aemeijers wrote:
Karen wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She
has 4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an
assignment for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't
take any new assignments on, because the families she sits for,
treat her very well. The family has 2 children, and the parents are both
doctors. They
also have a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had
one of her less than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to
shreds. She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents
refuse to pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible
for her sneakers. She left her shoes at the door, because they have
a very nice new home. I say the people should have warned her about the
dog being a
chewer, and should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?


Write it off as an expensive (at her income level) life lesson, and
manage to always have a previous commitment if they want to hire her
again. (They probably won't, if they had words over the shoes
already.) Don't say a word to the people who referred her- she
doesn't want a reputation as a difficult-to-please sitter. And if she
sits at any other houses with puppies, put the shoes in the coat
closet and close the door. Can't blame the dog- that is how dogs
investigate interesting new smells. (Hmm- this is interesting. Wonder
if it is food? 3 categories for dogs- stuff that can be eaten, stuff
that can be humped, and stuff that needs marking.)

Great post. Spot on!



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

mm wrote:

And if she sits at any other
houses with puppies, put the shoes in the coat closet and close the
door. Can't blame the dog- that is how dogs investigate interesting
new smells. (Hmm- this is interesting. Wonder if it is food?

Are they really still thinking it might be food?

My granny had a sayin' to describe something beyond despicable:

"That looks like something the cat drug home that the dog wouldn't eat."

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:11:38 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:




If Dr. Laura was reading this group, she would likely thank
you for your concern, and excellent observation.

Are you sure. Does she ever thank anyone for anything?

I quit listening to Dr. Laura the day that a concerned mom called in asking
if her ex husband was enticing their 8 year old to spend more time with him
because he had bought the youth an ATV. She told the mom to quit being such
a bitch and be glad that the father and son spent so much time together.

Dr. Laura is so smart she failed to research it, and learn that
manufacturers are required to put a sticker on their ATV's that say NO ONE
UNDER 16 SHOULD OPERATE THIS VEHICLE. Required by federal law. So, how
does the manufacturer skirt the issue? By making ATVs of lower engine
displacement. But still no mention of the very high % of ATV underage ATV
accidents involving serious injury and fatalities.

Dr. Laura is always right. Don't believe me? Just ask her.

About 30 percent of the advice she gives is excellent.
About 30 percent is good but the kind of advice one can get from
almost anyone.

And about 40 percent is bad, including half of that (20%) which could
ruin someone's marriage, hir relationship with hir chilren, parents,
sibings, could ruin hir life.

It's nice that she has a Ph.D. in physiology, but that doesn't qualify
her to give advice and she shouldn't use the title on her show. I'm
sure it misleads many listeners.

It's scarey that so many people think she gives good advice.



Steve

Steve B wrote:
If Dr. Laura was reading this group, she would likely thank
you for your concern, and excellent observation.

Are you sure. Does she ever thank anyone for anything?

I quit listening to Dr. Laura the day that a concerned mom called in
asking if her ex husband was enticing their 8 year old to spend more
time with him because he had bought the youth an ATV. She told the
mom to quit being such a bitch and be glad that the father and son
spent so much time together.
Dr. Laura is so smart she failed to research it, and learn that
manufacturers are required to put a sticker on their ATV's that say
NO ONE UNDER 16 SHOULD OPERATE THIS VEHICLE. Required by federal
law. So, how does the manufacturer skirt the issue? By making ATVs
of lower engine displacement. But still no mention of the very high
% of ATV underage ATV accidents involving serious injury and
fatalities.
Dr. Laura is always right. Don't believe me? Just ask her.


Just curious: Would your opinion be the same if, instead of an ATV, dad was
taking the son to the rifle range? Skydiving? Spelunking? Fire-walking? At
what point does involving a child, with adult supervision, become
unacceptable?

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:55:43 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


wrote

Wrong. The same thing cannot be accomplished because by taking them
to small claims court, there is the distinct possibility that she
could win and collect her $75. Also win or lose, it will cost the
doctors the time to appear in court and if the court finds in the
girl's favor, the doctors may learn from it. The girl will also
learn from the experience. Is it worth doing? That is up to the
girl to decide. It's also very possible that once served with the
suit, they may just pay up, not wanting to go to court and appear to
be taking advantage of a baby sitter.

COMMENT: Small court judgements make great toilet paper. You want to give
this girl the idea that she has a chance of getting money out of a doctor?
She may have a chance of winning, but getting the money is entirely another
matter.

It's not that hard to enforce a judgment against someone with any
money. She knows where they live and what their names are. They
probably own their own cars, or at least have 75 dollars of equity in
one of them. The marshall or sheriff will seize the entire car and
not give it back until they have paid the 75 and costs.

When I sued the body shop, they had already fired the manager who
messed me up, and they also didnt' show up, so I won whatever I could
prove. Then they didn't pay so I called up and reminded him, nicely,
and I got a check 2 weeks later. Otherwise, and I'm not saying this
was his reason for paying, but he knew it, I could have had the
marshall seize one of their essential body shop machines, like the tow
truck. The marshall probably has a big vote on what he seizes, but
he has more experience anyhow.

TRADER:
Who suggested anyone run around screaming and making threats? Also,
according the post, the daughter is of college age, not a child.

COMMENT: Sorry, but I snipped it from above in kindness to the readers.
Apparently you missed it. My children are 40, 32 and 26. But, they will
always be my "children".

Steve

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:11:38 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

Dr. Laura is always right. Don't believe me? Just ask her.

I like that Canadian doctor: "You can't marry a vagina. Vaginas can't
talk back" (paraphrased).

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:51:05 -0500, aemeijers
wrote:

mm wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:17:30 -0600, Bert Byfield
wrote:

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.
My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting.
She has 4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She
took on an assignment for a new family through a referral. She
normally
You are incorrect. This is a place to discuss home repair, not
chat about whatever.
Idiot! If you don't know what OT stands for, then don't read the
thread.
Moron! Putting OT in the subject line does NOT excuse wasting space in
a topic group, any more than putting SPAM in the subject line makes
spamming a topic group!

I like it when they put SPAM in the subject line of spam. Then I
don't read it.

The only place this is taking space from is groups.google. So I'd
better cut this short.


You aren't 'on' Google, you are on Usenet.

I know that. But Usenet servers purge old posts eventually, so spam
and discussion of spam only takes up extra space temporarily. Same
for most individuals' computers.

It's only google groups that keeps them, so far, forever. They store
spam posts for long periods.

Google Groups is just a
(crappy) web-based portal to get to Usenet.

It's also a storage area for recent and old posts.

Learn the difference.

Your difference is not related to what I said.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:04:28 -0500, "
wrote:



A neighbor came to my door long ago, claiming that my son had aimed a
bottle rocket at her boy, it hit him and burned a small hole in the
front of his shirt and burned his belly a tiny bit. Wanted
reimbursement for the shirt. Didn't know her well and the kids played
together quite a bit. I paid her for the shirt and apologized, doubting
that my son had done what she said he did. Kids about 12 and neither of
us witnessed the event. Next day her boy was out shooting off bottle
rockets and had one fly by his face, missing him by about an inch.
Don't recall what the shirt cost - not much - but worth it to keep the
peace. Didn't ever have a strong disagreement with a neighbor until
many years later, and it was their choice, not mine. Have had the best
and the worst of neighbors.

Never had any problem with the series of neighbors to my left, with
whom I share a wall. Until the last one. He wanted the vines off my
house, said that rats and snakes would live in them. He was from the
Carribean where that was probably true, but it's not true here. He
wanted all the stuff out of the fenced in area in front of my kitchen,
which only he could see and only when he was smoking right on the
other side of the fence.

And he was pushy in the way he did it. And wouldn't give me his
phone number.

Anyhow, he and his wife split up so they had to sell the house. Lost
about 25% of what they paid 2 years ago at the top of the bubble.

Now I have a new neighbor, single, pretty, blonde, in her 20's. So I
can take her out, I've resolved to lose 50 pounds and 30 years. I'm
looking for two effective reduction plans.

I'm also trying a lot harder to be quiet late at night, and I keep
thinking it's for the nonsense reason so she will really like me, but
deep down I'm sure I just don't want to fight with a second neighbor.

(I actually don't think she can hear me. In 26 years, I've barely
heard a peep out of any neighbor, and never the tv in the bedroom.
Surely some of them watched tv in the bedroom.)

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:02:36 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Roger Shoaf" wrote

Next question is what kind of sneakers are worth $75?


--
Roger Shoaf

Anything decent.

I'd never had a problem with a shoe, so I once bought really cheap
sneakers at k-mart a week or two before I went on a 3-week foreign
vacation that grew into 5 weeks.

I walked almost all day every day, and every day I got blisters. I
would have to wear hiking boots the next day, but they were the wrong
size too, bought one day before I left, so I got more blisters.
Thankfully, in different places, so all the blisters had a day to
heal. None popped.

The sneakers though also smelled terrible when they were off. No other
shoe had ever done that. But I didnt' want to take the time to go
shopping.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:04:20 -0500, mm
wrote:


I'd never had a problem with a shoe, so I once bought really cheap
sneakers at k-mart a week or two before I went on a 3-week foreign
vacation that grew into 5 weeks.

I walked almost all day every day, and every day I got blisters. I
would have to wear hiking boots the next day, but they were the wrong
size too, bought one day before I left, so I got more blisters.
Thankfully, in different places, so all the blisters had a day to
heal. None popped.

The sneakers though also smelled terrible when they were off. No other
shoe had ever done that. But I didnt' want to take the time to go
shopping.

I bought more sneakers at K-mart just last month but haven't worn them
enough to know if there are problems. They look nice and were cheap.
I really can't believe they'll smell bad like those others did. It's
wasn't foot smell, it was something in the sneakers.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:19:30 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

"Bob F" wrote:

Karen wrote:

-snip-
She will not be going back to this family. She pretty much was doing
it because of the strong referral. The family has tried to coax her
back, but refuses to acknowledge any responsibility on their part.
They seem to believe it's a one-way street, and try to make her feel
obligated to them for child care.

When they call back really desperate, let them know she would be happy to help
them out, with payment up from for the damage and the service.

I believe what was meant was "payment up front".


Second that. I might also try to mitigate the damages on the
'lesson learned' and help out with a replacement pair of sneakers.

Jim

Tony Hwang wrote:
Karen wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has 4
different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an assignment
for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't take any new
assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They also
have
a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had one of her less
than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents
refuse to
pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for her sneakers.
She left her shoes at the door, because they have a very nice new home.

I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer, and
should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?









Hi,
My daughter used to baby sit as well. She is a doctor now.
Anyhow, that was 75.00 lesson and don't ever she baby sit their kids
or you become their patient. I don't like people like that.
When our kids grow up wife stayed home postponing her career advancement
in nursing. After kids were in Jr. high she went back to work. If they
are decent people damage should be paid for. If the dog chew one of
their shoes, they more likely would blame your daughter
for negligence.

We have had two dogs that chewed a lot - one a puppy that outgrew the
habit and one an adopted female dog with other bad habits. The adult
also liked to run off and with small children in and out often, she
would bolt when they opened the door. She was a really sweet dog, but
being a pointer, she wanted to be IN the water, no matter where ) If
I had a dog with bad habits, I would emphasize it to guests or sitters.
Schnauzers bark like mad at guests until guests bend over and pet
them. Had two that did that, but their bark is piercing and it is not a
"pet me" sound. As a factory nurse, I did a dressing change once for a
guy with a dog bite on his calf. While I was changing the dressing, he
remarked, "I knew I should have petted that dog." I asked him what kind
of dog. Schnauzer. S's also do not like physical contact - snapped at
kids twice while they were playing and wrestling. Poodles are vastly
different...ours would sit down and pose every time we had a camera in hand.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Steve B wrote:
If Dr. Laura was reading this group, she would likely thank
you for your concern, and excellent observation.

Are you sure. Does she ever thank anyone for anything?

I quit listening to Dr. Laura the day that a concerned mom called in
asking if her ex husband was enticing their 8 year old to spend more
time with him because he had bought the youth an ATV. She told the
mom to quit being such a bitch and be glad that the father and son
spent so much time together.
Dr. Laura is so smart she failed to research it, and learn that
manufacturers are required to put a sticker on their ATV's that say
NO ONE UNDER 16 SHOULD OPERATE THIS VEHICLE. Required by federal
law. So, how does the manufacturer skirt the issue? By making ATVs
of lower engine displacement. But still no mention of the very high
% of ATV underage ATV accidents involving serious injury and
fatalities.
Dr. Laura is always right. Don't believe me? Just ask her.


Just curious: Would your opinion be the same if, instead of an ATV, dad
was taking the son to the rifle range? Skydiving? Spelunking?
Fire-walking? At what point does involving a child, with adult
supervision, become unacceptable?

At any age that you turn the activity entirely over to the child without
them being mentally, physically, or emotionally capable of handling it.

My grandpa gave me .22 rifle when I was eight, and he looked me in the eyes,
and said, "This is yours. But until you are old enough, your dad has to
take you to shoot it." Dad did. And I took it countless times without Dad
knowing.

Putting a kid on a set of skis, on an ATV, on a snowboard, even on a bike
involves great risk. Some kids can do things at a very early age. Each
parent has to evaluate if the child is ready. But the activity, and the
circumstances involved in the child doing the activity entirely out of the
control of the parent has to be weighed.

i.e. it's different when a parent takes their child skiing rather than
letting the child go alone. Some parents let their children do fireworks
alone. And sometimes the kids do it alone on their own. And either way,
sometimes things happen.

And **** happens. I'm 61, and a year ago July 4th, I flipped my ATV and
broke my back. Been riding motorcycles and ATVs for decades.

Steve

Two things happened. One, your daughter left her shoes where the
dog could
get to them, and the dog got to them. I'd say it was half/half
responsibility.

Your daughter should thank them for the work, and not work there again.

A reasonable person would meet her at least half way on replacement. A
reasonable person would have warned her about the dog. A reasonable person
would have appreciated the fact that she was more concerned about watching
the kids and not her shoes. These people don't seem to be reasonable, and
next week it's just going to be something different.

I agree that the parents should have offered to pay for some/all of the
cost of the shoes. And if they *knew* the dog was a chewer, they should
have warned her. However, it's possible that they didn't foresee this
happening.I have an 8 yr old dog that doesn't (or didn't) bother shoes.
About a month ago, I left a closet door open and she chewed a shoe. It's
definitely not something I'd expected, but maybe it smelled particularly
"good", just as this sneaker might have. It *could* be that the parents
really didn't anticipate this so it never occurred to them to warn her.
Maybe they didn't anticipate the sitter taking her shoes off; maybe they
put their own shoes away. I know people who are sticklers for putting
shoes etc away (not me!), and can see where those people probably would
think it was her fault for leaving them out and maybe even served her
right. Maybe they do the same with their kids, as in "if you had put
your toys away, the dog wouldn't have chewed them"). I'm not saying
that the parents behavior as described was appropriate, just that in
their minds they really might have thought they were reacted normally.

In any case I do also agree that it's probably better for the sitter not
to work there again, as they most likely have a different mind set on
other things. I think she should mention this to other potential
sitters, just so they are prepared. You have to wonder if the reason
they keep calling is that previous sitters have also written them off...

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:33:51 -0800 (PST), shortT
wrote:

These two doctors have plenty of money and they should not think twice
about covering the
cost of the shoes, if they were decent people which obviously they are
not.

How do you know they have plenty of money? They could be up to their
eye balls with student loans, a mortgage, etc.

How do you know they are not decent people? You have only heard one
side of the story. Are you clairvoyant?

Gordon Shumway

Our Constitution needs to be used less as a shield
for the guilty and more as a sword for the victim.

Karen wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has 4
different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an assignment
for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't take any new
assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They also have
a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had one of her less
than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents refuse to
pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for her sneakers.
She left her shoes at the door, because they have a very nice new home.

I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer, and
should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?



Two doctors meaning physicians and they're quibbling over $75.00?
What happened? I thought Obamacare didn't pass. If my dog damaged
someone's property, I would feel obligated to pay for the damage.
It appears from your description that your daughter is a wonderful
young woman. Everyone should be so lucky.

TDD

Steve Barker wrote:
Karen wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has
4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an
assignment for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't
take any new assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat
her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They also
have a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had one of
her less than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents
refuse to pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for
her sneakers. She left her shoes at the door, because they have a very
nice new home.

I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer,
and should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?



I'd say the next time i baby sit, the dog 'accidentally' drinks some
antifreeze and dark chocolate. Not my responsibility to watch what the
dog eats.

I doubt very seriously that the wonderful young woman as described by
her mother would do such a horrible thing. I would simply get a radio
controlled electric shock training collar to put on the dog when the
parents are gone. She could watch the children and train the dog at
the same time. *snicker*

TDD

wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Karen wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has 4
different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an
assignment
for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't take any new
assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They
also have
a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had one of her
less
than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents
refuse to
pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for her
sneakers.
She left her shoes at the door, because they have a very nice new home.

I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer,
and
should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?









Hi,
My daughter used to baby sit as well. She is a doctor now.
Anyhow, that was 75.00 lesson and don't ever she baby sit their kids
or you become their patient. I don't like people like that.
When our kids grow up wife stayed home postponing her career
advancement in nursing. After kids were in Jr. high she went back to
work. If they are decent people damage should be paid for. If the dog
chew one of their shoes, they more likely would blame your daughter
for negligence.

We have had two dogs that chewed a lot - one a puppy that outgrew the
habit and one an adopted female dog with other bad habits. The adult
also liked to run off and with small children in and out often, she
would bolt when they opened the door. She was a really sweet dog, but
being a pointer, she wanted to be IN the water, no matter where ) If
I had a dog with bad habits, I would emphasize it to guests or sitters.
Schnauzers bark like mad at guests until guests bend over and pet
them. Had two that did that, but their bark is piercing and it is not a
"pet me" sound. As a factory nurse, I did a dressing change once for a
guy with a dog bite on his calf. While I was changing the dressing, he
remarked, "I knew I should have petted that dog." I asked him what kind
of dog. Schnauzer. S's also do not like physical contact - snapped at
kids twice while they were playing and wrestling. Poodles are vastly
different...ours would sit down and pose every time we had a camera in
hand.

I had a Weimaraner "who" thought he was a person, cat or dog on
different days. He did not chew up shoes, instead, he would pull
the insole out of the shoe and chew that up. Yum, Vieux-Boulogne.

TDD

Steve B wrote:
On Jan 22, 6:53 pm, "Karen" wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has 4
different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an assignment
for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't take any new
assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They also
have
a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had one of her less
than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents refuse to
pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for her sneakers.
She left her shoes at the door, because they have a very nice new home.

I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer, and
should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?

In my life, I have quit employers and told them that they do not meet my
standards as employers. It goes both ways, you know.

Steve



I like working for myself, I can fire customers without notice.

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
Steve B wrote:
On Jan 22, 6:53 pm, "Karen" wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has 4
different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an
assignment
for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't take any new
assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They also
have
a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had one of her
less
than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents refuse
to
pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for her sneakers.
She left her shoes at the door, because they have a very nice new home.

I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer,
and
should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?

In my life, I have quit employers and told them that they do not meet my
standards as employers. It goes both ways, you know.

Steve

I like working for myself, I can fire customers without notice.

TDD

Yes, that was nice about working for one's self.

Steve