In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

I taught my kids that all "that stuff"
was all over the place. One of them learned that it was not attractive
and
lives responsibly, one of them thought most of it was great and barely
accomplishes anything each day. I must have succeeded with one and
needed
to work a lot harder with the other.

You just proved what I'm saying is valid.

I don't think I did at all. But have it your way...

The results prove that what I said was valid.

That's a copout--to ignore the advice of someone because of what they
are doing.

No, it isn't! Regardless, it's what kids do. Kids see such behaviors
as hypocrisy on the part of the lecturer - and their right, because
the 'adult' is really saying "Do as I say, not as I do".

Would *you* accept "Do as I say, not as I do".

What do you mean "would you"? I did.

Then you were different than most children I knew.

My parents morals, objective lessons,
words of wisdom, etc., were never questioned by me.

Uh huh.

I knew that they were
right because, as my mother would tell me "if you start smoking now, it will
be extremely difficult for you to quit when you learn how bad it is," as she
was puffing on her cigarette--I knew how much she wanted to quit smoking. I
saw no contradiction whatever in what she was saying. She was right.

Of course she was right.

But that didn't stop you from smoking. How many years were you a
smoker, Kim?

Your mother's actions had more influence than her words. Despite what
she said, you smoked anyway. And finally quit when - 10 years ago?

Did you go around expecting everyone to live as they preached?

Nope. But neither did I think that it made sense to listen to someone
who *unrepentantly* lived one way and preached another.

Living one way and preaching another is a pretty good definition of hypocrisy,
btw.

And the fact remains that, logical or not, children are more influenced by
their parents' actions than their parents' words.

I certainly didn't.

Yet you smoked for how many years?

I learned far more things by observing that maybe there was a
reason for the lecturer lecturing against something while they were "doing
it."

But when it came to smoking, those words didn't stop you.

I'd much rather take advice from someone who's been through what
they are preaching against than someone who's never been there.

The adults were preaching against stuff they hadn't done (smoke
grass). Their argument was against "using drugs as a crutch" and told
how they were "bad for you" and "addicting" - while they themselves
ingested substances that were all those things.

Not sure why you felt like you had to elaborate. I knew where you were
coming from.

I was teaching by example.

The phrase "lead by example" has some truth to it.

Exactly! Adults must set the example of how to live responsibly.

But the phrase "learn from the
mistakes of others" has much more weight, in my opinion.

That's fine when it's about things like falling off a ladder. Not when
it's about things that appear to be "fun". And not when the lecturer
keeps on making the mistakes.

Your philosophy is different than mine, then.

I sure hope so!

Either it is or it ain't. If
I believe the phrase "learn from the mistakes of others" is pertinent and
that I've learned more from it than those who tried to lead by example, then
I believe it across the board--not selectively. And, I believe it.

You can believe whatever you want - just as "creationists" can believe that the
Earth is only about 6000 years old. Your belief doesn't make it true.

Here, you were
sitting right there listening to those lecturers preaching against the
evils
as they partook in something you believed was evil and you still ignored
the
value they taught--or at least devalued it, it looks like.

That's *exactly* how *kids* think! Once they detect "do as I say, not
as I do", they use the adult's behavior as an excuse.

Please don't use "they" in the vernacular.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I did not.

Yes, you *did*. Otherwise you would never have started smoking.

Oh, and lots of my friends did not.

Maybe. I bet a bunch of them smoked, though.

That's not mature, adult
reasoning, but it's what many if not most kids do - particularly when
someone is telling them not to do something that they think might be a
lot of fun.

How could someone who sees a parent smoking, hacking, stinking up the place,
chained to the cigarette, ever think smoking could be a lot of fun?!

I don't know. But they do. You did.

I used to smoke, but not because I thought it was fun.
I think I probably started
to get in trouble--get the attention of my mom so she'd quit.

And that was how many years ago?

Heh heh...but
it didn't work. I just quit about seven years ago.

My point exactly. Your mom's lectures were to no avail - her *actions* got you
to start smoking, and to continue for years - decades.

Again, your story confirms the truth of what I'm saying. If your mom had not
smoked, you would not have smoked either, because you would not have had to try
to get her to quit.

Neither of my parents smoked when I was growing up. There were no lectures
against it. Just the example. None of us kids got the habit, either. I tried it
when I was 21 - went through two packs in about a week, decided it was no big
deal and never had another one.


.--not the twisted logic. It's exactly like nude art. I
would never gasp at a child looking at a nude statue, or painting, or
photo,
etc. I would ask them what they found beautiful.

It's not about gasping. It's about what is appropriate. Is it
appropriate for children to see each other naked? Naked adults? To let
adults see them naked? All depends on the context. For example, health
care is a different context than trying on clothes.

I think it's appropriate and natural to have children see each other nekked.

So it would be OK with you for, say, 10-12 year old boys and girls to see each
other naked?

By the way, why are you so huffy about not printing a callsign (all
inclusive with its prefix and suffix) but you'll bring up and print the
subject of "naked adults?" I mean, really...where is your logic in *that*?

Are you saying that the discussion of naked adults is inappropriate?

Anyway, and as to adults being naked, I used to take showers with my kids
(sons) when they were little, stopped probably when they were--oh I don't
know--3 or 4.

Why?

Was that, in your opinion, vulgar?!

Kim - have I ever described *anything* here as vulgar?

I would say that for an adult to shower with children of the opposite sex - at
any age - is very inappropriate.

Good grief, I hope not.

Ask the experts.

But, as I said, have it your way. And, why *is* it OK for nudity when one
is, presumably, an infant or toddler and then, just as they are probably
quite comfortable with the nude body--we suddenly decide "OHMYGAWD...you
can't see me *THAT* way!!!" Whaddup wid dat?

Who says nudity for infants and toddlers is "OK"? Not me. It's necessary when
changing diapers and such - but not after they're toilet trained.

Why?

Those body parts are to be spoken of, not hidden in some closet because
they are horrible.

They're not "horrible". They're PRIVATE.

Maybe to you.

To a lot of people. One can go to jail for hauling them out at an inappropriate
time or place.

And that's your right to believe like that. But, don't make
a judgement call--and you have--about someone who thinks it differently than
you.

When you tell me not to make a judgement call, *you* are making a judgement
call. What gives you the right to make a judgement call, but not me?

And, by the way...leaving my callsign off the list has nothing (for me
anyway) to do with how you think of my callsign.

The what's your beef?

Either leave me off
altogether, as you could have done; or put it up with the same import as
each and every other ham.

You're not on the list anymore - by your own request. Didn't you see that?

And, by the way, I am pretty much going to quit
debating the topic because it's pretty darned obvious that we
disagree--wholeheartedly--on this. You've turned it into a debate about my
callsign. The issue isn't *why*, it is that you did and that you could have
handled it differently.

Of course I could have handled it differently. But that would have compromised
my standards. Which I would not do. Period.

Don't whine about, "but you are trying to tell me I
have to use a callsign I find objectionable...wa wa wa."

Where's the whining? I'm pointing out facts. Look at the posts where I was told
what I should do, should have done, should post, should not post. Lotta
judgement calls from others about what *I* should do.

The point is you could have left my name
completely *off* the list.

And then you would have whined and moaned about how you weren't included.

"Those" body parts can be beautiful or dangerous, and
both must be recognized. When someone is pulling their pants down at
the
doctor--it is quite OK, at least one would think; when someone is
pulling
their pants down in public--it is quite not OK.

Why? It's the same action, isn't it? The same beautiful body parts
that you say must be spoken of, right?

Hey! Now you're talking!

Exactly. So why will I get arrested if I do it in most public places?

Could it be that what may be appropriate in the doctor's office is not
usually appropriate in public?

Well, there may be patients who wouldn't mind exams in public...I would,
though.

Why? You said you have no problem with "nudity in general". Can't get
any more "general" than at high noon on Main Street.

73 de Jim, N2EY