On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:53:19 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 22:23:56 -0800, "ajpdla"
wrote:

That's bull****.

It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!

Nice try, but not true.

Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?


The legal term is "a reasonable expectation of privacy". No I am not
a lawyer but here's my somewhat educated layman's take on how it
works: In a workplace environment, you are using your employer's
resources to perform work for hire. In order to protect the employer
from legal problems such as sexual harassment and simply to ensure
that people are doing the work they contracted for (taking a job is a
contract, you agree to work for pay), the employer has some fairly
broad rights regarding monitoring and searching of desks and so on.
The employer owns the equipment,t he office space and pays for the
services.

In a private environment such as a home or even a hotel room, you have
a much stronger expectation of privacy regarding your affairs. A
hotel could not legally listen in on your phone calls as one example.

Note too, the court merely said (absent reading the opinion) that the
evidence obtained could not be used against the defendant. This is
not quite the same as saying listening in was illegal on the face of
it. I suspect it might have gone differently if the defendant was the
minor child rather than her boyfriend, but I'd not like to wager on
that as I just do not know enough law.

Children are not property, they have some rights separate from their
parents. This is why, despiter bibilical permission, a parent cannot
beat her child to death for disobedience as one example. I suspect
the principle used here had more to do with reasonable expectation of
privacy than the fact that it was her daughter she was snooping and
would have applied to anyone's conversation she was listening in on.

Would you be happy knowing your neighbor listened in when you norrowed
her phone?

Jim P.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:19:37 -0800, Jim wrote:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:53:19 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 22:23:56 -0800, "ajpdla"
wrote:

That's bull****.

It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!

Nice try, but not true.

Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?


The legal term is "a reasonable expectation of privacy". No I am not
a lawyer but here's my somewhat educated layman's take on how it
works: In a workplace environment, you are using your employer's
resources to perform work for hire. In order to protect the employer
from legal problems such as sexual harassment and simply to ensure
that people are doing the work they contracted for (taking a job is a
contract, you agree to work for pay), the employer has some fairly
broad rights regarding monitoring and searching of desks and so on.
The employer owns the equipment,t he office space and pays for the
services.

In a private environment such as a home or even a hotel room, you have
a much stronger expectation of privacy regarding your affairs. A
hotel could not legally listen in on your phone calls as one example.

Note too, the court merely said (absent reading the opinion) that the
evidence obtained could not be used against the defendant. This is
not quite the same as saying listening in was illegal on the face of
it. I suspect it might have gone differently if the defendant was the
minor child rather than her boyfriend, but I'd not like to wager on
that as I just do not know enough law.

Children are not property, they have some rights separate from their
parents. This is why, despiter bibilical permission, a parent cannot
beat her child to death for disobedience as one example. I suspect
the principle used here had more to do with reasonable expectation of
privacy than the fact that it was her daughter she was snooping and
would have applied to anyone's conversation she was listening in on.

Would you be happy knowing your neighbor listened in when you norrowed
her phone?

Jim P.


You are missing the fact that the employer must also notify the
customer that the call is being monitored.

Jeff wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ...


Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how
the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same
treatment!! YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't
trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you
were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their
hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a
mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then
you DESERVE ALL the results!!

Anyone who pretends they deserve to GET differently than they GAVE,
is LYING! If you can't incur the love of your children so that they
want you PROTECTED, then you don't DESERVE IT!!
Steve

Spoken by a true non-parent.
-----------------
You're delusionally wrong. I've got two raised and off on their own
in their late twenties and early thirties. Son 31 and daughter 28.


You are so full of **** you must
have brown eyes.
-----------------
The only **** you see is in YOUR head, behind YOUR eyes.


Parents can and some do "everything" right and still
have a problem child,,,
--------------------
Nope, nonsense, never ever seen it.

Just becuase you have never seen it doesnt mean it never
happens.
----------------
Me having never seen it in no way indicates it happens.


It most certainly does happen,, more than "you" may
think, in that tiny little pompous ass brain of yours.
-----------------
My brain is larger and more powerful than yours, you're jealous
and your insults sound immature and juvenile.

Nope. Nonsense.
Things are caused, and the closer you look the more you see
this is true. Kids have no reason to mistreat someone who
treats them properly. Now if you treat them ****ty and CALL
it "proper" and don't care what they think, well I can see
how you could delude yourself about that.


Go spend some
time at a counselling facility for kids and just see how kids can
choose the wrong path in life all by themselves.
---------------------------
Doesn't happen, ever. They are harmed, and everyone *I* have known
in 54 years who has worked with kids has said this!


They're not abused
or mistreated kids, many come from very normal loving homes,
Christian homes where the parents really do practice what they
preach.
----------------------
So-called Xtian homes are abusive homes, that's what I mean above
about you deluding yourself.


FYI I work in hospital enviroment and have for more
than 20 years now, and I see this kind of stuff quite often.
-------------------------
Lemme guess. You're the janitor. You write like an ignorant
religiously deluded janitor.


In fact, what you think doing "everything right" then
MUST BE WRONG, ****head!!

You have some psychologically DEFECTIVE pet notions that
YOU just don't want to see go down in FLAMES, but they do!
They really do!:

You see, control freaks like you **** up everything
you touch, your marriages, your children, your lives.

obviously you have NO experience at this
----------------------
WWRRRRONNGGGGOOO!!!!

You post all this "crap" in the manner that you post it
with all your "all caps" and stupid exclamation points and you expect
"anybody" to believe you.
---------------------------
Yours is crap, mine is fine, and you know it,
you're merely desperate!


And you call ME a control freak??
-------------------------
Yup, all Xtian child-control bigots are abusive deluded monsters.


Again what an absolute pompous ass. I would suggest you
are the acting control freak here.
-------------------------
Your suggestion is merely your desperation.


which is when some really start to rebel.
----------------------------
Hint!: Hey, King Big****.
Your "colonists" don't rebel unless you TREAT THEM LIKE ****!

Absolutely untrue, rebelling is actually quite normal for preteens
and teens, its part of growing up and establishing their own
independence.
------------------------
Doesn't happen at all in other cultures where kids are respected
and are not coerced. But having not studied Anthropology, of course,
you'd never have learned that "adolescent rebellion" is strictly
a phenomenon of child-abusive societies.


Its what a parent does about it that counts.
-------------------------
No, rather parents CAUSE it, or else they KNOW BETTER!


Like I said get a real education on the subject.
---------------------------
A paltry little janitor like you is the one in need of education.


Mine didn't at ALL, because they NEVER HAD TO!
It isn't a necessity, you know!
Well no, you don't know, do you?

Rebellion is a symptom of ABUSE in a chronically child-abusive
culture like THIS one!


What total BS this is,, all rebellion is from abuse huh. Now you
have just blown any tiny little shred of credibility you "may" have had,
blown,,, gone . Like I said before read a book, get a life
---------------------------
Now you're wildly thrashing about, saying nothing of content, making
no reasoned point, merely flailing.


All of your stupid all caps remarks and all the stupid exclamation
marks tells me you have an agenda,
-------------------------------
Damn straight, the RIGHT ONE!
I want to see the people like you who **** up children STOPPED!

My kids are all grown and gone,, all of them are decent
law abiding, tax paying, successful citizens. They arent screwed
up freaks like you are soooo desperately trying to imply.
-----------------
So YOU say, Most Americans have dire problems with maturity and
self-esteem and fractured creativity because of the ****ty way
they were raised, and with your ignorance apparent they should be
precisely of that constellation of problems, if you had enough
courage to admit this.

What you call "normal" is DAMAGED!


Man you must come from the twilight zone or somewhere. The mere
fact that you are trying to imply my kids are mental defectives
because of my parenting skills without knowing a thing about
me or my familiy really speaks volumes about YOU.
----------------------------------
You wish, unfortunately it *IS* about you and your sort and the
mess your kind always make of your relationships with your kids.


And if YOU had you'd know that they agree with ME,
you child-abusive dip****.

Jesus you are quite taken with yourself arent you??
-----------------------
My name isn't Jesus.


Once again
you call me a control freak????? You call me a child abuser?? Do you
know my distant past??? have you spoken with my children??? NO .
-------------------------
I don't need to.
I've seen your kind on every street corner in this country.
I've seen your damaged product everywhere.
Steve

dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

When one of my children was clearly getting out of control, I handled it
differently: I TOLD her that her behavior had cost her her privacy
rights, and that I would search her room or listen in on her phone calls
at my discretion.

I did not want to prevent her from ever using the phone -- she did have
some friends who were good for her -- but continuing to eavesdrop from
time to time kept me aware of what she was doing.
--------------------------
People who dishonor their children that way GET dishonored BY their
children. A friend of mine who hated her father used to plant things
in her father's sock drawer for her mother to find, receipts carefully
altered, porno, etc. Those who **** with their kids are destined to be
****ed BY their kids.
Steve

Steve, I started out honoring her: I had to change my ways when she
started DIShonoring me (and herself)
-----------------------
Nope, she was doing what was her RIGHT, and YOU simply didn't LIKE it!

She can't possibly "dishonor herself", that's YOU talking and making
judgements you don't even have a RIGHT to make.


and doing things that were dangerous.
-----------------
Her RIGHT, NOT YOURS!

I've seen what many pricks like you SAY is "dangerous", it being
anything that YOU don't happen to favor, nothing more! If you hadn't
been abusing her rights she'd have had no desire to do anything truly
dangerous. It is your dishonoring abuse of her equality that made her
want to take risks merely to contradict your overbearing attempts at
control!


I did what I felt I had to do to keep her alive -- and that
is NOT an exageration.
----------------------
You drove her to it and then justified it, like chasing a child
toward a cliff.


It turned out she was severely depressed, but
adolescent depression manifests in odd ways, which I did not recognize:
in her case, it was mostly phenominal anger along with acting out.
----------------------------
You don't even grasp WHY she was depressed and angry.
And "acing out" is a misused term by parents like you, more excuse
for what YOU want.

You're incapable because her MIND and THOUGHTS violate your stupid
****ing little religion.


And I think violating their privacy OPENLY does honor them
------------------------------
Nonsense, you're deluding yourself to avoid taking the blame that
is rightfully YOURS for dishonoring her!


-- you tell
them what you are doing, and why, and don't hide it. Sneaking is
dishonorable, but I never did that.
----------------------------------
Sneaking or overt abuse is irrelevant, abuse is abuse.
If they shouldn't do it to you, then you shouldn't do it to them,
or you will certainly incur their hate, wrath, and their urge to
harm you by self-destruction.


FWIW, it worked: I managed to keep her out of several really dangerous
situations, and eventually, the depression was diagnosed and
appropriately treated. She's almost 19 now, not anxious to move out,
going to college, and just came in, told me I looked wonderful, gave me
a kiss on the cheek, agreed to drop me off later today (so DH and I
wouldn't be somewhere with two cars; as a side benefit, it means she
gets to use MY car for the rest of the day), and stayed for a short chat
with me (and her boyfriend) before the two of them went back to her room.
----------------------------------
Play-acting. She hates your guts.


I think our relationship is good.
-----------------------------------
You think what she wants you to. Child becomes the parent.


I know you think your kids never got into serious trouble because you
are such a wonderful parent. It's a lovely theory. But at some point,
other things influence your kids as well -- and when things start to go
badly, you sometimes need different tools.
----------------------------------------
Kids "get into trouble" with illegitimate authority. Everybody does.
Parents who don't try to assume unrightful authority never become
illegitimate, and kids never find cause to rebel against one who is
not trying to interfere with them.


I remember one conversation with this particular daughter, where I said
that, in spite of everything, I thought I'd been a pretty good parent.
She said, "In spite of WHAT?" I didn't want to be insulting -- I mean,
what could I say? After a moment, I said, "In spite of the fact that
my kid's lives are not exactly what I'd dreamed they'd be." She put her
hands on her hips and said, "Well! YOUR job isn't to dream for us.
YOUR job is to just keep us alive until we grow up enough to have our
OWN dreams."

I figure as long as a teenager can put me in my appropriate place like
that, I've done a pretty good job of parenting. Not perfect, Lord
knows, but pretty good.
----------------------------
Now, if you only understood ALL that she meant by that, but she has
given up on that with you, now you're to be coddled and otherwise
ignored. She caught herself and stopped short, having long ago decided
that you're not worth it, and that she shouldn't bother.
Steve

In article ,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

Nope, she was doing what was her RIGHT, and YOU simply didn't LIKE it!

She can't possibly "dishonor herself", that's YOU talking and making
judgements you don't even have a RIGHT to make.


and doing things that were dangerous.
-----------------
Her RIGHT, NOT YOURS!

I've seen what many pricks like you SAY is "dangerous", it being
anything that YOU don't happen to favor, nothing more! If you hadn't
been abusing her rights she'd have had no desire to do anything truly
dangerous. It is your dishonoring abuse of her equality that made her
want to take risks merely to contradict your overbearing attempts at
control!


Well, since her activities landed her in the hospital, and came close to
killing her, I'm sure I'm not imagining that they were dangerous. Nor
am I imagining that she'd rather be alive.

Even you admit that intervention to pull a child from in front of a
speeding car is appropriate. I believe that what I was doing fit that
category -- it beat the heck out of letting her die due to some
misplaced values that put her presumed rights over her life. All I did
was keep her alive.


I did what I felt I had to do to keep her alive -- and that
is NOT an exageration.
----------------------
You drove her to it and then justified it, like chasing a child
toward a cliff.


It turned out she was severely depressed, but
adolescent depression manifests in odd ways, which I did not recognize:
in her case, it was mostly phenominal anger along with acting out.
----------------------------
You don't even grasp WHY she was depressed and angry.
And "acing out" is a misused term by parents like you, more excuse
for what YOU want.

Since it turns out that virtually ALL the women in my family struggle
with depression, I suspect it's because she's inhereted lousy brain
chemistry. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, much depression is NOT
situational. And given her immediate and dramatic response to
psychotropic drugs, it seems clear that the primary cause was
bio-chemical. She took the drugs for about 3 years, and no longer needs
them.


You're incapable because her MIND and THOUGHTS violate your stupid
****ing little religion.

And which religion would that be? The one that thinks alive is better
than dead?

I'm not a member of any mainstream religion, and am not a theist. Or
even a dieist. Or at least I don't believe in any of the things most
people in our current culture mean when they say "God" (Don't consider
myself an atheist, either.)

----------------------------------------
Kids "get into trouble" with illegitimate authority. Everybody does.
Parents who don't try to assume unrightful authority never become
illegitimate, and kids never find cause to rebel against one who is
not trying to interfere with them.

You are delusional. Your ivory tower must be a great place to live:
"kids only have serious problems due to bad parents. If the parenting is
good, the kids will always be just fine."

Get over it: kids are independent beings with their own thoughts,
desires, and wills. Their parents are NOT in control of those things,
nor, unless they keep them completely away from the rest of the world,
are they the only influence on their kids. Life happens, and other
things influence them as well.



I remember one conversation with this particular daughter, where I said
that, in spite of everything, I thought I'd been a pretty good parent.
She said, "In spite of WHAT?" I didn't want to be insulting -- I mean,
what could I say? After a moment, I said, "In spite of the fact that
my kid's lives are not exactly what I'd dreamed they'd be." She put her
hands on her hips and said, "Well! YOUR job isn't to dream for us.
YOUR job is to just keep us alive until we grow up enough to have our
OWN dreams."

I figure as long as a teenager can put me in my appropriate place like
that, I've done a pretty good job of parenting. Not perfect, Lord
knows, but pretty good.
----------------------------
Now, if you only understood ALL that she meant by that, but she has
given up on that with you, now you're to be coddled and otherwise
ignored. She caught herself and stopped short, having long ago decided
that you're not worth it, and that she shouldn't bother.
Steve

It must be nice to be so omniscient that you know everything without
ever meeting me OR my daughter. She's a great kid. Fortunately, your
"announcement" that she hates my guts won't change how she really feels
about me.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

Nope, she was doing what was her RIGHT, and YOU simply didn't LIKE it!

She can't possibly "dishonor herself", that's YOU talking and making
judgements you don't even have a RIGHT to make.


and doing things that were dangerous.
-----------------
Her RIGHT, NOT YOURS!

I've seen what many pricks like you SAY is "dangerous", it being
anything that YOU don't happen to favor, nothing more! If you hadn't
been abusing her rights she'd have had no desire to do anything truly
dangerous. It is your dishonoring abuse of her equality that made her
want to take risks merely to contradict your overbearing attempts at
control!


Well, since her activities landed her in the hospital, and came close to
killing her, I'm sure I'm not imagining that they were dangerous. Nor
am I imagining that she'd rather be alive.
-----------------
You induced those behaviors in her in the first place.


Even you admit that intervention to pull a child from in front of a
speeding car is appropriate. I believe that what I was doing fit that
category -- it beat the heck out of letting her die due to some
misplaced values that put her presumed rights over her life. All I did
was keep her alive.
---------------------------------
Calling 911 is fine, giving someone reason to take poison is not.


I did what I felt I had to do to keep her alive -- and that
is NOT an exageration.
----------------------
You drove her to it and then justified it, like chasing a child
toward a cliff.

It turned out she was severely depressed, but
adolescent depression manifests in odd ways, which I did not recognize:
in her case, it was mostly phenominal anger along with acting out.
----------------------------
You don't even grasp WHY she was depressed and angry.
And "acting out" is a misused term by parents like you, more excuse
for what YOU want.

Since it turns out that virtually ALL the women in my family struggle
with depression, I suspect it's because she's inhereted lousy brain
chemistry. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, much depression is NOT
situational.
---------------
Some is not, but that some does NOT lead to "acting out".
Also, a supposedly familial predilection to depression can be
related to the persistent familial religion or political bullying.


And given her immediate and dramatic response to
psychotropic drugs, it seems clear that the primary cause was
bio-chemical. She took the drugs for about 3 years, and no longer needs
them.
---------------------------------
Uh-huh. Pretending that mind and body are not related doesn't work:

In schizophrenics that needed niacin, the chemical need for niacin
decreased to normal after successful psychotherapy.


You're incapable because her MIND and THOUGHTS violate your stupid
****ing little religion.

And which religion would that be? The one that thinks alive is better
than dead?

I'm not a member of any mainstream religion, and am not a theist. Or
even a dieist. Or at least I don't believe in any of the things most
people in our current culture mean when they say "God" (Don't consider
myself an atheist, either.)
-------------------------------
That doesn't matter, what the parent imagines to be sinful or
disreputable is religious in nature, even if they don't THINK
they are "religious". And the effort to control another implies
a religious hierarchy of dominance and dishonoring.


Kids "get into trouble" with illegitimate authority. Everybody does.
Parents who don't try to assume unrightful authority never become
illegitimate, and kids never find cause to rebel against one who is
not trying to interfere with them.

You are delusional.
---------------------
Nope. You are.


Your ivory tower must be a great place to live:
"kids only have serious problems due to bad parents. If the parenting is
good, the kids will always be just fine."
-----------------------------
They won't always be "just fine", but the parents' role won't have
played a part.


Get over it: kids are independent beings with their own thoughts,
desires, and wills. Their parents are NOT in control of those things,
nor, unless they keep them completely away from the rest of the world,
are they the only influence on their kids. Life happens, and other
things influence them as well.
--------------------------------------
The actions of parents steer them toward rebellion toward problems
or coerce them toward non-genuine lives in which they are depressed.
The parents' actions and attitudes are the first and most influential
on children's development.


I remember one conversation with this particular daughter, where I said
that, in spite of everything, I thought I'd been a pretty good parent.
She said, "In spite of WHAT?" I didn't want to be insulting -- I mean,
what could I say? After a moment, I said, "In spite of the fact that
my kid's lives are not exactly what I'd dreamed they'd be." She put her
hands on her hips and said, "Well! YOUR job isn't to dream for us.
YOUR job is to just keep us alive until we grow up enough to have our
OWN dreams."

I figure as long as a teenager can put me in my appropriate place like
that, I've done a pretty good job of parenting. Not perfect, Lord
knows, but pretty good.
----------------------------
Now, if you only understood ALL that she meant by that, but she has
given up on that with you, now you're to be coddled and otherwise
ignored. She caught herself and stopped short, having long ago decided
that you're not worth it, and that she shouldn't bother.
Steve

It must be nice to be so omniscient that you know everything without
ever meeting me OR my daughter. She's a great kid. Fortunately, your
"announcement" that she hates my guts won't change how she really feels
about me.
---------------------------------
I don't have to be ominiscient to know alot more than you do.
Steve

---------------------------------
I don't have to be ominiscient to know alot more than you do.
Steve

Ya know, you sit there and type **** about people you don't even ****ing
know. Derogatory things. I hope to hell you are sued out your ass for the
libelous - defamatory things you've said. The responses you have been
giving - derate any sort of professionalism you claim. YOU are acting on the
same scale you're putting those debating you - on. It sure must suck to be
you, because you're so full of it you must stink so bad no one can stand to
be around you. Some day - some one will knock you off your high horse. I
didn't say throne, because the only throne you own is the white porcelain
one you park your ass on - trying to expel some of the stuff you're so full
of - but obviously constipated - by your head stuck up there.
HOW DARE you act like some GOD and put people down you've never met or know
nothing about - as to how their children came up in life.

In case you've not heard the news reports in past few years, there have been
quite a few teens - who've had the best of homes, end up dead or in jail -
why? BECAUSE - they went their own way - contrary to the goodness their
parents tried to instill in them. You obviously never heard of the drug
epidemic that kids get caught up in, the drinking and so on. PEER PRESSURE,
NOT JUST BAD PARENTING can do it. For you not to acknowledge those facts,
you are the one who is clueless. There are countless tales on TV and radio
of teens who've gone astray or died - due to their decisions. Decisions to
get involved in things their parents had no clue of. WHY? BECAUSE - those
"loving parents" as you say - trusted their children. They could do no
wrong. Kids who had the best of homes. A GOOD HOME - does NOT guarantee a
GOOD KID. Get your head out of your ass for a change. Expel some of the crap
you're so full of. Open your eyes once wiped clean of the crappy film - blow
your nose of the fecal matter you inhaled, clean your throat - then take a
nice long look at and deep breath of "REALITY".

Contrary to your "perfect" bringing up of kids, I've personally seen kids in
loving homes - trusted - end up in trouble. I've also seen many kids who's
asses were beat for doing wrong - like stealing or disrespecting their
elders/authority figures and grew up to be fine outstanding people - like
many of the older population can attest too. Ask some of them how many times
they were taken out behind the barn and had their asses tanned. They'll tell
you how much better off they are for it. Those who don't believe in
correcting a child, are the pussies in this society who are now reaping what
they sow - disobedient children. The same children who will tell their
parents, teachers, ministers, police officers and so on - to go ****
themselves. They have NO respect for authority. The candy asses of this
country have placed them above any form of correction. This isn't the "Leave
it to Beaver" or "Ozzie and Harriet" - age. I'm not saying kids need to be,
should be or deserve to be "abused", but they do NOT grow up trouble free -
without proper guidance and correction as needed. You're suggesting that if
you treat your children right, they won't even need corrected. MAN, THAT IS
SOME CROCK.... IF you are the professional you say, obviously, you've missed
a few classes along the lines and shut your life off to the rest of the
world - to see what is REALLY going on. Used to be, kids in my school days
duked it out, got over it. Today, they take bombs, guns and so on - to blow
half their class mates away. I know "Preacher's" kids who were raised in a
loving home - end up in jail. Strict Christian/Catholic kids going to
school - needing corrected for getting into trouble. THERE IS A SERIOUS
PROBLEM HERE! IT ISN'T ALL "JUST" THE PARENTS. It is sex, drugs, etc. THIS -
THE COMPUTER - is a large part of the problem, what with cook books for
bombs available online and so on. Information which they'd never had before.
Sexual exploitation also. Parenting is a key, but it isn't the only key.
There is more to this than meets the eye.

You seriously need to open your eyes and mind up a lot more to see the
"reality" of this world. You're living in a clouded world. You claim to have
written chunks of books on the subject. CHUNKS? So you're not even a true
author in the sense of a complete book works? Your works are buried in with
someone else's? Tell us, was it points you've made being dispelled by those
truly in the know? Using your uh hem - examples of life according to you as
an example of what not to believe? Tell us, which books did you "help"
produce, so we may check the books to see if the credits list your name.
They DO list your name, right? IF SO, let us see. IF you're the professional
you claim to be and did do the writing, you should be proud to have us know
about it. So, lets have it... Give us some book titles we can check out.
Show us your credentials. You're not ashamed of them are you? You shouldn't
be. Instead of cutting down on those you know nothing of, try defending your
own words for a change. DO as the saying goes. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. YOU are
the one claiming to have written on the subject and know it all. SO SHOW US.
PROVE IT. You CAN do it, right? Instead of condemning others here of being
abusive parents - people you know nothing about, show us what gives you your
right to claim your superiority. The way you talk, you are probably the
founder of the "KIDS, REPORT YOUR PARENTS FOR CHILD ABUSE - IF THEY DON'T
GIVE YOU YOUR WAY" routine.

It is time for the parents to reclaim the home and the rule IN that home. As
long as that parent is paying the bills to keep that child clothed, fed,
medically cared for, that PARENT should be the one in charge. THEY should
have the final say - NOT THE KID. A child is too young to make informed
decisions.

DM

Dan Lanciani wrote:
In article .com,
(Curtis CCR) writes:
[...]
| In California, any phone call going over the public network
| cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH parties.

[...]
| The restrictions extend to the call center operations here too.
| Customers hear "your call may be monitored or recorded..." The
| montoring system records all calls on the customer service reps
phone,
| as well as what they are doing on their computer during the call.
In
| addition to the line for call queues, there is also a line for the
CSR
| to use for direct incoming calls or to make outgoing calls. The
| monitoring system records all calls on the CSR's phone regardless
of
| what line is used.
|
| When recordings are reviewed by management, they are always
reviewed by
| two people. The privacy policy requires that as soon as they
identify
| anything they hear as personal or otherwise not related to customer
| service, they stop listening and move on. The direct line on the
CSR
| phone does not have a monitoring notice so the privacy has to be
| extended to third party.

Are you saying that they do record the direct line even though there
is
no notice to the person on the other end? If that is the case,
hasn't the
law already been violated even if the people reviewing the tapes try
to
avoid listening to "personal" content?

Nope. It works out because of the way the law is written. The
recording connection to the phone is authorized, and they don't listen
to personal communications.

R. Steve Walz wrote:
wrote:

I have to laugh, I think Dave C. is a lawyer. The minute I remove
the
phones from my house because I can't trust my kids, then when there
is
an emergency and something happens to my minor child, I will be
considered an irresponsible parent because they can't call 911 and
I'll
be sued by my kid and the child welfare department. Where is the
common sense here. Parents are responsible for their minor childs
actions.....PERIOD. Parents, do what you must to keep your kids
safe!
----------------------------
You simply don't grasp this deeply enough.

Here's what parental responsibility ACTUALLY means! Actually: The
parent deserves everything their child decides to inflict upon them!!

And why?

Because the treatment of the child is wholly responsible for how
the child treats the parent and in fact wholly JUSTIFIES that same
treatment!!
YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE FROM YOUR KIDS! If you can't
trust them, YOU did it! If they hate you, YOU MADE THEM! If you
were unable to justify their love for you, then you deserve their
hate!! If you don't give them what you were supposed to, AND in a
mode and manner so that they WANTED TO RECEIVE AND ACCEPT IT, then
you DESERVE ALL the results!!

This, of course, assumes that children are fully functional, rational,
thinking people. We, of course, know better than to assume something
as ridiculous as this. Hell, there are many adults who don't fall
into this category.

The difference is, the adults that don't fall into this category are
(usually) held responsible for their actions, where as the parent of
the child who falls into this category can be held responsible. So
since the parent can be held responsible, the parent should have enough
authority over the child to prevent such behavior.

In article . com, (Curtis CCR) writes:
|
| Dan Lanciani wrote:
| In article .com,
| (Curtis CCR) writes:
| [...]
| | In California, any phone call going over the public network
| | cannot be monitored or recorded without consent of BOTH parties.
|
| [...]
| | The restrictions extend to the call center operations here too.
| | Customers hear "your call may be monitored or recorded..." The
| | montoring system records all calls on the customer service reps
| phone,
| | as well as what they are doing on their computer during the call.
| In
| | addition to the line for call queues, there is also a line for the
| CSR
| | to use for direct incoming calls or to make outgoing calls. The
| | monitoring system records all calls on the CSR's phone regardless
| of
| | what line is used.
| |
| | When recordings are reviewed by management, they are always
| reviewed by
| | two people. The privacy policy requires that as soon as they
| identify
| | anything they hear as personal or otherwise not related to customer
| | service, they stop listening and move on. The direct line on the
| CSR
| | phone does not have a monitoring notice so the privacy has to be
| | extended to third party.
|
| Are you saying that they do record the direct line even though there
| is
| no notice to the person on the other end? If that is the case,
| hasn't the
| law already been violated even if the people reviewing the tapes try
| to
| avoid listening to "personal" content?
|
| Nope. It works out because of the way the law is written. The
| recording connection to the phone is authorized, and they don't listen
| to personal communications.

I'm still a little confused about this. First, just to clarify, they do
record the direct line without notice to or consent of the person on the
other end, right? So are you saying that the two-party-consent requirement
applies only to personal communications and that it is ok to record everything
as long as you don't listen to the personal parts? Who exactly is authorized
to make the personal/non-personal distinction? In California, am I as an
individual allowed to record all of my phone conversations without notice to
the other party as long as I review only the non-personal parts?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com