Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!reed!bifrost
From: bifrost@reed.UUCP (Alan Schmidt)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: kids in restaurants
Message-ID: <1318@reed.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 18:01:21 EST
Article-I.D.: reed.1318
Posted: Fri Apr 12 18:01:21 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 06:41:36 EST
References: <605@ahuta.UUCP>
Reply-To: bifrost@reed.UUCP (Alan Schmidt)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Lines: 24
Summary: 

> My apologies to any childless
> persons who were offended.  It was thoughtless of us to take up
> seating space, when business people were in a hurry to get back to
> work.  I guess I didn't read the sign on the door, requesting
> women with children to please wait until all the important people
> had finished eating.  My mistake.

	I don't mean to pick on you in particular, but merely anyone who
uses this style of flaming.  It's worthless.  Sarcasm and cynicism are
fun.  I indulge in both frequently and with great relish.  However, all
this flame shows is that the one at whom you were flaming was correct in
some small way.  The flame doesn't inspire guilt (like a really good
flame should), it doesn't show HOW someone else was wrong, nor does it
attempt to correct.  It is merely an impotent wail that you have been
wronged.  Somehow.

	It is indeed wrong to suggest that another human being has no
right to be in a public place.  It is also wrong to be so inconsiderate
of the rights of others that one's children are premitted to rage
uncontrolled in a public place.  It IS possible to quiet children.  This
was the essence of the debate.

Heimdall
..tektronix!reed!bifrost