Several posters stated or implied that she was giving her son too much control by not sending him to camp when she doesn't need to and he doesn't want to go.
I think that by choosing an absurdly narrow definition of "supervision," that allowed you to imply that she was not supervising her son and his friends. And, of course, now you are denying that implication with "I didn't say that."
That was me, and I said that ONE POSSIBLE REASON might be because the family has no money for camp, activities and lessons. I never ever said that it was the only reason.
Pages
Yes.
PumpkinAngel
That was uncalled for and totally false.
Wow.
PumpkinAngel
The fact that I have chosen to not disclose details of my personal life on a public debate board is part of the problem?
What an interesting perspective.
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-pssahwoh&msg=19145.408
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-pssahwoh&msg=19145.418
Then there was coconuts' post: http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-pssahwoh&msg=19145.418 to which Lois replied, why should he have to go to camp if he doesn't want to? So clearly I'm not the only one who thought she was being criticized for not sending her son to camp.
Several posters stated or implied that she was giving her son too much control by not sending him to camp when she doesn't need to and he doesn't want to go.
Good point.
PumpkinAngel
I think that's a good thing, I do that with my children....they are not supervised (in my definition) 24/7/365 and haven't been for awhile now.
PumpkinAngel
I've been chewing on this for a while and think I have my thoughts together.
<>
That was me, and I said that ONE POSSIBLE REASON might be because the family has no money for camp, activities and lessons. I never ever said that it was the only reason.
Carry on.
Pages