Spoilt Brats/Annoying Kids/Etc

Bill, as always, another excellent post.

OK, point made here as well. I have to emphasize - my dad and mom
both went out of their way to make sure we kids knew that they loved
us, and that they disciplined us *because* they cared about us, not
because they didn't. I think that may have had some positive effect
in my case, in addition to the actual physical discipline.

My brothers and I felt our Mom's hand or our Dad's belt on our buns.
And more than once. But this was child raising in the 1950s when day
care was an unknown. And, as with Mr. M., none of us appear to have
suffered any long term damage from this behavior modification practice.

I believe that such swats stopped at around age 10, by which time we
could be put in check just by our father's raised eyebrow or the sideways
glance of our Mom.

It is my opinion that too many of those of us from the boomer generation
decided to listen to 'experts', resulting in kids which managed their
parents instead of the other way around. Added to this is the condition
known as Day Care, which is a convenient term for parenting by proxy.

Our two never set foot inside a day care, had their buns swatted when they
deserved such, and have thus far been respectable and productive citizens.
Adding to that, neither one misbehaved on numerous flights which began for
them at around age 3. Much of which might be due to my very creative wife
who always brought along enough toys/books/puzzles to occupy the kids' time.

"PTRAVEL" wrote in message ...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...

snip

And, as it happens, this morning I just received a large box of fruit
and
candies from Continental by way of apology.

I got a check for $225 - I like cash better.

I told them specifically that I wasn't looking for vouchers, tickets or
anything like that.

CASH - Oh, I got the fistful of vouchers, too, but I like cash.

Please keep your facts straight and don't make assumptions, particularly
assumptions that you publish on the internet and are libelous.

I asked a question - I did not make a statement of fact.

When did you stop beating your wife?

I'm in a program - you?

snip

If you prefer, then: "I'll take my kid on an airplane whenever I want
and if
you don't like it, deal with it."

Exactly right. I will take my children (well, in my case that would
make them pretty much your age) and my grandchildren on an airplane in
first class if I want and if you have a problem with that - it is your
problem, deal with it.

And that's exactly my point. You don't care how many other passengers you
impose upon -- it's your "right" to bring your grandchildren on the plane.

I do not care if you think that their mere presence is an imposition
on you. In fact, I really don't care if you think their behavior is
an imposition on you specifically Paul because I do not agree that
your perspective is that of a civilized society.

Well, it's my "right" to complain about nuisances, annoyances and
impositions. That's how I deal with the exercise of your "right."

Good for you.


That isn't a statement of entitlement, Paul, that is a statement of
fact.

It's not a statement of entitlement? Think about that the next time you
bask in the angry glares of your fellow first class passenger while the
infant you brought on board wails.

When did I ever say anything about bringing a wailing infant on board?

Did you read the Christopher Elliot article? More and more, people
(both
parents and childfree) are _not_ willing to "deal with it."

Not exactly - I read that more and more business travelers are
INCLUDING children in their travel.

And more and more people are complaining about it. I quoted the article
in
the post to which you're replying, but I'll re-post the quote he

"Ban babies on board. Stop kids from flying altogether or at least
create a
special children's section on planes. That's what a growing number of
frequent travelers want to do."

Yet almost HALF are bringing their kids on business trips...BUSINESS
trips - that means BUSINESS people taking kids on airplanes. Not to
count the number of families taking trips...with KIDS.

Which means more than half the passengers with kids don't do this on
business trips -- BUSINESS TRIPS.

But they do it on other trips.

Not to count the number of families who
don't take kids unequipped to handle the trip on board.

Once again, the qualification. There are literally hundreds of
thousands (actually 27 million households) of minor children traveling
every year. Why this "unequiped" bull?

What's your point, anyway? Lots of people are inconsiderate, so it's okay
for you to be inconsiderate as well?

Children are and will continue to be part of the flying public.

snip

See the Google references I posted for you.

Did, thanks.

Then you saw that I'm hardly the lone voice in the wilderness on this
issue.

You are hardly more than a whimper of discontent in an avalanche of
pediatric jollity.

According to you. Not according to Elliot.

Sure, and you believe any editorial that favors your personal
political position? Or is it only that part of the editorial that
favors your personal position? Elliot is the Crabby traveller and his
numbers are 5 years old. When exactly was this editorial written?
Did you need to go to historical databases to find support for your
argument?

And what about this part - "Clavner says airlines and parents are
“inflicting pain on people who are in a rush to get
somewhere” and it needs to stop."

Is your need to "rush" somewhere some type of entitlement?

snip

I'm trying to balance the growing number (no stat) with the 24.4
MILLION business trips WITH kids. Did you miss that?

No. The significance of the statistic (and the point of the article) is
that the increasing number of children traveling on aircraft is
resulting in
an increasing number of complaints.

Well - is that how you read it?

Yep, that's how I read it. That was stated in the first paragraph of the
article.

In an editorial by the Crabby Traveler.

I read it that more business people
are taking the family along and there are a few snivilars complaining
because it impedes their personal space and tranquility.

I have no question that that's how you read it.

snip

Actually, it is. The last statistic I saw indicated that only about 1/3
of
the households in the U.S. include a minor child.

All depends on how you define households. Certainly our seniors don't
have any kids at home, but boy, do they love kids!

Not all of 'em, by any means.

No Paul - I don't do absolutes. But here's an idea - next time you
see a senior on board, ask if he/she has pictures of the grand kids.

However, the point isn't whether someone
likes kids or not.

Why not?

This thread is solely about, "spoilt brats/annoying
kids/etc.," meaning kids who create impositions on others on airlines.

OK.

Let's hear from the chorus of seniors who say, "We don't mind our seat being
kicked, or endless shrieking, or food being thrown, or aisles being blocked,
or any of the other activities committed by infants and out-of-control young
children, when we fly."

All of these things can happy - but in my experience they happen
infrequently and seat kicking, food throwing, and aisle blocking - not
to forget cell phone screaching, drunken flirtations, odiferous
flatulence spewing, obese overhanging, and window shade
pulling...flying is not the adventure it was back in the 70's Paul.
Get over it. Crap does and will continue to happen and no amount of
complaining will change that. You live in a society - if you want to
be a recluse, go to it.

If you have expectations that aren't being met, perhaps you need to
rethink your expectations.

Already, because of people with your attitude, Broadway
theaters have been forced to completely ban young children, a number
of
hotels and resorts are doing so, restaurants do so, etc.


Let's not get too carried away, OK. Some theatres restrict access by
younger children though few outright ban them completely.

Every Broadway theater, except those with Disney productions and those
doing
shows specifically intended for kids, ban children under 4.

No, they do not - and you know it.

I'm not going to get into a "yes they do, not they don't" arguement with
you.

Because you will lose.

They may recommend, they may
suggest, and in some cases may not allow children at certain times or
for certain shows - but there is no blanket ban on kids.

Care to make a money wager?

You name it.


The various
performing arts centers that I attend in California discourage young
children and completely ban babies.

Discourage is different than ban.

"ban babies"

I've seen lap children prohibitions but that is the extent of it -
Now, let me draw your attention to your own citation further down -
"as a courtesy to other
patrons, bear in mind that it is not appropriate for small
children..."

It is a request and advice - not a ban or prohibition.


This is what happens when you search the San Francisco Symphony
website on the term "childfren".

"The search results are listed by section and subsection of the SF
Symphony site in which they are found. If no relevant information is
found in a particular section it will not be displayed in the results
list."

So what? As it happens, I was at the San Francisco Symphony last Friday. I
didn't keep the program, so I don't know what was in it. I do know that I
did not see a single young child present, nor did I see any babies.

Good - and honestly, there are few reasons for a child to be there.
However, I do remember one very precocious 5 year old at a recent
concert I attended (not as classy as the SFS) - but maybe that doesn't
count - since he was on stage performing...

So,
either there is such a policy in place, or the people of San Francisco are
courteous enough to recognize the inappropriateness of young children and
babies at such an event.

I don't think courtesy for YOU has anything to do with it. I think
that on the whole parents are pretty smart when it comes to when and
where to bring the kids. I don't make it a habit to bring the
grandkids to concerts (well, at least not the younger one) - they have
no interest and they'd much rather go to a ball game, bowling, or to
the beach.

Since I just moved to San Francisco, this was my first time at the Symphony.
However, I frequently attended the Orange County Performing Arts Center when
I lived in Orange County. Here's a quote from their program:

"Children: Children are welcome at most Center events, but every patron
must have a ticket, regardless of age. Please, as a courtesy to other
patrons, bear in mind that it is not appropriate for small children to
attend symphony, ballet and other performances where silence is a
prerequisite for full enjoyment of the artistic experience. Babes in arms
are not permitted in all cases."

No ban, paul - no lap children as I said - everyone has a ticket. No
ban.

Just contribute the money to your favorite charity.

And they
haven't been forced to do anything - they have done so out their own
free will. And they have every right to do so.

Of course they do. So do they airlines, for that matter, if they ever
choose to do so. However, the point is not that they exercised their
right
to ban children, but the problem with children was sufficiently severe
as to
mandate an express policy. That says a lot about the parents of these
kids.

And the airlines policy would be.....?

"We'll sell tickets to anyone, because we don't care about the comfort of
the passengers."

Sounds good to me - and consistent with my experience - that attitude
explains the 29 inch pitch.


And the SF Symphony's "policy" would be....?

I don't know, and neither do you. However, based on the concert I attended
on Friday, it very well could be, "We don't need an express policy because
people in San Francisco have enough sense not to bring restless and whiny
children or crying infants to our events."

You said that where you go they are banned. Now yoiu suggest that SF
is perhaps the last bastion of Tauger standards of courtesy?

No one likes an unruly child at any time in any place. But that
doesn't mean every child is unruly all the time in every place.

Who ever said they were?

Then you agree - a ban on children is inappropriate. One should
endeavor to ban only unruly children?

And
that is why parents may well be advised that some venues may not be
conducive to children of a certain age, but why few venues activily go
out of their way to ban their entrance.

Let's see if it remains few. I'm betting it won't.

I really don't think it is a big enough issue to worry about. Well,
at least it isn't a big enough issue for me to worry about.


So, fine for them - and if an airline wants to do it, fine for them
too. It is their right as the owners. And that goes for the local
bar, Chilis at the airport, or any place else. If the owner wants to
be selective about clientele, I have no problem with it.

Fine, then we're in complete agreement.

The owner, Paul - not a small subset of potential customers.

Exactly. A small subset of potential customers -- those with bratty kids or
screaming infants -- don't get to dictate to the world, either.

No, they do not. The owner does. And until the owner puts up the
sign - no unruly children allowed - right next to the sign "we reserve
the right to refuse service to anyone" you can't dictate to me.

If you don't
like the fact that the owner has NOT elected to limit access, then you
need to deal with it.

Exactly. And the way I deal with it is to make my displeasure known to
the
owner. And if, and a lot of the others mentioned, as an example, in the
Elliot article, do the same, then the restrictions will be expanded.

I will wait with baited breath. But honestly, Paul, if an airline
ever suggested that they will restrict access to children, I will be
the first in line to take my business elsewhere. And I will not be
alone in this.

And the first airline to restrict children, either by segregating them in a
"family section" (as they used to do with smokers) or an out right ban, will
get my business, even if they charge a premium for the ticket. And I will
not be alone in this.

So - if it is such a good deal, why not put some personal resources
behind it. If in fact it would be such a marketing coup, get to it,
Paul. Form the consortium and get that funding rolling.

Gees - airlines couldn't even make the more comnfortable coach seat
proposition work - what makes you think a child ban will impact?

I don't find children to be a problem on
airplanes - mine, or others.

I don't find children on airplanes, per se, to be a problem.

Since when?

Since always.

Please remember that.

However, some
of them create enough of a problem, both for me and many, many others,
that
it has become enough of an issue to warrant being written about and
reported
on in the media.

Yeh, and Arnold's sexual harrassment from the early 70's was deemed
important enough too.

And your point is . . . what?

I just thought that a five year old oped piece wasn't quite the
evidence of importance that I would have used to make my point.


You do have a problem with it. You have two choices - deal with it or
don't fly on airlines that allow kids.

Sorry, but you don't get to determine my options. There's a third
choice:
complain to the airline, each and every time someone brings a shrieking
infant or out-of-control child on board, or in the club rooms.

Good - complain all you want - if that's how you want to deal with it
- but it won't change anything. Economically it is untenable for an
airline NOT to allow children. Do you get why?

Economically, it is very tenable to ensure that passengers are happy enough
with the experience to return. Why do you think many of the club rooms have
an isolated "family room" now, rather than simply filling a corner of the
club with brightly-colored plastic?

The "isolated" family rooms were designed to meet the needs of the 24
million BUSINESS travelers traveling with their kids. I think it's a
great idea. Nintendoes, TVs, blocks, books....shoot, you get your
work stations and your bar, why shouldn't other valuable customers
with different needs be catered to as well?

If it were intended to protect you from kids, then kids would be
REQUIRED to be in there. You don't do much marketing, do you.


Maybe next time you complain, you'll get flowers. But, just to be
clear, if any provider of services to me unduly restricts me or my
family's access at times and places I feel is appropriate (not you,
but me), I will also take the opportunity to complain and moreover, I
will take the initiative to take my business elsewhere. You have the
same prerogative.

Exactly.

Good. And after you send the charity the check, we can call this
thread ended.

js

"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...

Care to make a money wager?

You name it.


http://www.tdf.org/programs/tkts/bwaylisting.htm


NINE Nine's central character, and only man in the musical, is Guido
Contini, a film director in the Fellini mold. He has contracted to write and
direct a film, but is unable to come up with a suitable plot. After recent
box office failures, he finds himself drifting towards a nervous breakdown.
Guido find himself examining his past flawed relationships with the many
women who have come through his life and the struggle to act his mature age
of 40 as opposed to Nine. May be inappropriate for 4 and under. Children
under 4 are not permitted in the theatre. Tues - Sat at 8pm; Wed & Sat at
2pm; Sun at 2pm $76.00 - $101.00 Eugene O'Neill Theatre 230 West 49th Street
(Broadway - 8th Avenue)

TAKE ME OUT The play tests the underbelly of America's most beloved sport,
baseball. Darren Lemming, a young iconic baseball star is at the top of his
game, professionally and personally. He decides to call a press conference
that results in a shocking admission to the waiting media. May be
inappropriate for children 17 and younger. (Some nudity) Children under 4
are not permitted into the theatre. Tues-Sat at 8pm, Wed and Sat at 2pm, Sun
at 3pm. (Tuesdays Mar 11-25 at 7pm Walter Kerr Theatre 219 West 48th Street
(Broadway - 8th Avenue) '

http://www.jimsdeli.com/theater/little-shop-horrors.htm
Little Shop of Horrors

Playing at
Virginia Theater
Show Site
Little Shop of Horrors
Broadway Musical
Previews August 29 2003
Opens October 2 2003

Running Time 2 hrs | 1 intermission

Tickets $56 to $96

Preview prices August 29th thru September 14th $50
Prices do not include any taxes, service charges or other charges
HotTicket!
Little Shop of Horrors tickets - Check TicketsNow for premium seats
Order at Telecharge 212-239-6200 | Outside NY Metro Area 800-432-7250 |
Groups 212-302-7000 / 800-677-1164

Restrictions Children under 4 years old not permitted


http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/wrongmountain.html

Wrong Mountain by David Hirson. Directed by Richard Jones. Starring Ron
Rifkin and Daniel Davis, with Beth Dixon, Anne Dudek, Tom Riis Farrell, Reg
Flowers, Jody Gelb, Daniel Jenkins, Ilana Levine, Bruce Norris, Mary
Schmidtberger, Michael Winters. Scenery and costumes designed by Giles
Cadle. Lighting designed by Jennifer Tipton. Sound designed by John Gromada.

Theat Eugene O'Neill Theatre, 230 West 49th Street, New York, NY 10036
(Between Broadway & 8th Ave)

Running time: 2 hours and 10 minutes, including one 15 minute intermission.

Audience: May be inappropriate for 15 and under. Children under 4 are not
permitted in the theatre. (Sexual situations, no nudity, strong language)



http://ibs.theatermania.com/content/...t_show_id=7998

The Producers
Mel Brooks' 1968 cult film has finally made it to Broadway! The Producers
follows two Broadway producers as they execute a most unique plan: to sell
25,000 percent of a new show, have it fail miserably, and quietly collect
the money after the show closes. To ensure their success, they hire the
worst of the worst to mount Springtime for Hitler, a "gay romp with Adolph
and Eva at Berchtesgaden." The perfect scheme ends in disaster as Springtime
for Hitler becomes the last thing anyone expected it to be: a hit! Lewis J.
Stadlen and Don Stephenson star as Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom. The
production is directed and choreographed by Susan Stroman.
Beginning September 2, Tuesday performances begin at 7:00pm.

May not be suitable for 10 and under.
Children under 4 are not permitted into the theatre.

http://www.discovernewyorkwithkittga.../broadway.html

Anna in the Tropics: Royale Theatre, 242 West 45th Street (between Broadway
and8th Avenue)

Tuesday - Saturday at 8 PM, Wednesday and Saturday at 2 PM and Sunday at 3
PM
Previews: November 4, 2003 and Opens: November 16, 2003
On Sale Through: 2/29/04
Added Performances: Sunday, 11/16 at 6:30 PM (Opening night), Friday, 11/28
at 2 PM, Monday, 12/22 at 8PM, Friday, 12/26 at 2 PM, Monday, 12/29 at 8 PM
and Friday, 1/2 at 2 PM
No Performances: Sunday, 11/16 at 3 PM, Thursday, 11/27 at 8 PM, Wednesday,
12/24 at 2 PM and 8 PM, and Wednesday, 12/31 at 2 PM and 8PM

Anna in the Tropics is a poignant and poetic new play from Nilo Cruz (Two
Sisters and a Piano) set in 1929 in a Cuban-American cigar factory where
cigars are still rolled by hand and "lectors" are employed to educate and
entertain the workers. The arrival of a new lector is a cause for
celebration, but when he begins to read aloud from Anna Karenina, he
unwittingly becomes a catalyst in the lives of his avid listeners, for whom
Tolstoy, the tropics, and the American dream prove a volatile combination.

May be inappropriate for 12 and under. Children under 4 are not permitted
into the theatre


http://www.carolineoconnor.com.au/ch...n_broadway.htm

Chicago: Lyrics by Fred Ebb. Music by John Kander. Book by Fredd Ebb and Bob
Fosse. Original Production Directed and Choreographed by Bob Fosse. Based on
the play by Maurine Dallas Watkins. Scenic design by John Lee Beatty.
Costume design by William Ivey Long. Lighting design by Ken Billington.
Sound design by Scott Lehrer. Orchestrations by Ralph Burns. Choreography by
Ann Reinking in the style of Bob Fosse. Directed by Walter Bobbie. Based on
the presentation by City Center's Encores! Starring Charlotte d'Amboise,
Caroline O'Connor, Billy Zane, Rob Bartlett. Also starring Roz Ryan, R.
Bean. With Dona Marie Asbury, Gregory Butler, Mac Calamia, Belle Callaway,
Roxane Carrasco, Michelle DeJean, Shawn Emamjomeh, Gabriela Garcia, Michael
Kubala, J. Loeffelholz, John Mineo, Sharon Moore, James Patric Moran,
Michelle Potterf, Krissy Richmond, Michelle M. Robinson, Mark Anthony
Taylor, David Warren-Gibson, Eric Jordan Young.

Theat Shubert Theatre, 225 West 44th Street between Broadway and 8th
Avenue
Running time: 2 hours 30 minutes including one 15 minute intermission

Audience: May be inappropriate for children 12 and under. Children under 4
are not permitted in the theater.


http://ibs.theatermania.com/content/...t_show_id=6649

Mamma Mia!
The musical Mamma Mia!, based on the songs of ABBA, follows the story of a
forty-something mother planning her daughter's wedding. Incorporating 22 of
the famous band's songs, the show portrays the contrast of values between
mother and daughter. Set in the present day on a tiny, mythical Greek
island, it is a musical love story that crosses continents and generations.
"Knowing Me, Knowing You," "Take a Chance on Me" and, of course, "Dancing
Queen" are all included.
Broadway veteran and three-time Tony winner Dee Hoty will join the company
in the role of Donna on Wednesday, October 22nd.

Children under 4 are not permitted into the theatre.


http://www.broadwaytixx.com/life_x_3.html

Life (x) 3 Tickets
Theat CIRCLE IN THE SQUARE
Location: 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019
Audience: Children under 4 are not permitted
Type: Comedy/Drama


http://www.labohemetickets.com/schedule.html

Schedule and Other Information for La Boheme Tickets
Venue: Broadway Theatre
Address: 1681 Broadway New York, NY 10019 (between West 52nd & 53rd Streets)
Type: Musical Opera
Running time: 2 hrs 30 mins
Type of Audience: Broad appeal to all ages Children under 4 are not
permitted in the theatre.


http://www.southbeachtickets.com/the...ht_gracie.html

Say Goodnight Gracie
HELEN HAYES THEATRE
Location: 240 West 44th Street
New York, NY 10036
Type:Comedy
Approximate Running Time:90 minutes
Audience: TBA Children under 4 are not permitted


http://www.ticketmaster.com/venue/24615

Ford Center for the Performing Arts
213 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036

Children under 4 years of age will not be admitted.


http://www.ticketmaster.com/venue/24615

THE GRADUATE takes place in California in the 1960's. Benjamin's got
excellent grades, very proud parents and since he helped Mrs. Robinson with
her zipper, a fine future behind him. A cult novel, a classic film - now
Benjamin's disastrous sexual odyssey is brought to life in this critically
acclaimed stage production adapted by Terry Johnson. May be inappropriate
for 12 and under. Children under 4 are not permitted in the theatre. (Brief
nudity/adult content 2 hours and 15 minutes, including 1-15 minute
intermission. Tues - Sat at 8pm, Wed & Sat at 2pm, Sun at 3pm Plymouth
Theatre 236 West 45th St. (Broadway - 8th Ave)


Good. And after you send the charity the check, we can call this
thread ended.

I'll leave it you to pick the amount and the charity to which you would like
to donate.



js

"Paolo G. Cordone" wrote:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 5:41:37 +0100, Qansett wrote
(in message ):

No thank goodness.

This can only be good news for the future generations, then.

Twice as good for me too. There's a lot of women that dont wannt it
either



Paolo

"PTRAVEL" wrote in message ...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...

Care to make a money wager?

You name it.


http://www.tdf.org/programs/tkts/bwaylisting.htm

http://www.playbill.com/events/event_detail/608.html

Show Advisory:
Kid Friendly

Your position was:

"Already, because of people with your attitude, Broadway
theaters have been forced to completely ban young children, a number
of
hotels and resorts are doing so, restaurants do so, etc."

Completely ban young children...no, I don't think so. Don't use
absolutes if you don't mean to imply absolutes.

OK - now lets hear the lawyer waffle. "It's a KID's SHOW" so of
COURSE they don't ban kids." "I posted that there are exceptions..."

Well, if there are exceptions then it is not an absolute.

At the end of the day, Braodway theathers do NOT have a blanket ban on
young children. As with anything, owners restrict access to certain
age grouyps at certain times because it is good business. Likewise,
governments impose age restrictions in an effort to impose some
"morality".

Broadway theatres do NOT have an outright ban on young children or
infants. Why Not? Well, they cater to that crowd and moreover, it
isn't as big a problem as you might like it to be?

Good. And after you send the charity the check, we can call this
thread ended.

You first.

I'll leave it you to pick the amount and the charity to which you would like
to donate.

I donate regularly - mostly to charities that support the development
of children (in the third world and at home). In spite of your error
buit in the interest of ending this thread, I'll send a check to the
Ronald McDonald house for $100 in your name. What charity will be
getting your check in mine?

js

"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...

Care to make a money wager?

You name it.


http://www.tdf.org/programs/tkts/bwaylisting.htm

http://www.playbill.com/events/event_detail/608.html

Show Advisory:
Kid Friendly

Your position was:

"Already, because of people with your attitude, Broadway
theaters have been forced to completely ban young children, a number
of
hotels and resorts are doing so, restaurants do so, etc."

Completely ban young children...no, I don't think so. Don't use
absolutes if you don't mean to imply absolutes.

Here's what I had said:

Let's not get too carried away, OK. Some theatres restrict access by
younger children though few outright ban them completely.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den

"Every Broadway theater, except those with Disney productions and those
doing shows specifically intended for kids, ban children under 4. The
various
performing arts centers that I attend in California discourage young
children and completely ban babies."




OK - now lets hear the lawyer waffle. "It's a KID's SHOW" so of
COURSE they don't ban kids." "I posted that there are exceptions..."

As you've done continually in this thread, you persist in making up
positions I don't hold, ascribing them to me, and then attacking them.
You've done exactly that here.

Sorry, but I've proven the above statement, and it's obvious to anyone
reading this, assuming anyone even is.

You made the bet. Let it be on your conscience that you welched (since the
payoff was to be to a charity, I don't personally lose).



Well, if there are exceptions then it is not an absolute.

At the end of the day, Braodway theathers do NOT have a blanket ban on
young children.

At the end of the day, they do.

As with anything, owners restrict access to certain
age grouyps at certain times because it is good business. Likewise,
governments impose age restrictions in an effort to impose some
"morality".

Broadway theatres do NOT have an outright ban on young children or
infants. Why Not? Well, they cater to that crowd and moreover, it
isn't as big a problem as you might like it to be?

Completely wrong. It stuns me that, even in the face of absolute proof, you
can continue to claim the opposite.


Good. And after you send the charity the check, we can call this
thread ended.

You first.

I didn't lose the bet.


I'll leave it you to pick the amount and the charity to which you would
like
to donate.

I donate regularly - mostly to charities that support the development
of children (in the third world and at home). In spite of your error
buit in the interest of ending this thread, I'll send a check to the
Ronald McDonald house for $100 in your name. What charity will be
getting your check in mine?

I didn't lose the bet. However, I don't mind making a charitable
contribution. I'll pick one, though, that doesn't discriminate childfree
adults. I'll let you know which one.



js

"PTRAVEL" wrote in message ...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...

Care to make a money wager?

You name it.


http://www.tdf.org/programs/tkts/bwaylisting.htm

http://www.playbill.com/events/event_detail/608.html

Show Advisory:
Kid Friendly

Your position was:

"Already, because of people with your attitude, Broadway
theaters have been forced to completely ban young children, a number
of
hotels and resorts are doing so, restaurants do so, etc."

Completely ban young children...no, I don't think so. Don't use
absolutes if you don't mean to imply absolutes.

Here's what I had said:

Let's not get too carried away, OK. Some theatres restrict access by
younger children though few outright ban them completely.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den

"Every Broadway theater, except those with Disney productions and those
doing shows specifically intended for kids, ban children under 4. The
various
performing arts centers that I attend in California discourage young
children and completely ban babies."


There's the waffle and the lawyeristic "but...."



OK - now lets hear the lawyer waffle. "It's a KID's SHOW" so of
COURSE they don't ban kids." "I posted that there are exceptions..."

As you've done continually in this thread, you persist in making up
positions I don't hold, ascribing them to me, and then attacking them.
You've done exactly that here.

I posted EXACTLY what you wrote.

Sorry, but I've proven the above statement, and it's obvious to anyone
reading this, assuming anyone even is.

So, not all Broadway theatres ban all children all the time. Fine -
my point exactly.

You made the bet. Let it be on your conscience that you welched (since the
payoff was to be to a charity, I don't personally lose).

Yeh, right.


Well, if there are exceptions then it is not an absolute.

At the end of the day, Braodway theathers do NOT have a blanket ban on
young children.

At the end of the day, they do.

No, at the end of the day, they don't - unless you want to take the
expression to the literal.

As with anything, owners restrict access to certain
age grouyps at certain times because it is good business. Likewise,
governments impose age restrictions in an effort to impose some
"morality".

Broadway theatres do NOT have an outright ban on young children or
infants. Why Not? Well, they cater to that crowd and moreover, it
isn't as big a problem as you might like it to be?

Completely wrong. It stuns me that, even in the face of absolute proof, you
can continue to claim the opposite.

What is it about the Lion King you don't get? I have no problem with
limiting attendance to theater consistent with the subject matter - in
fact, I am a strong proponent that under 18's shouldn't be found in
strip clubs. However, there is no consistent prohibition of children
in Broadway theatres and the only limitations are based on a subject
matter criterion as far as I can tell.


Good. And after you send the charity the check, we can call this
thread ended.

You first.

I didn't lose the bet.

Oh yes you did Mr. Tauger...but you know what? I'm used to lawyers
and I don't believe half of what the say or anything what they write.
I told you you'd try to do the two step shuffle, and you didn't
disappoint me.

You did it when you said that children should NEVER be allowed in a
bar and then made exceptions out the wazoo that it was infants and
those infants needed to be screaming and that Chili's isn't a bar...

Is this statement correct?

"Broadway theaters have been forced to completely ban young children."

Of couse not. Not until you qualify it to specific theatres and
specific performances.

Had you said that many theatres on Broadway restrict access to
children under 4 for certain shows and performances - I would have
readily agreed - but you did not. You used the "forced to completely
ban" as evidence that society in general opposes the presence of
children in tauger adult only venues.

To bad the little trick didn't work. Some people can see through the
slick willy taugerisms.

I'll leave it you to pick the amount and the charity to which you would
like
to donate.

I donate regularly - mostly to charities that support the development
of children (in the third world and at home). In spite of your error
buit in the interest of ending this thread, I'll send a check to the
Ronald McDonald house for $100 in your name. What charity will be
getting your check in mine?

I didn't lose the bet. However, I don't mind making a charitable
contribution. I'll pick one, though, that doesn't discriminate childfree
adults. I'll let you know which one.

Fine - you do just that.

I applaud and thank you for your decision to be childfree.

js

"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...

Care to make a money wager?

You name it.


http://www.tdf.org/programs/tkts/bwaylisting.htm

http://www.playbill.com/events/event_detail/608.html

Show Advisory:
Kid Friendly

Your position was:

"Already, because of people with your attitude, Broadway
theaters have been forced to completely ban young children, a number
of
hotels and resorts are doing so, restaurants do so, etc."

Completely ban young children...no, I don't think so. Don't use
absolutes if you don't mean to imply absolutes.

Here's what I had said:

Let's not get too carried away, OK. Some theatres restrict access by
younger children though few outright ban them completely.


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...TF-8%26hl%3Den

"Every Broadway theater, except those with Disney productions and those
doing shows specifically intended for kids, ban children under 4. The
various
performing arts centers that I attend in California discourage young
children and completely ban babies."


There's the waffle and the lawyeristic "but...."

There's nothing waffling or lawyeristic about anything. Obviously, shows
intended for children don't restrict access by children. It's ludicrous to
assert otherwise. However, YOUR contention was that few Broadway theaters
ban young children. Here's what you said:

"Let's not get too carried away, OK. Some theatres restrict access by
younger children though few outright ban them completely. And they
haven't been forced to do anything - they have done so out their own
free will. And they have every right to do so."

I proved you wrong. Admit it and move on.




OK - now lets hear the lawyer waffle. "It's a KID's SHOW" so of
COURSE they don't ban kids." "I posted that there are exceptions..."

As you've done continually in this thread, you persist in making up
positions I don't hold, ascribing them to me, and then attacking them.
You've done exactly that here.

I posted EXACTLY what you wrote.

No, you didn't. You posted out of context, and deleted the next sentence
which explained the one you did quote. _I_ posted what I wrote, just as I
posted what _you_ wrote.


Sorry, but I've proven the above statement, and it's obvious to anyone
reading this, assuming anyone even is.

So, not all Broadway theatres ban all children all the time. Fine -
my point exactly.

And what point, exactly, is that? My point in raising the FACT that most
Broadway theaters ban young children was that parents (and grandparents)
like yourself have grown so abusive and inconsiderate of others that it is
becoming increasingly necessary to limit their children's access by fiat.
What point where you making by showing that Disney and other producers of
other shows intended for children don't limit access by children?


You made the bet. Let it be on your conscience that you welched (since
the
payoff was to be to a charity, I don't personally lose).

Yeh, right.

Exactly right.



Well, if there are exceptions then it is not an absolute.

At the end of the day, Braodway theathers do NOT have a blanket ban on
young children.

At the end of the day, they do.

No, at the end of the day, they don't - unless you want to take the
expression to the literal.

At the end of the day, you won't be able to bring your grandchildren (if
they are under the age of 5) to any Broadway theater, except those running
shows intended for child audiences. And that's the whole point.


As with anything, owners restrict access to certain
age grouyps at certain times because it is good business. Likewise,
governments impose age restrictions in an effort to impose some
"morality".

Broadway theatres do NOT have an outright ban on young children or
infants. Why Not? Well, they cater to that crowd and moreover, it
isn't as big a problem as you might like it to be?

Completely wrong. It stuns me that, even in the face of absolute proof,
you
can continue to claim the opposite.

What is it about the Lion King you don't get?

What is it about "Disney and shows intended for children" that you don't
get? The Lion King is the exception that proves the rule.

I have no problem with
limiting attendance to theater consistent with the subject matter - in
fact, I am a strong proponent that under 18's shouldn't be found in
strip clubs. However, there is no consistent prohibition of children
in Broadway theatres and the only limitations are based on a subject
matter criterion as far as I can tell.

All Broadway theaters exclude children under 5, except Disney and other
producers of shows intended for children. And the reason for the
prohibition has nothing to do with suitability of material -- infants, for
example, don't understand the "dirty bits." They're excluded because too
many people who think like you drag babies and very young children to live
theater where they disrupt the performance and interfere with both the
actors and the audience.



Good. And after you send the charity the check, we can call this
thread ended.

You first.

I didn't lose the bet.

Oh yes you did Mr. Tauger...but you know what? I'm used to lawyers
and I don't believe half of what the say or anything what they write.
I told you you'd try to do the two step shuffle, and you didn't
disappoint me.

I don't use these words loosely, and I almost _never_ resort to name calling
on the Internet, so you'll understand how seriously I mean this when I say
that you are simply a liar.


You did it when you said that children should NEVER be allowed in a
bar and then made exceptions out the wazoo that it was infants and
those infants needed to be screaming and that Chili's isn't a bar...

A liar and a fool. My objection has always been to infants and young
children who cause disruptions in places where such disruptions are
inappropriate and inconsiderate of others. You know this perfectly well, as
I've explained it repeatedly to you.


Is this statement correct?

No.


"Broadway theaters have been forced to completely ban young children."

Of couse not. Not until you qualify it to specific theatres and
specific performances.

It's most theaters and all performances. I'll just cut and paste since you
never seem to get it the first time:

"All Broadway theaters exclude children under 5, except Disney and other
producers of shows intended for children. And the reason for the
prohibition has nothing to do with suitability of material -- infants, for
example, don't understand the "dirty bits." They're excluded because too
many people who think like you drag babies and very young children to live
theater where they disrupt the performance and interfere with both the
actors and the audience."


Had you said that many theatres on Broadway restrict access to
children under 4 for certain shows and performances - I would have
readily agreed - but you did not.

Because your version is incorrect. However, you continue to miss the point
entirely. Why do you think most Broadway theaters (all of them, if you
exclude theaters that are running shows intended for child audiences)
exclude children under 4?


You used the "forced to completely
ban" as evidence that society in general opposes the presence of
children in tauger adult only venues.

Society doesn't welcome crying babies in theaters. This is news to you?


To bad the little trick didn't work. Some people can see through the
slick willy taugerisms.

I know of only one other poster, also posting internationally, who used that
phrase. I think you are good old amp_spamfree, who also was insulting and
dishonest in his communications with me. Sorry, amp, you were burned with
your first post in response to me.


I'll leave it you to pick the amount and the charity to which you
would
like
to donate.

I donate regularly - mostly to charities that support the development
of children (in the third world and at home). In spite of your error
buit in the interest of ending this thread, I'll send a check to the
Ronald McDonald house for $100 in your name. What charity will be
getting your check in mine?

I didn't lose the bet. However, I don't mind making a charitable
contribution. I'll pick one, though, that doesn't discriminate
childfree
adults. I'll let you know which one.

Fine - you do just that.

I applaud and thank you for your decision to be childfree.

js

Upon re-reading my response, I apologize for resorting to name calling --
it's beneath me and unnecessary.

However, since it's obviously impossible to have any rational discussion
with you about this topic, I don't intend to respond to your posts any
further. You can have the last word.