MinDonner Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Next thread title: GOVERNMENT AGENTS SEVER THE SACRED BOND BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD / more overreaction about nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Min,What? I didn't use all caps or imply any "Sacred" bonds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 FLOW, seriously, there IS NO REGULATION mandating this. A score is collected for parental information ONLY. This pre-K program wasn't doing so well, partly because of the nutrition issue.It's a perfect analogy to U.S. News rankings of law schools. If your school is like mine, there was heavy, heavy pressure to be sure that you took a bar prep course, and to be sure that you reported your employment information, because screwing up either of those things really hurt their stats. However, that does not mean there is a GOVERNMENT REGULATION mandating that I take a bar course. The rankings given by the state don't have the force of law - they are just guidelines for parents. Note they rate daycare facilities also.How many times do I have to say this?OTOH, including the lunches packed by other parents in the ranking of the school for parental information is arguably dumb - or less so when you consider that improperly nurished children are little madhouses of ADHD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Scot, that was more a snark at FLOW's last post than yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Min,I should have put in a wink.;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Horse Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I think the key argument here is "Stay the hell out of my kids lunch". With in reason of course. Butter/sugar sandwiches aside. The fact whether the child is manipulating the truth, the "inspector" is government or not (which they are whether independent contracted or not is taking government money thus is sanctioned by a governing body), none of that is relevent. IF a kid has a bag lunch... hands the fuck off! Only if repeated extremes of what is considered inappropiate (I say that knowing everyone has there own "line" of appropriate) lunch is "observed" should the parents or applicable department be notified and discussions insue.All the rest of this back and forth is symantics that bare no relevence to the issue at hand.... there I said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 And screw that food pyramind too! Nazis telling parents what to feed their children.Tell you what, next time, they'll bring in fake plastic food models and have the children assemble a "lunch" and then make changes as necessary instead of using, you know, their actual fucking food. Would that assuage your feelings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Horse Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The food pyramid is suggestive and is not an enforceable policy. I'm not saying I disagree with it, only that it's not going to work for everyone, which seems the "inspector" is attempting to do anyway.I'll not be baited by your extremes. I don't believe it addes anything to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Right. So nobody should mess with a home-packed lunch unless it's really, really bad. Yes, you have added quite a bit to the discussion, it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Horse Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Right. So nobody should mess with a home-packed lunch unless it's really, really bad.Yes, although I will concede that if school staff would like to discuss it with me, I invite them to.Yes, you have added quite a bit to the discussion, it's true.I've added what I felt were valid clear points... that is, instead of blathering irrelevencies.I actually have a child that packs a lunch daily, that also does NOT fit within the guidelines of what's stated in the article. I believe it's well within what is consider well balance and nutritious and also something she will eat. I'll not have some overzealous, USDA guideline thumper, come along and 1) think it's within their right to invade my daughters privacy to inspect her lunch and 2) judge my choices of what is consider a quality lunch. The very fact that you or anyone else presumes to tell me her lunch is unsatifactory goes beyond reason. I'm sorry you do not agree, that is your right.I applaud the dept of your investigation on this, and I agree with your reasoning. What I don't agree is that it's relevent. This is a matter of school administration stepping into the realm of what I consider parental domain and yea I have a beef with that. I take great pains to make sure my daughter is healthy. What she eats is between me and her. There is an obvious line between what is healthly and what is not, but only when the situation is to an extreme degree should anyone one else "force" an alternative and ONLY after the matter is exhaustively discussed with the childs parents/guadian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 This is a matter of school administration stepping into No. It isn't. Holy shit, this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Horse Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 No. It isn't. Holy shit, this thread.Please explain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Please explain...Did not read thread, etc etc.You know what though? Part of the reason the issue in this thread is so misunderstood is because Scot, who is normally so lawyerly about shit he's trying to defend, now doesn't think accuracy or honesty is really all that important, or maybe not as important as capturing the incandescent rage he felt at the idea of a Government Functionary rappelling from a black helicopter to steal a child's home-made food to shove corporate government-subsidized food down a child's throat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Horse Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Did not read thread, etc etc.Ah! the "Threadjacker" should have been the clue. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Please explain...*sigh*This was a program parents volunteered their children to be a part of knowing more or less what that entailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ah! the "Threadjacker" should have been the clue. :laugh:No dude. He was talking about you. I could have "Giant Purple Penis Hat" in my title and it would still be the case that you didn't read the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Horse Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Did not read thread, etc etc.You know what though? Part of the reason the issue in this thread is so misunderstood is because Scot, who is normally so lawyerly about shit he's trying to defend, now doesn't think accuracy or honesty is really all that important, or maybe not as important as capturing the incandescent rage he felt at the idea of a Government Functionary rappelling from a black helicopter to steal a child's home-made food to shove corporate government-subsidized food down a child's throat.I agree there was some misleading/misquoting in the original article. However the issue is no less valid. Upon my own investigation I found that a school in Chicago (near where I live) completely BANS home packed lunches... :bs: And what has happened is now some children have stopped eating lunch because the school provided food is crap. Which seems IS completely counter productive to the point of the ban. Anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Horse Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 No dude. He was talking about you. I could have "Giant Purple Penis Hat" in my title and it would still be the case that you didn't read the thread.am I missing something? I in fact did read the thread and have been following it from inception. If you can offer more valid reason why you disagree or why you think I'm off point, I'm listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Not just the article - Scot's title and the first how many pages of this thread? Even after factual corrections were made? But then you'd know that, if you read the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Horse Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 *sigh*This was a program parents volunteered their children to be a part of knowing more or less what that entailed.Was it explicitly explain to the parents that 1) lunches would be inspected and 2) lunches must contain such and 3) supplements would be supplied? If so I missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.