Scot Dutchy wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:And if you want things to less ambiguous, perhaps you could be clearer. I first read it as you calling the membership shite.

What was ambiguous? It is normal English. The fact that people read into things what is not there just shows the approach they taking.

Perhaps if I substitute out "the membership" and replace it. What would you understand by the following: "It really is a load of shite but that is classical music for you."?
Other than assuming the author thinks classical music is shite, perhaps the "it" refers to a specific piece of music, it isn't clear. By association however, classical music is also inferred to be white by being the overall genre which the " it" is being inferred to belong to.

Having reconsidered, I do now see what you wrote as either directly or indirectly calling the membership "shite".

The ambiguity that you are struggling to see is perhaps the myopia brought about by you understanding what you meant and still seeing it that way. However, good communication is about ensuring that the reader understands your meaning, not just yourself. I offered an alternative explanation you could have used. You could have said something like, " yes, perhaps that would have been clearer" rather than digging your heals in and insisting you were right. There clearly is ambiguity, several people understood what you wrote to mean something other than what you say you meant.

Thommo wrote:

laklak wrote:What's a yummy mummy? Is it anything like a MILF?

Same thing.

Here's tips (with pictures!) if you want to further sate your curiosity.

http://grenglish.co.uk/yummy-mummy-the-how-to-guide/

I have to say, that is a good looking leather jacket.

Remember though, that the salient fact for this discussion is that Scot thinks they are "stupid."
So I'd hardly consider him referring to posters here as being part of the "yummy mummy brigade" a term of endearment.

Sendraks wrote:

Thommo wrote:

laklak wrote:What's a yummy mummy? Is it anything like a MILF?

Same thing.

Here's tips (with pictures!) if you want to further sate your curiosity.

http://grenglish.co.uk/yummy-mummy-the-how-to-guide/

I have to say, that is a good looking leather jacket.

Remember though, that the salient fact for this discussion is that Scot thinks they are "stupid."
So I'd hardly consider him referring to posters here as being part of the "yummy mummy brigade" a term of endearment.

That is my opinion of the yummy mummy brigade. Where did I say they were members.

Sendraks wrote:

Thommo wrote:

laklak wrote:What's a yummy mummy? Is it anything like a MILF?

Same thing.

Here's tips (with pictures!) if you want to further sate your curiosity.

http://grenglish.co.uk/yummy-mummy-the-how-to-guide/

I have to say, that is a good looking leather jacket.

Remember though, that the salient fact for this discussion is that Scot thinks they are "stupid."
So I'd hardly consider him referring to posters here as being part of the "yummy mummy brigade" a term of endearment.

Hey, don't bite the hand that feeds. None of you provided pictures of MILFs evidence to consider about the nature of yummy mummies.

At this point, I consider my position to be the most thoroughly researched and evidenced in the thread. Not to mention modest, beautiful and all around good-egg.

Scot Dutchy wrote:That is my opinion of the yummy mummy brigade. Where did I say they were members.

So when you made this comment....

Scot Dutchy wrote:I just love how the yummy mummy brigade just love to condemn anyone who thinks outside their box.

...it was not directed at any of the posters here disagreeing with you, but some unspecified other people, somewhere else, who happened to be disagreeing with you?

Sendraks wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:That is my opinion of the yummy mummy brigade. Where did I say they were members.

So when you made this comment....

Scot Dutchy wrote:I just love how the yummy mummy brigade just love to condemn anyone who thinks outside their box.

...it was not directed at any of the posters here disagreeing with you, but some unspecified other people, somewhere else, who happened to be disagreeing with you?

Why not? I did not name them personally did I. You see more presumptions. I know the yummy mummy brigade would disagree with me. They were the ones to make that presumption.

Now you're just taking the piss.

Thommo wrote:Now you're just taking the piss.

No I am not. Why should I? They read what they want to read.

What makes you think that pronoun "you" refers to you? Or this one for that matter?

Scot Dutchy wrote:Why not? I did not name them personally did I.

Naming people personally is not necessary to direct an insult at them. At best it is a cheap attempt to insult whilst trying to avoid breaching the FUA.

Scot Dutchy wrote: I know the yummy mummy brigade would disagree with me. They were the ones to make that presumption.

So you are directing the comment of "yummy mummy brigade" at people involved in this discussion. And you do consider the "yummy mummy brigade" to be "stupid."

Because it makes no sense to direct your comments at people who are neither members of this forum nor involved in this discussion.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Disagreeing FFS

Scot, you have been in disagreement with myself, Fall and Doubt on this topic. Not only have you disagreed, you have resorted to insult and general evasion.

What? FFS Fucking judgemental twaddle of the worst order. Messrs Prim and Proper who think they are the only ones who know how to bring up children. A bloody load of crap. Where is the insult?

'Messrs Prim and Proper' is a personal attack.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I just love how the yummy mummy brigade just love to condemn anyone who thinks outside their box.

Who are you talking about here? Who are they and who are they condemning? Who is it you are referring to as thinking outside their box?

Fallible wrote:
Who are you talking about here? Who are they and who are they condemning? Who is it you are referring to as thinking outside their box?

And why are they stupid?

The 'wisdom" of treating children as "seen but not heard" is simply poor parenting and a refusal to treat children as human beings. It is used as, a very poor, justification for ignoring what children what or need, which includes a child need to express itself. It is a short hand for saying "you are a child and have nothing worth saying and nothing that I want to hear."

How desperately sad it is for a child to hear that phrase said. To be told that they don't matter.

I grew up with that phrase and other choice -isms from the book of victorian parenting. I particularly detested the saying "a child should be seen and not heard" because it was used as an excuse to simultaneously violate my privacy (I should be seen), but not actually to articulate myself in public (not heard), unless my parents wanted me to speak. It took me a while as an adult to reconcile that my parents were treating me as little more than a possession, rather than a functioning lifeform with a mind of its own. They didn't mean any real harm by it, they just passed on the bad lessons in parenting inflicted on them by their parents without actually questioning whether the practises were harmful or not.

The phrase also discourages children from asking questions (but not heard), which is of course one of the most important parts of growing up. You need to know how the world works, but if you're being told to stay quiet, it quickly teaches you to look elsewhere for information rather than your parents. Never mind the fact that my parents didn't take kindly to being asked questions they didn't know the answer to or being challenged when the views they asserted seemed obviously incorrect to me. Woe betide the child who dared to "not be heard" in those circumstances. The wholly irrational threat of physical force or the totally irrational act of physical force would be used to silence a wayward child.

The added frustration to this was that my parents were not and are not, stupid people. Yet rather than reason with a child and teach it the importance of questioning and how to employ reason, they preferred instead to resort to violence or sometimes simply confining a child to quarters or some other punishment was employed. Little wonder that as a child and later as an adult, I lacked confidence and blamed myself for things that went wrong, because that is what I was used to from my parents. To being told "no." Being told that what I wanted didn't matter. That I should be silent and unquestioningly obey them.

I guess my idea of raising them in chicken coops with automatic feeders won't be well received.

laklak wrote:I guess my idea of raising them in chicken coops with automatic feeders won't be well received.

Nah, providing they're allowed to talk as much as they like, we're cool.

Sendraks wrote:

The phrase also discourages children from asking questions (but not heard), which is of course one of the most important parts of growing up. You need to know how the world works, but if you're being told to stay quiet, it quickly teaches you to look elsewhere for information rather than your parents.
.

Absolutely. I remember as a child hearing newsreaders talking about the situation in Sri Lanka, mentioning guerrillas. At that age, the word gorilla sounds exactly the same. I was aware of gorillas but not their rebellious, gun toting sound a likes. Being silenced when trying ask about it led me to fill in the blanks and think there were tooled up gorillas fighting the government in Sri Lanka. It's pretty damaging to a child's confidence to then be roundly laughed at by your extended family when that sort of mistake gets broadcast by an older, gobby cousin.
Just one of a number of incorrect assumptions I made as a kid which could have been avoided had I been enabled to ask questions when I didn't get stuff. I also never bothered asking for help with homework in case they thought I was stupid.....so if I couldn't do it, I just didn't hand it in and made an excuse.

My kids will not suffer that fate. They ask, we explain. They want help, they ask and get it. They are so much more confident than I was at their age. I'm no yummy mummy or whatever the less misogynist version is. I just think my kids deserve treating with some respect and their knowledge nurtured as well as simply clothing and feeding them.

They can talk all they want, they'll be on an island several miles off the mainland so we won't hear them. We'll all take turns refilling the feeder hoppers and hosing them off. Just think, no more squalling babies on airplanes, no kiddie menus, no goddamn school buses clogging up the roads, no "family friendly" entertainment. This could revolutionize society as we know it.