# Babies



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

First, for context, I'm past my child rearing years. I survived those years, and brought up two adorable children. But even as a dad, I couldn't get excited about babies, especially someone else's newborns. I have always had to make a great effort to fake enthusiasm for anyone who proudly brings out their delivery room snapshots of their newborns or their son's or daughter's newborns, and so on. In fact, the photos almost make me feel a little sick. I've just never thought a newborn baby was very cute. 

These days, my coworkers shove their iPads and phones in my face with the latest from the delivery room of their daughters' or nieces' or whoever's brand new kid. I am finding it increasingly difficult to muster up a semblance of conventional courtesy and express any kind of emotional response. 

Maybe it's that I work mainly with women, and maybe they tend to feel more emotional about anybody's childbirth event. At the same time, my wife tells me she feels the same as I do, maybe even more intensely, since she, my second wife, has never had children and has never had any maternal yearnings or any wish to have children.

Am I anti-social? Weird? Am I alone in feeling this way?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

"You have to see the Baby!!"


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Children annoy me.

Babies are abhorrent.

Parent's self-gratifying and pointless appraisals of the latest dreary escapades of their futile offspring are irritating in extremis and I provide them with the shortest possible shrift, degenerating into outright hostility if they fail to cease their inconsequential mewlings.

.
.
.

.
.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

God, I admire that. I'm serious. I wish I had the guts to pull off providing "the shortest possible shrift, degenerating..." and so on. As it is, I think my coworkers think I'm more than a little antisocial, e.g., I hate the office birthday parties, I hate watercooler talk, etc. I'm very much an introvert and most of the people (again, mainly women) in my workplace are extreme extroverts.

May be a hazard of working as a "creative," especially in higher ed, I guess.



Shaver said:


> Children annoy me.
> 
> Babies are abhorrent.
> 
> Parent's self-gratifying and pointless appraisals of the latest dreary escapades of their futile offspring are irritating in extremis and I provide them with the shortest possible shrift, degenerating into outright hostility if they fail to cease their mewlings.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Someone remarked to my wife about somebody else's new baby, "It's a blessing!" To which my wife responded, "No, it's not. It's biological." 

I was very proud.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Duvel said:


> God, I admire that. I'm serious. I wish I had the guts to pull off providing "the shortest possible shrift, degenerating..." and so on. As it is, I think my coworkers think I'm more than a little antisocial, e.g., I hate the office birthday parties, I hate watercooler talk, etc. I'm very much an introvert and most of the people (again, mainly women) in my workplace are extreme extroverts.
> 
> May be a hazard of working as a "creative," especially in higher ed, I guess.


You should witness my response on those damnable (but mercifully rare) occasions when one of the inane breeders is inconsiderate enough to inflict one of their pitiful excrescences on the workplace.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Ha ha! I love it. I wish I could. I think I need a mentor in this.

Well, I don't feel so alone now. Thanks.



Shaver said:


> You should witness my response on those damnable (but mercifully rare) occasions when one of the *inane breeders* is inconsiderate enough to inflict one of their *pitiful excrescences* on the workplace.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Duvel said:


> First, for context, I'm past my child rearing years. I survived those years, and brought up two adorable children. But even as a dad, I couldn't get excited about babies, especially someone else's newborns. I have always had to make a great effort to fake enthusiasm for anyone who proudly brings out their delivery room snapshots of their newborns or their son's or daughter's newborns, and so on. In fact, the photos almost make me feel a little sick. I've just never thought a newborn baby was very cute.
> 
> These days, my coworkers shove their iPads and phones in my face with the latest from the delivery room of their daughters' or nieces' or whoever's brand new kid. I am finding it increasingly difficult to muster up a semblance of conventional courtesy and express any kind of emotional response.
> 
> ...


Men taking any more than a rather distant, polite interest in other people's babies I would say are rather creepy, so I don't think what you report is at all weird. However, in a work situation it's often useful, even necessary, to be able to conceal your true feelings about such matters. Smiling blandly can cover any manner of annoying situations when revealing your true thoughts might cause dismay, eventually leading to hostility.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Oh, yes. I'd like to stay gainfully employed for at least a few more years. I've become good at compartmentalizing, I think they call it, i.e., faking it. But the newborn news ordeal tests the limits.



Langham said:


> Men taking any more than a rather distant, polite interest in other people's babies I would say is rather creepy, so I don't think what you report is at all weird. However, in a work situation it's often useful, even necessary, to be able to conceal your true feelings about such matters. Smiling blandly can cover any manner of annoying situations when revealing your true thoughts might cause dismay, eventually leading to hostility.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Duvel said:


> First, for context, I'm past my child rearing years. I survived those years, and brought up two adorable children. But even as a dad, I couldn't get excited about babies, especially someone else's newborns. I have always had to make a great effort to fake enthusiasm for anyone who proudly brings out their delivery room snapshots of their newborns or their son's or daughter's newborns, and so on. In fact, the photos almost make me feel a little sick. I've just never thought a newborn baby was very cute.
> 
> These days, my coworkers shove their iPads and phones in my face with the latest from the delivery room of their daughters' or nieces' or whoever's brand new kid. I am finding it increasingly difficult to muster up a semblance of conventional courtesy and express any kind of emotional response.
> 
> ...


One of the signs of a civilized person is the ability to abide politely the behaviors of others that are merely annoying as opposed to morally bankrupt. I'd put the display of newborns into the merely annoying category.

Whether you choose to behave in a civilized fashion is of course up to you. (And yes, I'm aware that this response is pretty uncivilized.)


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ The whole business of workplace socialising can be deeply irritating - finding it so is by no means a sign of being some sort of sociopath. I have to say, in my experience women can be dreadful creatures to work with, endlessly finding entirely pointless ways to waste time, chattering, making noise, arranging people's lives for them quite unasked etc etc. Eventually this burden may become so intolerable that you will have to rearrange your work in such a way that they are largely excluded. But how?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I love babies, and love to hold them, play with them, etc. They are God's gifts. 
That said, a failure to impulsively enjoy babies the way I do is certainly not abnormal. People just differ. Birth order can be a factor, too. Other than our own, I'm generally more comfortable with babies than my wife. I suspect that is because she was last-born, while I was first. 
A genuine hostility to babies, on the other hand, is a pathology. Such folks need professional help.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> *Men taking any more than a rather distant, polite interest in other people's babies I would say are rather creepy*, so I don't think what you report is at all weird. However, in a work situation it's often useful, even necessary, to be able to conceal your true feelings about such matters. Smiling blandly can cover any manner of annoying situations when revealing your true thoughts might cause dismay, eventually leading to hostility.


A fine point Mr Langham.

As to concealing one's feelings, however - if I am accosted in respect of my disdain for information concerning progeny I merely counter that as I am considerate enough not to bore others with the minutia of my own hobbies then I quite reasonably expect that this allowance will be reciprocated.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaver said:


> A fine point Mr Langham.
> 
> As to concealing one's feelings, however - if I am accosted in respect of my disdain for information concerning progeny I merely counter that as I am considerate enough not to bore others with the minutia of my own hobbies then I quite reasonably expect that this allowance will be reciprocated.


There's certainly a place for the sort of response you advocate, Shaver, but in the USA that place is often the unemployment line.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I agree with all of this. At the same time, two of the best bosses I've worked for are women. For me, it seems to be the woman who is a coworker or a subordinate who becomes the problem. I'm not sure why exactly, but I think it does have something to do with the things you point out. The women I've known in leadership positions, on the other hand, like my bosses, tend to be professional and focused.

I realize I'm starting to sound a little sexist. I don't mean to.



Langham said:


> ^ The whole business of workplace socialising can be deeply irritating - finding it so is by no means a sign of being some sort of sociopath. I have to say, in my experience women can be dreadful creatures to work with, endlessly finding entirely pointless ways to waste time, chattering, making noise, arranging people's lives for them quite unasked etc etc. Eventually this burden may become so intolerable that you will have to rearrange your work in such a way that they are largely excluded. But how?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> A fine point Mr Langham.
> 
> As to concealing one's feelings, however - if I am accosted in respect of my disdain for information concerning progeny I merely counter that as I am considerate enough not to bore others with the minutia of my own hobbies then I quite reasonably expect that this allowance will be reciprocated.


In that case, perhaps it would be fair to characterise you - with absolutely no offence intended - as a blunt northerner? I, on the other hand, usually attempt to deploy a shallow semblance of diplomacy and tact in such situations, while all the time bottling up an inner rage, possibly at some risk to my long-term wellbeing.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

And Shaver, I share your view on boring others with this kind of thing. I was brought up to understand that it is impolite if not a sign of emotional immaturity to talk about oneself, and I volunteer very little about what I do outside of work to my coworkers, except when asked, and even then I keep limits on it. So, yes, I also find it a little surprising when coworkers have no reservations about revealing all about themselves.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> There's certainly a place for the sort of response you advocate, Shaver, but in the USA that place is often the unemployment line.


It is not a condition of employment in the UK that we must listen to the endless drivel of breeders. Nor did I realise that this was so in the States.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

I can appreciate the pride and happiness of parents and grandparents, but am rather bemused at the gushing enthusiasm of those (mainly women) who have no more connection to the event and participants than I do. I'm social enough, but co-worker's daughter's newborn doesn't rate highly on my interest scale.

I often suspect it's the same old tiresome "look at me being caring", emphasis on "look at me".


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> It is not a condition of employment in the UK that we must listen to the endless drivel of breeders. Nor did I realise that this was so in the States.


Of course not. Speaking as a "breeder" occasional dribble doesn't bother me in the least, but I normally try to avoid endless drivel of all kinds. Yet, I've visited this thread, which displays my remarkable tolerance for it!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I love babies, and love to hold them, play with them, etc. They are God's gifts.
> That said, a failure to impulsively enjoy babies the way I do is certainly not abnormal. People just differ. Birth order can be a factor, too. Other than our own, I'm generally more comfortable with babies than my wife. I suspect that is because she was last-born, while I was first.
> A genuine hostility to babies, on the other hand, is a pathology. Such folks need professional help.


Thanks Mike. I forgot that you were a Psychiatrist. I am deeply gratified that you have been able to tear yourself away from your myriad pressing engagements to provide your invaluable medical opinion.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Thanks Mike. I forgot that you were a Psychiatrist. I am deeply gratified that you have been able to tear yourself away from your myriad pressing engagements to provide your invaluable medical opinion.


Of course. All successful lawyers are part psychologist. But I am gratified to have gratified you, Shaver. My busy day is now virtually complete.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Of course. *All successful lawyers are part psychologist*. But I am gratified to have gratified you, Shaver. My busy day is now virtually complete.


Modest too, eh?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Thanks Mike. I forgot that you were a Psychiatrist. I am deeply gratified that you have been able to tear yourself away from your myriad pressing engagements to provide your invaluable medical opinion.


He didn't say you were crazy. He said people like you need help.

Stop putting words in the man's mouth, you baby-hater!!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Modest too, eh?


Given my recent previous failure at clarity, I thought accuracy was important.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Given my recent previous failure at clarity, I thought accuracy was important.


But not grammar? :devil:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> But not grammar? :devil:


Redundancy is not a grammatical error. But it is admittedly poor composition, just as pendanticism is poor comportment.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Redundancy is not a grammatical error. But it is admittedly poor composition, just as pendanticism is poor comportment.


There was no redundancy exhibited (your previous failure might not have been recent for all the casual reader knows) it was more that the coordinate adjectives were improperly punctuated, still, no matter.

Pedantry is a much more gainly choice of word, by the way. :icon_jokercolor:

.
.
.

.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> There was no redundancy exhibited (your previous failure might not have been recent for all the casual reader knows) it was more that the coordinate adjectives were improperly punctuated, still, no matter.
> 
> Pedantry is a much more gainly choice of word, by the way. :icon_jokercolor:
> 
> ...


You are right on "pedantry." Whether a comma is required between two adjectives turns on whether the two adjectives operate as coordinate adjectives. This is not an easy test actually, and I think I could argue that in the case of my post #25 the adjectives "recent" and "previous" do not operate as coordinates. But because the word "recent" necessarily implies "previous," I'm inclined to simply admit to the sin of redundancy (notwithstanding your kind exculpatory explanation, which really was what I thinking as I was composing) rather than explore the definitional boundaries of coordinate adjectives.

I must sign off and get to work. As is our custom, it is now your turn to conclude our exchange by declaring victory. ;-)


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaver said:


> It is not a condition of employment in the UK that we must listen to the endless drivel of breeders. Nor did I realise that this was so in the States.


It is a condition of usual employment-at-will that one generally get along with one's work colleagues.

When I worked for companies not owned by myself, I frequently found that my responses to office inanities (as I regarded them) were viewed as rude or even hostile by my colleagues. It didn't enhance my ability to continue drawing a paycheck.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

AWWWW -- Kootchie Kootchie KOOOOOOOOOO!


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

When I freelanced for a couple of years, I had to learn to hold my tongue when clients brought me to their office. And then I'd go home and bask in my freedom from all those inanities. Those were the days.



MaxBuck said:


> It is a condition of usual employment-at-will that one generally get along with one's work colleagues.
> 
> When I worked for companies not owned by myself, I frequently found that my responses to office inanities (as I regarded them) were viewed as rude or even hostile by my colleagues. It didn't enhance my ability to continue drawing a paycheck.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Well. Kids may be a bore but what topic isn't? The metal head that went to Slayer last night? The partier that "drank a ton" and banged 3 chicks? The fisherman that caught a 12" Largemouth? The golfer that shot par? Any type of boater? The car guy/girl? The biker guy/girl? ? The know it all? The Hippy? The sports junkie? The computer nerd? The 18 year old intern crying about how hard "life" is? The office religious freak? The office politician? The museum goer? The opera patron? The animal lover that puts their cat/dog/ferret/whatever on the family Christmas card? Train people? Airplane people? The world traveler and his/her photos of (insert trip here)? Wine fanatics? Beer fanatics?

Dare I say it.......... the Sartorialist?

Oh......If someone is going to bore me with their hobbies, I might damn well pull out a story about my kids, they are after all my main hobby...Holy smokes, I might even go so far as to mention the fact that I have a wife as well...If you want to cry on my shoulder about your flat tire last night, I might mention what I did last night as well.."I went swimming with the kids" is just as valid of a response as " I made dinner"...And if they don't like it...All the better ...:devil:


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

justonemore said:


> Well. Kids may be a bore but what topic isn't?


Right on target, j1m.

If we don't want to bore or annoy anyone we come into contact with, we'd best keep our mouths shut. Because everything annoys somebody.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

most babies i've seen look like Winston Churchill or Don Rickles


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

While I do not enjoy seeing baby pictures of a co-worker's niece or nephew (really, that's a bit far of a stretch concerning me), I must agree with a statement my employer shared recently: those in their 40s and beyond without children tend to be insufferable in an entirely different way. At some point, everyone should realize it's really not all about you. Children help that realization along.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I'm a father, and I'm genuinely excited when my friends have babies.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Kids as a hobby. I guess I never looked at parenthood quite that way. Maybe I would have enjoyed it more. 

Other peoples' kids are a bore to me. I have no interest. None. 

I especially don't want to look at the fresh products they just squished into the hands of the delivery room nurse.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> You are right on "pedantry." Whether a comma is required between two adjectives turns on whether the two adjectives operate as coordinate adjectives. *This is not an easy test actually*, and I think I could argue that in the case of my post #25 the adjectives "recent" and "previous" do not operate as coordinates. But because the word "recent" necessarily implies "previous," I'm inclined to simply admit to the sin of redundancy (notwithstanding your kind exculpatory explanation, which really was what I thinking as I was composing) rather than explore the definitional boundaries of coordinate adjectives.
> 
> I must sign off and get to work. As is our custom, it is now your turn to conclude our exchange by declaring victory. ;-)


It is a very easy test, actually.

Recent does not necessarily imply previous.

If our exchange is indeed concluded then, on this occasion, I shall allow the facts to speak for themselves.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

*Drriiiing! Drriiing!
*
Hello, this is the operator. I have Vincent Furnier on the line, will you accept the charges?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

universitystripe said:


> While I do not enjoy seeing baby pictures of a co-worker's niece or nephew (really, that's a bit far of a stretch concerning me), I must agree with a statement my employer shared recently: those in their 40s and beyond without children tend to be insufferable in an entirely different way. At some point, everyone should realize it's really not all about you. Children help that realization along.


Really? My (not inconsiderable) experience in this matter would suggest that the converse is true. Progeny are a monumentally self indulgent vanity.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Shaver said:


> Really? My (not inconsiderable) experience in this matter would suggest that the converse is true. Progeny are a monumentally self indulgent vanity.


The attitudes expressed in this thread are good proof of my original point. It may be self-indulgent to talk about your kids all the time, but it is equally self-indulgent to assume what you are doing is more important than being polite.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

universitystripe said:


> The attitudes expressed in this thread are good proof of my original point. It may be self-indulgent to talk about your kids all the time, but it is equally self-indulgent to assume what you are doing is more important than being polite.


You may choose to maintain a façade of politeness in the face of abject ignorance and the torment of worthless trivia if you wish. I am possessed of a modicum of self respect which dissuades me from dishonouring myself in this manner.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> You may choose to maintain a façade of politeness in the face of abject ignorance and the torment of worthless trivia if you wish. I am possessed of a modicum of self respect which dissuades me from dishonouring myself in this manner.


There is a fine line between self-respect and self-regard.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Given then that we can choose from at least a couple of ways to be insufferable, I'll gladly go with the "without children" option.



universitystripe said:


> While I do not enjoy seeing baby pictures of a co-worker's niece or nephew (really, that's a bit far of a stretch concerning me), I must agree with a statement my employer shared recently: those in their 40s and beyond without children tend to be insufferable in an entirely different way. At some point, everyone should realize it's really not all about you. Children help that realization along.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> There is a fine line between self-respect and self-regard.


These phrases are interchangeable, both describe a proper sense of one's own integrity.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> In that case, perhaps it would be fair to characterise you - with absolutely no offence intended - as a blunt northerner?


An interesting observation. In my previous career I sailed with a Cadet (I was 3rd Mate) who described himself in such terms. He was from the Manchester area from what I remember, but not Manchester itself. I told him that describing himself as a "blunt northerner who speaks his mind" was just an excuse for allowing himself to be rude. His offence and annoyance was limited by his junior position (or at least his expressing his offence and irritation was) but was softened somewhat by my pointing out that to me he wasn't a northerner, but somebody from the midlands, and thus wasn't entitled to take such a position.
Low level bullying of Cadets was quite an amusing occupation, or at least it became an amusing activity once I wasn't a Cadet anymore. Whilst I was a Cadet it was most unfair and I vowed never to behave in such a way.



Langham said:


> I, on the other hand, usually attempt to deploy a shallow semblance of diplomacy and tact in such situations, while all the time bottling up an inner rage, possibly at some risk to my long-term wellbeing.


Beautifully put; I know exactly what you mean!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> *In that case, perhaps it would be fair to characterise you - with absolutely no offence intended - as a blunt northerner?* I, on the other hand, usually attempt to deploy a shallow semblance of diplomacy and tact in such situations, while all the time bottling up an inner rage, possibly at some risk to my long-term wellbeing.


My apologies Mr Langham, I neglected to respond to your query. I would not characterise myself as such. I am most often rather introverted and given to avoid engaging in (or at least initiating) social interactions.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> These phrases are interchangeable, both describe a proper sense of one's own integrity.


Not quite. The latter has two senses, one of which equates with conceit.
As you've pointed out infants are quintessentially self-centered. But I would worry that grown men who dismiss parents as "vain," self-indulgent" "breeders" reveal a far more ominous selfishness.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> My apologies Mr Langham, I neglected to respond to your query. I would not characterise myself as such. I am most often rather introverted and given to avoid engaging in (or at least initiating) social interactions.


I must be wrong then - somehow that is not quite the image your posts project, but then the internet is so often misleading like that.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Duvel said:


> Given then that we can choose from at least a couple of ways to be insufferable, I'll gladly go with the "without children" option.


Did I mistake you, or did you not already have offspring?


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Mike Petrik said:


> Not quite. The latter has two senses, one of which equates with conceit.
> As you've pointed out infants are quintessentially self-centered. But *I would worry that grown men who dismiss parents as "vain," self-indulgent" "breeders" reveal a far more ominous selfishness.*


Absolutely.


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Children annoy me.
> 
> Babies are abhorrent.
> 
> ...


I'm right there with you. I have no desire to have children nor do I even like being around children. I do not understand how people feel this great urge toward having them and it seems like a terrible inconvenience. It also really bugs me when parents get so excited about when their kids do something as basic as tying their shoes. Everyone ties their shoes, it's not impressive. If you're 4 year old is a piano virtuoso then tell me that, don't tell me they learned to go to the bathroom. Luckily my wife is also of the same mindset. Everyone at work has learned I'm the guy that doesn't like kids and some of the women just can't get it and think if I meet their kids I would change my mind. I also laugh when parents complain about not being able to take their whole family out to eat or on vacation because of the expense. I just really don't see the positive side to kids personally


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

No, you're right, I have offspring. And now they're "out there" in the world, and I'm enjoying life in a house sans offspring.

I love my children, and I was and am a good father (I think), but in all honesty, I much prefer life, in our house, without them. And in all honesty, if I had it to do over, I wouldn't become a parent. I didn't have much desire to have children, although my first wife did, and so I felt drafted to the position, unfortunately. Overall, I don't think parenthood suits my temperament and preferences.



universitystripe said:


> Did I mistake you, or did you not already have offspring?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Not quite. The latter has two senses, one of which equates with conceit.
> As you've pointed out infants are quintessentially self-centered. But I would worry that grown men who dismiss parents as "vain," self-indulgent" "breeders" reveal a far more ominous selfishness.


OED: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/175409?redirectedFrom=self-regard#eid

As to ominous selfishness - do not worry unneccesarily Mike, for you will be delighted to be informed that resultant of this baseless speculation you are (once again) in error.

I expect superior aptitude from our resident self-proclaimed successful lawyer, please litigate me harder. :cool2:

.
.
.

.
.
.

.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

universitystripe said:


> Absolutely.


Really? Might I encourage you to elaborate on this agreement?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> OED: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/175409?redirectedFrom=self-regard#eid
> 
> As to ominous selfishness - do not worry unneccesarily Mike, for you will be delighted to be informed that resultant of this baseless speculation you are (once again) in error.
> 
> ...


https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/self-regard


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/self-regard


This is the American edition. Strange as it may seem, I am given to accepting the definitions as ascribed by the English edition and not inferior derivatives. :devil:

Litigate me harder.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> This is the American edition. Strange as it may seem, I am given to accepting the definitions as ascribed by the English edition and not inferior derivatives. :devil:
> 
> Litigate me harder.


The definitions are the same in both versions, so in this case it seems that the inferiority would come from the original....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> The definitions are the same in both versions, so in this case it seems that the inferiority would come from the original....


errmmm... come again? :icon_scratch:


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> errmmm... come again? :icon_scratch:


The definition for self regard is exactly the same in the US version as it is in the UK version. That means if you think that the US definition is inferior, then by definition, the UK one would be as well.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> The definition for self regard is exactly the same in the US version as it is in the UK version. That means if you think that the US definition is inferior, then by definition, the UK one would be as well.


Not in the OED I am looking at.

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/175409?redirectedFrom=self+regard#eid

self-reˈgard, _n._*View as: 

Outline |
Full entry

Quotations: 

Show all |
Hide all

*
*Etymology:* self- _prefix_ 1a, 3a
*Thesaurus »
*​*1.* Regard of or consideration for oneself.
1595 Spenser _Colin Clouts come Home Againe_ 682 But selfe-regard of priuate good or ill, Moues me of each, so as I found, to tell.
1693 J. Norris _Pract. Disc. Divine Subj._ III. 265 Without being sway'd by any by, private or self-regards.
1705 Pope _Corr._ 30 Apr. (1956) I. 8 The Friendship..is the more likely to be true, and unmix'd with too much Self-regard.
1890 _Spectator_ 11 Jan. 43/2 Effectually fusing the indifference and cool self-regard of others.

(Hide quotations)

*Thesaurus »
*​*2.* = self-respect _n._ 3.
1811 Byron _Hints from Horace_ 741 If friendship's nothing, self-regard might teach More polish'd usage of his parts of speech.
1856 R. W. Emerson _Eng. Traits_ ix. 150 This little superfluity of self-regard in the English brain, is one of the secrets of their power.

(Hide quotations)

Derivatives *Thesaurus »
*​*self-reˈgardant* _adj._ looking towards or centring upon oneself, marked by self-regard; watchful of oneself.
1840 C. H. Townshend _Facts in Mesmerism_ iii. ii. 294 To be self-regardant and watchful of our own sensations as they arise.
1895 _N. Amer. Rev._ Aug. 237 Man is not only a self-regardant but a sympathetic..being.


​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> OED: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/175409?redirectedFrom=self-regard#eid
> 
> As to ominous selfishness - do not worry unneccesarily Mike, for you will be delighted to be informed that resultant of this baseless speculation you are (once again) in error.
> 
> ...


Like an alcoholic in denial, the ominously selfish are in no position to diagnose themselves.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Not in the OED I am looking at.
> 
> https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/175409?redirectedFrom=self+regard#eid
> 
> ...


That link takes me to a subscription and while stubborn, I am not quite stubborn enough to pay to win a silly argument on the interwebs.

Here is the oed online dictionary definition in UK English, which is exactly the same as the US English definition on the same site. But if one's dictionary can't keep from mixing up their definitions of the same word between their editions, that doesn't speak too highly of one's ability to claim superiority.

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/self-regard

*Definition of self-regard in English:*

*self-regard*

Line breaks: self-regard

Pronunciation: 

*noun*

_ *[mass noun]*_* 1Regard or consideration for oneself; self-respect.*

More example sentences

For some, he is a hero, all the more admirable in his magisterial self-regard.
A self-confessed hero-worshipper, he adroitly patched into a network of national self-regard and milked it for all it was worth.
Keeping foreigners in cultural ghettos is thus a necessity for him, if he is to preserve his self-regard.
Get more examples

*1.1Conceit; vanity.*

More example sentences

The greatest obstacle to our progress in love is our own self-love, our own ego and our self-regard.
Her memoir bubbles with self-regard, and her ego may have caused her to misunderstand some events in her life.
That applying to kindergarten should become such a cutthroat business is doubtless an only-in-New-York phenomenon, intertwined with New Yorkers' considerable self-regard.
Get more examples

*Derivatives*

*self-regarding*

adjective More example sentences

I have warned France about their self-regarding complacency and explained to them that they have become hypnotised by their own reputation, playing as if the opposition should stand back in awe and give them space to show their skills.
Unlike a lot of more vain, self-regarding actors, she finds it impossible to conceal her vulnerability.
As I've said before, I think there are some people on the left who want to be that fervent, self-regarding minority.
Get more examples

*Definition of self-regard in:*


 The US English dictionary


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Shaver said:


> Really? Might I encourage you to elaborate on this agreement?


Shaver, if I have to point out why the use of those terms for parents as a whole make a man wholly insufferable and out of touch with basic gentlemanly conduct, I see no hope in ever convincing you of otherwise. It is up to you to make a personal decision on whether you wish to have children, but to act as you have claimed to have done in this thread is nothing less than rude. Convince yourself of otherwise if you wish.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

He's a Rude Boy alright!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

universitystripe said:


> Shaver, if I have to point out why the use of those terms for parents as a whole make a man wholly insufferable and out of touch with basic gentlemanly conduct, I see no hope in ever convincing you of otherwise. It is up to you to make a personal decision on whether you wish to have children, but to act as you have claimed to have done in this thread is nothing less than rude. Convince yourself of otherwise if you wish.


Universitystripe, your thought processes appear somewhat confused. Are you not able to perceive the schism present within your statement? You have launched an ad hom attack whilst simultaneously squawking about your (mis-conceived) notions of gentlemanly conduct.

Silly boy.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I love babies. I love kids. My own and other people's. And kids of all ages love me. I have a childlike approach to many things and I meet children on their level, be they 5 or 15. 
The greatest complement I ever received was about 20 years ago when I was sitting on the floor in a friends house in Sweden playing with lego with their 5 year old son for a couple of hours, afterwards he asked his mum "Is James really an adult, he's so much fun to play with?"


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver, for a man so loose with insults ("vain," "self-indulgent," "breeders"), you are oddly quick to accuse others of resorting to ad hominem arguments. Let me be clear: university stripe was not criticizing you personally as a false way to score points against an assertion you made. He was criticizing your behavior on its merits alone. Of course, I'm still trying to figure out how "recent" does not imply "previous."


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ This is incredibly feeble material Mike. I am almost embarrassed for you.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Despite the attempts of a couple of miscreants to chastise me for the expression of perfectly reasonable beliefs, like a dog returneth to his vomit so too will a fool return to his folly. 

This feminisation of males is a post 1950 effect. The culprits are the media (broadcast and their co-conspirator advertising). An exhaustive search of any pre 1950 social record (novels, plays, autobiographies, movies etc) will not reveal evidence of males being even faintly interested in the off-spring of those outside of their immediate family unit*. The media have an investment in promoting a homogenous and overwrought internal landscape, the carpet-bombing of the mind perpetrated primarily by television has deformed reality. If you can watch an ad for Disney World without being repelled by it then the subliminals have you in their thrall. And your masculinity dwindles, and you will tolerate (even worse- engage with) the banal cooing of mothers.






* Herod being, perhaps, a notable exception. :devil:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> ^ This is incredibly feeble material Mike.


Really? Might I encourage you to elaborate on this?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Really? Might I encourage you to elaborate on this?


En precis: Loose with insults, oddly quick, merits alone, recent/previous - all gibberish.

Is that eleborate enough to satisfy you?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Well it is 2014 Shaver not pre-1950, so why would you expect men today to still live by pre-1950s standards and in accordance with the social views of pre-1950?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Because this was the final era in which human nature was not subject to being enfeebled via the distortion of advertisements and the pollution of sit-coms.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> En precis: Loose with insults, oddly quick, merits alone, recent/previous - all gibberish.
> 
> Is that eleborate enough to satisfy you?


Not at all. 
If you are suggesting that "vain," "self-indulgent," and "breeders" are not insults you are mistaken.
If you are suggesting that a criticism of one's rude behavior is an argumentum ad hominem you are mistaken again.
And if you are still insisting that "recent" does not necessarily imply "previous" you have achieved a trifecta!

It is "feeble" to dismiss arguments as "gibberish" just because you are unwilling to concede error.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Not at all.
> If you are suggesting that "vain," "self-indulgent," and "breeders" are not insults you are mistaken.
> If you are suggesting that a criticism of one's rude behavior is an argumentum ad hominem you are mistaken again.
> And if you are still insisting that "recent" does not necessarily imply "previous" you have achieved a trifecta!
> ...


I am suggesting that words which describe a behavioural trait when properly applied to that behaviour are not insults, and I am not mistaken.

I am suggesting that describing someone as "wholly insufferable and out of touch with basic gentlemanly conduct" and "nothing less than rude" in the context of a wider debate is the very essence of ad hominem, and I am not mistaken.

I am suggesting that "recent does not necessarily imply previous", and I am not mistaken.

It is perfectly reasonable to describe statements as gibberish when they are wholly constructed from inaccuracies.

When might you concede your error?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> I am suggesting that words which describe a behavioural trait when properly applied to that behaviour are not insults, and I am not mistaken.
> 
> I am suggesting that describing someone as "wholly insufferable and out of touch with basic gentlemanly conduct" and "nothing less than rude" in the context of a wider debate is the very essence of ad hominem, and I am not mistaken.
> 
> ...


Assertions are not arguments, Shaver.
But if you can provide a convincing explanation as to how "recent" does not necessarily imply "previous" I would be happy to concede that point.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Will you concede the point when I reintroduce the proviso 'necessarily' (which you seem keen to omit)? 

No one except you has suggested that assertions are arguments Mike, do try and keep your eye on the ball and you may avoid contradicting yourself.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> ^ Will you concede the point when I reintroduce the proviso 'necessarily' (which you seem keen to omit)?
> 
> No one except you has suggested that assertions are arguments Mike, do try and keep your eye on the ball and you may avoid contradicting yourself.


There were no contradictions.
"Necessarily" added per request.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I have described one of your posts as gibberish. This one:

[Shaver, for a man so loose with insults ("vain," "self-indulgent," "breeders"), you are oddly quick to accuse others of resorting to ad hominem arguments. Let me be clear: university stripe was not criticizing you personally as a false way to score points against an assertion you made. He was criticizing your behavior on its merits alone. Of course, I'm still trying to figure out how "recent" does not imply "previous."]

To which you replied:

[It is "feeble" to dismiss arguments as "gibberish" just because you are unwilling to concede error.]

You later stated:

[Assertions are not arguments, Shaver.]

As the post which I described as gibberish was not a process of deductive or inductive reasoning purporting to show its conclusion to be true but rather a declaration that was made emphatically without recourse to supporting evidence then it was an assertion. Yet you have described it as an argument. This is your contradiction, can you see it now?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> I have described one of your posts as gibberish. This one:
> 
> [Shaver, for a man so loose with insults ("vain," "self-indulgent," "breeders"), you are oddly quick to accuse others of resorting to ad hominem arguments. Let me be clear: university stripe was not criticizing you personally as a false way to score points against an assertion you made. He was criticizing your behavior on its merits alone. Of course, I'm still trying to figure out how "recent" does not imply "previous."]
> 
> ...


My explanation of university stripe's criticism was more than a mere assertion. It argued by explanation that his criticism was not ad hominem at all, since it was not designed to address the "context of the wider debate" as you put it, but only to address your rude behavior as such. Nice try though.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> My explanation of university stripe's criticism was more than a mere assertion. It argued by explanation that his criticism was not ad hominem at all, since it was not designed to address the "context of the wider debate" as you put it, but only to address your rude behavior as such. Nice try though.


Assertion. Prove my behaviour was rude.

Error. The context of the wider debate is all that exists here, universitystripe was attempting to debase my right to an alternate perspective by directing insults at it and therefore at me.

Poor try on your behalf, litigate me harder Mike.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Assertion. Prove my behaviour was rude.
> 
> Error. The context of the wider debate is all that exists here, universitystripe was attempting to debase my right to an alternate perspective by directing insults at it and therefore at me.
> 
> Poor try on your behalf, litigate me harder Mike.


Pathetic, Shaver. The assertion at issue is that university stripe's characterization of your behavior was an ad hominem fallacy. Since that characterization was not offered to advance any other argument or assertion, but instead stood only for itself, it was not ad hominem. Come on, you can do better.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

BTW Mike, let me know if you remain unable to establish the veracity of this statement "recent does not necessarily imply previous" using your own faculties.

I am very confident in your abilities and remain quite certain that if you apply yourself properly and ponder for a little while then you may be able to achieve illumination.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Pathetic, Shaver. The assertion at issue is that university stripe's characterization of your behavior was an ad hominem fallacy. Since that characterization was not offered to advance any other argument or assertion, but instead stood only for itself, it was not ad hominem. Come on, you can do better.


I believe at this juncture it would be appropriate that you explain what the term ad hominem means to you.

Either

a) you do not adequately understand the term or

b) it means something fundamentally different in America.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Prove my behaviour was rude.


I'd like to be chosen for that jury!!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> I believe at this juncture it would be appropriate that you explain what the term ad hominem means to you.
> 
> Either
> 
> ...


From Wiki:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Note the word "irrelevant." In other words calling attention to a person's putative rudeness for the purpose of criticising such putative rudeness is not an ad hominem, even if in the context of an argument regarding a truth claimed by the person. In contrast, calling attention to a person's rudeness to support the proposition that the person's truth claim is mistaken would be an ad hominem. To be even more precise, the claim that enjoying babies is a censurable trait in a gentleman is certainly arguable. Advancing such a claim by dismissing parents as "vain," self-indulgent" "breeders" is rude. In this context university stripe's calling attention to such rudeness is not an ad hominem precisely because it was not offered for the purpose of opposing the claim that enjoying babies is a censurable trait, but was instead offered only to criticise the rudeness on its own merits.

You are certainly free, of course, to fecklessly argue that your insulting assertions were not rude (I'm happy to let the question rest with a jury), but your claim that university stripe's characterization of those assertions as such was an ad hominem is grounded in a mistaken understanding of the term.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> BTW Mike, let me know if you remain unable to establish the veracity of this statement "recent does not necessarily imply previous" using your own faculties.
> 
> I am very confident in your abilities and remain quite certain that if you apply yourself properly and ponder for a little while then you may be able to achieve illumination.


I'm afraid that our exchange has deprived me of adequate time to ponder. The closest I can surmise is the (mistaken) notion that previous is somehow limited to immediately previous, as though a gent can have only one previous job -- i.e., the job immediately before his current job -- but such an explanation would plainly be wrong. I look forward to you rescuing me from my ignorance in regard to how a recent event might not be a previous event.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaver, I love you like a rude, long-lost English brother ... but you're indeed rude when it comes to parents and their offspring.

Proof? There's no proving a subjective judgment, which is what we're making here. But suffice it to say that many of the rest of us here are in essence repeating that old wheeze that "if it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks, it's probably a duck."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally offended by anything you've said regarding children and their parents (though I'm a parent myself). But I can understand how other parents might be very offended indeed.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The only time I get offended regarding my children is if someone insults my children to my face or someone harms one of my children. The response is then fast and violent. People's general opinions of children and parents don't offend me in the slightest, I really couldn't give a toss what other people think of children or parents. In the same way that people's opinions of what I look like, what I wear, what music I like or what food I eat don't offend me either.

I'm in a rather protective and vengeaful mood at the moment as regards children because for the last few weeks one of my brother's and his friends are searching high and low for the three young black scumbags that stabbed his 17 y.o. autistic son (my nephew) in the neck in Pimlico. He walked past them, they looked at him, he ran away, they chased him and the scumbag cowards stabbed him in the neck missing the jugular by about 1 cm. It was reported on the news, in the newpapers, and went viral on facebook as a "mother's appeal" to catch them. Depsite clear CCTV footage of the incident and the three cowards, the police are doing fvck all! As per usual!


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The only time I get offended regarding my children is if someone insults my children to my face or someone harms one of my children. The response is then fast and violent. People's general opinions of children and parents don't offend me in the slightest, I really couldn't give a toss what other people think of children or parents. In the same way that people's opinions of what I look like, what I wear, what music I like or what food I eat don't offend me either.
> 
> I'm in a rather protective and vengeaful mood at the moment as regards children because for the last few weeks one of my brother's and his friends are searching high and low for the three young black scumbags that stabbed his 17 y.o. autistic son (my nephew) in the neck in Pimlico. He walked past them, they looked at him, he ran away, they chased him and the scumbag cowards stabbed him in the neck missing the jugular by about 1 cm. It was reported on the news, in the newpapers, and went viral on facebook as a "mother's appeal" to catch them. Depsite clear CCTV footage of the incident and the three cowards, the police are doing fvck all! As per usual!


I hope you get them. Punch each one once for me.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> From Wiki:
> 
> An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, I wanted you to outline your own understanding of the term Mike not just cut and paste from Wikipedia, an imbecile could have done that. Anyway 'your' explanation is credible only if we

a) accept the unproven supposition that it is rude to describe people by traits that they clearly exhibit e.g. if you breed then you are a breeder, if you indulge yourself then you are self-indulgent etc.

b) accept that it is relevant to criticise an individual who quite properly resents the intrusive infliction of a deluge of irrelevant information by persons who have been asked to cease.

C'mon Mike this poor style of argument may be sufficient for corporate tax law but out here in the wild frontier of the internet you will need to consider 'upping your game' if you wish to succeed.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> Shaver, I love you like a rude, long-lost English brother ... but you're indeed rude when it comes to parents and their offspring.
> 
> Proof? There's no proving a subjective judgment, which is what we're making here. But suffice it to say that many of the rest of us here are in essence repeating that old wheeze that "if it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks, it's probably a duck."
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally offended by anything you've said regarding children and their parents (though I'm a parent myself). But I can understand how other parents might be very offended indeed.


Max, as you know I have the greatest respect for your contributions here. Indeed on several occasions you and I have seemed a lone voice of reason whilst challenging our climate change denialists, and certain others.

However the "walks like a, talks like a" statement is a logical fallacy of weak inference.

I will agree with you most forcefully in respect of your concluding sentence - parents can indeed become highly agitated when you inform them that their infinitely detailed appraisal of baby's latest burp (and the what-not) is of supreme indifference.

.
.

.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I'm afraid that our exchange has deprived me of adequate time to ponder. The closest I can surmise is the (mistaken) notion that previous is somehow limited to immediately previous, as though a gent can have only one previous job -- i.e., the job immediately before his current job -- but such an explanation would plainly be wrong. I look forward to you rescuing me from my ignorance in regard to how a recent event might not be a previous event.


I am of the opinion that you will learn much more if you work this one out for yourself rather than begging for my assistance in spoon feeding you the answer.

As you may have guessed from much of the content I have contributed to this thread I am not big on spoon-feeding. :icon_jokercolor:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'd like to be chosen for that jury!!


Not possible, for a man has the right to be tried by a jury composed of his peers. :devil:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Hmmm, I wanted you to outline your own understanding of the term Mike not just cut and paste from Wikipedia, an imbecile could have done that. Anyway 'your' explanation is credible only if we
> 
> a) accept the unproven supposition that it is rude to describe people by traits that they clearly exhibit e.g. if you breed then you are a breeder, if you indulge yourself then you are self-indulgent etc.
> 
> ...


Shaver, my explanation is not dependent on accepting either a) or b). Either your reasoning skills are embarrassingly deficient or you are content to be dishonest in argumentation. Either way, that makes you a waste of my time.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> I am of the opinion that you will learn much more if you work this one out for yourself rather than begging for my assistance in spoon feeding you the answer.
> 
> As you may have guessed from much of the content I have contributed to this thread I am not big on spoon-feeding. :icon_jokercolor:


That might be the most pathetically transparent excuse for avoiding an admission of error that I have ever read. I hope you realize that you are fooling no one.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver, this may be your lamest response ever. I truly am embarrassed for you.


Regurgitating my responses now?

Samuel 1:25.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> That might be the most pathetically transparent excuse for avoiding an admission of error that I have ever read.


This does not even merit a classification amongst the most pathetically transparent excuses for avoiding an admission of intellectual inadequacy that I have ever read - it is merely average in that respect.

.
.
.

.
.
.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver, *my explanation is not dependent on accepting either a) or b). *Either your reasoning skills are embarrassingly deficient or you are content to be dishonest in argumentation. Either way, that makes you a waste of my time.


How so?

Conversely, I am quite prepared to waste my time on you Mike. You never know - you may learn something.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I am about 3 posts away from a conniption... :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

QED
.
.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Langham said:


> In that case, perhaps it would be fair to characterise you - with absolutely no offence intended - *as a blunt northerner*? I, on the other hand, usually attempt to deploy a shallow semblance of diplomacy and tact in such situations, while all the time bottling up an inner rage, possibly at some risk to my long-term wellbeing.






 :devil:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Balfour said:


> :devil:


Thank you Balfour, Harry Enfield was someone I missed during my decade without a TV. Not quite how I think of Shaver, but who knows?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Langham said:


> Thank you Balfour, Harry Enfield was someone I missed during my decade without a TV. *Not quite how I think of Shaver*, but who knows?


Likewise. Just stirring.

I am currently without a TV. I occasionally watch something purchased via iTunes or Netflix, and I haven't missed broadcast television in the slightest.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Likewise, our TV went belly up over a year ago and it's great, especially for the children. (Ex-babies, just to keep on topic).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

drlivingston said:


> I am about 3 posts away from a conniption... :icon_headagainstwal


+1 ...and thanks for using what is perhaps my fav American word there!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

To my mind one of the most hysterically funny comedy movies ever made yet which was a mainstream flop (although in truth a knowledge of that schlock-meister producer of mega-mammary B-movies the mighty Russ Meyer was required to fully appreciate the theme) is The Independent. One of the many imaginary trailers contained within the movie is reproduced below. It has always made me chuckle but now an added layer of hilarity will ever exist in my mind when I view it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> To my mind one of the most hysterically funny comedy movies ever made yet which was a mainstream flop (although in truth a knowledge of that schlock-meister producer of mega-mammary B-movies the mighty Russ Meyer was required to fully appreciate the theme) is The Independent. One of the many imaginary trailers contained within the movie is reproduced below. It has always made me chuckle but now an added layer of hilarity will ever exist in my mind when I view it.


Unfortunately, I have no German.....


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Have just discovered and read this entire thread as well as having just spilled my coffee.

So I'm a little dizzy, but that will pass. I am enraptured by the Petrik Shaver exchange. I love stuff like this. Not having checked in for a few years am unfamiliar with Shaver. Petrik I know from a rough exchange many years ago about black suits. As a debater in school we could care less about the topic. It was all about how to twist it to win. Like the Shaver Petrik smack-down. I scratch my head. I cannot choose a winner here. But thank you both for the entertainment.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> :devil:


Julio Geordio was wonderful


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Paul Whitehouse does one of the best Geordie accents.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Unfortunately, I have no German.....


Drat it! That was the only clip I could find on the interwebz..... it never occurred to me it would be in German. :mad2:

Still, it is reasonably simple to make a semi-educated guess as to what is going on, no?

Better yet, buy it - it's only ten pennies on Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Independent-DVD-Jerry-Stiller/dp/B00007JGGX


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Peak and Pine said:


> t was all about how to twist it to win. Like the Shaver Petrik smack-down. I scratch my head. I cannot choose a winner here.


It's fair to say that they are both masterdebaters.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

While Perhaps not directly related to babies, we hit an opera and a classical concert this past week & my children were better behaved than a few of the "adults". Should my children misbehave in such situations they would be removed from the building and punished. On the other hand there are no repercussions for the grown ups that should know better & are missing the excuse of being immature & inexperienced. I myself would prefer to be around a well behaved child versus a rude & obnoxious adult no matter the occasion.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> While Perhaps not directly related to babies, we hit an opera and a classical concert this past week & my children were better behaved than a few of the "adults". Should my children misbehave in such situations they would be removed from the building and punished. *On the other hand there are no repercussions for the grown ups that should know better *& are missing the excuse of being immature & inexperienced. I myself would prefer to be around a well behaved child versus a rude & obnoxious adult no matter the occasion.


There are repercussions if I am being disturbed in the theatre.............

I consider the dolts who whisper more loudly than I speak, or whose mobiles go off (or even who light up an area when using mobiles on silent), or who fidget incessantly, to be stealing my money as flagrantly as if I caught them picking my pocket.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> There are repercussions if I am being disturbed in the theatre.............
> 
> I consider the dolts who whisper more loudly than I speak, or whose mobiles go off (or even who light up an area when using mobiles on silent), or who fidget incessantly, to be stealing my money as flagrantly as if I caught them picking my pocket.


Please explain the repercussions.

I am similarly intolerant of such disturbances, but have yet to hit on a failsafe system of silencing them without further adding to the general uproar.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Please explain the repercussions.
> 
> I am similarly intolerant of such disturbances, but have yet to hit on a failsafe system of silencing them without further adding to the general uproar.


Mr Langham Sir, you are an imposing figure, I should imagine that you are capable of presenting an even more impressive emanation of 'quiet menace' than that which my modest stature permits.

Then, if that fails, just add to the general uproar. These fiends are determined to ruin one's evening anyway.

.
.
.
.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Mr Langham Sir, you are an imposing figure, I should imagine that you are capable of presenting an even more impressive emanation of 'quiet menace' than that which my modest stature permits.
> 
> Then, if that fails, just add to the general uproar. These fiends are determined to ruin one's evening anyway.
> 
> .


'Emanating quiet menace' is obviously the ideal solution. However, sitting in pitch blackness, the 'quiet menace' is not always readily observable by those one wishes to menace ...

Never mind, this is a worthwhile topic to pursue as there are other occasions besides attending the opera or theatre when one may be bothered by other people's rudeness, and it is always worthwhile to be prepared to counter it, although few enough are.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^In our local movie theaters I have yet to witness anyone with a crying baby being asked to leave (normally those folks just get up and walk out, though in all honesty, I've never seen a person carrying a baby in the shows I have gone to see), but I have seen theater employees advise patrons that were carrying on disruptive conversations to quiet down or to leave the theater and in a Michigan City, IN, theater we actually got to watch them actually throw a patron out, after his cell phone went off! For me it seems not a case of sitting in the dark exhibiting "quiet menace," but rather of sitting back and watching the show, both on and off the screen! LOL.


----------

