Posts by Rachel Jones8

Grace Kern3 said:I already said this at the start; if this is part of the actual curriculum, fine, but it shouldn't be a massive take-home project.😉

Regarding the PowerPoints, kids today grow up with computers. If they've been taking computer lab since first grade, I don't see why they can't actually use those skills instead of spending five hours a day playing video games.🤷

The key part is— if.

fadedtrucker8 said:Well, in our local elementary school, the kids actually had to put together a PowerPoint presentation back in 3rd grade... the topic was basically a recap of everything they learned in American history throughout the year.🙄

That's quite a bit.

The real issue is when they show up without any homework done because they honestly don't get what it means... like, did they never actually teach them how to do this?🤷

Kids will be kids, right? They just do whatever they want. 🙂

Nicholas King said:Just kidding, Anthony, just kidding...

Betty Gray84 said:Of course I was joking, dear God 😁

But honestly, you make a fair point. Once you realize more than 70% of the class responds the exact same way (multiple times, no less), the joke definitely loses its charm.

It’s just like how it stops being funny when I ask how many dwarfs are in "Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs" and get any answer other than seven.

Look, those kids are little... if you guys managed to throw me off my game—not that I’m some genius, just a bit older than them—what chance do they have?

So, I'm starting to see that this is all coming from him. Makes you wonder about the whole situation, doesn't it?
How much older will she be in five years? Honestly, what Nicholas King said—it’s the exact same thing. I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that. What's on your mind? True, if we’re really gonna split hairs about whether the question was clear enough.
So I figured they aren't even real math problems, just total brain teasers where every answer is somehow both right and wrong at the same time. Like, if you go with x, you're still stuck, right? 😛 It’s not just "no," it’s "y." And if you answer with "y," then... what? 😛 Nah, it’s definitely X. It’s like when you ask someone how many fingers they see and they say four—so you have to tell them, "Nope, you're seeing all five."
Not talking about test prep here—this is just for fun. Just some food for thought where there might actually be two right answers. Who knows?
Fair enough... I was wrong there, but the question itself is pretty straightforward. It literally says—how much older is she? From him..
I mean, they're just little kids, right? Only six or seven and barely even started elementary school—maybe it’s not even that big of a deal. It's just weird when you hear those kinds of answers from adults.

It’s just like when things stop being funny. Like, if I ask how many dwarfs are in Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs, and you give me any answer other than seven? Yeah, the joke's over.

Wait, how does that even work? 🤷 So, did you ever figure out how they actually get to those other numbers? Like, does anyone have a real explanation for that?
Maybe... I mean, there've gotta be way more dwarfs out there besides just the seven hanging with Snow White, right? 😁

Nicholas King said:Mary is ten years older than Mark. I suppose you have to consider how much time actually passes—how old will she be compared to him in five years? 😬

Betty Gray84 said:15, of course. 😬

I actually really enjoy these kinds of challenges; they prove that math doesn't have to be dry. A perfect example is the Mathematical Kangaroo competition, which focuses on genuine skill rather than just what you can memorize for a standard written exam.

This was supposed to be a joke.

Nicholas King said:Actually, that's incorrect.

5.

Wait, what's the deal here? It’s the same joke, right? If I just say she won't be older, but instead they'll basically be peers... isn't that just as funny?

Can someone break this down for the rest of us? What’s the deal here... why is 15 wrong, but 5 is actually correct? 😕
Is there really any other explanation besides the fact that it was just a failed attempt at a hall?

Charles Murphy6 said:This lunatic actually went to the poor kid recently and started lecturing her about the divorce, going into every single sordid detail. She is completely unhinged!! The child came home in total shock. Honestly, I don't think she'll ever forget it, especially all the nasty things she said about me—how lovely. 🙄
The crux of everything she said was this: "Your mother is a wicked person, and you'll realize that once you grow up!"
So now we just wait... for her to grow up... so I can finally transform into a dragon or some kind of terrifying monster...
Thanks for trusting me with this. :-))

My grandma used to say a man isn't a real man unless he smokes.
She’d send me down to the corner store, then back again thirty minutes later...
When I told her no, she threatened to tell my dad on me.
I just told her to go ahead, I didn't care.
She once tried to swipe something from our room (we lived together, but she had her own room), and then claimed a bottle fell over because of the wind (since I caught her red-handed)... but the bottle was five feet from the window, on the floor behind the dresser, no way... (no, she wasn't an alcoholic or anything, she just wanted stuff that wasn't hers)
Since I wasn't stupid (even back then 😁), I started losing affection for her, and eventually, I grew to hate her... because she simply wasn't a good person.
It was only later that I heard things from my mom, and realized it myself... she never looked out for me, cooked for me, or bought me anything... even small stuff. I only remember my other grandma fondly... how I'd go to her house for cocoa and cookies, and I loved her so much.
A kid can't love someone who isn't good. Some grandmas just aren't good people.
She has to learn how to deal with it, be polite, but she doesn't have to love her. You really have to respect that... you can't dictate who anyone loves... and she's at that age where she's starting to form her own standards. Sometimes she'll like you, sometimes she won't.
Sorry, or actually, congrats... your baby is growing up. 😉
Don't speak badly about her (like you haven't been doing so far). She'll form her own opinion over the next few years.
Let her handle her grandma and her nonsense however she knows how. She definitely knows her mom isn't a bad person, so she won't dwell on that kind of stupidity, and there's no need to comment on it... just a quick hand gesture ("leave Grandma alone")... and then move on... like nothing happened. Don't get too worked up, otherwise, she'll get more shocked by it all... and she'll get used to it. You know how teenagers are... in one ear and out the other... Don't worry... it won't affect her that deeply... she'll have plenty of other things on her mind soon. Luckily, you don't live with that grandma, so don't make this a bigger deal than it is. 😉

Charles Murphy6 said:Grandparents and parenting styles😱
My parents don't act like they have any right to interfere... if they feel the need to comment on things, they direct it toward me.
The mother of my ex is my absolute Achilles' heel. Yeah, a massive sore spot.
By some stroke of sheer coincidence, whenever she’s over at her father’s place, she’s there with the grandmother. And let me tell you, this grandmother—who everyone seems to adore, especially Raymond—is someone I won't even dignify with a description...
It’s hardly surprising that the child ends up completely confused when Mom says one thing and Grandma says the exact opposite.
I was dealing with those "my way or the highway" attitudes since I was about seven years old.
Now, at ten, Grandma has come up with a whole new set of fixations that my little girl, thank God, actually confides in me about.
My ex claims she’s started being disrespectful toward her grandmother. Oh, really? Not on my watch. I make sure to remind her that Grandma is an elderly woman, and honestly, that usually shuts her down enough...
But I will say this: that grandmother drives me absolutely insane—to the very edge of my sanity.
The biggest issue is that my son (my ex) is just so compliant; he listens to his mother and thinks whatever she says is the absolute truth. On top of that, I’ve got a pre-teen daughter and two other people breathing down my neck who seem more interested in making my life miserable than actually looking out for the child. When I try to speak up, it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. They claim she’s afraid of me, but the reality is there's just no communication; they have no clue what’s happening with her schoolwork or anything else, so they jump to the conclusion that she must be afraid of me just because she chooses to trust me instead.🙄To be perfectly honest, I know I am an authority figure, but I have never once laid a hand on my child, called her stupid, or badmouthed the other parent. Sure, I’m strict, but that’s strictly regarding her education—getting homework done, reading her books independently, writing, keeping her stuff organized... why should I feel guilty for enforcing responsibilities?
Reading back through this now, I am just livid because they’ve managed to send my blood pressure through the roof all over again.😠

Let me tell you something about myself. I don't usually open up, but since this hits home regarding those first ten years, I'll do it for you...😁
I remember telling my mom once how much I used to love that grandma (my dad's mother-in-law). It caught her totally off guard. It wasn't some massive soulmate bond—I truly loved my other grandma—but I did love her... until I hit that age... where your daughter realizes that someone just isn't a good person. My mom didn't turn me against her (even though she didn't really like her either, and had plenty of reasons), it was just... when you reach that stage where you start judging people's actions and words for yourself, instead of just doing "whatever Mom says"... then you realize—this person isn't great, and I don't want to love them anymore.
Your little girl is slowly outgrowing being a child and starting to think for herself (even if you thought she already was 😁), and honestly... you just have to accept it. You don't have to badmouth Grandma, but there's zero reason to sugarcoat things or try to paint her in a better light than she is.
She knows who she likes and who she doesn't now. She has her own opinions about people, including Grandma... even though she feels like she shouldn't think poorly of her. But she can. You can just try to pretend (which is fine, you don't have to indulge her) that you don't feel the exact same way... while still respecting her perspective.
Of course, just because she thinks that way doesn't mean she shouldn't be polite to Grandma, just like she always has been. 😉

45-882 Well, at least things are looking up. So, you and your crowd think you know exactly how to break a kid into submission just so they'll do what you want, when you want?Just woke up... what's next? That’s exactly why parents use that method on babies, isn't it?No way he’s falling asleep to that.More accusations? Seriously?)
45-883Put that inside the quotes, since the citation is a mess.
I get that, but I don't think you should push a kid—especially a baby—to do just anything, right? That's just insane.. (Nothing less, nothing more—just pure madness..)
45-883 - ...inside the quote, since the formatting is all messed up.
Awesome, keep it coming... At least someone's making a buck off this. Preach!Is she just trying to get under my skin by acting like she only does it for herself?.)
45-883 - ...inside the quotes, since the citation is messed up.
Maybe she just doesn't know any better? Mom won't even try it because that's when Sulejman or some other random guy is around. Let him just sleep it off... Mom will deal with him again tomorrow. Maybe he'll finally get the hint then?So that's my take on whether Mom can handle carrying all that stuff and whatnot. What do you guys think?)
Put that inside the quotes, since the citation is all messed up.
I don't get it. A three-month-old can't exactly put themselves to sleep, right?(Other moms just don't get it... makes them look pretty clueless, honestly. And all those ladies claiming their baby just drifts off on their own? Total lies.)
Put that inside the quote marks, since the citation is a mess.
I mean, if you don't even have to step up in a situation like that, then why bother? Bet they’ve got something better to do. (People love to act like moms only do this stuff because they have nothing better to do. Like, even if they actually *do* have important things on their plate, why is it such a crime? We’re talking laundry, cleaning bottles, scrubbing floors where a baby crawls... why does anyone think that makes them a bad parent??)
45-896 Maybe I’d even read the whole thing and give you a detailed reply, just like you do for me? I just don't have the time. I've got my hands full with the little guy. I tried letting him tackle his own Halloween costume solo, but that was a total bust. Now he’s just sitting there staring at a needle and thread, maybe hoping a little inspiration strikes between all those heavy sighs so he can actually pull this together. ( Just unnecessary, mindless, and provocative irony..)
45-896 You and people like you really think you can just turn over and go to sleep once the party's over?
Yeah, tell me about it! Honestly, it hurts so much when you start worrying about what everyone else is going to say. I just can't stand people who act like that. ( Look, even if you aren't a fan of those kinds of moms, there's a better way to say it. Right?)
Can't wait to have my second one. If I get stuck with another little sleep-deprived monster, am I actually gonna lose it?I honestly doubt that’s what they're after. Just another provocation in a long line of them... And now they're back to blaming parents again?)
I told my husband the other day that no matter how tough things get, I’m a realist—anything can happen, you never truly know. But honestly? He won't even let me go there. That’s just plain ugly.Honestly, just throw a bucket of ice water on me. Close the door somewhere far away from the kid, but don't let it hit him. So, am I being a jerk if I lose my cool just because my kid isn't doing exactly what I think they should be doing right this second? I really hope he’s taking me seriously.. It’s just wrong to mess with a kid like that, all for some petty, selfish reasons. Why even bother?)
46-906 - I’m still standing by it: a baby only a few months old isn't exactly mature enough to decide, "Man, I'm tired, time for bed," and just drift off on their own, right?Maybe we just need to let her sleep? Just let things settle down.That’s just a baseless claim and a total non-starter against both the method and the parents. She didn't even say she was hungry or that we needed to feed her, but we went ahead and fed her anyway. Makes sense, right?)
46-908 - Look, maybe it’s hard for you or a few others to wrap your head around, but my kid's schedule and needs come first. Everything else gets moved around just so he can get a decent stretch of sleep. (She’s acting like she’s some kind of superhero mom... as if every other mom doesn't put her baby first. Every parent wants their child to actually get quality, consistent sleep, not just scraps. Thinking that other moms find this concept "unfathomable" is just weird.)
46-911 - There’s more to it than that, it’s about loving your child.. (Is she implying that I—or anyone else—don't love our kids, or is it just my imagination?)
47-922 - I can't help you if you refuse to empathize. Maybe you don't care when your baby cries,, but I do... If you or someone else won't listen, there's nothing I can do. (Just because they hear crying doesn't mean they don't care..)
47-922 - Look, maybe my kid is different, but everything works with him as long as I don't force it. After a year and a half of being consistent, using stories and play to explain things, we've managed to avoid the tantrums, the screaming, the throwing fits, and the hair-pulling that other kids go through... frankly, those messy outbursts. Why? Because I always respect him and his feelings. Whether it's nap time, mealtime, leaving the house, or just exploring everything in sight... I haven't crushed his natural curiosity. It's a win for both of us! (She calls her own behavior "normal" while labeling typical toddler phases as "messy." Other moms aren't ruining their kids' curiosity by teaching them to sleep using specific methods or whatever works for them... people tie way too much to the "method" itself..)
47-923 - Believe it or not, there are plenty of parents who just let their kids cry it out.. As if they are checking in to show they're there! Seriously? Talk about rubbing salt in the wound just to make the misery worse! Total rock'n roll attitude right there. (Accusing moms of not checking on their kids with good intentions, but instead intentionally making things harder for them, is honestly monstrous and unacceptable.)

My post that got flagged:

Yeah, now they aren't just letting them cry so they can watch Sulejman, they're even using commercial breaks to sadistically rub salt in the wound... apparently enjoying the agony.
I think you really went too far.

She's just repeating what everyone else said. She's trying to point out the exaggeration, because moms aren't doing this just so they can watch Sulejman, and they certainly aren't checking in on their kids just to make them suffer more... like the previous posts mentioned.

It's funny how a moderator warning popped up two days after the last post... it makes it look like the debate died because of the warning, when really people stopped posting ages ago because the atmosphere turned sour and the mods didn't step in sooner.

39-765* - look, it’s pretty obvious they're saying a parent is there when the kid is happy and smiling, but when they start crying, they're alone. (That accusation doesn't hold water, obviously. Babies have tons of moments during the day (and night) where mom is right there... as soon as they cry, she shows up. Comparing a few cries in those moments to everything else is just not a fair comparison.)
40-796 - Anyway, back to my point... It really comes down to whether you're the type who feels guilty for letting a baby cry or not. If you don't, it's fine. The baby cries, you just pretend your "heart is breaking" (like moms love to say), but honestly, it isn't. Because if it were, you wouldn't be able to stand listening to it. The baby cries, gets tired, falls asleep, and that poor thing learns so well that next time they'll just pass out immediately because they're smart enough to know they're just going through the same torture again—it’s not!
It all boils down to what we think they should be doing in that moment!
(Talking about things being "etched into memory" or a "smart baby" choosing to skip the torture isn't really part of a quality debate, is it?)
41-801 - I mean, obviously it's abuse, right? Is that even up for debate? Separating a baby only a few months old from their mother for no reason other than convenience? (This is slightly off-topic since it's about hospitals... but still... how easily people conclude there's no reason and that it's definitely abuse.)
41-814* - basically, you described it perfectly, except that if something happens, any doctor (with at least a conscience) is going to ask who was watching the child and where they were at that moment.
And if they weren't there (which they probably won't admit), it leads to a report for suspected child neglect (neglect has to be proven, you only report the suspicion) (It doesn't work quite like that, though. Kids fall and get hurt; it's normal. Neglected kids aren't the only ones getting injured, and not every childhood injury automatically points to neglect. If it did, every parent would be labeled an abuser because kids eventually get hurt. (Some fall out of beds/cribs... or even strollers..)
81-814* - On the flip side, a parent shouldn't leave an awake, playful baby or a sleeping baby alone in a room while they run to take out the trash, and they shouldn't leave a kid alone in a car in a parking lot just to "grab something quick" from a convenience store...
but they can leave them alone in a room while they cry... for the purpose of "training"? 😕
What's the difference?
In my opinion, the only difference is that in the first case, a neighbor might see and report it, or in the second, a cop (or a passerby reporting to the police) might find a kid alone in a car. But when a kid is alone in a room, nobody sees them, so nobody reports it.
If we're talking about neglect. (Then you're actually confirming it's true neglect... just like leaving a child home alone. So, once again, you're stating it's a criminal offense.)
41-819 - Based on the definition of neglect you came up with earlier this is very slippery ground and depends on interpretation, just like a lot of laws do.
So, the moment the government is organized enough to automatically handle serious neglect and abuse (like that case in Chicago that's been in the news lately) and the authorities actually have the time and energy to deal with milder cases, and if someone in charge happens to privately think like I do (meaning they think letting a kid cry for an hour or two is neglect)... then this law (the definition, anyway) could end up having a completely different interpretation in practice. compared to what we have in the US today. Personally, I think this is just where an organized society is headed.
42-821 - How can you not see the kid while driving? They’re either in the front seat or you've got a mirror.
And if the baby starts screaming in the other room and then suddenly goes quiet, how are you supposed to know if they fell asleep or if something actually happened?
Plus, while they're crying, how do you know they haven't had an accident, bumped themselves, or gotten stuck somewhere...? (Of course you won't see them if they're in the back seat facing backward... even a rearview mirror doesn't help much there since you need it pointed at the road to drive safely. It's just like when a kid is alone in their room at night while the parents are sleeping. A child being alone in a room shouldn't even be up for debate. Mom stays by the door listening and pops in to check on them. )
42-822 On the flip side, trying to "train" a baby to fall asleep all alone by just letting them cry in a room is totally unnecessary, unnatural, and just wrong .
42-829 - Look, kids cry. It's how they communicate, it's how nature works. A cry is something any decent mom finds impossible to ignore, so why teach a child that their attempt to reach out to us isn't worth our time?!
43-845 - No matter how it looks or how many nights she went without sleep after three days of crying—that doesn't mean she learned to sleep because of it. (People are dismissing the success of the method even though plenty of moms have posted that the baby sleeps fine afterward. If it wasn't because of the method, then what was it for? )
43-854 - Also, honestly, all this whining—to me, it sounds way different when it's someone in the same car as me versus a baby crying in a room. It sounds like mom just doesn't want to deal with the bedtime struggle and would rather "let the baby learn" so she can go do something else!
43-854 - I mean, I also wanted to be able to get my little one down, let them sleep, leave the room, grab a snack, have some quality time with my partner, and wake up feeling great...
But now I'm a mom first, so I'll eat chips or have sex when I actually have the time, not just whenever I decide my baby should provide that window for me... (Some terrible moms use this method just so they can eat chips and have sex... meanwhile everyone else is a great mom. That's a low blow. )
44-866 - Seriously, trying to teach a two-month-old how to sleep? I don't know if that's funny or just sad! (Why the mockery? )
44-872 - You're deciding how much of yourself your own baby is allowed to have?? As if you're setting boundaries with a demanding boss or a new guy you're dating? (That's just unnecessary provocation )

More coming soon

Not gonna talk just to hear myself speak, so here are some posts that might back up what I've been saying:
(The link shows the page number and post number; the asterisk means it was written by that one moderator whose objectivity is... questionable)

5-87 - Honestly, expecting a four-month-old to just fall asleep on their own is insane.
5-87- The only mistake a parent can make is blindly trusting those sleep training books.
(Just the only one? So anyone who doesn't follow the book is perfect?)
-it all boils down to training poor babies like they're dogs instead of humans.
7-134 -...and then there are the people spiking about how kids need to sleep in cribs and separate nurseries from day one... ugh... so gross. Even if it were written in the Bible, I'd pass on that crap.
14-264 - Oh yeah, I know parents like that.
You'll do anything just to make your own life easier, not that you don't love your kids.
It's just that you want to take the path of least resistance.
15-283* -then maybe it's actually better for some kids in the long run to cry for a few nights because their moms don't know any other way (Are those moms stupid? Like, there's no option to actually make an informed choice from a book?)
18-354* - in very rare cases, I can find an excuse for a mom doing this at home—in a situation where, think about it, an exhausted and pissed-off mom might lash out at a baby or shake them while they're screaming, so it's better to just let them cry for a few days and save her own sanity...so she can do laundry, water the plants, and deal with her husband ( Isn't that just straight-up trolling?)
19-374* - the worst thing you can do to a child is try this method and then just quit on them. For whatever reason. And I bet a baby will always give you a reason to quit, even if it's just for a moment (Sure, trying a method and then stopping isn't ideal, but is that really the absolute worst thing someone could do to their kid? Is nothing worse?)
23-443 - wouldn't it be worse to just give them a puppy immediately so they learn death exists. (Is that a classy response to a post? Or is it trolling?)
23-447- ..., what you wrote above is pure crime and stupidity.
23-448- and if you let a baby teach themselves to sleep through tears, you won't end up with an egoist who can't function independently, you'll end up with a future sociopath.
23-450 - it's never just two or three days, and what's described quickly becomes the pattern for how the child is raised.
And just because a kid falls asleep after three days of crying doesn't mean they learned to self-soothe in three days; it means they gave up on their parent, who clearly didn't care enough to stop the crying, and that's where the trouble starts and leads right to that "future sociopath" thing I mentioned. Like, I can do whatever I want—cry, grieve, act out—because nobody actually cares anyway.
26-512 - Everyone who uses this method claims the same thing: the baby cries for maybe twenty minutes the first night, and by the third, they’re just drifting off peacefully.
I’d bet anything most kids actually cry way longer and harder, and parents are just lying about it —probably trying to make it look like it’s effortless when it’s actually a struggle. (Selling a fantasy? Lying? Everyone?)
33-650 - Wait, so you're telling people to just let a baby scream for an hour or two without even checking on them?! Is that what you did?
To me, that sounds like straight-up child abuse. It's awful. (Actually, she isn't advising it, she just wrote "In my opinion it’s best not to go in until they fall asleep. You decide how you want to handle it..."...but still, she's being accused of abuse... which is a felony in the US, by the way.)
34-663** - I noticed those girls were attacking her for abuse....It's not abuse, but it could easily be reported as neglect. (Another accusation of a crime. Suggesting that following a book's method to get a kid to sleep regularly might be considered neglect..)
35-695**- I see a massive difference here.....
Two minutes versus an hour.😳
"I'll come and I won't come until you fall asleep, and you won't see me until you wake up." 😲
(The quoted text mentions two minutes while Mom wipes herself up; there's no mention of an hour passing at all..)
37-722** - To me, that also feels like child neglect (37-722) (Mentioning criminal acts again.)
37-722*- I honestly can't wrap my head around or see the difference between a mom under the influence who can't hear a baby crying in the next room and a mom standing in the hallway with a broken heart because she's trying to follow a specific method.. (Comparing a stressed mom trying to use a book's method with good intentions to an irresponsible addict..)
37-727 -Since we're making comparisons, I have one for the moderators:
This forum is clearly against child abuse and neglect. If someone suggests that a "naughty" kid should get a smack on the butt when nothing else works, shouldn't they at least be warned, if not sanctioned?
But when someone suggests letting a baby (a baby! who can't say they're hungry, thirsty, or uncomfortable, and whose hour-long crying fits could lead to dehydration or vomiting) cry alone for an hour or two when nothing else works, we're expected to keep the conversation polite and civilized. 😕
What's the actual difference? (Once again, trying to imply that following the method is basically advice for abuse or neglect—treating it like a crime just like physical punishment. For the record, nobody said the baby should be left to dehydrate or vomit.)
38-746*On the flip side, leaving a baby alone for long periods, ignoring them, or failing to meet their needs is neglect.
38-746* - And gross neglect is exactly what could go wrong in an hour while a baby is alone, something the people who used this method stubbornly ignore or deny.. (Let’s talk about legal liability for those actually using this method again.
The people following this shouldn't—and really aren't advised to—just leave a baby alone for long periods or ignore their needs. It's not about gross neglect. I mean, calling it "gross neglect" is silly because anything can happen. Mom is listening, checking in, peeking through the door, staying close... accidents happen even when you're doing everything right. Kids pass away in their sleep sometimes through no fault of the parents at all..)

More coming soon

Honestly, I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue with you, since this whole debate feels pretty pointless.
Since you clearly can't see how biased your moderation is, I don't think you're really the right person to be discussing objectivity with... you'd need someone from the outside looking in who actually has no skin in the game. You aren't that person. And honestly, you should probably read the entire thread, though I doubt anyone here has the energy or the time for that.
I figured you’d realize that and just stay out of a conversation that isn't going anywhere... because fighting with a bull is useless, and you've got horns while I don't.
But fine, I'll give an answer—not for your sake, but for everyone else wondering if I have a point.

Susan James said:

I'm feeling pretty good today! Just wanted to pop in and say hello to everyone. Hope you're all having a wonderful week so far. kaže:
Just because someone has a specific viewpoint doesn't mean they're automatically being biased.
From what I've been noticing lately, it seems like... I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that! It looks like your message might have been cut off. Feel free to send over whatever you were working on—I'm ready whenever you are!It feels like there’s been this complete silence regarding the constant accusations being thrown at parents. It isn't just about one thing; it’s a continuous stream of complaints and unsolicited commentary aimed directly at the parents rather than focusing on the actual methods being used. For instance, nobody has addressed the claims that parents are just letting their kids cry so they can sit there and watch Sulejman. Or even worse, the accusations that parents are intentionally talking to their children just to rub salt in the wound—basically making a bad situation even more agonizing for them. There’s just been no response to any of it, and it’s frustrating to see all these allegations ignored.
It felt a little unfair when I posted my thoughts on the forum earlier. I was just trying to say that people were overreacting, but it seemed like everyone took it personally. It actually ended up getting me a warning, which was pretty disappointing since I wasn't trying to start anything—I just don't really care for those kinds of accusations.
It’s honestly frustrating to watch. The person who actually threw out those insults and baseless accusations didn't face any consequences at all. Instead, the one who stepped up to call out such a truly monstrous accusation is the one being punished. It just feels backwards.
To I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that! It looks like your message might have been cut off. What's on your mind? That just feels plain wrong—unfair and totally one-sided.

I’m so sorry I didn't get back to you sooner! I'm not quite sure what you mean by that! If you were trying to share something specific or had a question in mind, feel free to drop it below. I'm all ears and happy to chat!

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that! If you were trying to start a conversation or ask a question, feel free to jump back in. I'm all ears! I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here! Could you give me a bit more context or let me know what you need help with? I'm all ears and ready to jump in once I know what we're working on.

Regarding those other users you claim aren't actually banned—even when they seem to be provoking or being rude—I’ve noticed a pattern with them. In my experience, they usually speak from their own personal perspective, sharing how they feel about the method itself. They often end up opening up and apologizing if they realize they’ve crossed a line in how they communicate. I haven't really seen that happen with you, though.
I mean, if they’re really getting under your skin, why bother replying to them so much? Especially when the conversation has already drifted off-topic. It just seems like extra energy for no reason!

Regarding those "monstrous accusations," I’ve noticed you have a bit of a habit of projecting "accusations" onto people. Even when nobody actually uses those exact words, you frame things in a way that makes them sound much more intense than they really are. Of course, that just sends people into a defensive spiral where they end up overreacting to what feels like a provocation.
Take a look at this, for example. ovaj post

I can't quite make sense of that one! Was there something specific you wanted to chat about? I'm all ears! kaže:
I have this feeling that because of this specific method—and those few days of tears and tantrums—some parents end up being judged unfairly. It feels like people focus solely on that one moment, regardless of everything else they do or how they actually treat their child throughout the rest of their lives. Some people would go as far as to call them criminals, at the very least.They’re being labeled as harsh and careless... honestly, I think that’s just not fair.
There are so many different ways to be a subpar parent, and it’s not always about the big, obvious stuff. Sometimes, it’s much more subtle. You see it all the time—parents who aren't necessarily breaking any laws, but they’re essentially neglecting their kids by just being physically present without actually being *there*. I’m talking about those moments where everyone is sitting around the dinner table together, but nobody is actually communicating. One parent is staring at their phone, or they're just mentally checked out, completely missing the little things their child is trying to say. It sounds small, but these constant patterns of emotional absence really take a toll. They quietly shape a child's development in ways that can leave lasting marks, often because the parents don't even realize they're doing it. It's those little gaps in connection that end up mattering the most.

I haven't actually seen anyone on this thread labeling people as villains like you're claiming.
🤷
If that's the case, why didn't you report the post?
So, were you talking about any other specific comments that felt off to you, whether they were directed at you personally or just someone else you found the insults to be inappropriate?

I noticed there’s a little triangle icon next to everyone's username on the forum...

And that's exactly the issue. You aren't "sorry" because you missed a chance to dig through my posts to find some tiny slip-up to justify a ban. You're "sorry" because you ignored countless posts filled with insults and accusations, letting this whole discussion spiral completely off the rails. People who actually wanted to talk about sleep methods or ask real questions are getting drowned out by people who get a free pass to just vent their outrage and attack other parents.
Is the post you flagged a violation or not? Who knows, maybe it is.
But... the post itself isn't a provocation; it's a response to one.

it might be hard for you or others to wrap your head around, but I put my schedule and my own needs second. Everything revolves around making sure he gets a decent amount of sleep, no matter what we're doing.

In this post, this person assumes it would be unthinkable for me or anyone else to put a baby first, which is insulting in its own way. They're acting like they're on a pedestal, as if their own needs and wants are the only ones that matter. As if nobody else has them. They act like they're just trying to help the kid "catch" a little sleep.
Given how this same person has been trashing other parents in previous posts, this looks hilarious to me—just another provocation in a long line of them. Why? Because the whole reason this thread exists is that parents want their kids to sleep; their child's rest is the priority. We aren't just trying to help them "catch" some sleep; we're trying to build a solid routine so sleeping becomes easy and high-quality without the constant struggle.

or this

Regarding that, okay, maybe it was unnecessary... but I wasn't saying anything that wasn't already said by the other side. I was just repeating things that should have been handled much earlier.

as for the other members you claim haven't been banned despite being provocative or insulting, I...I’ve noticed that with everyone, too. Anyone else? They should write from their own experience, you know? Talk about how the method actually feels to them. They always end up apologizing to people for getting too intense with their communication, but I don't really do that with you.

If you actually noticed that and still didn't call out how everyone's trashing parents, then you clearly weren't reading closely—or even paying attention to what you were writing.
Look, they weren't just sharing their own experiences or talking about how the method felt. They were straight-up attacking and blaming the parents.
You can actually see that pretty clearly if you just put in the effort and read the whole thread. Seriously, why wouldn't you?
The ladies on here have tried asking each other to tone it down—to stop attacking and judging parents. Even some of the people who don't even agree with the method themselves have stepped in to say, "Hey, let's chill." A moderator even jumped in to try and settle things. But did it work? Not really.
Did you seriously miss all that?

I mean, if they’re really getting under your skin, why do you keep replying? Especially when the thread is already dead?

Man, this whole thing about attacking parents is getting out of hand. Should we really just sit here and let people get bullied while the moderators stay silent? Why leave this topic open to the folks who are just looking for a fight against parents using CIO methods?

Regarding that "monstrous accusation" thing—I’ve noticed you have a habit of pinning accusations on people that they didn't actually make. You use such intense language that it sounds way scarier than reality, which just forces everyone to get defensive and spin around your provocations. Isn't that how it works?

My provocations? Hmm...
I still can't shake the feeling that people are accusing parents of just letting their kids cry for no reason just so they can watch Sulejman. It’s like they're reaching out just to rub salt in the wound and make the whole thing feel even more intense. Isn't that just cruel?

Take a look at this post, for example.

So, I'm looking at this. I think I can pull out a few bits from here too:

Everyone’s just looking out for their own little one. Honestly, judging parents who are just trying to step up and make things better for their baby? That's just wrong.
It’s one thing to have an opinion on the method itself. A lot of people aren't buying it and think it's a dud, which is totally fair. You've gotta respect that.

Look, people should say what they want about the method. If some think it sucks... fine, let them criticize it. Why not? There's always a better way to do things, and no single approach is ever perfect. Everyone just needs to find whatever actually works for them.
Honestly, just lecturing people about "those kinds" of parents isn't actually a discussion about parenting methods—it's just judging them. Right?
Let’s face it—no matter how much parents argue over which method to use or what steps to take, at the end of the day, they’re just being protective. They love their kids, and honestly? Everything they do is for them. Isn't that just how it works?

I haven't seen anyone on this thread labeling people as criminals like you're claiming.
🤷

1. In the post you just quoted, I’m not saying anyone is being branded a criminal.
2. Let me clear things up first:
I just get the feeling that because of this specific method and those few days of crying, some parents are basically being cast as villains—labeled as harsh or neglectful—regardless of anything else or how they actually treat their kids for the rest of their lives. That's just not fair.

"I get the feeling" — which means exactly that: it's my impression, not a claim that someone explicitly wrote it somewhere.
"cast as villains" = it seems to me (which I explained above) that people are perceiving them that way.
"labeling them as harsh and neglectful" — they are being labeled that way, and they are.

3. A lot of posts here link this method to child neglect and even mention calling CPS.

If it is, then why didn't you report the post?
And if anyone else insults you or someone else, or says anything you think is out of line? There's a little icon next to every user's name....

I don't know, maybe I'm just not built that way. It doesn't cross my mind (I've honestly never reported anyone). I guess I just hope the mods handle it, punish or warn whoever needs it, or at least notice when others call people out and step in to keep things civil.

More to come

rustydrifter10 said:While the book was definitely the catalyst for starting this thread, it’s evolved way beyond just being about that one title; now we're really diving into the methodology in general, which naturally includes taking a more critical look at the CIO approach.

I'm sorry, but this is just incredibly messy and hard to follow. It's impossible to get a real sense of what the actual debate is about when it's laid out like this, so could you please just provide links to the specific posts you're arguing about?

From what I can see, there are actually two different moderators active on this thread. One is actually a supporter of the method, while the other is against it. Just because your opinion doesn't align with one of them doesn't mean she's automatically being biased or unfair in her moderation.

Totally get it. But there's a massive difference between critiquing a technique and straight-up attacking or insulting parents who use it or actually believe in it.
Saying the method is flawed, ineffective, or bad for kids? That's fair criticism.
But this other stuff... (all those accusations) is just wrong:
"Parents only do this for their own convenience," "moms let the baby cry just so they can watch Sulejman," "they're being cruel and traumatizing their kids," "you people just want to break your child to get your way," "moms don't care that the baby is crying"... all that nonsense.

I have nothing against a civil debate about the method. But crucifying and making ugly accusations against parents who are acting in good faith for their child's sake (not just because they're lazy or want to binge Sulejman) is totally out of line.
And specifically, that last post 923 was unacceptable, which is why I responded to this part:

Believe it or not, there are plenty of them who just let the kids cry. Like, they even check in on them just to rub salt in the wound and make the agony worse! Total rock'n roll attitude.

First off, there's no reason to act shocked (especially here) that some parents follow this method.

But claiming that parents check on a baby during the process just to twist the knife and make the screaming louder? That's just pure, blatant rudeness and an insult.

Sorry, but this is a mess and impossible to follow. You can't really see the flow of the argument like this, so please just give me links to the controversial posts.

Yeah, I know... but there's so much nasty stuff written about "terrible moms" that it's hard to get the full picture without scrolling through the last 4 or 5 pages.
Here are a few key posts, though I doubt it helps if you don't read everything else... where the same person (and a few others) spends several pages criticizing the method (which is fine) while simultaneously attacking and accusing the parents (which isn't).

Here's a snippet, but for my last comment—the one that got me 35 points—these are the important ones: 883 just keep in mind the text in the quote isn't just mine... it's her response written inside the quote block.
And this one... 923 where she accuses parents of not only letting the baby cry while watching Sulejman (as she previously noted), but also checking in on them just to rub salt in the wound and intensify the crying.

871
872
874
882
(At least people like you finally figured out the best way to break a kid just so they'll do whatever you want, whenever you want.)
883- this post is quoted totally wrong, so her reply to me ended up inside my own text. Here’s what she actually wrote (among other things):
I agree, though I don't think you should push a child—especially a baby—to the breaking point over everything.
Great, keep going then... At least someone's winning here!
Maybe she just doesn't know any better, and Mom won't try anything else because it's either Sulejman or some other random guy and she just wants the kid to sleep... Well, she'll have to deal with being a mom again tomorrow, so maybe she'll finally learn her lesson!
896
900
923
(Believe it or not, there are plenty of them who just let kids cry. Like, they check in on them just to show they aren't alone! Seriously! Why not just rub salt in the wound and make the agony even worse? Rock 'n roll all the way!)

From what I can tell, there are two moderators active on this thread. One supports the method, while the other is against it. Just because your opinion doesn't align with one of them doesn't automatically mean she's biased when moderating.

No, it doesn't automatically mean she's biased.
But what I am seeing is that is...because there was zero reaction to repeated attacks or judging parents, or to countless other accusations and comments directed at the parents instead of the method itself. There was no response when parents were accused of letting their kids cry just to watch Sulejman, or when they were accused of checking on the kid just to twist the knife and make the misery worse.
The only thing that got a reaction was when I told the users they were overstepping, and I ended up getting a warning just because I didn't like those accusations...
The person making the insults and accusations didn't get penalized; the one who reacted to a... truly monstrous accusation did.
That is biased, unfair, and totally subjective.

So, we're diving into parenting today. The topic is "Every Child Can Learn to Sleep." Just a heads-up for anyone out of the loop—this is all about a specific book. I'm totally down to chat about the method and swap stories if you guys want?
Honestly, this thread is just full of people jumping down the throats of parents who use certain methods. Sure, that approach isn't exactly the trendy way to do things nowadays, but plenty of people still stand by it. Shouldn't they be allowed to have a civil discussion without getting attacked or insulted every five seconds? The mods aren't doing anything about it either... and somehow, I'm the one walking away with a strike.

Here’s a quick rundown of the posts:

unknown: I honestly thought the whole idea was just telling the kid, "Hey, lay down and go to sleep," then walking out of the room. Turns out, it’s way more complicated than that, isn't it?

If my kid has been up all day and we’re dealing with those middle-of-the-night wakeups, isn't it totally fair to just want them to go down without the hour-long rocking sessions?
unknown: And who exactly decided you're the one to call the shots on what a baby actually needs?
Look, I don't get to decide when I'm available or not. That’s entirely up to her—how much access she gets and how she plays it depends on what I think is actually worth my time. Right?
Look, I’m his parent. As his mom, I’m the one deciding what’s actually best for him—but also what keeps my own sanity intact. Is it really worth fighting for hours every single night? Maybe I’d rather just take the win if he finally falls asleep.
If a kid finally learns how to self-soothe after a few days of crying, and then just breezes through their bedtime routine every night? I mean, if they're happy, sleeping well, and Mom isn't losing her mind, why are people making such a big deal out of it?
Look, nobody's saying everyone has to live that way. It's about having the right to choose for yourself, isn't it? And honestly, shouldn't the rest of us just accept people for who they are, even if we don't see eye to eye?

So you get to decide how much of your own baby you're allowed to give? What, like an employer being too demanding or some guy you just started dating that you need to take down a notch? Is this even real, or just someone trolling at this point?

Yeah, if someone decides to go with CIO or whatever, they’re basically choosing to take a hit in the short term because they know it'll pay off later. It's not about shutting a kid down; it's about actually making the method work. Right?
Honestly, I think the constant nitpicking and bashing around here is getting out of hand. Isn't it starting to feel more like straight-up trolling and insults?

Look, if a method isn't working for you or you just don't vibe with it, that’s totally fine. No big deal. But there’s really no reason to go after people who actually see the benefits. If a parent decides to try the CIO approach, they’re making a conscious choice to let their baby cry for those few minutes. It's an intentional move, right?

unknown: At least things are looking up now. You and your crowd really think you know the best way to break a kid just to get them to do what you want, right?From sleeping to whatever comes next... That’s exactly why you train a baby that way—it’s definitely not about just getting them to crash.(This wasn't even directed at me, but it really shows how XY treats people in a conversation... though I guess the whole point of the method is just to get the kid to sleep.)

unknown: I hear you, but I honestly don't think you should push a kid—or especially a baby—to do just anything, right? That's just insane..

Look, I'm his parent. I'm his mom, and at the end of the day, I'm the one deciding what's actually good for him—and honestly, what works for me too. Isn't it better if he just learns how to fall asleep instead of us fighting this battle for hours every single night?
Awesome, keep it going... At least someone's around. She’s definitely cashing in on that! (And we all know Mom is the one pulling the strings.)

Maybe some kid just wants to be carried around for an hour every single night until they drift off... whether they're a week old or a year old. They probably want you to carry them all through the night, too. But let’s be real, that's just not happening. There's just no way Mom can pull that off. And that’s exactly why she’s worried about getting her to sleep right away, isn't it? She doesn't want to deal with the fallout later.
unknown: Maybe she just doesn't know any better, you know? Mom won't even try it because that's when Sulejman or some other newbie is usually around, and they just end up nodding off... She'll be back at it tomorrow, hopefully she finally gets the hint!

unknown: Look, let’s be real—hearing that crying while I’m right there in the car with them sounds way different than just hearing a kid cry in another room. It feels like Mom just doesn't want to deal with the struggle of putting them down, so she’d rather "teach the baby to sleep on its own" just so she can get something else done!
ME: You see... you aren't actually talking about the method here. You're attacking the parents directly and implying that Mom is being selfish... like she's some villain who doesn't care about her baby and only cares about herself.
You aren't even trying to grasp that moms do this because they truly believe it's what's best for the baby—so they can have a peaceful bedtime every single night without the constant fighting, stalling, or crying (and yeah, for some, that's exactly the goal).

unknown:I guess I just can't help it. It looks to me like moms are doing this for their own convenience rather than the baby's benefit, because I just don't see how this helps the child.
ME: There you go... you just proved my point. You only see the mom's comfort.
After using the method, the baby goes to sleep peacefully every night. That’s what parents see as the baby's benefit. You don't have to agree with where the benefit lies; you just need to realize that you—and other parents—see the value in it and feel satisfied that the method worked.

ME: Hey, it's fine to have an opinion on the method. If people think it's bad, let them criticize it. Why not? There are always better ways, and no single method is perfect for everyone. Everyone should find what works for them.
But... lecturing "those kinds" of parents isn't a discussion about the method; it's just judging the parents themselves.
We should accept the fact that regardless of the specific steps or methods chosen... these people love their kids. They are caring parents, and everything they do is for their children.
I get the feeling that because of this method and a few days of crying, some parents are being branded as villains or labeled as cruel and neglectful... and honestly, that's just not fair.

unknown:Maybe I’d read everything and give you a detailed reply, but I don't have the time. I've got my hands full with my little one. I tried letting him try to sew his own costume for Halloween, but that didn't work, so now I'm just letting him cry over a needle and thread, maybe he'll get an idea for how to fix things through his sighs... (Is this trolling?...she claims you can't teach a baby to sleep, then provokes by saying she'll let hers "sew" on her own.
)
unknown:...and you and people like you think they'll just turn over and fall asleep once Mom stops bothering them...
Oh, sure! For Mommy! For dear old Mommy! And I couldn't care less what anyone thinks. I don't have any respect for those moms; to me, they're just thinking about themselves. Boohoo, what am I gonna do about it!

unknown:I told my husband the other day, no matter how hard it gets, anything is possible since I'm a realist... But I would never dream of doing something so awful. He could throw a bucket of ice water at me or lock me away from the baby, but he'd never let me mistreat the child if it meant doing something I don't believe is right in that moment.
It's crazy how reasonable a little kid can be when you actually try to reach them instead of breaking them down.
I can't help you if you can't empathize with that feeling. Maybe it doesn't matter to you when a baby cries, but it matters to me... (of course, it doesn't matter to any mother... they don't let a baby cry because they don't care.)

unknown: Believe it or not, there are moms out there who let their kids cry just so they can check in and show them they aren't alone! Like, seriously! Just adding salt to the wound to make the agony worse! Rock'n roll all the way!

In one previous post, she said moms let babies cry just so they can watch Sulejman, and in this last one, she says they check in just to rub salt in the wound and make the misery even worse.
I'm jumping on that thread to say:

ME: Yeah, it's not even just about letting them air commercials so people can catch Sulejman; they’re straight-up using ad breaks to rub salt in the wound. It's like they're actually enjoying watching everyone suffer...
I think you've gone a bit overboard.
And yeah, you totally missed the mark on being off-topic.

And for this last post, I am definitely getting 35 troll points. 😁

Who's the crazy one here?

Sure, the moderator isn't a fan of my approach. But regardless, a little objectivity wouldn't hurt.

wanderinggardener12 said:I am all for recognizing achievements at both the regional and national levels, provided they occur within any activity where the organizing institution holds a legitimate certification for working with children and youth.

What you mentioned regarding the competitions organized by the Department of Education is actually quite far from the truth. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scores are compared, and students qualify for national competitions based on their total points, not merely their rank within a single state. It is precisely the inverse of what you described: take an English exam, for instance, where there was a year when absolutely no one from Washington, D.C. was invited. Either we were simply incompetent along with our students, or perhaps certain regions were leaking test questions beforehand, resulting in five or six students from the same area walking away with perfect scores at the regional level.

There are so many fundamental issues that need to be straightened out before we can even begin to discuss "reform"—though I wonder which order we should address them in.

My oldest "test subject" is fortunately navigating college life, and my youngest still has baby teeth, but I truly feel for my former eighth-grade "test subjects." These were kids who were counting on points earned through sports or through music and dance schools—where they spent upwards of twelve hours a week practicing—only to see those efforts rendered useless because they let a 'C' slip onto their report cards.

Applying changes retroactively? That is absolutely unacceptable.

Honestly, what a load of nonsense. Total injustice, too.

Jessica Chavez4 said:They should probably give credit for all six. Back in my day, they didn't just count four years; you did the whole thing. I failed the fifth year, so apparently, I never even showed up. I poured six years of my life into that—not counting the preparatory year at the start.

Back-to-back? Why go through all that trouble? Did you join that music program just for the extra credit?
Why didn't you keep going if you failed one year? Is there a rule that says you can't continue? 😕

swiftbear86 said:Just finishing up middle school music programs was enough to qualify.
Completing a formal music conservatory program (not just a weekend workshop) is a real achievement. Think about it: classes meet four times a week, you’ve got theory exams, and you have to pass practical performance tests every single year. As for the cost—in New York City, you're looking at about $40 a month for music school. Honestly, most families spend way more than that on stuff like dining out or entertainment, so saying this is only available to the "elite" just isn't true.

Here is the old (but still relevant) set of guidelines:

So why compare that to athletic credits then? (It feels like it's being used in a negative way here.) 🤷
Do athletes get points just because they trained 4 or 5 times a week for years?
If points are only for winning major championships, wouldn't there be tons of those kids everywhere?

Completing music school—not just some random class—is an achievement. You're in class four times a week, dealing with ear training tests, and taking performance exams at the end of every year.

Success is also about sticking with something for years, training every day and playing games on weekends—whether it's soccer or anything else. I don't know about specific exams, but surely things like belt rankings in karate exist?
In sports, you have to show grit and dedication... if you don't, you're out. So if someone sticks with a club for years and keeps showing up, why isn't that worth something?
And honestly, if they actually win big at competitions, that should count for points just as much as any musical achievement, regardless of special awards.
Personally, I don't think these points should matter at all unless you're applying to a specialized arts or sports academy.

Dana Diaz8 said:🙂

They were screwed over by our visionary Secretary of Education by making high school mandatory for everyone, even when kids have no clear goals and end up just repeating the same grade. Why are you suddenly dragging three-year vocational programs through the mud?

😂 What three-year vocational school...? Where did I even mention three years?
What are you even talking about... or like, what's your deal?

Dana Diaz8 said:Fine

Kids can start high school at fourteen. And if you tell people you're going to a prestigious prep school, the general consensus is that you're some kind of genius.

We can save the debates about faith and belief for another thread.

Why should every prep school student feel forced into college if they already know finding a job after graduation will be an uphill battle? And why should a kid from a four-year vocational program, who wants to continue studying their trade, be pushed aside by the prep school crowd?

Look, at the end of the day, the whole debate really boils down to one thing: are we talking about 14, maybe 14.5, or a full 15 years?

If you head to prep school, everyone starts acting like they're some kind of genius, right?

Wait, seriously? Where... who... what "people" are we even talking about?

Why should every high school grad feel forced into college if they already know the job market is a total grind? And why does a kid from a vocational school, who actually wants to study their craft, always have to take a backseat to the academic crowd?

What was the author actually getting at?
Why would he have to? Well, simply because he knew it was the right move. Plus, it’d be a huge help since he doesn't have the credentials yet and really wants to go back to school.
What does it even mean to "lecture" high schoolers? Like, what’s the actual vibe there? 😕 🤷

Dana Diaz8 said:🙂 (p.s. check my signature)

But our Secretary of Education has such brilliant ideas; I guess it doesn't matter if they're just some high school overachiever.

A kid who gets handed easy A's is just a straight-A student.

I couldn't care less.

Those are the ones who should be fast-tracked!

So what, are vocational schools just filled with delinquents while prep schools are populated exclusively by angels?

If you're a functional human being who actually knows how to study, it isn't a huge hurdle. But then again, you can also have a incredibly shallow memory where you cram everything in just to forget it all ten minutes after the test is over.

For some people—the actually bright ones—it isn't a choice. But then you have the overachievers who push themselves into prep school purely for the status. They have no idea what they want to do with their lives, so they figure, "Hey, let's go to a prestigious academy so everyone thinks, 'Wow, look at that genius.'"

Nah, a real nerd is the one actually burying their nose in a book.

For some people (the smart ones), it's different. Nerds just feel this need to go to prep school just so they can brag about being there. Like, they have no clue where they're headed, so they just hit up prep school so everyone thinks, "Wow, look at this genius."

Just so they can say they went to prep school? You really think that's their only motivation?
You're saying they don't know where they're going. But if they don't know, where else are they supposed to go?
If you had 60 or more credits... (or if you were giving advice to a buddy) and you had no idea what you wanted to do, meaning you aren't interested in any specific career—like being a mechanic, a stylist, or whatever a vocational school offers—would you still pick a trade you hate... or would you just head to prep school?

Chloe Rodriguez74 said:discussion results

Can someone who actually gets this explain it?
Are they stripping points from artists (dancers and musicians) just for attending those specialized arts academies? Or is it about losing points for winning national or major competitions?

Parents and teachers are losing it over the proposal to cut two extra points for students graduating from dance and music academies when applying to high school. Instead, only one point would go to kids aiming for arts schools. Meanwhile, student athletes can still rack up points for any school application. Students taking first, second, or third place in national or international competitions earn between one and three points, while winning first place at the state level earns them one extra point.

Were those two points earned just for finishing the program, or did you have to hit some massive milestone?
So kids weren't getting points for training for five or six years, but only if they pulled off an elite athletic win?
Did I get that right? Athletes didn't get special perks either, just one point for a state title—which is the same thing arts students get just for graduating without even winning a competition... or am I totally off base? 🤷

Dana Diaz8 said:

I don't know about you all, but I am completely over this constant, relentless complaining. Is there anything more exhausting than being surrounded by people who find a way to be miserable about absolutely everything? It’s like some people have made a full-time career out of finding the cloud in every silver lining. Does anyone actually get anything done when they're busy venting about every minor inconvenience, or are we all just circling the drain together? Honestly, it’s getting old. kaže:
Sure, you can graduate from high school and still be an idiot. But what’s the endgame there? You walk across that stage, grab the diploma, and then what? Does the paper somehow fix the lack of common sense? It doesn't. If you finish school without actually learning how to think, where does that leave you?

They’re going to stay ignorant for the rest of their lives—it’s that simple. But what’s truly pathetic is watching someone like that climb into a position of power, only to use it to step on the people who actually earned their way through grit and hard work. Is that really how the world is supposed to function?

I can't even begin to wrap my head around this one. Seriously, what are we actually doing here? kaže:
You can go through the motions, get that degree, and walk across the stage—but don't expect that to make you any sharper than you were on day one. Is a diploma really a badge of intelligence, or just proof you can follow instructions?

Sure thing.

I don't know about you all, but I’m feeling pretty burnt out by the sheer amount of noise lately. Is it just me, or does everything feel like a constant, exhausting uphill battle? It feels like we're all just running on a treadmill that keeps speeding up while the air gets thinner. Does anyone else feel this sense of total depletion, or am I just losing my grip? kaže:
So, you can just register the ones who showed lower numbers on the fax, but the ones who actually performed better? How does that even make sense?

So, let me get this straight: if you graduate from a vocational school, you’re essentially barred from higher education right out of the gate? You’re somehow deemed "lesser than" from day one? It implies that students coming out of traditional prep schools should get first dibs on university spots, while those from trade programs are left to scramble for whatever crumbs are tossed their way. Is that really how we want to structure our workforce? Does it actually make sense to tell someone who has mastered a specific skill that their path is blocked before they even start?

I can't believe I'm actually sitting here typing this out. Is anyone else feeling this? It’s like we’re all just collectively walking through a fog, waiting for something—anything—to actually make sense again. Does anyone else feel that heavy, restless weight in their chest lately? It’s exhausting. Truly. kaže:
Of course, there’s always that certain crowd—the ones who decided to take the long way around, or worse, just headed off in the wrong direction entirely from the very start. Why does it always seem to be the same pattern?
Nobody is claiming that everyone scoring a 4 or lower on their security clearance exams is inherently stupid. But let’s be honest—doesn't some level of rigorous selection have to happen?

So, people who walk away with five figures in extra cash are suddenly considered geniuses? Give me a break. Unless we're talking about the rare outliers, most of them just got lucky. Or maybe they just knew which way the wind was blowing. Is it actual brilliance, or just being in the right place at the right time? I'll give credit to the exceptions, but let's not pretend everyone hitting that jackpot is some kind of mastermind.

I don't know about you all, but I’m feeling pretty exhausted lately. Is it just me, or does it feel like everything is constantly pushing us to our limit? It’s getting harder and harder to stay optimistic when it feels like we're just spinning our wheels. Does anyone else feel this way, or am I just losing my edge? kaže:
So, what exactly was the point of that? What were you actually trying to get at?
He went to school, put in the work, and actually mastered his craft. He’s a damn good professional now. So, what was the point of all that? Should he have just skipped the degree and gone straight into the field? Or is there something more to it than that?
Look, it’s obvious you have to actually use what you know. Being an expert in your field essentially means putting that knowledge into practice every single day. But let’s be real for a second—before you ever get the chance to actually do the work, you still have to grind through high school and survive college exams just to get the credentials. Isn't that just the way it works?

There’s a massive difference between actually knowing how to use what you’ve learned and being one of today’s mindless grinders who just memorizes everything only to forget it all within a week. Rare exceptions exist, of course.

It’s specifically those parents who have convinced themselves that forcing their kid into a prestigious prep school is some kind of magic ticket to success.

Those are the rare exceptions I’m talking about. Those kids actually use their own heads, so they’ll likely get into the academy they want, graduate, and then head off to a top-tier university through sheer grit and actual intelligence.

Now, these are the typical "honor roll" types—the ones who are essentially empty vessels, whose parents have brainwashed them into thinking a fancy private high school is mandatory just because they managed to pull straight A's through middle school.

How'd you manage to pull such a heavy conclusion out of thin air?
Read that again.

So you can't just fax over the low numbers and ignore the high ones? Makes sense, right?

So if a specialist ends up with lower grades or a worse GPA... basically fewer points on the board... what happens then?
Should I go with him or the high school grad with more points? Or maybe that other vocational student who's scoring higher?
What crumbs are you even talking about? If someone actually puts in the work and proves themselves with high SAT scores and solid grades... does it even matter which high school they went to? At least for now.

So, people hitting those five-figure salaries think they're geniuses now? I guess we can make an exception for the outliers.

Not necessarily... they actually want to learn. Unless we're talking about those participation trophies? Look, I was smart too... but what could I do if I wasn't getting straight As mostly because I was just lazy?

Those are exactly the exceptions I’m talking about. Kids like that? They're gonna crush it. They actually use their heads, so they'll breeze right into their dream college and graduate on their own merit. Who wouldn't want to be one of them?

Nah, they aren't. It's mostly just kids who breeze through middle school with straight A's but don't actually care about any specific career path... so they just end up in prep school?

Look at these straight-A nerds. They’re basically just mindless drones whose parents probably pushed them into high school prep because they haven't missed a single question since elementary school. Is that even living?

They aren't... they’re just normal kids pulling straight As in their graded classes. Some of it’s luck, some is hard work, but honestly, everyone else is doing worse—even if you just look at their behavior. You don't have to be some total overachiever to walk out of middle school with those 60 points plus extra credit for conduct, right?
They aren't stupid, and it’s not like their parents shoved anything specific down their throats. They just don't have a clue where they're headed, even though they've got the chance to go to a good prep school. Isn't that just how it goes?