Message from discussion allowance for 9 year old

Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn
From: Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com>
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: allowance for 9 year old
Date: 28 Jan 2008 13:40:09 -0800
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <fnli3p0uh7@drn.newsguy.com>
References: <301d6071-6a15-418f-b2aa-fafed3cfcffb@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <Qvglj.3760$pC5.911@trnddc05> <ab51d5de-d335-4aeb-99e4-d0c1846c7a00@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <BI-dnZd9MIqoswranZ2dnUVZ_ruqnZ2d@comcast.com> <il8xutduc8fu$.gqj97latzohk$.dlg@40tude.net> <UY6dneowLtIwVwranZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com> <1f1b2os1ewbuu.130tkvrojngtd$.dlg@40tude.net> <e85142a5-0d2d-46c8-9564-07f8a16e0038@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <Xns9A334C12DEB53enigmaempirenet@199.125.85.9> <fnkk6p01soa@drn.newsguy.com> <Xns9A3384E13B0BCenigmaempirenet@199.125.85.9> <NaSdnevf5evSsAPanZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@comcast.com> <fnlh6q0s9m@drn.newsguy.com> <2OqdnSoVYvVg1QPanZ2dnUVZ_ryqnZ2d@comcast.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p970200000010064879c23789a13ccbbaee0be6051254bd8d.newsdawg.com
User-Agent: Direct Read News 5.16

In article <2OqdnSoVYvVg1QPanZ2dnUVZ_ryqn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie says...
>
>
>"Banty" <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message 
>news:fnlh6q0s9m@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <NaSdnevf5evSsAPanZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie 
>> says...
>>>
>>>enigma wrote:
>>>> i suspect that there are a large number of people who don't
>>>> know what a well constructed garment looks like. i do get odd
>>>> looks as i turn everything inside out to inspect the seam
>>>> finish, shoulder taping, fabric grain, etc of clothing items
>>>> before purchase... but i now have a 7.5 year old who can
>>>> recognize a twisted fabric grain or a nicely finished shirt,
>>>> so it's a good thing (he also reads ingredient labels on snack
>>>> foods & rejects HFCS and red dyes).
>>>
>>>
>>>Well now THAT is a parental accomplishment for the record book. I am
>>>definitly in the cant recognize a well constructed garmet. It goes hand in
>>>hand for me with not caring. My son usually grows out of stuff long before
>>>it is too worn to wear. I almost NEVER buy my kids' clothes. I get a ton 
>>>of
>>>hand-me-downs. Which is FANTASTIC.
>>
>> Which is GREAT!
>>
>> When did this discussion veer from whether or not true value can be gotten 
>> in a
>> Wal-mart to this que-es-mas-frugal/enlightened round of chest pounding and
>> self-backpatting!??
>>
>
>
>I was just kind of rambling from where it started. I was not trying to pound 
>my chest. I get an excited feeling inside when I contemplate how many times 
>I DIDNT have to go shopping for kids' clothes.

That strikes me as self back-patting.  I mean, I dont' wear makeup, but I don't
run around getting all excited ever time I pass a drugstore and posting here
whenever it comes up.  Good grief.  What if I said "Who CARES, Banty's too SMART
to wear makeup"  "Oh gimme a break" people would justifiably think.

Besides, going to a second-hand store *is* shopping.  It's browsing Land's End
online that isn't  ;-D  Even sorting through hand me downs, to me, is
boredom-inducing along the lines of shopping.  But I did it, too (but my sister
has four - a lot of stuff was well beat up).

>
>
>> I think the point is a fair one, that a lot of folks who wouldn't know a 
>> badly
>> constructed garment from poor materials would therefore think they're 
>> getting
>> wunnerful value because there's lots of new shtuff in their basket for
>> relatively little $$$$.
>
>
>
>Oh. I missed that point. They call me Mrs Smart.

Well, mebbe you are!  Just mebbe a tad Mrs Smart-aleck too, though.  ;)

>
>
>> I made the point that good quality stuff *is* to be
>> found in second hand stores, when people who have bought quality in the 
>> first
>> place have taken the care to recycle the stuff.  Instead of landfilling 
>> the
>> stretched out, stain-holding crap bought at Walmart (or going to second 
>> hand
>> stores with the crap, only to have it sorted out laboriously there and 
>> ending up
>> in the landfill anyway!).
>>
>> And, no, I never signed on to this idea that kinder, gentler, enlightened,
>> 'centered',
>> whatever-the-hell-else-adjective-people-like-to-self-congratulate-for 
>> people
>> would be oblivious to questions of asthetics or fashion.
>>
>
>
>Huh? I think I just got slammed for not giving a hoot about fashion.
>
>


No, you did not get slammed for not giving a hoot about fashion.  You got
slammed for slamming people for giving a hoot about fashion!  At least by
implication.

Cheers,
Banty