>> ^Yogi:


I walk along strapped to four giant poles in order to prevent me from falling into anything. They're annoying after a while but give them a nap midday and they're happy.


Thus answering the question "How many poles does it take to walk down a sidewalk?"
Now if I could just get this light bulb fixed ...

Even love? That's sad, man.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^speechless:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
So, if she wasn't on her phone, she might of been able to use her arms to prevent herself from falling in a hole...reason 34056 to not always be on your phone.

Right. Because people should walk around staring down at the sidewalk at all times in case it tries to just randomly swallow them whole. This way their arms will be free to save themselves. That's just common sense. Anyone who uses a phone while walking on a sidewalk deserves to fall through a trap door. Also, you should always be looking up, in case someone pushes a piano out of a window.

I walk along strapped to four giant poles in order to prevent me from falling into anything. They're annoying after a while but give them a nap midday and they're happy.

>> ^speechless:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
So, if she wasn't on her phone, she might of been able to use her arms to prevent herself from falling in a hole...reason 34056 to not always be on your phone.

Right. Because people should walk around staring down at the sidewalk at all times in case it tries to just randomly swallow them whole. This way their arms will be free to save themselves. That's just common sense. Anyone who uses a phone while walking on a sidewalk deserves to fall through a trap door. Also, you should always be looking up, in case someone pushes a piano out of a window.


I walk along strapped to four giant poles in order to prevent me from falling into anything. They're annoying after a while but give them a nap midday and they're happy.

can't a man just take an afternoon nap.....?

>> ^messenger:

I have a feeling we're going to disagree on this one, but you might be interested in hearing my take.
I agree that giving in and letting it go would have been a bad choice on his part. However, I don't think the father communicated anything useful to the daughter. I don't think she was capable of receiving the intended message in her condition. An adult would have understood it. Maybe after a nap she would have understood it, but that girl there was beyond learning at that point. This is not a teaching moment.
To me, this scene shows disrespect for the kid's feelings. For her own reasons, not the least of which is being overly-tired, she very strongly doesn't want to put the bowl in the sink. For all the effort she's making to avoid moving the bowl, the parent is making as much effort to make her move the bowl. Both sides are working harder now than it would take to move the bowl. It has ceased to be about the bowl, or about chores, and now it's a battle of wills. The kid is learning that daddy is more powerful than her and his seemingly random orders are more important than how she feels. She's 3 years old and exhausted, so that's all she's internalizing. She isn't learning anything about responsibility, or cleanliness, or aesthetics or feelings. She's not learning why she should put the bowl away instead of her dad. Her dad's avoiding the task just as much as she is. The only difference is he's smarter and more powerful.
This is a common stance of parents, but not a necessary one. The first part of my answer is I would not tell my kids to do any chores, but instead ask them to do things, just like I would ask an adult, giving them as much autonomy as possible. If they didn't do them, I would explain my feelings about why I wanted them done, explain how it made me feel to see those things not done and how it felt to do those things myself without their help. I would hear their side about it and compare it with my own. If they still refused, I would establish consequences that don't require their cooperation (like I choose not to serve any dessert, rather than grounding). If you're doubtful it could work, this is what my sister did with her two. The result? By age six they were arguing with the parents over who got to do the dishes. Contributing felt like a reward for them because they understood the consequences of their choice either way.
The second part of my answer is about this exact situation. Let's say I forgot about my position on not telling my kids to do things, and accidentally got into a stupid win-lose (or even lose-lose) battle of wills with my 3-year-old daughter. Once I realized I was in a situation I had wanted to avoid and it was my fault (you can't fault the 3-year-old), I would change the dialogue to resolve it in such a way that both of us felt good -- or as good as we could, considering. First, I would never pretend that I believed the lie that it's too heavy. This just encourages the behaviour. I would start off by acknowledging her feelings (upset, tired, angry, frustrated, ...) and eliciting confirmation. I would aim for some sort of compromise, like she goes for her nap now, and we agree to talk about the bowl after. The goal would be her understanding the point, not getting her to move the bowl.
When she left, I would put the bowl away, and after her nap, I'd explain like I said in the first part about my feelings around chipping in. If she's too young to understand the connection between my feelings and her doing chores, then she's too young to be expected to do meaningful chores.


The method described that your sister uses is guilt tripping and extortion. Using emotional guilt as a lever and the threat of no dessert (carrot and stick) is hardly more enlightened then flat out requiring that the job be done. And every parent uses it at some point.

And as for 'you can't fault a 3 year old', are you fucking stoned? Talk about arrogance, 'oh, their precious little intellects aren't developed enough to understand what's going on'. Bullshit. 2-3 year olds learn things very very fast (I call it 'velociraptoring'), and they're a lot brighter than you give them credit for. Isn't that the point of your whole parenting by negotiation schtick?

I have a feeling we're going to disagree on this one, but you might be interested in hearing my take.

I agree that giving in and letting it go would have been a bad choice on his part. However, I don't think the father communicated anything useful to the daughter. I don't think she was capable of receiving the intended message in her condition. An adult would have understood it. Maybe after a nap she would have understood it, but that girl there was beyond learning at that point. This is not a teaching moment.

To me, this scene shows disrespect for the kid's feelings. For her own reasons, not the least of which is being overly-tired, she very strongly doesn't want to put the bowl in the sink. For all the effort she's making to avoid moving the bowl, the parent is making as much effort to make her move the bowl. Both sides are working harder now than it would take to move the bowl. It has ceased to be about the bowl, or about chores, and now it's a battle of wills. The kid is learning that daddy is more powerful than her and his seemingly random orders are more important than how she feels. She's 3 years old and exhausted, so that's all she's internalizing. She isn't learning anything about responsibility, or cleanliness, or aesthetics or feelings. She's not learning why she should put the bowl away instead of her dad. Her dad's avoiding the task just as much as she is. The only difference is he's smarter and more powerful.

This is a common stance of parents, but not a necessary one. The first part of my answer is I would not tell my kids to do any chores, but instead ask them to do things, just like I would ask an adult, giving them as much autonomy as possible. If they didn't do them, I would explain my feelings about why I wanted them done, explain how it made me feel to see those things not done and how it felt to do those things myself without their help. I would hear their side about it and compare it with my own. If they still refused, I would establish consequences that don't require their cooperation (like I choose not to serve any dessert, rather than grounding). If you're doubtful it could work, this is what my sister did with her two. The result? By age six they were arguing with the parents over who got to do the dishes. Contributing felt like a reward for them because they understood the consequences of their choice either way.

The second part of my answer is about this exact situation. Let's say I forgot about my position on not telling my kids to do things, and accidentally got into a stupid win-lose (or even lose-lose) battle of wills with my 3-year-old daughter. Once I realized I was in a situation I had wanted to avoid and it was my fault (you can't fault the 3-year-old), I would change the dialogue to resolve it in such a way that both of us felt good -- or as good as we could, considering. First, I would never pretend that I believed the lie that it's too heavy. This just encourages the behaviour. I would start off by acknowledging her feelings (upset, tired, angry, frustrated, ...) and eliciting confirmation. I would aim for some sort of compromise, like she goes for her nap now, and we agree to talk about the bowl after. The goal would be her understanding the point, not getting her to move the bowl.

When she left, I would put the bowl away, and after her nap, I'd explain like I said in the first part about my feelings around chipping in. If she's too young to understand the connection between my feelings and her doing chores, then she's too young to be expected to do meaningful chores.>> ^oritteropo:

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. I thought the Dad did a pretty good job of letting the girl know that it was her responsibility to clear the plate, and that carrying on wasn't going to get her out of it. I would have done pretty much the same thing in pretty much the same way, except perhaps not quite so well.
Now if he'd given in and cleared the plate for her... well that leads to a bad place.
How would you have managed it differently?

He is sooooo cute. What a strange place for a nap.

So i watched all of it.
Best nap ever.

Friends of mine are really smart. When their daughter was 3, she would play read AND PRETEND TO LOOK AT THE INDEX IN THE BACK, then go back to the middle of the book.

At 2 1/2, she wouldn't go down for a nap, kept asking for water, or a story, just something, and finally her dad got mad and said -- enough, this is the last time I am coming in here. (She had to leave her mommy at a party and go home for a nap and she wasn't happy.)

Her response to her father's ultimatum? I swear this is true. 2 1/2 years old. She said --

"You must concede that I am lonely and afraid."

Two and a half.

Oh sorry, I thought you were having a conversation, not masturbating.

Now that we all know how great you are for doing the wrong thing even though you're kind-of-sort-of against it, maybe I could just chime in to clarify:

First of all: I can read as well. I know you see a picture from a bad movie when I post. But that doesn't make your regurgitated diatribe about intellectual property rights that can be found anywhere on the internet where there is a dialog about torrents any more intelligent or original than what anyone else has to say.

Second: In no way am I deluded about the concept of intellectual property. I did not ever imply that Louie C.K.'s work has no value. In fact, I called it "stealing" to download it. I also closed my comment by saying that I probably wouldn't download the show.

And I am not under the impression that just because I can't hold something in my hand, that it has no value. All I said was that it's "silly" to think that experiencing someone's comedy can be a crime. The thing about the T.V. is merely to point out the insubstantial nature of the subject. When I go to buy a T.V., I can negotiate sometimes based on whether or not it's a floor model or still in the box. I can't ask a website for a discount if one of Louie's jokes is bad. And with a T.V., I can keep it for a while and then change my mind. Maybe I decide I don't like it and I want to sell it and use the money to pay for part of the next one. Or maybe I've decided to go to Thailand, and I sell the T.V. to my friend Bob for papaya-salad-money. The point is, the two things are different, not that one is worthless and the other isn't.

And you know what the biggest difference is? Someone should not be punished in anywhere near the same way for stealing five bucks worth of Louis C.K.'s material as they should be for breaking into a person's house and stealing their T.V.

Third: Louis C.K. is probably a multimillionaire. I wasn't trying to justify my behavior as much as correcting Kymbos for saying that he wasn't. But now that you mention it: I see that you steal based on DRM and other issues, but (and call me crazy if you want) when I steal, I take into account the financial status of the person I'm stealing from. It might not justify my behavior but it helps me sleep.

Fourth: I steal download things a lot of the time based on whether I think they are fairly priced. I loved the original Conan the Barbarian, mostly for it's kitsch-factor, but I still own the VHS. When the new one came out, I said to myself "that looks like a giant piece of crap taking a crap." So I downloaded it and you know what? I was right. Fuck them. I'm glad I didn't pay twenty-five dollars for ten-cents-worth of soda, two-cents-worth of popcorn and zero-cents-worth of nap time. And all just to grant some Hollywood producer his million dollar reward to play it safe.

One of my favorite things I've ever gotten for Christmas from my wife was the Criterion Collection edition of "Seven Samurai." I love it. It's got this great cover art that looks almost transparent even though it's printed on cardboard. I think it looks so good because it's taken from the original cellulose of the title screen but I don't know. It's also got a great supplemental book, a great CD of special features and anytime I want, I can sit down to three whole hours of good solid movie. I think it cost around sixty-dollars at the time we bought it and it was totally worth it. Meanwhile, somebody gave me the latest "Pirates of the Caribbean" DVD and the ugly yellow text on the menu alone is enough to make me want to burn it for the insult it does to people who paid good money for it.

And you know what else? I doubt that if Louis C.K. were to meet me, that he would hold it against me that I downloaded his show.

I guess I've rambled long enough. I just wanted to make the point that the issues involved with intellectual property are complicated but the concept is something that little children can grasp. So it might not be beneficial to the conversation to write off someone's point that you might disagree with simply because you want to sound righteous. Especially when in the end, you admit that it's all just stealing anyway.

PS: The last book I bought was the hardcover edition of "A Dance With Dragons". I paid the extra money because I find physical copies more satisfying, and I couldn't wait for the paperback.

well... it is derived from a 'food product' ... chilis

the active ingredient in pepper spray is capsaicin, which comes from the fruit of capsicum plants... so... chili peppers - really, really spicy ones

spicy or hot is typically measured on the scoville scale, or shu (scoville heat units) - 100% capsaicin is about 15-16 million shu - us law enforcement pepper spray's active ingredient is 10% capsaicin... so say, anywhere from 500,000 to 2,000,000 shu

are there chili peppers that hot, say something edible? yes!

bhut jolokia, naga viper, trinidad scorpion peppers are all over 1,000,000 shu... and are eaten routinely

i've tried the 'ghost pepper' bhut jolokia as a dipping sauce for beef... uhh, it wasn't pleasant... tears, snot, burning tongue and cheeks - it was about 1.1 million shu

i bought a bottle of the chili sauce to 'trick' friends with... but ended up giving myself something like what these students felt:

i opened the bottle to see if it was as hot as i remembered - i touched it with just the tip of my pinky and then touched my tongue... damn!

i later took a nap and on waking, rubbed my eyes - big mistake... my left eye felt like it was on fire - i had to hold an ice cube to it for about 15 minutes

stupid thing was when i tried to to explain to my angry wife why i was late picking up the kids from school, i re-enacted the pepper incident (without the touch and taste)... and touched my eye again... lol, round two with the ice cubes

>> ^bareboards2:

Maru caught the toy??? MARU CAUGHT THE TOY!!!
I have watched this great cat chase that toy for months. AND HE FINALLY CAUGHT IT.
He deserves the nap.


Sure was telling everybody about it too, wasn't he?

Maru caught the toy??? MARU CAUGHT THE TOY!!!

I have watched this great cat chase that toy for months. AND HE FINALLY CAUGHT IT.

He deserves the nap.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

My comment feels diffent now in light of recent events. >> ^csnel3:

>> ^dag:
@chilaxe.I, like probably most people (in their heart-of-hearts), find the fact that the super-wealthy die, to be very comforting - natural justice dealt. When youth really is for sell - all hell's going to break loose.

With Steve Jobs death at 56 years old,a billionaire, by a disease that he had known about for years (not some kind of freak accident), I feel pretty hopeless that I will be cured of whatever I eventually get.
I want to be loaded on to an Ipod instead of a Dirt Nap, but , it wont happen in this century.

>> ^dag:
@chilaxe.I, like probably most people (in their heart-of-hearts), find the fact that the super-wealthy die, to be very comforting - natural justice dealt. When youth really is for sell - all hell's going to break loose.


With Steve Jobs death at 56 years old,a billionaire, by a disease that he had known about for years (not some kind of freak accident), I feel pretty hopeless that I will be cured of whatever I eventually get.
I want to be loaded on to an Ipod instead of a Dirt Nap, but , it wont happen in this century.