On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:49:26 +0100, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:41:13 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:33:38 +0100, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:19:49 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:14:13 +0100, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:50:31 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:34:03 +0100, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:45:19 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:36:40 +0100, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:22:49 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:04:16 +0100, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:06:40 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:15:00 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 16:55:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:52:14 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 15:47:46 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:34:46 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 14:26:07 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 11:42:23 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 15:46:43 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:04:39 +0100, Mark wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:46:31 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 10:29:32 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 09:25:04 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

There are different crying types. There is disstress crying and
frustration crying. the latter is one of lifes lessons being learned,
the other is in need of urgent attention.

Agreed, shame that many parents don't seem able to tell the
difference and give the child attention at the meerest whimper.
Result in a kid that thinks the way to get attention for anything is
to wail and if it doesn't work wail harder and longer up to a full
blown tantrum.

Our two tried the tantrum once possibly twice, we laughed, it didn't
work, they gave up on the idea.

M'colleague told me there's a way to stop your kid being needy. You completely ignore it crying as a baby and feed it on a schedule. It soon stops waking you up at night.

Absolute ********.

No it isn't. When they realise that crying achieves nothing, they stop doing so.

It depends on the reason for crying if it's for attention and purely for attention then the crying will stop. But the commenst reason(s) are teeth and the resulting tooth ache amonst other things.

Which cannot be cured with a cuddle. So again, no point in seeing to the baby.

But it can be cured by the parent or anyone else applying medication and even if there is no medication it's been proved that' kissing it better' can have the placebo effect advantage and the pain or whatever was causing crying stops it.

Easier to put the baby in a seperate room where you can't hear it, then the parents can get a solid sleep.

I wonder if any did that in Grenfell Tower.

You're saying a baby started the fire?

No that they ignore a warning noise that something was happening.
Poepl wedge open foire doors, move extinguishers, get annoyed by alarms going off and tend to ignore them.

Because alarms are **** that's why. They go off for false positives 10 times more often than a real positive.

Only 10 times? I'd estimate about 100.

You're most likely correct. I just ignore them, except if they're in the middle of the ****ing night, then I call the police and tell them I saw a burglar, even when I know there isn't one. Hopefully the police bash a clue into the heads of the morons with alarms.

Make sure it's fed with a clean nappy before you go to bed, then it can survive for 8 hours without ****ing moaning!

well no one likes being woken up do they.

No, which is why mothers with the baby in their own room are nuts.

Some people have the ability to care more about others than themselves.

the baby doesn't need 24/7 attention. And giving it 24/7 attention turns it into a useless wimp that cannot take care of itself.

It's not about 24/7 attention. Babies need to be in a safe place and
the carer must be able to recognise quickly if there is a problem.

They don't need cotton wool. They're humans, not plants.

Cotton wool is irrelevant - plants don't need it for a start.

Your wit is unastounding. You know what I meant.

Actually I don't think I do know what you meant, unless you are
proposing that parents leave their babies alone for long periods of
time and ignore any crying.

That is precisely what I'm proposing, and many do.

In the Victorian era maybe.

The babies soon learn that crying won't get them anywhere.

Even if there is something really wrong?

Like a house or car alarm, they go off all the time, something wrong or not.

But if you want a moany little needy child, then you carry on wrapping them in cotton wool.

I really hope you never have children as you have the hallmarks of an
abuser.

Go read up on it, plenty do the same.

Ah. 1,000,000 flies can't be wrong.

There are two ways to bring up kids. They can both work, depending in the child.
Some will respond to a good talking to, some need belted.

No.

Yes, as evidenced by the louts created by the soft approach, who simply never behave. That's why we have full juvenile detention centres.

You're a complete ****wit if you think your way is the only way. Teaching kids things isn't
always nice, they need to be ignored, smacked, etc, or they'll never learn.

You are sick. Children learn far better without being abused.

It's not abuse. Abuse would be beating them up for no reason. A smack to tell them they did wrong is the quickest, easiest, and most effective method.

No. It is abuse. And not at all effective. Do you have any evidence
for your assertions?

Which would you want to avoid the next time you misbehaved? Getting smacked by your dad or being told you're a very naughty boy? Being told off will just be ignored, again and again, no reason to obey rules if all you get when you disobey them is a few words.

Everyone used to do it, and funnily enough we all grew up just fine.

Well, you obviously didn't.

Since most people were smacked in the last generation, you're asserting that most people of your age are ****ed in the head. Clearly not true.

Smacking is more likely to lead to mental health issues than
"learning".

Right.... a temporary pain on the backside damages the brain. Are you one of those screwed in the head American trick cyclists?

But you go ahead
and create a needy whining child that'll break the law every 5 minutes for the rest of life
because it thinks all it'll get is praise.

You must be a fan of Jimmy Saville.

Show me a link to where he smacked children or ignored them crying.

Tell me you don't have any kids - you are utterly unsuitable to be a
parent.

Your way isn't the only way, get over it.

Your way is abuse and, if you actually practised it, you should be
locked up. It's a criminal offense.

I see mums smacking their toddlers in Asda quite often. Nobody says a word about it.

Lots of things are criminal offences, all that means is the government currently ni power has that opinion. Do you never break the speed limit for example? Are all 3 million people caught speeding every year in the wrong according o you? All 3 MILLION?

Your kids won't thank you when your
neighbour's tougher kids who were brought up my way beat the **** out of them
at school. But it's ok, yours know how to talk their way out of a fight....

My kids are fine, thanks.

Your kids won't thank you when they need to go through a huge amount
of treatment for their mental health issues due to your abuse.

Mental health is caused by mental torture, not physical torture. Show me where I said they should be tied up to watch a dripping tap for 3 days.

--
The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail -- Gustaf Lindborg