’t have to worry about why my kids are walking off without an adult.
I’ve been late picking my kids up more times than I care to remember over the years. Traffic at certain times can be very unpredictable. Sometimes I get delayed by a work issue and can’t leave my computer in the middle of it. I actually wish it was NOT the norm for every single parent to be there early (or sit there and watch the practice) – the coaches could just plan on hanging around/packing up for the last 10 minutes or so, big deal. But it seems like a big deal when it’s just my kids and 3 coaches standing around 5 minutes after the announced practice end time. Or my kid is already calling me on her cell 1 minute after end time. “Where are you?” Really? Look up, I’m in the parking lot.
A lot of things that tugged at the heartstrings. Unfortunate to exclude PoC from the narrative.
Many years of tent camping under our belts. Had to laugh about the reader who worried about kids going to campground bathrooms by themselves. In the more far out campgrounds we frequented years ago, the problem was getting the little boys to USE the bathroom instead of the woods. And sometimes the girls too. Hah!
Thank you James Pollock. I’ll remember your valuable contribution next time I see a child so young that he can’t figure out how to bring money and buy himself a hot dog in a 12-hour marching band practice.
BL, I’m assuming SKL wasn’t in Japan. 🙂
“Thank you James Pollock. I’ll remember your valuable contribution next time I see a child so young that he can’t figure out how to bring money and buy himself a hot dog in a 12-hour marching band practice.”
Too bad you’ll probably forget that there’s nobody to buy a hotdog from during those marching band practices.
Yeah…..so why were marching band practices even relevant in the first place?
You do realize that when normal people have conversations, there’s something called “context?” When I say i can’t think of sports that have over two hour outdoor practices, I’m not talking about every sport engaged in by every possible person anywhere in the world.
I’m talking about something that could be relevant to the conversion. it doesn’t look smart when you “lawyer” everyday conversation that’s not intended as a court brief. It looks like you can’t understand the subtleties of normal human conversation and social interaction.
Sorry, “relevant to the conversation.”
@pentamom-
Yup. Context is so important. Sports practices around here range from 1 hour for the youngest ones to 2.5-3 hrs. for high school. 1.5 hours (6-7:30) is the most common time.
It sounds like a simple solution to just have this kid bring his own $ to buy something from the snack stand or make a suggestion to this kid that he could pack a granola bar to hold him over.
Some kids are always hungry. They’re growing and get hangry…my son was like this and always had money for a pretzel after practice.
These sports complex parks are perfectly fine for kids to wait for an occasional late pickup. They have playgrounds and plenty of kids and parents.
If I found myself late and not able to get my kid, this would probably be an ideal place, full of friends.
I wouldn’t hesitate to buy a kid a cheap hotdog and water if they were super hungry- once. If they make it a habit, the kid is working you over and you need to let them know to be prepared. That’s all.
I think making it a parenting issue is a bit sanctimonious. We can problem solve better than this. Get that kid a wallet.
“Yeah…..so why were marching band practices even relevant in the first place?”
Well, the discussion was about worrying about whether or not noticing that someone else’s kid was hungry after sports practice indicates that that kid was abused or neglected.
Then you made a pronouncement from on high that no, of course it doesn’t, because sports practices don’t last very long, and kids can go that long without eating just fine.
I provided three examples of sports practices that do last long enough to cause an empty-handed athlete to miss a meal or two, and you then proceeded to lose your shit over the fact that reality conflicts with your premise, like it’s MY fault somehow that you didn’t know what you were talking about.
” it doesn’t look smart when you ‘lawyer’ everyday conversation that’s not intended as a court brief.”
How smart does it look when you complain about being “lawyered” in a conversation that doesn’t actually have any in it?
Say, here’s an idea. The next time you make an argument built on a false premise, and someone points out your false premise, maybe DON’T get all defensive, and reply with snark and condescension; maybe just look at the false premise underlying your argument, and then make a better one.
And for God’s sake, don’t simultaneously try to lawyer your way out of being wrong by claiming something about how “context” means that your blanket statement shouldn’t be read as a blanket statement, while AT THE SAME TIME whining about how the other guy is “lawyering” you. It looks like you can’t understand the subtleties of normal human conversation and social interaction.
In the context of the sports coach’s posts, it did not appear that the practices or games were very long.
If they were multiple hours long, at least in the USA with kids young enough to need rides, provision would have been made to ensure all the kids had access to food and water. The implication was that this kid was the only kid who got hungry. If we were talking about a 12-hour marching band practice or similar, (a) more than one kid would get hungry and (b) we’d be talking about [probably privileged] high school kids who are hopefully expected to make provisions for their own stomachs.
PS I don’t pack food or water for my kids’ activities, even the ones that are hours long. That is my kids’ responsibility. They are 10. If they forget once, they won’t forget next time. I do make sure they get a few meals a day (some of which are their responsibility to prepare). And they have access to a kitchen full of food when they are home. If that’s neglect, I guess I am in trouble.
@SKL- I don’t pack for my kids either. They have bags with lots of pockets and are perfectly capable of squirreling away snacks and refilling water bottles.
As a coach for girls teams with ages from 7-12, I’ve heard just about every complaint there is- “I’m hungry” or “I’m tired” or “I don’t feel good” etc. They love to tell you everything they are feeling! I’ve only ever brought extra water on hot days for refills or a treat for end of the season. My reply to an “I’m hungry” kid is to tell them that exercise and sports definitely burns calories and that I hope their next meal is a big one. I wouldn’t think any bad thoughts about the kids parents.
“In the context of the sports coach’s posts, it did not appear that the practices or games were very long.”
Nor does it matter.
“If they were multiple hours long, at least in the USA with kids young enough to need rides, provision would have been made to ensure all the kids had access to food and water”
The provision was a letter that said “have your child bring food and at least two bottles of water”. Assuming you consider 11 years old “young enough to need rides”. Middle-school band was year-round, with the major performances at the end of the year. (Unlike the high-school band, they don’t perform at football games, but they do have three parades in May and June.). If you consider 13 years old “young enough to need rides”, the high-school schedule is more grueling, because they have performances at home football games as well as a competition schedule of their own in the fall (and a separate competition schedule in the winter and spring that is indoors)
“The implication was that this kid was the only kid who got hungry.”
No, the implication was this kid was the only kid who didn’t have anything to eat.
” If we were talking about a 12-hour marching band practice or similar, (a) more than one kid would get hungry and (b) we’d be talking about [probably privileged] high school kids who are hopefully expected to make provisions for their own stomachs.”
Well, both (a) and (b) are true, but so is (c) middle school students who are (definitely) expected to make provisions for their own stomachs.
“PS I don’t pack food or water for my kids’ activities, even the ones that are hours long.”
Neither did I.
” And they have access to a kitchen full of food when they are home. If that’s neglect, I guess I am in trouble.”
Who have you run into that told you this is neglect? And why would you take their opinion seriously?
James, are you on the closed facebook group where this discussion was going on? If not, you can’t override me regarding the interpretation of facts and implications in the posts that were made there.
I’m not sure what your point is other than to tell other people they are wrong at every opportunity, whether it matters to the discussion or not. Perhaps you need to get a new hobby.
“are you on the closed facebook group where this discussion was going on?”
Are you aware that this is not Facebook, and it is not closed?
Are you aware that “what you implied” and “what you (perhaps) meant to imply” are different things?
“Perhaps you need to get a new hobby.”
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Are you of the opinion that this is something upon which your opinion is valued, sought, or desired?
You’re the one who took time out from your busy schedule to tell me about what my child experienced, based on your extensive experience of apparently having no children of similar age. And decided to label her as “probably privileged” while you were at it.
“you can’t override me regarding the interpretation of facts and implications in the posts that were made there.”
Perhaps not. But I can work with the facts and implications offered here (which, DUH, is what I did, and never suggested, claimed, argued, or any other verbed otherwise.)
Given the facts that 1) ” A mom/coach says there is a boy on her team who, twice last week, got hungry.” and 2) “She bought him a hotdog and gatorade each time.”, what can you infer?
Let’s see. coach bought the kid a hot dog, on two separate occasions. This implies that there is a place to buy a hot dog (on two separate occasions), which implies that a hot dog vendor of some sort finds this a worthwhile place to offer hot dogs for sale, which implies that people buy hot dogs at this location with some frequency, which implies that people are hungry enough to purchase hot dogs at this location. OK so far? Now… who do we know is at this location? Well, we know that there is a coach, which implies athletes, and a child, which implies that the athletes are children.
So. Do you see what’s missing from the list of inferences above? That’s right, the inference that one, and only one, child was hungry. Do you see what ELSE is missing from the list of inferences above? Right again… you can’t infer anything about this kid’s home life from the tiny bit of information available.
“I’m not sure what your point is other than to tell other people they are wrong at every opportunity,”
I can see how you would reach this conclusion, if you ignored everything that doesn’t fit with this expectation.
I’ve referred to your comments several times in this thread… Agreeing with you more often than not. That you choose to pick fights over the other times… that’s your choice. Perhaps you need a new hobby?
Hey Mr. Know It All? This is how SKL started her post: “I’m getting mad about a discussion on facebook. A mom/coach says there is a boy on her team who, twice last week, got hungry.”
Unless you were part of that particular discussion, you don’t get to decide what people in that discussion meant, implied, or got wrong.
I know it’s hard to believe that there may be a situation that you weren’t involved in and don’t have all the answers for, but try.
“Hey Mr. Know It All? This is how SKL started her post: ‘I’m getting mad about a discussion on facebook. A mom/coach says there is a boy on her team who, twice last week, got hungry.’â€
Hey Ms. Know-nothing?
I should stop there, because it really says all that needs to be said. But no, I’d better be thorough.
“Unless you were part of that particular discussion, you don’t get to decide what people in that discussion meant, implied, or got wrong.”
Mind pointing out where I decided what people in that discussion meant, implied, or got wrong?
Can’t? OK, then. Glad that’s over with.
“I know it’s hard to believe that there may be a situation that you weren’t involved in and don’t have all the answers for, but try.”
You’re aware that this applies equally well to you, right? Presumably, you knew that when you decided this thing needed just one more comment, right?
Christ on a stick, what would have happened if I’d actually DISagreed about this?
James, there were lots of statements in the facebook discussion that I did not repeat here. Therefore I have significantly more information than you have about what was said, meant, implied, etc. You don’t have to take my word for it, but you sound rather silly arguing with me about something I read and you didn’t read.
“What would happened if I DISagreed?” Probably the same thing, based on past experience. If you want your input to be valued, you might want to reduce the % of your comments that are irrelevant and argumentative just for the sake of argument. Generally I don’t even read your long comments because they are usually off on some tangent that few people care about.
“there were lots of statements in the facebook discussion that I did not repeat here”
OK. These are not important. How do I know? You implied this by leaving them out.
Or is your story that you intentionally left out important details?
” Therefore I have significantly more information than you have about what was said, meant, implied, etc. You don’t have to take my word for it, but you sound rather silly arguing with me about something I read and you didn’t read.”
Something you didn’t read…
I can work with the facts and implications offered here (which, DUH, is what I did, and never suggested, claimed, argued, or any other verbed otherwise.)
“Generally I don’t even read your long comments because they are usually off on some tangent that few people care about.”
I admire your honesty. You don’t often run into people who straight-up admit they don’t read things, but feel qualified to talk about them anyways. (Yes, this one is last on purpose…) Of course, you didn’t have to admit this, it’s obvious.
I’ve referred to your comments several times in this thread… Agreeing with you more often than not. That you choose to pick fights over the other times… that’s your choice.
Perhaps with this now in the FRONT of a comment, you’ll bother to read it. Perhaps even take it to heart.
But I doubt it.
James: “I’ve referred to your comments several times in this thread… Agreeing with you more often than not. That you choose to pick fights over the other times… that’s your choice.”
I did notice that you said the above at least twice. However, I don’t see anyplace on this thread where you expressed agreement with me, or any other commenter for that matter. Every single comment you made is a pick on something another person said. Usually one that adds nothing relevant to the discussion.
“I don’t see anyplace on this thread where you expressed agreement with me, or any other commenter for that matter. Every single comment you made is a pick on something another person said. Usually one that adds nothing relevant to the discussion.”
I choose to no longer wallow in your negativity.
That you choose to pick fights… that’s your choice.
Own it.
@SKL- Some people are like poison ivy. Best to avoid contact. Resulting irritation is truly not worth it.
Agree with all the free range things in the ad, but those giant RVs and big lighted tents at night require a lot of money and energy. Let’s not fuel consumerism / materialism in order to get our wildhoods back. In the 1960s and 1970s, my family drove coast-to-coast (5 times) with 3 kids in a VW minivan, camping sometimes on the side of the road or staying at friends’ houses.