Annie's Mailbox® by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

LW2 -
I don't know for sure what you should do, but I do know what should NOT: issue ultimatums you have no intention of following through. Now your bluff has been called and, unless you do leave indeed, nothing you ever threaten from now on will ever be taken seriously. Brilliant result.

Apart from the fact that he obviously doesn't care one hoot or a holler whether you end up in the street due to a gazillion lawsuit, he also doesn't give a damn about the children themselves. I don't know if he's turning evil or senile, but your only hope of saving the furniture now is to threaten to REALLY leave if he doesn't get assessed. And make sure you're present with the interview with the doctor, so that he knows the whole story.

If he refuses, DO LEAVE. The man is becoming dangerous. God knows what next he will concoct in his demented mind.

* * * * PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT * * * *

LW3 refers to the second letter on 13 January 2013.

LW2 - No one should ever make threats that they're not prepared to follow through with. The LW's husband now knows that she won't leave if he continues to leave the pool gate open, so that obviously won't work again. The concern here is whether he's doing it deliberately to annoy her at the expense of any children who may fall into the pool and drown, or whether he's simply getting forgetful and leaves it open accidentally. It's unclear from the letter how often this has happened - it sounds like so far it's only happened twice - and how far apart the two instances were. Has the LW had a talk with him and explained the danger of leaving the gate open, or just threatened him with leaving if he did it again? Has he exhibited any other behaviors that warrant the LW's concern? There seems to be a lot more to the problems here than are addressed in the letter. Threatening to leave the marriage over this one issue seems a little extreme.
.
In any event, I agree with the Annie's suggestion to solve the immediate problem. The LW should get a padlock for the pool gate and make sure that she has the only keys. The neighborhood children should be protected from danger until the LW sorts out what is causing her husband to continue leaving the gate open.

If they are married then they both own the property. She would be just as liable as he should a child drown in their pool. Leaving him would not protect her from a lawsuit over a drowning. Get a lawyer. Get the padlock or drain the pool. And his behavior does sound more like age related dementia

I will never understand the restrictions that come with owning a pool. 'The neighborhood children should be protected'-- that's what they have parents for. Perhaps if their parents taught them that trespassing is not only wrong but illegal, pool owners wouldn't have to fork out the cash to protect themselves from the liability.

LW1 - This letter is just bonkers to me. You threaten to leave him because he leaves the pool gate open? I get that you're concerned about the neighborhood children but to threaten to leave him?? Sounds to me like you have threatened to leave him every time you didn't get your way and that's why he doesn't take you seriously. Instead of threatening to leave, maybe you could tell him your concerns about the possible liability and ask him what he thinks you two could do about it. If that doesn't work, get a lock that only you have the key/combination to. And it wouldn't hurt to warn the neighbors that your husband leaves the gate open a lot.
Miz is right in that children should be taught not to trespass or go near a pool without their parents but it doesn't always happen that way.

Re: Lise Brouillette
I disagree with your advise
I have a 74 year old husband who is also beginning to have problems with short term memory. He often forgets to do things. I'm his wife, I help him, I don't abandon him! This is the man you took vows to love and care for, in sickness and in health. The LW should get a lock that he doesn't have a key to and put it on the pool door. Then go inside and make an appointment with a neurologist. You help people you love, you don't walk away from them when they need you most.

Miz, I agree with you 100 %. The responsibility is on parents to teach their kids that unless they are specifically invited by the people who live there, they do not go into other people's homes or yards, front or back. What happened to common sense?

LW2- I think you are being a tad bit mellow dramatic… Divorcing your hubby after how many years because two times he didn't lock the gate to the pool is beyond stupid. Yes he should lock the gate and you should call him out on it but to threaten to leave over it is just plain silly. Like others said, get a padlock and keep the key. Is his leaving the gate open abuse? Are you serious? What a very stupid question.

Miz and Emily
Of course responsible parents teach their children not to trespass and also supervise them. Yet probably every year, somewhere on earth, a 2-year-old will awake from his nap early, wander outside and fall in the family's or neighbour's pond/pool, despite his parents' care and attention. That is why locked gates are recommended.

LW2: Your husband may be more forgetful than you realize, especially at this age. Or he simply disagrees with you and won't obey your every order. Either way, if you are willing to divorce him over this, you apparently don't value your marriage much.
Leave, as you threatened. He'll probably be better off. You're the one who sounds a little irrational. I'd let you leave too, if I were him.

@Miss Pasko
I totally agree. It only takes a few minutes for a small child to drown, and even the best of parents can lose sight of their toddler long enough for this to happen. Also, in a perfect world all parents would be vigilant, but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. Just because some parents don't keep a proper watch on their children are the rest of us supposed to not take simple precautions that would keep them safe and simply say "Oh well. It was the parents' fault" when something terrible happens? It only makes sense that if you have something on your property that would be dangerous to children, but attractive for them to explore, you make sure it's not accessible to them.

LW1--"Did you know that an estimated 16 million youth participate in volunteer activities in the U.S. every year, and that by volunteering, these young people will perform better in school?" Did you know that there is a strong correlation between eating ice cream and drowning deaths? Statistics can be made to show anything. While I think volunteering is a great thing, don't try to pretend that children will be magically transformed into better students as a direct result.

LW2--Did it occur to you that your husband dislikes the neighborhood children and secretly hopes they'll wander in and drown in your pool? Either that or he really IS hoping you'll leave. Looks like you're in a lose-lose situation honey.

LW3--If "Disgusted" can't figure out how to toss something in the trash then he has bigger problems than being guilted into donating to a charity who sends him some junky token gift.

No, Miss Pasko. A toddler doesn't wander outside when he's getting care and attention. That happens when the parent isn't doing his job. That's why we have all these regulations.
Now, go back to your nonstop donut eating, and leave the advice to people who have a lick of common sense.

Miz and Emily: there is a legal phrase, "attractive nuisance," which refers to something like a swimming pool or a construction site which is likely to attract children and injure them. The reason most jurisdictions have laws requiring fences with locking gates around swimming pools is that ALL adults, not just their parents, are obligated to protect children from the consequences of their own immaturity.

Of course parents should teach their own children to stay away from attractive nuisances. But because they ARE children, they are interested in things that are hazardous and don't understand why they should avoid them. A child's life is too high a price to pay for a moment of carelessness.

@ Miz: In the State of Florida, you must, by law, have child protective barriers in place. That means either child fences (barriers), or closed doors to screen enclosed pools. The handles need to be high enough so that a small child cannot reach same. There are also alarms that can be put in place on sliding glass doors, so parents of small children know if their child is trying to get to the pool area. The best prevention, however, is a parent who keeps a consistent eye on their children.

Further, whether LW2 leaves or not, she still would be considered libel should something happen on their property.

Re: LW2 – There is actually a law titled the “Attractive Nuisance Doctrine” which states that children, because of their various ages and levels of maturity are incapable of understanding or appreciating dangers or risks on the premises and therefore their inability to appreciate peril. Clearly the owner of such property must maintain suitable protection to prevent a disaster from occurring on their property.

@ Dorothy-- that seemed...unnecessary. And yes, toddlers wander off all the time, even when they have good parents that give them plenty of attention. No one is vigilant 24/7.

Sorry Kimiko (#15) - I hadn't gone through all posts (and you had already stated the point of my post!) My bad..

LW1: Chris, on your comment, "While I think volunteering is a great thing, don't try to pretend that children will be magically transformed into better students as a direct result" ... maybe not, but the chances are far greater that they WILL rather than if they did not.

One thing about you I've noticed is that you seem to want to see the glass half-empty rather than half-full. Please ... next time you see one of these public service announcement-type letters, just take it for what it is and go on.

LW2: Really? Leave? LOL and ROTFL!

(composes himself)

Uh, perhaps it's not because he wants you to leave or because – as some BTL'ers have suggested – he secretly "hates children." I just seem to think it's a case of a number of different things:

• 1. He is unaware of, or ignorant to ordinances requiring locking gates and that the gate be fixed in the closed position. (If his state/city doesn't have that clause, and I don't know why it wouldn't, it should.) If it's ignorance or outright opposition, then it may be just in his mind another "hoop" to jump through and that said ordinance – instead of protecting children – is somehow disallowing him from maintaining his property "as I see fit!"

• 2. He sees "no harm, no foul" in leaving the gate open, because nothing has happened yet, and that "nothing could possibly happen."

• 3. If something did happen, he'd be indifferent to the situation ("So what? Shit happens in life, get over it!") or he'd somehow claim that the kid who drowned was part of a group of neighborhood kids who were trespassing and shouldn't have been on the property in the first place. ("I wouldn't be in court answering this goddamned claim if it weren't for you pesky kids! And that flea-bitten mutt of yours who crapped all over my lawn!")

As for the claim by some that he "hates children," I don't think so. Indifferent, maybe, meaning he doesn't "hate" them, but he wouldn't miss them if he never saw one.

LW, I think the best course of action might be not to threaten to leave but to call the building inspector or whomever enforces the city codes and have him explain things, and that these ordinances are not there because people want to "regulate" or "infringe" but to protect those who don't necessarily have the ability to protect themselves (i.e., in this case, children who are tempted to wander into a backyard swimming pool unsupervised).

And then perhaps what else has been suggested – get your husband out to a neurologist to have him evaluated. Perhaps at age 75, he should anyway.

But get out of this mind that leaving him is the best course of action. Unless there's other things that are far more serious that you're not telling us, several BTL'ers have it right ... he's called your bluff. Now it's time to stop crying wolf and make sure he understands the reason why we have fences and ask for locking gates around swimming pools.

LW2: Sweetie, I think you may want to get yourself checked out. You are sounding paranoid.
If the man is working on the gate and it's open that means he is in easy reach of blocking any child that may wander in. It also means he is actively out there, even if he steps away for a moment to pull out any foundering child. Unless you have a problem with neighborhood children (unsupervised toddlers) prowling around looking for unlocked gates to get in through for illicit pool use I don't think you have much to worry about. To threaten to leave him over this is also…very dramatic.

And, of course, we all know, truly attentive parents don't sleep or take showers. Ever.

LW2: I don't have children, so it's very easy for me to get on my high horse and blame parents for not watching their kids. But kids are fast and, at certain ages, mischievous and misbehave because they think it's funny. They're too young to understand the concept of danger. There are certainly situations where a child, say on a walk with his family, could break away and take off. As the parents try to catch him, he goes through this open gate, and falls in the pool. It truly takes just seconds for a child to drown. Regardless of blaming the parents, why would you ever want to put your backyard in a position that would be dangerous to a child? That's just.. well, stupid.

Parents can be responsible and still the worst happens. But that's just my two cents… Maybe I should go back to eating my donuts as Dorothy suggested earlier *eye roll*

My hand to god - I did not write letter #2. Even I think leaving him over this is beyond ridiculous. Keep the pool cover on, put an alarm on the gate, put an alarm in the pool, drain the pool, get a dog. There are many less drastic solutions. Since he fixed the gate open he most likely had a reason for it. Maybe he was doing yard work and propping the gate open was easier for him, he got busy and forgot. Two times??? Even I have forgotten to close a door or gate more than two times and I am a real nut when it comes to closing doors. You can purchase door/gate alarms at Walmart for under $20 or you can get a divorce for $10,000 (pick a number). Even cheaper yet throw him in the pool, hold him down and claim he left the pool gate open, fell in and drowned.

Re: Chris (#13 ... again)

On LW3, responding to "If 'Disgusted' can't figure out how to toss something in the trash then he has bigger problems than being guilted into donating to a charity who sends him some junky token gift."

Yes ... such as a mother who might just be guilted into donating to charities without regard to whether they are legit. She might just be an older woman who's mental facilities are starting to wane. ("Oh, he just seemed like a nice guy ... I couldn't resist.") Happens a lot with older parents ... and given that the letter was signed "Mom's Mail Clerk," it would stand to reason that "Mom" is probably past 80 and is cared for quite a bit by her children – i.e., "assisted living" at home – with getting and sorting the mail one of the duties.

For the spouse of the husband who dangerously left the gate open. Please please follow Annie's advice. You may not see any signs of mental decline but from personal experience dementia/Alz symptoms appear perhaps decades before diagnosis. My husband began doing such stupid irresponsible things I was going to leave. And was astounded when his dx of dementia was finally made. There is a simple test that can be done in a professional's office that shows clearly signs of mental decline. I too thought my husband was sharp as a tac but the test showed otherwise. Please don't wait any longer as you will have a whole team surrounding you with assistance and good advice. You are not alone.

Re: Bobaloo, I think that was what Chris said in #25 - albeit in fewer words. Sometimes I think you look for things to disagree with Chris about. For your own sanity, just don't respond to him. You've become his own personal troll. Then you complain about people disagreeing with you. I can't remember one time when Chris started in on you first. It's only 9:30 and you have disagreed with him twice!

Re: Penny (#27)

Whoa, wait a minute ... I've also stuck up for him a couple of times when a troll tried to pester him.

Chris is harmless, but at least I'm sticking to the subject in #25. The first post, I think he was just a little snarkish when it wasn't really necessary. Just take the comment for what it's worth, I'd say.

Count me among the many who apparently needs to go back to eating donuts. Yes, Dorothy, that's right, bad things have never happened to good people. Excellent parents have NEVER had that one millisecond when the phone rang, the doorbell rang, and they were distracted for just an instant, and that instant was all it took. Nope, that doesn't ever happen to good parents. If you have kids, I am sure you never once made a single mistake with any of them ever.

Yes, children need to be taught not to trespass on other people's property (of course, since my 20-month old isn't saying much more than "dog" and "dad" and "mama" and "cat," telling him much more than "no" when he tries to do something he shouldn't isn't going to be particularly effective, and it has to be done over and over again when he's in the act of doing it). Yes, parents need to be vigilant and diligent in teaching their kids this stuff and protecting them. But short of chaining a child that is capable of walking or running to your hip, there is no way to be on top of them 24-7-365. There is no such thing as a perfect parent because there is no such thing as a perfect human being. We have laws about enclosing pools not because we have all these awful parents running around (though there are plenty of those, too), but because we have all these HUMAN parents running around who, no matter how good they are at parenting, are not perfect at all times.

If Dorothy is buying the doughnuts, then she's going to be busy today! >:-)

"Is this abuse? Should I find a lawyer? How do I do this?"
No!
No!
Leave the gate open, one might just wander in.

@j/#16:
Perhaps she should buy her husband a gun instead of a new lock. The same state that forces him to have child protective barriers in place also gives him the right to use lethal force to defend his home.

@Chris -- it is true that statistics can be skewed, especially depending on how they are gathered. In this case, I seriously doubt that there are any statistics or experimentation that's been done to prove an actual cause-and-effect relationship between volunteering and doing better in school. In fact, I would suggest it's more likely to be a case of "self-selection" -- the kids are who most likely to be doing volunteer work also happen to be the kids most likely to be doing well in school, no cause and effect. On the other hand, an increasing number of municipalities/counties/states are requiring a certain number of community service hours in order for kids to graduate, so I suppose it's possible someone has done a study looking at the performance of students before community service was required and after community service was required, and depending on how that went, perhaps an actual cause-and-effect relationship was proven. But all of that is really moot. I, too, am no fan of the public service announcements the Annies do because 1) I read the Annies to be entertained by human foibles, not to be told smoking is bad (duh) or volunteering is good (duh); 2) I have to question the degree to which these PSAs do any good (but I suppose you never know) -- but you know what, it's just not skin off my nose to just read past them and move on. I did, however, enjoy your other posts today.

@Bobaloo -- far be it from me to defend Chris, who is well able to do so himself, and besides, what I'm about to say may not even be correct, anyway (in which case, Chris, my apologies for interpreting your post incorrectly), but I assumed Chris' suggestion that perhaps LW2's husband secretly hates kids was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. You know, sarcasm. While it certainly is possible the husband really does hate kids, I think Chris' point was to use a bit of hyperbole to point out the LW's own hyperbole. She threatened to leave her husband because he left the gate open ONE TIME. When he did it a second time, one of her immediate conclusions was, "well, maybe he wants me to leave." She's being ridiculous. Sometimes, it's best to fight ridiculousness with ridiculousness. "Yes, LW2, he probably DOES want you to leave, and he is putting the lives of all of your neighborhood children at risk in order to finally get you to leave, because THAT is the sanest, most logical, fastest way to get you out of his life. Yup, that sounds about right. Mystery solved." Look, LW2's concern for the kids is completely valid, and certainly, it only takes the gate being left open once for tragedy to strike, so she's not wrong to be worried about it. But her response to this is so over-the-top that's it's hard to take her seriously. Yes, it's irresponsible to leave the gate open, but just as a parent can be distracted for that fraction of a moment, a perfectly lucid, responsible adult can forget to close a gate once or twice without it being a sign that he has dementia, or that he wants his wife to leave him, anymore than it's likely to be a sign that he secretly hates kids and is hoping they'll drown in his pool! Sure, any of those scenarios are possible, but LW2 might want to consider that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and that the most likely scenario is, in fact, the truth: on two occasions, hubby innocently forgot to close the gate because he's human. Unless he is showing other signs of wanting her to leave, hating children or the onset of dementia (certainly a far less whacky proposition than him hoping she'll leave or hating children), she is being ridiculous.

@Penny (31) -- LOL!

@Miz -- now that's just silly. She should buy the gun for HERSELF, since clearly her husband WANTS children to wander in and drown in the pool and is also hoping she will leave. So, she needs the gun in order to keep those kids off her property and to keep her husband from trying to make her leave.

LW2 sounds like a complete dingbat old hag, yet the manhating, overweight Annies still suggested that HER HUSBAND get a mental evaluation, not her. Wow.

Does the bigotry of these lards know no limits

Don't leave, throw his a$$ out. Self closing, self latching gate? Call your insurance company and ask what to do to mitigate liability. They'll probably tell you to drain it and fill it with dirt.

Lise Brouillette wrote:

“Apart from the fact that he obviously doesn't care one hoot or a holler whether you end up in the street due to a gazillion lawsuit, he also doesn't give a damn about the children themselves. I don't know if he's turning evil or senile, but your only hope of saving the furniture now is to threaten to REALLY leave if he doesn't get assessed. And make sure you're present with the interview with the doctor, so that he knows the whole story.

If he refuses, DO LEAVE. The man is becoming dangerous. God knows what next he will concoct in his demented mind.”

LMFAO.
Someone sure is demented alright, but I'm not sure it is LW2's husband.

Re: Bobaloo, No, you were not sticking to the subject. You were making up yet another little story about 'why'... You even made up an age at which this might happen. The letter was simply giving advice on what to do about unsolicited charities. Chris said, throw the letters away. You then jumped in to make up a reason why Chris was wrong in saying what he did. Then you go on to try and defend yourself by claiming he was being, "just a little snarkish".

Nonegiven wrote:
“Don't leave, throw his a$$ out. Self closing, self latching gate? Call your insurance company and ask what to do to mitigate liability. They'll probably tell you to drain it and fill it with dirt.”

I agree with this person.

Clearly, when a man is so demented that he leaves a gate open not once but twice (!), the only rational decision is to divorce him and throw him out of the house that he likely paid for.

MEN. They're to blame for EVERYTHING.

I'm with Penny, Bobaloo. Sometimes it seems you go out of your way to find ways in which Chris is "wrong." You also get really riled up about it. Maybe you should stop responding, for your own sanity.

I think Bobaloo secretly LOVES Chris.

@Kitty #3
"Has the LW had a talk with him and explained the danger of leaving the gate open"
She did: "The first time he did it, I went ballistic, pointing out the liability: There are children in this neighborhood who could wander in and easily drown in our pool."

#12
"Just because some parents don't keep a proper watch on their children are the rest of us supposed to not take simple precautions that would keep them safe"
Couldn't agree with you more. Especially in this realm of the Giant Lawsuit, where throngs of overgrown, irresponsible brat have it in their head that nothing is ever their fault.

@Sarah Stravinska #3
Excellent point. Much better than what I said.

@Dianer315 #7
I commend you for your constance, but what do you do if he refuses to go to the neurologist? He is not a minor child that can be compelled.

Also, if this was the onset of dementia or Alzheimer's, the first signs are few and far between and the person is normal in between. How come he just can't SEE how abnormal and potentially deadly his behaviour is when he goes back to being lucid? Remember the "Dealing With Bipolar Disease" thread? Go to comment #14 by Jers: "In an odd way, it was actually easier for my bf to accept he had a problem and get help BECAUSE it was so severe- in the harsh light of day, there was just no way for him to justify his behaviour". Seems to me this should qualify for the same category. Perhaps there is more to this than dementia.

This is a tragedy waiting to happen, and I don't blame his wife for being freaked out. Considering the possible consequences of a gazillion lawsuit, this could land them in the street, perhaps even in jail, not to mention cost the life of an innocent child. Her mistake was to threaten to leave, because she didn't think she'd have to. She vastly overestimated his attachment to her and their marriage, and though he cared enough that the threat of leaving would drum sense into him. He doesn't and it didn't. And now she doesn't know what to do, which is why she's writing.

I agree that Sarah Stravinska's advice was much better than mine.

@Miz #5 & Emily #8
"I will never understand the restrictions that come with owning a pool."
Perhaps you will if you ever have children of your own. When that happens, you will learn four things:
1. Children have no sense, precious little impulse control and their capacity to assess consequences is very poor.
2."Explaining" things to them is not enough to make them comply. They don't remember what you said. They didn't understand what you said, even though you explained clearly in age-appriopriate terms. 99% of what you tell a kid goes in one ear and out the other. You have to repeat it at least 20 times before it even *starts* sinking in. A lot can happen between time #1 and time #20.
3. You can't be behind their back 24/7, especially when they start with school.
4. Parents are not to be blamed for items #1, 2 & 3. Things will happen, even when you very carefully explain, discipline and supervise your children.

I take it that you have a pool and no children.

And Emily, "What happened to common sense?"? Children have none. It doesn't matter how well you explain it, and in terms they can understand; you can't expect them to remember, let alone think in advance. They have no sense of future - this is a perception they can only acquire in time, as they develop memories of a past, along with reference points.

@Dave Galino #11
"You're the one who sounds a little irrational."
SHE's the one irrational, because she's freaked out at the prospect of a child drowning in their pool? I can't believe I'm reading that.

If she didn't value her marriage, she would have walked out already. She stupidlly bluffed because she thought HE did. She was mistaken. And, apparently, *you* don't value the life of children much, if you think this is a trifle and that she's being "irrational".

@Chris #13
"Did it occur to you that your husband dislikes the neighborhood children and secretly hopes they'll wander in and drown in your pool?"
That would make him a murderous madman of the worst kind.

@Dorothy P #14
So YOU're the one who impersonated Miss Pasko and all the others last spring.

Sure, accidents happen, but I kind of agree that it's neither ideal, nor is it possible, to barricade everything just in case a kid wakes up early for his nap, gets out of his bed, opens the door and goes out and decides to go for a swim or try to fly off a building or whatever. As long as they aren't actively drowning kids, I think people should be able to do what they want on their property, although I can't fathom why anyone would want a pool.

Lise Brouillette wrote regarding LW2:

"She vastly overestimated his attachment to her and their marriage, and though he cared enough that the threat of leaving would drum sense into him. He doesn't and it didn't. And now she doesn't know what to do, which is why she's writing."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, Lise, you are priceless.

Women are always victims and men are constantly the villains.

Re: Miz #32
Good flippin' grief, Miz, are you advocating he SHOOTS trespassing kids?

@Prince Toad #37
"Someone sure is demented alright, but I'm not sure it is LW2's husband."
Considering you also call the LW a dingbat old hag for being concerned about children drowning, I think we all know who is demented here.

Miz, you couldn't pay me to live in Florida, but at least they've got one thing right - the right to use lethal force to protect your property. And obviously there are degrees. Shooting a child who wandered across your lawn would not be protected. Shooting someone who was climbing through your window at night, armed with a deadly weapon, would be. Which is how it should be.

Bobaloo, I've got to agree with the others who say you're just going after Chris (again!) and making crap up (again!). But what bothers me is that you claim to be a newspaper man. It seems as though every scenario in these letters inspires you to make up scenarios that have little to do with what is actually known. I hope you don't actually report for your paper. And just a reminder - again - the LWs are not writing to US. They are writing to the Annies.

Re: Lise Brouillette #42
Going ballistic isn't to my mind the same thing as sitting down and having a rational talk with him, which is what I meant when I wondered if she'd discussed the situation with him. Yelling at him about it could well have fallen on deaf ears, especially if the LW tends to get upset over most things (which from the tone of the letter it sounds as though she does.)

Lise "Welfare Queen" Brouillette wrote:

"Considering you also call the LW a dingbat old hag for being concerned about children drowning, I think we all know who is demented here."

I called her a dingbat because that's what she is. She flipped out and threatened to leave her husband because, at the age of 75, he forgot to shut a gate two times. If that's not irrational behaviour, I don't know what is.

I can imagine what you would write if the genders were reversed.

@Zoe (43) -- In general, I agree that people should be able to do what they want on their property -- but that assumes that people are going to do the right thing. Some do, some don't. If someone in my neighborhood wants to paint their house in a tiger-stripe pattern, they're welcome to do so, I suppose. The house will be an eyesore, but it's not really hurting anything, so I guess that's fine (though you could make the argument that such an eyesore actually could hurt the property values of the nearby properties, but let's just pretend for a moment that's not a legitimate concern). But doing something on your property that potentially makes it a hazard -- well, now, that's a problem. Yes, you can make the argument that it's not the property owner's fault if someone gets hurt while trespassing on his property -- and again, I actually really do agree with that. But there is something to be said for common sense. Over the years, society has learned that if you have a pool in your yard, it's going to attract a lot of people -- sometimes when you want them, sometimes not -- and that tragedies involving private pools that aren't protected from trespassers were fairly frequent. Since those trespassers often were kids whose frontal lobes weren't yet fully developed and therefore didn't understand the potential danger, it was kind of hard to blame it on those pesky kids, particularly after they were already dead and therefore couldn't be held accountable for trespassing. So, it occurred to members of society that, even though a property owner should be able to do what s/he wants with his/her property, perhaps we need to put at least SOME restrictions in place that are designed to protect both the property owner and the people around him/her.

Personally, I have always wanted a pool but still do not have one. But if I had a pool, I would WANT to fence it in, as much to preserve my privacy while enjoying the pool as anything else, even if I was NOT concerned about trespassers potentially getting hurt or killed on my property. So, to be honest, I can't fathom having a pool and NOT wanting to have a fence around it, regardless of whether I legally had to or not.

Seriously LW2???? I do NOT have a fence around my pool and my child has never wandered in. Most likely because I take care of her. Back off or close the dang gate yourself, geez lady how long have you been married? Is this really a deal breaker for you. How are these kids getting into your backyard anyway?

Re LW#3--------
Whenever I get unasked-for postage-paid envelopes, I do make sure they go back in the mail with all pertinent paperwork in them (uncompleted, of course), and with a brief message saying "Get me off your mailing list". Usually works, though it sometimes takes more than once.
----------
Re LW#2-------
I totally agree with the idea that people who choose to have children should take care of them, and that I not have to involuntarily get in there and help raise those kids by keeping an eye out when they want to wander into the street in front of my car, or into my house or pool, or come into my yard and torment my dog on his own property.
.
Thing is, though, the law doesn't agree with me. If I have a pool, it's MY job to go to the expense of keeping them out, or risk a lawsuit. Same thing if my dog bites them, even in MY yard. I learned that well back when I used to work in personal lines property and casualty. (And one more thing-----those of you who think that putting up a "Beware of Dog" sign and figuring you're OK because you've warned everyone, don't count on it. Insurance companies, and the law, look at that and say "See, he KNEW he had a dangerous dog!!!!")
If your child wants to come near something dangerous that I have, it's MY job to make sure he can't get to it--------not his parents'. Very lousy, but it's the law.
And to be fair, even though I wouldn't feel at fault, I would feel horrible--------so I take precautions.
.
Now, it's hard to say why her husband has left the pool gate open twice, even though she gave him quite a severe threat. So maybe he does want her to leave-------or he doesn't understand his legal liability, or doesn't care if the neighbor kids drown-------or he thinks she's exaggerating-------or he's getting senile.
.
The way that we would know why (perhaps) is if she'd told us WHAT he said when she brought it up the first time and threatened to leave. If she included that, I sure missed it. She sounds overreactive, he sounds forgetful or senile, would be my best guess.
----------
Re LW#1--------
OK, now we have Global Youth Service Day coming up------72 hours of it, all combined into one LONG day apparently.
I concede defeat. New trend here in this column, and I'm on the losing side. Like Chief Joseph, I shall fight no more.
.
So------yes, volunteerism is good. So is public service. Everyone should go participate, if they can and have the inclination.
.
Have a good day, everyone.

Re: Maggie Lawrence (#46)

Really, what the hell did I do wrong TODAY???????????????!!!!!!!???????

Please, for the love of God, tell me what the hell I did wrong today??? Just tell me, or leave ME alone.

And just because you and others have said it, I am now DEMANDING an apology from Chris for his uncalled for attack on Global Youth Service Day. Just say "I support it" and STFU!!!!!!!!!!! It was a nice letter and nothing more needed to be said. In other words, what jennylee said.

Re: jennylee (#51)

Look, I agree with a lot of what you said. Yes, 'tis a shame that property owners must go to extra expense to build a fence to keep unwanted people out, but that's how things are, sorry to say.

"Now, it's hard to say why her husband has left the pool gate open twice, even though she gave him quite a severe threat."

Uh, not quite, though. He's just ignorant to what could happen or doesn't think it could happen. Simple as that. Or yes, he could just be forgetful or absent-minded, but it isn't a case of decline in mental acuity. I doubt she's going to leave ... she just probably said it out of anger or frustration.

Re: Lisa

Sure, I'm not really arguing the law that people need to have fences around their pools. It just kind of sucks that it has to be that way. I read an article about two kids who drowned in a pool recently - there was a fence around it, but it was too low and they were able to get over it, so they were contemplating charging the homeowner with negligence.

Re: Bobaloo

Take your own advice, would ya?

Hey could you guys imagine a world in which serious news articles are written Bobaloo-style?

@Toni Sparkman (50) -- While I have already gone on the record saying that I believe the LW was overreacting to her husband forgetting to close the gate all of two times, your response is actually a little overreactive itself, IMHO. The LW doesn't say that any children actually HAVE wandered into the pool, she has said she is concerned that it could happen. You might want to read the letter a tad more carefully before responding to it. Moreover, she is right to be concerned about it (it's just not something to threaten to leave your husband over, unless, of course, you really are prepared to leave him over it -- clearly, she was NOT since she's still there, so she's rendered her threats pretty meaningless -- so, overreactive and not particularly smart, either). But then you're also saying that you don't know how kids would get into her backyard if the gate is open? Um, they would simply walk right in, of course. I'm going to assume that you are not so stupid as to not know how this would happen. Unless you fence in your yard and then keep it locked, or you patrol your property at all times, there is no way to guarantee that someone won't walk into your backyard (and, of course, fences can be climbed, but that's a whole other story).

And BTW, unless you have cameras following your child around, or the child is physically tethered to you at all times, you do not know that your child has never once decided to dip a toe in (or jump right into) the pool when you weren't looking.

LW2 - Though I do feel that an open gate is a valid concern, I also feel she is over reacting. Personally, I think there are issues at play here.

@ Princess Bride - I fail to appreciate why you are constantly poking at Lise. Those who are secure and happy with their lives do NOT feel compelled to behave like a bully.

Re: Zoe (#54 and #55)

"Hey could you guys imagine a world in which serious news articles are written Bobaloo-style?"

I could. It's called news reporting.

Really, was that even necessary? I mean, seriously. This IS a personal attack and I am inclined to report it.

And what do you mean by "Take your own advice, would ya?"

Re: Zoe (#55)

I have reported your post. This was a personal attack and completely unnecessary.

Disagree if you want. Do NOT ever say that again, or you'll be reported again. Same goes for the rest of you. Remember what happened a year ago when Annie's BTL was shut down completely.

Bobaloo, the fact that you can't read your wildly over the top comments and scenarios and see what other people see is the problem in a nutshell. I agree with Zoe - if making stuff up to suit every scenario you comment on is consistent with your idea of "news reporting" then the smalltown weekly newspaper business is in trouble. Do you even know the difference between facts and opinions?

And DEMANDING an apology from Chris just makes you look ridiculous. You don't demand things that you have no way of getting. But you probably gave Chris a good chuckle.

Dear Annies, yesterday my wife asked me to take out the trash. I propped open the gate because I needed both hands to carry the cans. While I was putting the trash at the curb my wife came screaming out of the house yelling that this was the second time I had left the gate open and she was going to divorce me because of it. Should I;
1. Make her take out the trash from now on.
2. Leave the gate open again and hope she will leave.

@Zoe -- agreed. It sucks that we need a lot of the laws that we need, though personally, I think it sucks a whole lot worse that we have to tell people they're not allowed to rape and murder other people than that we need to tell people to fence in a pool.

On an only quasi-related note... We have a 90-pound dog. When we decided to get a dog, we decided to get a fence. Not to protect anyone from the dog or even to protect the dog from anyone else -- we got the fence because that would make it a whole lot easier to let him outside to "do his business" than to have to go out with him every time and/or train him not to leave the property. In other words, we did it for our own convenience, not because there are laws about fencing in dogs and not out of concern for anyone else. But certainly, we also recognize that this thing that we did for our own convenience does also protect others from our dog, protect our dog from others and protect us from liabilities issues. Meantime, we recently had a new neighbor move in right next door. The previous property owner didn't have any dogs and didn't fence in the property. The new owner has a dog, so he decided to fence in his property. Since there is already a fence running between our two properties, he asked if he could just hook his fence to ours, rather than putting a second fence up along the same property line. We, of course, agreed that this would be fine. The thing is, he is now concerned that the fence isn't high enough to keep his dog in. Now, his dog is not bigger than ours (as noted, ours is a 90-pound dog), but he may well be right to be concerned. Our dog has never tried to jump the fence, probably because he gets plenty of exercise, proper training and affection. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for our neighbor's dog. She's a great dog (and about the same size as ours), but the only exercise she gets is when her owner lets her out into the yard. This is NOT enough exercise for her, so it wouldn't surprise me if she eventually DOES try to jump the fence. But here's the thing, the neighbor's solution isn't to exercise his dog more, nor was it to go ahead and put up a taller fence. Instead, he happened to see my MIL outside in the yard one day and asked her if she knew whether my husband and I had ever considered putting up a taller fence. In other words, he wants US to go to the expense of putting up a taller fence. I just laughed out loud when my MIL relayed the conversation to me. I don't need a taller fence to keep my dog in, so I am not about to go to pay to put up a taller fence. If he wants to do so, he can knock himself out. But this would be HIS problem to resolve, not mine. And the fact is, there are less expensive ways he could resolve this problem -- like properly exercising his dog. But apparently that's not going to happen.

Re: Bobaloo

Personal attack? Say whaaaat?

I was just asking everyone to imagine a hypothetical situation! Hey for all we know, a world where you write all the news might be the wonderful, magical place with no war or crime, where woolly mammoths still roam the oceans like the majestic fish they were before the acid storms that wiped them all out.

Hey, it's not my fault you took it the wrong way. If you (or anyone) pictures a world where all the news is just BS made up by a crazy person who takes things WAY too personally, that's not my fault. Actually, the fact that you went right to that says a lot about what you think of your own reporting skills!

(BTW - if you want something stricken from the record (by reporting it for deletion), you might want to avoid quoting what was said. Now it'll be around forever. FOREVER.)

Re: Lisa

Why some people get dogs is beyond me. Walking is the #1 important thing! Why would you get a dog you don't want to walk? I can understand skipping that day where it's -40, or when it's -5 and windy and raining, but if you don't want to walk your dog regularly, get a cat.

Wow, Bobaloo - now you're REALLY making yourself look ridiculous. And go ahead and "report this post" if you like. Who cares? If it gets shut down, we'll know who's to blame - the guy who can dish it out but can't take it.

do NOT have a fence around my pool and my child has never wandered in. Most likely because I take care of her.
***********
Um, no. It's because you're LUCKY.

You can do some things to minimize risk, and most likely you have done that. However, you can't eliminate the risk completely, and it's not just smug to think that you can, it's DANGEROUS.

Days when you're puking and feverish and groggy -- do you get a competent sitter in to watch your child? And how about those sitters -- you ever get one who turns her back to...I don't know....go to the bathroom?

You're also dealing with ONE child, it sounds like. Once there are two -- you go from man-to-man defense to a zone. IOW, if you need to go change clothes because the baby spit up on you...what do you do with your 3 YO son...bring him with you? How do you help a toilet-training toddler clean up while simultaneously supervising the 4 YO? How do you put the baby down for a nap-- do you bring the older child in WITH you? What if you're trying to keep one child from infecting the other with pinkeye? How, exactly, can you ride herd on both of them, every minute of every day? How can you guarantee that your sitter will?

do NOT have a fence around my pool and my child has never wandered in. Most likely because I take care of her.
***********
Um, no. It's because you're LUCKY.

You can do some things to minimize risk, and most likely you have done that. However, you can't eliminate the risk completely, and it's not just smug to think that you can, it's DANGEROUS.

Days when you're puking and feverish and groggy -- do you get a competent sitter in to watch your child? And how about those sitters -- you ever get one who turns her back to...I don't know....go to the bathroom?

You're also dealing with ONE child, it sounds like. Once there are two -- you go from man-to-man defense to a zone. IOW, if you need to go change clothes because the baby spit up on you...what do you do with your 3 YO son...bring him with you? How do you help a toilet-training toddler clean up while simultaneously supervising the 4 YO? How do you put the baby down for a nap-- do you bring the older child in WITH you? What if you're trying to keep one child from infecting the other with pinkeye? How, exactly, can you ride herd on both of them, every minute of every day? How can you guarantee that your sitter will?

Re: Maggie Lawrence

No, your comments about my posts on here is NOT consistent with news reporting. This is a blog, not a newspaper where we report facts. You are comparing apples to oranges, as you have done many times with my posts.

If you're just simply irritated with what I try to pass off as advice – which I believe you are – then you can simply ignore it or stick it. Two choices.

Again, I want to know TODAY what was wrong with my posts, aside from Chris, which wasn't that bad to begin with? (I said that he didn't need to make a snide comment about Global Youth Service Day.) Seriously, with TODAY'S post, I want to know what was wrong with it? What did you disagree with about my posts, if anything (besides the claim that I went after Chris)?

That's what I want to read from you, not some personal attack on me about newspapering. If you don't think I'm smart enough to tell the difference, then I don't know what else I can say.

Geez – we can't even agree that the sky is blue.

Re: Penny (#61)

How about choice 3. (which you didn't give), which is get some help to take out the trash. Or 4. Set the trash cans outside the fence.

Simple advice. No need to keep the fence open.

Re: Toni Sparkman (#50)

Actually, it might not be a bad idea for the LW to close the gate herself – and then remind her husband of what could result.

But she should also remark that she can't be around 24/7/365 ... and the time he leaves the gate open could be the time that a kid wanders in itching for a swim, but mom won't take him to the municipal pool.

LW 2 A door to a pool cage is NOT a gate. The pool is screened in and the door opens to the outside from the patio. It could still be locked by the wife so he couldn't open it, but then no one could get out quickly if they needed to. It sounds like the husband is just forgetful, no evil intentions. They LW sounds a little batty if she is ready to leave him for this. If she leaves him the pool will be less safe without her around to close the door.

Re: Bobaloo, you went after Chris - even quoted him saying he thought volunteering was a great thing. He simply found fault with the statistical evidence given. Then you demanded he apologize- for what? He then tells a LW to throw the solicitations in the trash and again you ridicule him. After being called out for the pettiness of your post you go ballistic. I am beginning to think your post should begin with "Chris, sweety"...and end with, "have a nice day.". Of course I don't believe you were childish enough to actually report Zoe - even saying you did was immature. If you can't reread your posts to find what is so annoying to others, there is simply no hope for you.

Re: Bobaloo

Don't waste your energy on Chris....he's just not a very nice lady...simple (and complicated) as that.

I am like 100% convinced Bobaloo and Chris are the same person!

Zoe
I'm going to report you ~ for being AWESOME!

D'you wanna doughnut?

ewwww....and disturbed to boot.

Re: Bobaloo #69. Did you really think I was giving advice? I thought it was obvious I was trying for a bit of back handed humor. I was very cleverly writing in as the LW's husband. I can now see why you are having difficulties with 'interpreting' others post. The pool is in a cage not a fence.

Re: Miss Pasko--How is it you raised two great kids to adulthood, since you "don't have a lick of common sense"?

And if you're having doughnuts, you have to share.

Re: Miss Pasko

HECK YES! I have been catching snippets of some donut cooking show. The premise is ridiculous but holy crap so I ever want a donut.

LW2: It doesn't sound like this is about being forgetful. The husband isn't leaving the gate open. He's doing something to prop it open. Maybe he feels the way some of the people commenting here do: that the kids are the neighbors responsibility. He may not think he's doing anything wrong. Unfortunately, the law doesn't see it that way.

But I agree: leaving your 75 year old husband over this seems... wow. Unless the Annie's have cut something significant out of the letter, then that is like tossing a brick through a window to smash a fly that was sitting there. Maybe print out news stories for your husband of people who have been sued over this - though really, he might not care. In the meantime, I imagine you are home with him. So when you see that he's going out to the pool, make a mental note to yourself to go out and check the gate. Keep closing it and reminding him. It will be annoying for the both of you, but it is a lot better than waking up one morning to find a dead kid floating in your pool.

And if it does turn out that your husband has an age disorder that affects memory, it might be a good idea to get rid of the pool altogether so you don't find HIM floating face down in it.

PS: My seventeen year old son was diagnosed with autism when he was five. Until he was about 10, it was like living with a toddler. When he was four, our next door neighbors had a swing set in their front yard. He kept wanting to go over there, but I didn't allow it because the kids would hit him. He went through a stage where it was his mission to get out of the house to go over there. If he woke up before us, we'd come out to find the door wide open and him gone. I would go to the bathroom and find him gone when I came out. If I turned my back to do the dishes? Well, you get the picture.I'm not saying it was anyone else's responsibility to watch my kids. I wouldn't have sued if he'd gotten hurt next door. But a lot of kids go through this stage and it isn't all about bad parenting.

Maggie and Zoe:

I think we may be getting a few of our signals crossed here about which post that might be referred to in today's discussion. Are you thinking I'm irrational about my response to Chris' posts, or is it my remarks on LW2 – the one about the pool and the LW's husband's refusal to, well, secure it?

If LW2, I don't know what you're talking about?

If referring to Chris' posts, I thought I was being kind. And people accuse me of being hard on posters! I wrote my response to LW3 because sometimes, the way I read him, an elderly woman living alone still has the mental sharpness of someone who is much younger, and would automatically throw charity requests in the trash.

While I agree that's good advice – heck, it's what I do – it's easier said than done for some people, who somehow think that "Oh, what a nice guy. I'm sure he'll put it to good use." It's just how it is, and that's as best as I can explain things.

Also about LW2, I don't know about how this came to bad parenting. Surely, a few posts on here DO have some good tidbits, however, like Datura (#80) and the situation with her son when he was younger. Agreed, we've read about tragedies involving young children ... because it simply takes time for them to be able to realize and understand and appreciate danger, like she said.

Penny (#77):

Sorry if I misread your post back at #61. Still, it shows that some take posts literally, I suppose.

Datura (#80):

Exactly – He's leaving it open for some reason. Although I still think it's because "no harm, no foul, nobody's drowned yet." While indeed the neighbors' kids are their responsibility, I do also think the neighbors have told their children to not go into "Mr. MacGregor's garden" (i.e., the LW's pool) without permission. But I'd point out that sometimes, children disobey anyway ... because they're kids.

Re: Bobaloo

And how exactly are you so sure that the MIL in question is an elderly woman living alone? She could be 40 living with two husbands and a good-for-nothing nephew for all we know.

To be clear, I have no specific issue with anything you wrote today. It's just more of the same - advice given based on a scenario you made up in your head, coupled with bugging Chris for no good reason.

And finally, the wining about the "personal attack" - you're just too much!

I think that the old lady and old man should both go for a neurological exam- him because he is getting unable to follow the logical conclusion of what he is doing (propping open the pool cage door) and her because she is getting hysterical over him forgetting to do something twice. But anyway, when I bought this house, there were screw holes at eye level in all of the beautiful 60 year old solid oak doors. And the new neighbors seemed unusually happy that we had moved in. Eventually I found out that the former owners had a kid who was part rabbit- he liked to 'escape' anytime, day or night. So they had locks everywhere, trying to keep him in. The other kids were tiny terrors, too for various reasons. So I guess some kids are almost too challenging, and that is why they have laws about keeping a fence around your pool. By the way, can anyone explain to me what a 'pool cage' is exactly? Did the old guy leave an outer door open that wasn't the actual door to the pool, or what? I am not sure I understand what is at stake here.

Re: Zoe (#82)

Well, what was the advice that I gave "based on a scenario you made up in your head"? Which situation – LW2 or LW3?

And ho, ho, ho on the 40 year old with two husbands. That's not happening ... I don't know any polygamists, much less know of any that are female! :)

Seriously, the idea cropped up about the LW's mother-in-law being elderly and in a semi-assisted living state (while still at home) from this comment from LW3: "We spent a lot of time and effort cleaning up my mother-in-law's mail." Logically, most younger people are able to sort through their mail – and are more discerning about who to give to ... they have more guts to say "No!" without reservation or feeling guilty that someone won't be paid commission because they failed to make their quota of sales.

As far as LW3's original advice – while most of it is good, I'd be skeptical about returning shredded mail in a donation envelope with a warning to remove the name from the mailing list of the company/charity. The mail clerk there will probably ignore it. I think the best advice there is to simply get on the national registry – I think there's one similar to the "Do Not Call" registry – for mail solicitations.

And for crying out loud, don't insist that an 80-year-old woman has the same mental acumen as a 40-year-old and can sort mail unassisted. That's why she's asked her daughter-in-law for help, or perhaps why they've offered their help.

Oh, and BTW clemma – I don't need your help with responding to Chris. A lot of the time, he's good with his advice. I say that without reservation or care of what some posters (i.e., Maggie and Zoe) think or may believe.

But just like everyone else on here ... when I see something I disagree with, I'm going to respond. You do it with me (and really, I do expect responses if and when they disagree), and I'll do it with you. Simple as that. I disagreed with Chris – and also called him out for what I interpreted as snark – and left it at that.

@Bobaloo -- for what it's worth, I actually agreed with what you said about Chris' post related to LW1, even though I also happen to share Chris', shall we say, disinterest in all the PSAs the Annies post since nine times out of 10 they aren't sharing anything I don't already know (like smoking is bad for you). So, even though I dislike it when the Annies publish these PSAs, I figure they don't hurt me, so who cares? Just not worth commenting on. So, your original point -- that it seemed silly (and snarky) of Chris to write what he did about LW1 -- I agree with it. It's just that you DO have a long-standing history of overreacting to Chris. When you later demanded an apology from Chris -- who hasn't (so far as I can tell) posted a single thing since his original post and therefore is NOT the cause of your growing ire does, in fact, make you look ridiculous. You can argue that Maggie or Zoe "attacked" you, but Chris hasn't even seen fit to respond to you or address you in any fashion today, so why on earth would you be demanding an apology from HIM? I hope you can see how that really does make you look a little crazy.

As to the various and sundry reasons the husband in LW2 left the gate open... I can dream up 101 different reasons he might have done that. The ones you offered in one of your previous post are certainly plausible. But at the end of the day, the most likely reason he left the gate open is that he simply forgot, and while that COULD be a sign of dementia (which, given his age, is certainly far less outlandish than his wanting his wife to leave him or hating kids), I know that I have managed to leave our gate open by accident, even back when I was at the ripe old age of 30. It happens. It doesn't HAVE to be a sign he wants to leave his wife. It doesn't have to be a sign that he hates children. It doesn't have to be a sign that he's losing his wits. It doesn't have to mean that he's just one of those stubborn cusses who doesn't like to be told what to do on his property. It doesn't have to mean that he doesn't really believe the potential drowning danger is legit. It doesn't have to MEAN anything -- it could be as simple as, he opened the gate to do something and forgot to close it again, period. It happens to the best of us. Whether he propped it open or just left if open actually makes no difference. That the LW's first thought is that he wants her to make good on her threat of leaving him if he does it again makes her sound nuts. It's a completely hyperbolic overreaction. Sort of like, say, demanding an apology from someone who hasn't actually said anything to you.

As for Maggie's and Zoe's attacks on your journalism... I used to work for a small daily newspaper. Now, I am the managing editor of a national, weekly financial trade magazine and have worked for a number of different news publications over the years. I am very much in touch with journalism, and, at one time in my career, specifically with small news pubs. I can only say that at many of the small news publications that I have either worked for or been involved with in some fashion, the sports writers are typically NOT held to the same standard as the news reporters. They are less likely to have formal journalism training/degrees. They get away with being a lot more, shall we say, colorful than their hard news-writing counterparts. Sure, they are not supposed to just make up or change facts, but they are granted a lot more leeway in the way of "spicing up" their stories with either nonessentials or borderline opinion/bias. Don't get me wrong, I know a number of excellent sports writers. They are expected to possess a lot of sometimes-archaic knowledge about the sports, teams and players they are writing about, including all kinds of crazy "fun facts" from decades ago, etc. I don't want it to sound like I don't have a healthy respect for what sports writers do. I'm just saying that it actually is quite a bit different from what hard news reporters do. And, of course, I know nothing about your journalistic background.

But at the end of the day, if you are as hypersensitive and prone to "fill in the blanks" at work as you are here, then I can understand Maggie's and Zoe's concerns about your journalistic abilities. Having said all of that, I have no concrete reason to believe that is true. It is just as likely that you reserve all of this mishigas for the BTL and are perfectly professional at your job.

You told Chris to just ignore the PSAs -- basically the same thing I told Chris, as well. But when others have suggested you just ignore Chris, you go a little crazy. And then start begging Maggie to tell you what you did wrong. Egad, Bobaloo -- relax. This is supposed to be fun. Now, if you enjoy the melodrama, then by all means, keep on keeping on. But in that case, please don't be reporting posts that are actually all part of the fun for you.

Re: Bobaloo

"And ho, ho, ho on the 40 year old with two husbands. That's not happening ... I don't know any polygamists, much less know of any that are female! :)"

But do you know? Just because YOU don't know any polygamists, doesn't mean they don't exist (in fact they do, female and male).

"And for crying out loud, don't insist that an 80-year-old woman has the same mental acumen as a 40-year-old and can sort mail unassisted."

Well, a) I never made such a statement, and b) again, how do you know? Many women retain their mental faculties well into their 80s. My great grandmothers both did, and my grandmothers (now in their mid-70s) are shaping up to be doing so as well, and both are perfectly capable of donating, or not, and discard their mail, or not.

Again! Nothing you say is impossible, but that you've jumped right to this "fact" (which is how you present) - that the woman in question is in her 80s, widowed (or otherwise alone), with declining mental faculties... you sound crazy! Unless... let me ask you this: did you accurately predict the Boston bombers? If so, perhaps you are actually a brilliant profiler and should market your skills to the police.

boboloo- I didn't even read past your post #59 when I couldn't go further without commenting. What the Flip are you smoking? Seriously reporting Zoe for a personal attack? Are you whack or just on crack? Everyone is correct, you always go after Chris so maybe it is you who should be reported... Wait a second, that would be acting like a first grader saying "teacher, teacher... Chris won't let me play in the sandbox". Can Chris be a horses arse? yep, but he never goes after you. Chill out BOB and quit trying to pick a fight.

"And for crying out loud, don't insist that an 80-year-old woman has the same mental acumen as a 40-year-old and can sort mail unassisted. That's why she's asked her daughter-in-law for help, or perhaps why they've offered their help. "
NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THIS WOMAN IS 80 OR EVEN ALIVE!!!! Bobaloo.... This sentence is exactly why people get so frustrated with you. "That's why she's asked Her daughter-in-law..." Assisted living? Shredded mail? 80 is too old to sort mail? The son and DIL are 40? None of these are even hinted at in LW3. So where do you come up with these statements?... and then comment on them as if they were in fact what was written....and then defend your make believe story.

Re: clemma, And while I'm at it, you sound very similar to 'the one who will not be named'.

Zoe:

Now you're the one going off the deep end – of course I didn't know anything about the Boston bombing or who they were. What does THAT have to do with anything? Why'd you even suggest that? I mean, seriously ... .

"Again! Nothing you say is impossible, but that you've jumped right to this "fact" (which is how you present) - that the woman in question is in her 80s, widowed (or otherwise alone), with declining mental faculties... you sound crazy!"

Well, why else would the LW be assisting her MIL with mail management? You tell me. (And yes, I know many 80-something women who are still sharp as a whip.)

All:

I think it's about time to cool it. I kept on track – I didn't insult Chris at all. I rebutted a statement.

When I say (way back at #13), "One thing about you I've noticed is that you seem to want to see the glass half-empty rather than half-full. Please ... next time you see one of these public service announcement-type letters, just take it for what it is and go on," that's not a personal attack – that's a gentle remark. No names, no nothing ... just a rebuttal and my assessment of his remarks.

#25 was what I've said all along with LW3 about the aging mother-in-law, so I won't repeat. No Chris name calling here, just a standard rebuttal.

I NEVER said to Chris today – or in the last year or so, for that matter – the line I used to use on him (and have since stopped using) "Hey, falling off the barstool again?" when I disagreed with him. Yet, it's OK for JustBecause to remark that I'm a whack or crack because I dare disagree at all with Chris, and Zoe questioning my journalistic abilities ... I'd say that's textbook personal attack and worthy of reporting.

I've learned to respond appropriately to him – and if he says something I disagree with, I will. Just like anyone else.

You accuse me of blowing things out of proportion – well, look at some of you. Commenting to a poster that he sees a glass half-empty and not half-full is NOT (repeat NOT) a personal attack.

I think we'd all better cool it before someone else intervenes and shuts this board down. I mean, seriously.

Penny:

OK that's it.

My neighbor wrote the letter and had the 80-year-old mother. He remarked about it to me today.

There. Happy?

Geez! And how about this – I DO NOT LIKE clemma.

Lise, I was actually referring to adults when I asked where common sense is. I know children don't have it, they have to be taught. But what I meant was that it seems parents today lack the common sense to educate their kids on respect for property and boundaries. I have kids, and that's something that I make sure I drill into them. I know bad things happen to even the most watchful of parents. I just hope that these laws don't end up with the unintended consequence of parents abdicating their responsibilities to their kids.


On a side note, what happened to nanchan? I haven't seen anything from her for awhile.

BOBOLOO- hahaha, go ahead and report EVERYONE who disagrees and YOU will get it shut down, not everyone else. The ole saying Don't walk like a dog if you're gonna piss like a pup" comes to mind when I read your mumble jumble today and just in case you need translation, I mean DON'T DISH IT OUT IF YOU CAN'T TAKE IT. Yep, I'm yelling at you now with the caps because your ridiculousness requires it

For the love of Betsy, who would have thunk such a melee would ensue because of a little snark this morning? No worries Bobaloo. While your posts are sometimes bizarre to say the least, I don't mind you calling me out as you see appropriate. It's a free country. We often see eye to eye...you're just a lot nicer in giving the LWs the benefit of the doubt than I am. As for Maggie, Penny, Zoe and others who posted in my defense, if even tacitly, I thank you. You all are the reason I love this site so much; what great discussions. Penny, you're a doll; Maggie you're one of the smartest, most sensible people here. Zoe, I especially love your wicked wit. As for clemma, she's just a cowardly troll! But, she's all mine (which I'm sure Lise doesn't mind a bit) and the fact that she logs in only to hurl an insult or two indicates that she reads my posts every time she's here which makes me feel super special; I consider her a (albeit rabid) fan of sorts. I hope everyone who was able got a chance to enjoy the Lyrid meteor shower!! Fantastic! Have a great evening all!

Bobaloo,I SERIOUSLY doubt this kerfluffle is going to get the board shut down -- and IMO, your choice to report Maggie Lawrence's post as a "personal attack" was poor judgment.

***
Yet, it's OK for JustBecause to remark that I'm a whack or crack because I dare disagree at all with Chris, and Zoe questioning my journalistic abilities ... I'd say that's textbook personal attack and worthy of reporting.
*************

As someone who's been in journalism myself for many years, and as someone who's been playing on USENET and other internet comment sites since the mid 1990s, I'd have to disagree. I'd say it's much more "fair comment" on what you're saying and how you're saying it, and how you're choosing to overreact. "Demanding" an apology? In all caps and with multiple?????? for an opinion that had nothing to do with you really does nothing to make you look reasonable. Seriously.

*****.

I think we'd all better cool it before someone else intervenes and shuts this board down. I mean, seriously.
***************

Oh, Bobaloo. You may want to take a cooling off period, but I don't see anyone else here getting hot under the collar except you. I'm reading their posts with zero anger or belligerence, but more a bemused, head-shaking tone.

Re: Maggie Lawrence #46
I seem to remember Bobaloo is a sports journalist. We all know how hyperbolic they can get about some little white ball ending up in some bog, or some little pigskin ball ending up in the wrong hands! And when it comes to BIG pigskin balls... whoa. Causa belli for war. ;-D

@Kitty #47
You got a point.

@Toni Sparkman #50
So you don't have a fence around your pool and nothing has happened yet. Bravo. And you credit yourself entirely for that, in other words, the people to whom something happens did NOT take care of their kids. Huh-huh. Ain't nothing' worse for a woman than another woman... You're blaming the victim, and I pray for the sake of your child that you never have to eat those words.

@Zoe #55
I'd have been interested to hear him cover the Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan drama at the Lillehammer Winter Games! ;-D

Re: hedgehog

You're wrong. I'm sorry. You are just plain wrong.

And it was ZOE that I reported. Never reported Maggie once today.

And I am NOT taking a cooling off period.

I'm right and that's all I have to say about it.

And your defense of Zoe makes you the worst person I know. I take very seriously my journalistic abilities and integrity, and for you to back me into a corner like this is only going to rile me up even more.

Re: Emily
"I was actually referring to adults when I asked where common sense is."
Oh, common sense isn't so common, as you know.

As for nanchan, she officially hasn't posted for some time, although there is strong indication that she still reads.

Re: Lise Brouillette

FWIW, I'd rather cover pro wrestling. The 1994 incident at Lillehammer bastardiZed the sport of ice skating. Really, really did. Sorry, but that's how I felt about that.

Re: Chris (#94)

I don't know if you're reading this, but of course I'll stand up for you.

I don't know if it was you, but if it was -- I was actually pleasantly surprised that you started posting at "Tween 12 and 20." Don't always see eye to eye there, on a number of the letters, but l it adds a unique perspective and actually some color to that site. I'd invite you to post there again if anything. I wonder what you'd say today about the topics -- a high school girl (a senior, I'm guessing) who chose to have her hair colored early in the week for a weekend frat party (she was the guest of her college-aged boyfriend); and a young teenager who is moving to a new school.

As for clemma -- I don't know why this poster even exists. I've found it to be rather annoying at the least. I've told that poster that even though I don't always agree with how you come across, that you were basically harmless and meant no harm. I don't know if she's nanchan in disguise ... but there you go.

hedgehog (#97):

OK -- I'll back off the "worst person I know" thing. Sorry for that remark. But I still am upset that you'd question my journalism skills and integrity, particularly when you've never met me in person. Honestly, I've not met any of you in person -- wouldn't know any of you on the street. But if you were in journalism and went off the collar and took things personally and I questioned your skills, you'd take it personally, too. I'd hope you would anyway.

LW2: "he first time he did it, I went ballistic": yes, there is abuse in this marriage. If you "go ballistic" and threaten to end your marriage the first time your husband props a door open, YOU are a controlling abuser and need to think and reflect on your behavior. Sure, it's better to leave the gate shut, but this is not a "burn the marriage" issue. Sounds like there is a lot more problems in this marriage that you need to work on. The pool can be solved by putting a spring on it, which is probably cheaper than getting lawyers and splitting up the estate.

@Bobaloo, please consider that you are, in fact, taking all of this a lot more seriously than anyone else you've addressed today.

And that perhaps your oft-hyperbolic style does lead to a lot of bemusement and mild mocking, rather than the outright personal attacks you keep perceiving.

I've mentioned this before, Bobaloo, but it bears repeating -- it's often not what people are saying that is bothering you so much, but how you are interpreting it more extremely than it actually *is*.

That's probably why people are suggesting a cooling off period -- because you seem to be taking the conversation so much more to heart than anyone is meaning you to.

Lol. Bobaloo, you are the best troll so far!

Bobaloo are you pulling a Lise and playing the victim? It's not cute when either of you do it and make you both look crazy. Which is too bad because every now and again you two have moments of clarity and excellent advice.

Wait, am I missing something? How is someone supposed to fix a door while it is closed? And, if he is fixing the door, that means he is right next to the door as it is being fixed. That means he'd see if a kid walked right past him, right? That said, she has been married X number of years, and is ready to call it quits over this? The letter sounds like she is frustrated being married to him for myriad reasons, and is using this one as a qy to get the heck out of there. If she wants to leave, she will need to find more sound reasons.

Oh wow, Salty. Initially I'd read 'fixing' to mean he was doing something to make the door stay open. Somehow it never registered that he might actually be repairing the gate. If that's the case, then the wife is acting really crazy. Maybe it's time to talk to her doctor about anxiety disorder or something.

First, Mike H (#102) -- Well, at least you come across better than a few of the others. It bears repeating to everybody as well -- I'm not one to take criticism very well. God knows I've tried to take it well, and even have spells where I do take it well. But I take things personally sometimes, and it's pretty clear to everyone on here that's how I am.

At least you've diffused things a little bit. (I sure hope nobody else has posted as I write this.)

Biddy (#104):

I don't think it's fair to compare me to Lise. I don't want to put words into her mouth, but I wonder if she'd say the same thing.

Re: Salty (#105) Datura (#106):

Well if it's a case of keeping *the gate open* while WORKING on it (someone please allow us to boldface or italicise to stress points, please, so we're not seen as shouting all the time) and he secures it when he's done (i.e., closes and locks it) THEN I'd say the LW needs to be checked out. I would think if that were the case, what's now being suggested ... then I don't think a child's going to get by a guy working on the gate as he's by default monitoring it.

Oh Bobaloo, you're so cute when you're mad! Really, consider this just for a moment. The syndicated columnists and journalists whom I regularly read (because I admire their thought processes and way with words) are people whom I have "never met in person." I don't need to. Their writing IS their career. It IS who they are.

I'm saying this in one last, calm attempt to make you understand why you're being questioned in regard to your job with a newspaper. It's writing skill and thought processes. So when you demonstrate on this board that you have difficulty separating the facts as they're given from wild fantasy, it is a natural assumption that you take that same characteristic into your job - because you do it all the time. If you're going to be extra defensive about it, you should at least recognize that there is a kernel of credibility to the question and that you bring it on yourself.

And then there's this: "I'm right and that's all I have to say about it." Which I'm sure is why the girls all find you so irresistible.

Re: Chris

What's not to like about Lise?

Re: Bobaloo #99
Yeah, well, we all know how neurotic Tonya Harding was... she eventually got into boxing after she was banned from skating, you know. As a skater, she was always a bit of a drama queen and rude & crude from the wrong side of the track. Big-time self-esteem issues here, due to the trashy, dysfunctional entourage. Too bad, because she was quite the athlete... Twice American champion, did the Olympics twice, one of only three women to land a triple-axle in competition.

Everybody felt so-o-o-o-o sorry for Nancy Kerrigan after the attack, but she wasn't so nice herself. Snotty, catty, self-absorbed little ice princess. Couldn't stand the little ****. Silver was a lot more than she deserved, AND than she would have gotten if not for that fracas putting her so much in the limelight, and STILL she was bitching. Bleah.

As for bastardising the sport, can't have been much worse than the Salt Lake City marking scandal, with Sale & Pelletier as the centre of focus. Mind you, the grading reform that was triggered has improved the sport greatly IMHO.

Re: Bobaloo

Ouch! You, ma'am/sir are no Ricky Ricardo!! On the other hand, you do seem to have that Latin temper
to which Lucy often referred.

P.S. I know Desi's song title is spelled Babalu, so no need to correct me, Superwriter.

Re: Maggie Lawrence (#108)

Just had to cut in and have the last word, I see.

Think what you want to, but I can separate fact from "wild fantasy." It's never been an issue anywhere I've worked, and you're just going to have to go on my word on that.

"And then there's this: 'I'm right and that's all I have to say about it.' Which I'm sure is why the girls all find you so irresistible."

Honestly, I've never asked out a woman in the last long while. Never had the guts to, I guess -- part of it is fear of being told "no" (which is part of the game, and I could take "no") but being raked over the coals just because you so much as asked. I don't know what women think of me. I suppose I should take you up on your suggestion from a few weeks ago and do so.

But you know the thing they say when someone gets backed into a corner and repeatedly questioned on a stance they disagree with -- they'll ultimately come back with "Because I said so." (Sorry, question mark key not working here.) Well, that's what happened here. Someone -- not saying you, as it wasn't -- just pushed too hard.

The thing is, Maggie, and I've said this before, I DO want to get along with you and everyone else on this board. It frustrates me when you respond against me, wrong or right. I don't know about other former posters on here (e.g., nanchan) and I can't speak for them and won't. But I do care what you and everyone else thinks of me.

In the news business, you have to go by facts and play things straight ... and you know that. That is who I am. I don't write too many opinion columns unless they're ancedotal ... and then they're pretty mundane, I think. I've written a few news-based opinion columns that had some decent thought process, but that's been awhile ago since I've even written one.

I've always thought this comment board was a bit different for some reason. Sorry if you disagree.

The only question is how do I get on your good side before I have you angry at me forever.

Re: clemma (#111)

Now don't YOU start in on me too!

One last question to Maggie

I still don't know which of my posts set you off today -- if it was the one regarding the Global Youth Service Day, the tale of the open pool gate or what to do about junk mail and the writer's personal experiences. (Darn, they really need an edit button at Creator's; I'd have just appended this.)

[Hmm...it's telling me I'm clemma, perhaps because clemma was the last person to post, at 109. But this is hedgehog posting...]

Bobaloo:
But I still am upset that you'd question my journalism skills and integrity, particularly when you've never met me in person. Honestly, I've not met any of you in person -- wouldn't know any of you on the street. But if you were in journalism and went off the collar and took things personally and I questioned your skills, you'd take it personally, too. I'd hope you would anyway.
**********
Bobaloo, your integrity hasn't been questioned at all. Your reasoning/writing skills have been. I have to say that if you came to me for a reporting job and submitted these posts as an example of your being able to be keep a cool head, analyze facts and respond logically, I would say I certainly HOPE these posts aren't reflective of your ability.

Because even though this IS an internet forum and much less formal in structure, and even though we all engage in opinions here (and want reporters to remain unbiased), you are choosing to get your dukes up at every turn, which doesn't speak well to your ability to differentiate disagreement from attack, and you have tended to type very, very quickly, before you've thought things through. I appreciate your retraction -- I am sorry that you even considered me for an INSTANT to be "the worst person" you know, but it takes guts to apologize, so that is to be admired. Still, it's exactly what I mean -- you are choosing to interpret my disagreement as an attack on you.

Not a problem if this happens occasionally; happens to the best of us when we have a headache, are running on no sleep, have low blood sugar or just had a fight with someone we love and our emotions are rawer and more easily scratched.

But we've found ourselves in these types of discussions often enough that it begins to look like a pattern. People aren't suggesting that you cool off and take a break in order to "win" the discussion, you know. It's really about getting some space to realize that the ramblings of a few strangers on the interwebs really aren't worth getting that riled up about.

Now... Miss Pasko -- about those doughnuts. I'm partial to cinnamon sugar, if you have any left?

Re: Bobaloo

Seriously?? You give a Flying Wallenda what some anonymous poster feels toward you?

{GULP} Wow!

I'll take the last honey-glaze. With a glass of milk.

hedgehog (#114):

Being real quick -- response to: "Bobaloo, your integrity hasn't been questioned at all. Your reasoning/writing skills have been. I have to say that if you came to me for a reporting job and submitted these posts as an example of your being able to be keep a cool head, analyze facts and respond logically, I would say I certainly HOPE these posts aren't reflective of your ability."

Well of course it isn't. I'd NEVER submit posts like these to any potential employer. Nor would I a blog, for that matter.

If there's a white frosted donut for me with sprinkles, I'll take it! I'll also add some milk to it (nice and white and frosty, if you don't mind)! And we'll try again tomorrow -- maybe the letters will be mundane enough (I sure hope) that we'll all be in good cheer at the end of the day.

Bobaloo, I'm sorry I ever said anything mean to you about being a victim. As I continue to read your posts, I just feel sorry for that you spent this much time on a forum and basically wasted a day o your life on what strangers have said. You should write the Annie's.

Write the Annie's for advice that should say. Silly creators cut me off.

In reference to the letter about charities. Charity Navigator only lists charity that make over 1 million dollars. There are many excellent and reputable charities that make less than that a year because they are too small of an organization -- although they are JUST as worthy as the larger organizations and in many cases more so. Another highly rated and objective charity rating organization is Guidestar (www.guidestar.org). They list ALL charities regardless of income and have the same information as Charity Navigator and in some cases, more information (IRS forms, financials, etc.).

@Bobaloo, since you recognize this about yourself (#107), maybe that should become your own "gut check" when responding here. Take a moment to think about whether or not this is a case of you assuming something is criticism and then not taking it well.

You might also diffuse a LOT of the trouble you seem to get in by being much more explicit, more frequently, that you are *speculating* -- rather than using language that makes it seem as if you are insisting that your speculations are utterly set-in-stone facts.

I don't think anyone wants you to be this distraught when discussing different points of view on the letters.

Well of course it isn't. I'd NEVER submit posts like these to any potential employer. Nor would I a blog, for that matter.
***************
OK,then. You're basically in agreement with Zoe, then,that news reports written "Bobaloo-style" would be inappropriate in that context. {"Bobaloo" being your creators.com alter-ego that writes in a highly speculative, reactive and shoot-from-the-hip kind of way, not the (byline name) who puts in 40 hours or more a week at his newspaper job.}

I didn't see anyone saying that you write that way at your job. They're simply commenting on the odd split between what you do for a living and your deliberate, repeated choice here to fly off the cuff and connect Point A to Point B when there's not a very great probability that they ARE in fact connected, and then not just defending that remote possibility but proceeding to respond passionately as if you are convinced that indeed this IS so, as if you're trying to convince us it MUST be so.

It is a little odd, you have to admit.

Re: Bobaloo

"What does THAT have to do with anything?"

It's ok, I'll explain it to you when you're older and I have infinite amounts of energy.

"And Zoe questioning my journalistic abilities"

Your interpretation of my comment is your own business! Also wanted to point out that my statement is still there so I guess the mods weren't as offended by it as you were.

"Your defense of Zoe makes you the worst person I know"

Is your entire entourage just made up of the good care bears or?

Re: Lise B

Haha, good point! I vaguely remember that - but I was young at the time. No one cares about figure skating anymore, but boy was it big in the 90s.

Re: Salty

I think she meant "fix" as in the adjective, not the verb. (To mean "fastened, attached, or placed so as to be firm and not readily movable; firmly implanted; stationary; rigid.") It was confusing to me too when I first read as barely anyone uses "fix" that way these days.

Bobaloo, one last thought on the subject. I did not mean to sound like a mean girl - the things I wrote yesterday. Hopefully you will continue to post. Things sometimes get out of hand and I know 'I' continued to add to the fray. I still believe what I wrote - but would feel bad if anything I wrote kept you from coming back. You do so love to comment and give your advice. Soooooo, Good morning Bobaloo, hope you have a better day.

Re: Zoe
Hey la, I care about figure skating plenty. Come time for the Olympics, stop the world, I'm watching the Winter Games. Hear Evgeny Pleshenko wants to have a go at the gold in 2014 again. Oh yeah, and Sale and Pelletier are divorcing.

P.S.: In that case, wouldn't it be "fixed", not "fix"?

LW2: You are way too old to be behaving this way. Grow up. Evolve. You're running out of time.