So millie210, "do not go beyond the things written."
I've expressed my opinion in response to the OP's question. You are free to do the same.
Peace,
AB
my mentally in jw wife is trying to organize a "princess party" for my 4 year old daughter and her little cousins and friends.
she was looking at prices of a tent for the backyard party in case it rains.
she asked the hardware store how much and they said 90 dollars for the day.
So millie210, "do not go beyond the things written."
I've expressed my opinion in response to the OP's question. You are free to do the same.
Peace,
AB
my mentally in jw wife is trying to organize a "princess party" for my 4 year old daughter and her little cousins and friends.
she was looking at prices of a tent for the backyard party in case it rains.
she asked the hardware store how much and they said 90 dollars for the day.
Why provide for anyone else (except in dire circumstances) when you could provide at a more comfortable level for your own household? The grandparents in this case worked for it!
Babysitting is fine if someone wants to do it but it's not an obligation. In this case, the grandparents said "no." It's not lack of love, it's freedom of choice and the right to self-determination.
IMO, the grandparents here don't seem mean or stingy, they're simply keeping the responsibility where it belongs.
my mentally in jw wife is trying to organize a "princess party" for my 4 year old daughter and her little cousins and friends.
she was looking at prices of a tent for the backyard party in case it rains.
she asked the hardware store how much and they said 90 dollars for the day.
Why is it "tacky and cheap to charge immediate family members for anything - even things you do for income from the general public."?
my mentally in jw wife is trying to organize a "princess party" for my 4 year old daughter and her little cousins and friends.
she was looking at prices of a tent for the backyard party in case it rains.
she asked the hardware store how much and they said 90 dollars for the day.
Not kidding. If they were starving or without shelter it would be different. What they want are luxuries, not necessities.
As far as babysitting, it's their kid, let them take care of it.
my mentally in jw wife is trying to organize a "princess party" for my 4 year old daughter and her little cousins and friends.
she was looking at prices of a tent for the backyard party in case it rains.
she asked the hardware store how much and they said 90 dollars for the day.
They WORKED, they bought. They didn't accumulate all the things you mentioned overnight, they worked, they saved, they purchased. Now you need to do the same instead of freeload from them or anyone else.
i swear, time is moving so fast.
the only time i know what.
day it is, is by looking at the news paper.
On July 29th, "Mama" Cass Elliott will have been dead 40 years. Impossible, but true.
I still listen to her songs. She's as alive to me as if she was on Ed Sullivan last week.
Time isn't linear to me.
1. Pay the bill?
2. Drop dead?
3. Ask the IRS?
Yeah, that's it! Ask the IRS!
maybe some one can post the story, daily news here.
in calif..
There's always more to the story; sometimes you have to wait a while, but it eventually surfaces:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/knx-couple-legally-should-have-paid-the-wont-go-nanny/
UPLAND (CBSLA.com) — The “Won’t Go Nanny” is apparently not going anywhere anytime soon.
Marcel and Ralph Bracamonte, the Upland couple who hired 64-year-old Diane Stretton from a Craigslist ad in March, have started legal proceedings to evict her from their house after she refused to leave their home — even after they fired her.
KNX 1070 Investigative Reporter Charles Feldman spoke to Marcel Bracamonte on Friday by phone and told her, according to the California Labor Commission, the nanny should have been paid.
Bracamonte told KCAL9′s Amy Johnson that she and the nanny agreed to a live-in relationship that would have Stretton do housekeeping chores as well as helping to care for the couple’s three children for free room and board. Bracamonte concurred with Feldman that that was the couple’s arrangement with Stretton.
But Feldman says, according to California law, nannies are considered employees and they need to be financially compensated for their work. In other words, just free room and board violates state labor laws.
When Feldman tried to discuss the matter with Marcel Bracamonte, her carefully crafted image, he reported, “turned notably sour.”
“You know what, if you’re going to try to turn this around on me,” she said, “I don’t want to do this interview.”
Feldman said, “I’m not trying to turn it around …”
Bracamonte cut him off and said, “You’re trying to turn it around on me.”
He said, “No, no. I’m …”
Bracamonte said, “Charles, I don’t want to do this interview if you’re not going to try to turn this around on me and make me the bad person.”
Feldman replied, “I’m not making anybody the bad person. I talked to the labor department and …”
Marcel then said, “And I don’t care. And I don’t want that on the air. I don’t want that on the air.”
Feldman continues, “I was just asking what your understanding was with her about the conditions of employment.”
“The conditions of employment,” Bracamonte said, “was she got, in exchange for room and board, for helping me with the kids.”
“Right,” Feldman counters, “but did you ever check to see if, check with anybody, to see if, you were able to do that arrangement with her … to do work just in exchange for room and board?”
At this point, Bracamonte has had enough.
“You know what, you’re not, you’re not a nice person,” she says. “And I don’t want to talk to you, Charles.”
And then she apparently hung up.
Feldman reported that Bracamonte never returned to the call and hung up on him when he reached out to her afterward.
Awaiting the next installment.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ae_1405660548.
.
.
As I understand it, he "sold illegal cigarettes" and had been picked up for it at least 5 times. Cops are human. Worse, they believe in "upholding the law" the way JW's believe in upholding their Truth. When the cops saw him on the street and figured he was up to his old tricks, they snapped, and it was fatal for him.
Was it "right"? No. Is it understandable? Yes. Some parents do the same thing; try to deal with the misbehaving kid all day then snap and over-punish. But is it really the cop's/parent's "fault"? What responsibility belongs with the guy/kid?
i was recently approached by a couple of borg drones while i was walking my dog, and i thought why not, may plant a seed or two (how wrong was i).
there was no real logic to what they were saying but as i was in the local park the conversation started to veer to how wonderful nature was and how this was the work of a wonderful creator.
i did not let on i was a former witness and let them continue with their fairy tale of creation and how the vast multitude of animals shows a loving god at work blah blah blah...... but i digress, the converastion then turned to how evolution was false.. apparently to earth is only a few thousand years old, so i mentioned about the burgess shale, to be met with blank stares.
Not stupid, but ignorant. There is hope.