Say it positive (ly)

"Dave Stallard" wrote in message
. ..
**** Correction ****
I mistakenly placed the word "don't" in the sentence. Sentence should read,
"I think the masses that spoil their....."

I don't think the masses that spoil their children, foster no discipline
and reward negative behavior do so because of poor parenting skills and
falsely believing they are doing justice to their children.

I do! I think exactly that. It's not fear of the law, it's fear of
being a "bad person", fear of being "authoritarian", fear of their child
not liking them. Fear of their child, period. Pathetic to witness. I
actually find the parent more annoying than the child sometimes. All their
neuroses on full display.

Children need love AND discipline. Take away either one, you've got a bad
outcome.

Dave
You're right about that Dave.

JQ
Dancing on the edge

ant wrote:

Dave Stallard wrote:

It nauseates me when I overhear some parents talking to their
children. Their every sentence is a query about the current state of
the child's desires. Yuck.

If a kid is really hurt, he'll let you know. Asking "Are you OK?" whenever a
kid falls down does NOT encourage self-sufficiency.

So many parents currently try to negotiate with their kids. I wish they'd
give up, and impose some rules and boundaries. Kids feel a lot more secure
with that kind of black and white, they know their world and they know
someone cares enough to impose rules.

That's the theory. When I look back, at the time I thought the rules imposed
by "caring people" were pretty dumb. I still do. There are rules generated
by love -- "If you run out into the street like that again you won't be able
to sit down for a week" -- and rules generated by convenience -- "You have to
go to bed at 8:00 because I'll strangle you if you don't" but the existence of
rules has very little to do with security -- it's a pretty stupid kid who
doesn't realize that the rules get broken and people get hurt all the time
even when they do follow the rules. Kids need rules to keep them alive and to
keep them from bothering other people. That's about it. The definitions of
safety and inoffensiveness, of course, become more and more complex as the kid
gets older.

Negotiating with kids is nuts, and it doesn't bloody work.

Of course not, they always win. The negotiation itself is a form of winning.

I think it was Erma Bombeck who said "You have to do what we say because we're
bigger than you are and we have all the money." Hard to improve on that.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== =
Salesmen welcome -- dog food is expensive

ant wrote:
Dave Stallard wrote:


It nauseates me when I overhear some parents talking to their
children. Their every sentence is a query about the current state of
the child's desires. Yuck.


So many parents currently try to negotiate with their kids. I wish they'd
give up, and impose some rules and boundaries. Kids feel a lot more secure
with that kind of black and white, they know their world and they know
someone cares enough to impose rules.
Negotiating with kids is nuts, and it doesn't bloody work.



Yup, ant, the expert on relationships (never having had one ... couldn't
ever get one) is the expert on kids, too. The world is better off,
because she'll never have any.

"Dave Stallard" wrote in message

Is he nuts? Lack of simple discipline from parents is a huge problem. If
you can't say no at 6, when WILL you be able to say no?. Never.

Who are you again? I lose track.

I don't read those who do the flame threads thing, as I've had
really bad impressions of most of those people. Waste of time
really.

Anyway.

If a one year old is sticking their hand in the outlet or rolling the
five hundred dollar vase along the carpet,

One parent will sit on their butt on the couch and say
"NO".

Another parent will get off their butt, go over to the one
year old with a toy and say, "Here, play with this instead"

If a child does it again, the parent will go over again and
again until that particular issue falls into the past, because the
child loses attention span for that item, or some such thing
happens. Not a bad idea because the child can't even
really speak or understand in that vocal way yet anyway.

Now, in fact, the latter *is* a way of saying no, about
one hundred times as effective and desirable as the first,
because it gives the child an alternative behavior, which
a lazy "no" does not, and because you get a positive,
confident, high self image child instead of a negative, low
self image child.

One is the dumb, lazy butt moron's way, the other is the
way of a parent who *really* cares about the outcome of
his child rearing, actively *plans* the way he will raise his
or her child, and works hard to implement it.

You don't *hardly ever* need the word no. Maybe once in
a long while you might...but I'm not sure I can think of that
example. You tell me one thing that can't be stated in a
positive or a negative way. Tell me one thing you can't state
as well in the positive nature

And I wish parents would use it a lot more, and mean it.

It nauseates me when I overhear some parents talking to their children.
Their every sentence is a query about the current state of the child's
desires. Yuck.

Well, that's clearly not good either. If you don't set bounds and
stick with them the child will be insecure, precisely because they
don't know where the bounds are, so there is nothing they can
trust or count on. The child will not learn positive self image,
judgement or impulse control.

I wonder something about you Dave. Did you have a happy
childhood? I know that sound like the cliche of all time,
but I wonder.

"Jimmy, don't go out of the corral", said in a directive,
authoritarian, perhaps, "I'm adult you're child do it" way,
simply isn't as effective as smiling at Jimmy, and saying
"keep inside the corral". If he pushes the point, of course
you have to escalate, and you might even need to give
a consequence, but that difference in attitude toward the
child alone might very well diffuse the situation. It shows
respect and concern for the child. The child can see that respect
and concern for them. They respond. Even if you had to escalate,
you could *still* say it all in a positive way, even if at the top
of your lungs.

Do you know the best way to correct a child on the slopes, in
view of your mission as an ambassador of fun? You sure don't
want to come off like a vice principal.


Dave

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message ...

foot2foot wrote:

Don't cross your tips.

Are you saying I should buy a snowboard?


Nah, then you'll be subject to those upper body injuries.
Stick with skis, it's a lot safer, and when it comes right
down to it, you can do more with skis. There's things
you just can't do with a snowboard.

Just keep your tips from crossing. Learn the beginner turn
if you're a beginner, then ski and have fun on the blues,
then "improve" as time goes on if that's what you want to do.

Learn the elements of skiing, and learn to use and blend them
as you wish to, for whatever reasons you desire to.

Really, it's all about *you*.

In article ,
"foot2foot" wrote:



"Dave Stallard" wrote in message

Is he nuts? Lack of simple discipline from parents is a huge problem. If
you can't say no at 6, when WILL you be able to say no?. Never.

Who are you again? I lose track.

I don't read those who do the flame threads thing, as I've had
really bad impressions of most of those people. Waste of time
really.

Anyway.

If a one year old is sticking their hand in the outlet or rolling the
five hundred dollar vase along the carpet,

One parent will sit on their butt on the couch and say
"NO".

Another parent will get off their butt, go over to the one
year old with a toy and say, "Here, play with this instead"

If a child does it again, the parent will go over again and
again until that particular issue falls into the past, because the
child loses attention span for that item, or some such thing
happens. Not a bad idea because the child can't even
really speak or understand in that vocal way yet anyway.

Now, in fact, the latter *is* a way of saying no, about
one hundred times as effective and desirable as the first,
because it gives the child an alternative behavior, which
a lazy "no" does not, and because you get a positive,
confident, high self image child instead of a negative, low
self image child.

One is the dumb, lazy butt moron's way, the other is the
way of a parent who *really* cares about the outcome of
his child rearing, actively *plans* the way he will raise his
or her child, and works hard to implement it.

You don't *hardly ever* need the word no. Maybe once in
a long while you might...but I'm not sure I can think of that
example. You tell me one thing that can't be stated in a
positive or a negative way. Tell me one thing you can't state
as well in the positive nature

And I wish parents would use it a lot more, and mean it.

It nauseates me when I overhear some parents talking to their children.
Their every sentence is a query about the current state of the child's
desires. Yuck.

Well, that's clearly not good either. If you don't set bounds and
stick with them the child will be insecure, precisely because they
don't know where the bounds are, so there is nothing they can
trust or count on. The child will not learn positive self image,
judgement or impulse control.

I wonder something about you Dave. Did you have a happy
childhood? I know that sound like the cliche of all time,
but I wonder.

"Jimmy, don't go out of the corral", said in a directive,
authoritarian, perhaps, "I'm adult you're child do it" way,
simply isn't as effective as smiling at Jimmy, and saying
"keep inside the corral". If he pushes the point, of course
you have to escalate, and you might even need to give
a consequence, but that difference in attitude toward the
child alone might very well diffuse the situation. It shows
respect and concern for the child. The child can see that respect
and concern for them. They respond. Even if you had to escalate,
you could *still* say it all in a positive way, even if at the top
of your lungs.

Do you know the best way to correct a child on the slopes, in
view of your mission as an ambassador of fun? You sure don't
want to come off like a vice principal.


Dave


Do you have any kids? Did you use this method? How old are they now and
how has it worked out?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

"Rockpile" wrote in message
news:MTEzNjU3NDk2My5waGF0cGhpbA.1136574963@nulluse r.com...
foot2foot wrote:

Waste of time
really.

You're right, your posts are a total waste of time. Like the old saying
goes "Opinions are like
assholes, everyone has one". The problem is you really are not qualified
to discuss childhood
development. Shut up and get an education.


One more time moron, I see you've changed your nick to
further stalk because you're compulsive and you can't
control it.

Do no email me, send me any viruses in the mail, make any
contact with any entity associated with me *in regard to me*
(our more simple minded posters have missed the point of that
little addendum) or you will face the legal consequences.
Basically, I will see you in prison. You belong there.


This is our moron posting out of cotse.com, who's been reported to
the FBI and warned not to make any contact with me.

I hereby allege this person is dangerous and may have stalked me
in real life.

Look at the email alias "that had to hurt". This person is
clearly a deranged moron.

Cotse, before too long you're going to realize that this clown isn't
worth the risk.

I hereby ask all appropriate Cotse employees to preserve the
identity of this poster in contemplation of civil and or criminal
action. If the matter comes to a head and it proves you have
not done this after such notice, some responsibility may well
fall on you. This is not a children's game we're playing now.

This poster is clearly deranged, and is at it again with their new
little nickname.

It's my problem, it's your problem.

Again, this is our moronic, dysfunctional, mentally ill stalker
being enabled by cotse.com.

I allege this person is dangerous and may have stalked me in
real life, has made threats against my personal safety and security,
and ask that cotse preserve the identity of this poster in anticipation
of civil or criminal action.

Everybody tell Steve, as if he doen't read the group.

This idiot isn't worth it guys. I'm not playing.

"Rockpile" wrote in message
news:MTEzNjU3NDQzNS5waGF0cGhpbA.1136574435@nulluse r.com...
foot2foot wrote:

snip

After all the child development and


pedriatric


This person is so intense and compulsive he/she does things like this.
This person is a liar and a stalker. Besides being an utter
moron. I'm surprised he/she was able to spend enough time on
the net to come up with Ericksen and Piaget. I see that's about
it for them though.

I'll have to say, more and more that this poster does remind
me of a particular individual.

courses I've taken, job experience, and having
two grown children, I can safely say that this either is a REAL troll or
you are a complete idiot.
Toddlers try to assert their independence by being negative (there's a
reason they call them
the "terrible twos"). I suggest you study Piaget's and Eriksen's Stages
of Development and
keep your child development theories to yourself. Limits have to be set.
Behavior has to be
addressed.

Once again, moron, do not attempt to make any contact with
me in real life by any means, nor make any inquiry in regard to
me, or take any action at all in regard to me in real life or I will
take criminal and civil action.

Good bye.

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"foot2foot" wrote:



"Dave Stallard" wrote in message

Is he nuts? Lack of simple discipline from parents is a huge problem.
If
you can't say no at 6, when WILL you be able to say no?. Never.

Who are you again? I lose track.

I don't read those who do the flame threads thing, as I've had
really bad impressions of most of those people. Waste of time
really.

Anyway.

If a one year old is sticking their hand in the outlet or rolling the
five hundred dollar vase along the carpet,

One parent will sit on their butt on the couch and say
"NO".

Another parent will get off their butt, go over to the one
year old with a toy and say, "Here, play with this instead"

If a child does it again, the parent will go over again and
again until that particular issue falls into the past, because the
child loses attention span for that item, or some such thing
happens. Not a bad idea because the child can't even
really speak or understand in that vocal way yet anyway.

Now, in fact, the latter *is* a way of saying no, about
one hundred times as effective and desirable as the first,
because it gives the child an alternative behavior, which
a lazy "no" does not, and because you get a positive,
confident, high self image child instead of a negative, low
self image child.

One is the dumb, lazy butt moron's way, the other is the
way of a parent who *really* cares about the outcome of
his child rearing, actively *plans* the way he will raise his
or her child, and works hard to implement it.

You don't *hardly ever* need the word no. Maybe once in
a long while you might...but I'm not sure I can think of that
example. You tell me one thing that can't be stated in a
positive or a negative way. Tell me one thing you can't state
as well in the positive nature

And I wish parents would use it a lot more, and mean it.

It nauseates me when I overhear some parents talking to their children.
Their every sentence is a query about the current state of the child's
desires. Yuck.

Well, that's clearly not good either. If you don't set bounds and
stick with them the child will be insecure, precisely because they
don't know where the bounds are, so there is nothing they can
trust or count on. The child will not learn positive self image,
judgement or impulse control.

I wonder something about you Dave. Did you have a happy
childhood? I know that sound like the cliche of all time,
but I wonder.

"Jimmy, don't go out of the corral", said in a directive,
authoritarian, perhaps, "I'm adult you're child do it" way,
simply isn't as effective as smiling at Jimmy, and saying
"keep inside the corral". If he pushes the point, of course
you have to escalate, and you might even need to give
a consequence, but that difference in attitude toward the
child alone might very well diffuse the situation. It shows
respect and concern for the child. The child can see that respect
and concern for them. They respond. Even if you had to escalate,
you could *still* say it all in a positive way, even if at the top
of your lungs.

Do you know the best way to correct a child on the slopes, in
view of your mission as an ambassador of fun? You sure don't
want to come off like a vice principal.


Dave


Do you have any kids? Did you use this method? How old are they now and
how has it worked out?

Alan, I've dealt with more two and three year olds
in this sense than you've ever *seen*.

In the cognitive sense I mean.

I've dealt with more children of all ages in this sense than
you've ever thought of.. It's part of what I do, or have done,
and it's really common knowledge.

You really should try it if you want the best for your kids. There
is always a positive way to say anything that can be said with a
"don't" or "no" sentence.

It works for kids of all ages, it's especially effective with
teens. Stay positive. You'll get a positive kid. Confident,
secure, happy.

Don't you teach? If so, then for sure you'd likely want to make
*only* positive statements to all your students. It's really good
for tips, trust me.

As far as you can see, you probably have a pretty happy
kid anyway, but, the positive approach does so much more.
Reward the behavior you want, ignore most of the behavior you
don't want and it will probably just go away, and if you absolutely
must, punish a behavior *and show the way to an alternative behavior*.

But even *still* you can keep it all in the positive nature.

In article ,
"foot2foot" wrote:



"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"foot2foot" wrote:



"Dave Stallard" wrote in message

Is he nuts? Lack of simple discipline from parents is a huge problem.
If
you can't say no at 6, when WILL you be able to say no?. Never.

Who are you again? I lose track.

I don't read those who do the flame threads thing, as I've had
really bad impressions of most of those people. Waste of time
really.

Anyway.

If a one year old is sticking their hand in the outlet or rolling the
five hundred dollar vase along the carpet,

One parent will sit on their butt on the couch and say
"NO".

Another parent will get off their butt, go over to the one
year old with a toy and say, "Here, play with this instead"

If a child does it again, the parent will go over again and
again until that particular issue falls into the past, because the
child loses attention span for that item, or some such thing
happens. Not a bad idea because the child can't even
really speak or understand in that vocal way yet anyway.

Now, in fact, the latter *is* a way of saying no, about
one hundred times as effective and desirable as the first,
because it gives the child an alternative behavior, which
a lazy "no" does not, and because you get a positive,
confident, high self image child instead of a negative, low
self image child.

One is the dumb, lazy butt moron's way, the other is the
way of a parent who *really* cares about the outcome of
his child rearing, actively *plans* the way he will raise his
or her child, and works hard to implement it.

You don't *hardly ever* need the word no. Maybe once in
a long while you might...but I'm not sure I can think of that
example. You tell me one thing that can't be stated in a
positive or a negative way. Tell me one thing you can't state
as well in the positive nature

And I wish parents would use it a lot more, and mean it.

It nauseates me when I overhear some parents talking to their children.
Their every sentence is a query about the current state of the child's
desires. Yuck.

Well, that's clearly not good either. If you don't set bounds and
stick with them the child will be insecure, precisely because they
don't know where the bounds are, so there is nothing they can
trust or count on. The child will not learn positive self image,
judgement or impulse control.

I wonder something about you Dave. Did you have a happy
childhood? I know that sound like the cliche of all time,
but I wonder.

"Jimmy, don't go out of the corral", said in a directive,
authoritarian, perhaps, "I'm adult you're child do it" way,
simply isn't as effective as smiling at Jimmy, and saying
"keep inside the corral". If he pushes the point, of course
you have to escalate, and you might even need to give
a consequence, but that difference in attitude toward the
child alone might very well diffuse the situation. It shows
respect and concern for the child. The child can see that respect
and concern for them. They respond. Even if you had to escalate,
you could *still* say it all in a positive way, even if at the top
of your lungs.

Do you know the best way to correct a child on the slopes, in
view of your mission as an ambassador of fun? You sure don't
want to come off like a vice principal.


Dave


Do you have any kids? Did you use this method? How old are they now and
how has it worked out?

Alan, I've dealt with more two and three year olds
in this sense than you've ever *seen*.

In the cognitive sense I mean.

I've dealt with more children of all ages in this sense than
you've ever thought of.. It's part of what I do, or have done,
and it's really common knowledge.

You really should try it if you want the best for your kids. There
is always a positive way to say anything that can be said with a
"don't" or "no" sentence.

It works for kids of all ages, it's especially effective with
teens. Stay positive. You'll get a positive kid. Confident,
secure, happy.

Don't you teach? If so, then for sure you'd likely want to make
*only* positive statements to all your students. It's really good
for tips, trust me.

As far as you can see, you probably have a pretty happy
kid anyway, but, the positive approach does so much more.
Reward the behavior you want, ignore most of the behavior you
don't want and it will probably just go away, and if you absolutely
must, punish a behavior *and show the way to an alternative behavior*.

But even *still* you can keep it all in the positive nature.

I notice you've avoided answering any of my questions...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."