what is up with the trolls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yall are ridiculous. You post a hand wringer about trolls and then troll each other. Unbelieveable.

I can't believe you just called me ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

I think that pretty much identifies the troll here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's me. I'm not calling anyone an abuser; in fact, I said parents are being told it's okay when it's not. I'm saying the mechanism of CIO -- the reason CIO works -- is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE MECHANISM of abuse and neglect. Abused and neglected kids stop crying and so do kids whose parents use CIO -- and for the very same reason, not a different reason because the parents have different intentions. Sorry, but I'm not going to stop stating the obvious. It is about the affect on babies, not about you or your intentions (or how sensitive you are to hearing the news). Because you don't want to hear it does not make me a troll.

I don't think you are a troll, but you are most certainly a zealot and completely ignorant of what CIO actually entails. Honestly, you really don't know sh*t about CIO and its affect on babies. What you are stating is a judgmental position that babies are crying b/c they are being neglected and abused. You seem to have no capacity to understand that babies at certain ages (e.g., 8-9 months and older) cry when they don't get their way. They cry not b/c they *need* something, but b/c they *want* something.

So am I an abusive parent b/c I don't give my 3 year old cookies for breakfast. He cries and cries. I ignore the behavior. Eventually he stops crying. So...this is abusive in your mind?

What you fail to see is that CIO for older babies is really quite similar. These babies are crying b/c they want attention - not b/c they need attention. And at some point, parents need to realize that it is not appropriate to give in all the time.

This has already been posted on the other thread, but as a matter of fact, the effect of CIO is EXACTLY the same as neglect. Strange that neglected babies stop crying because their cries are not being responded to by neglectful parents, and that CIO babies stop crying because their cries are not being responded to by great parents. Strange coincidence there. And I am talking about infants, not old enough to cry for cookies.

[Anonymous]

BINGO!!!! Troll found.

[Anonymous]

Hahahahahaha I thought I was the only one playing! That is the troll! Ok now that we found you go back under your bridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's me. I'm not calling anyone an abuser; in fact, I said parents are being told it's okay when it's not. I'm saying the mechanism of CIO -- the reason CIO works -- is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE MECHANISM of abuse and neglect. Abused and neglected kids stop crying and so do kids whose parents use CIO -- and for the very same reason, not a different reason because the parents have different intentions. Sorry, but I'm not going to stop stating the obvious. It is about the affect on babies, not about you or your intentions (or how sensitive you are to hearing the news). Because you don't want to hear it does not make me a troll.

I don't think you are a troll, but you are most certainly a zealot and completely ignorant of what CIO actually entails. Honestly, you really don't know sh*t about CIO and its affect on babies. What you are stating is a judgmental position that babies are crying b/c they are being neglected and abused. You seem to have no capacity to understand that babies at certain ages (e.g., 8-9 months and older) cry when they don't get their way. They cry not b/c they *need* something, but b/c they *want* something.

So am I an abusive parent b/c I don't give my 3 year old cookies for breakfast. He cries and cries. I ignore the behavior. Eventually he stops crying. So...this is abusive in your mind?

What you fail to see is that CIO for older babies is really quite similar. These babies are crying b/c they want attention - not b/c they need attention. And at some point, parents need to realize that it is not appropriate to give in all the time.

This has already been posted on the other thread, but as a matter of fact, the effect of CIO is EXACTLY the same as neglect. Strange that neglected babies stop crying because their cries are not being responded to by neglectful parents, and that CIO babies stop crying because their cries are not being responded to by great parents. Strange coincidence there. And I am talking about infants, not old enough to cry for cookies.

Wow, I'm not the one you've been offending, and you've managed to piss me off with your flawed logic and your zealot nature.
I'm not even pro-CIO, but your arguements are 1. on the wrong forum, and 2. plain wrong. There is a difference. Think about giving babies shots. This is your logic: An abusive parent puts heroin in a syringe and shoots up the baby because they are whacked out, and viola, the baby cries. A great parent gets the baby a shot (vaccine or antibiotic or whatever they need) and viola, they cry. Now, Coincidence? You think not. If the baby cries because they got a shot, the intent doesn't matter, it must be abuse.
No really, intent does matter, and also the reason behind the reason for crying. Parents using CIO - the baby doesn't need attention but it wants attention. Neglected child cries because it needs attention. Big difference in both intent and need.

[Anonymous]

oooopppps, sorry, I didn't mean to feed the troll!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That's me. I'm not calling anyone an abuser; in fact, I said parents are being told it's okay when it's not. I'm saying the mechanism of CIO -- the reason CIO works -- is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE MECHANISM of abuse and neglect. Abused and neglected kids stop crying and so do kids whose parents use CIO -- and for the very same reason, not a different reason because the parents have different intentions. Sorry, but I'm not going to stop stating the obvious. It is about the affect on babies, not about you or your intentions (or how sensitive you are to hearing the news). Because you don't want to hear it does not make me a troll.

I don't think you are a troll, but you are most certainly a zealot and completely ignorant of what CIO actually entails. Honestly, you really don't know sh*t about CIO and its affect on babies. What you are stating is a judgmental position that babies are crying b/c they are being neglected and abused. You seem to have no capacity to understand that babies at certain ages (e.g., 8-9 months and older) cry when they don't get their way. They cry not b/c they *need* something, but b/c they *want* something.

So am I an abusive parent b/c I don't give my 3 year old cookies for breakfast. He cries and cries. I ignore the behavior. Eventually he stops crying. So...this is abusive in your mind?

What you fail to see is that CIO for older babies is really quite similar. These babies are crying b/c they want attention - not b/c they need attention. And at some point, parents need to realize that it is not appropriate to give in all the time.

This has already been posted on the other thread, but as a matter of fact, the effect of CIO is EXACTLY the same as neglect. Strange that neglected babies stop crying because their cries are not being responded to by neglectful parents, and that CIO babies stop crying because their cries are not being responded to by great parents. Strange coincidence there. And I am talking about infants, not old enough to cry for cookies.

Wow, I'm not the one you've been offending, and you've managed to piss me off with your flawed logic and your zealot nature.
I'm not even pro-CIO, but your arguements are 1. on the wrong forum, and 2. plain wrong. There is a difference. Think about giving babies shots. This is your logic: An abusive parent puts heroin in a syringe and shoots up the baby because they are whacked out, and viola, the baby cries. A great parent gets the baby a shot (vaccine or antibiotic or whatever they need) and viola, they cry. Now, Coincidence? You think not. If the baby cries because they got a shot, the intent doesn't matter, it must be abuse.
No really, intent does matter, and also the reason behind the reason for crying. Parents using CIO - the baby doesn't need attention but it wants attention. Neglected child cries because it needs attention. Big difference in both intent and need.

I'm not sure why I am a troll for arguing but you are NOT a troll for arguing, but -- if someone gave their baby a shot with the intention of making them cry, then the effect would be the same if it were heroine or if the shot were a vaccine. The baby would cry. The intention of CIO is to stop the baby from crying, and the effect of CIO is in fact stopping the baby from crying. Right? The intention of a neglectful parent is -- well, we don't know what their intention is but the effect on the baby is exactly the same -- they stop crying. The CIO parent is 'training' the baby not to cry, just like the neglectful parent is 'training' their baby not to cry. The effect is the same, even if the intentions are not.

[Anonymous]

I did not think trolls stayed out this long in the day light... Maybe it's a mutant troll?

[Anonymous]

And you wonder why women aren't taken seriously. If you cannot support each other, then who will. Before you start trying to get better working mother benefits, you need to clean up your own house. As a man, I read DCUM and think, "damn, these people are nuts. Is this what they think about all day?". Of course men don't have any more productive conversations but at least we generally get along. Arguing about who is the best football team isn't keeping us upset and awake at night. Just my neandrathalic opinion. Oh...we also talk about sex.

[Anonymous]

Or maybe I just have way better arguments than you do so it's a lot easier for me.

[Anonymous]

Being a troll isn't about arguing. Its instigating the argument. You brought the argument here, therefore, you are the troll. The other that mentioned you did not even state which side she was on, just that there was someone being aggressively anti-CIO. You then replied and rehashed your anti-CIO argument again and again and again. You are the troll. Others have been feeding the troll. And now I am. Troll, go away!!!

[Anonymous]

Maybe if we keep feeding the troll it will explode and then finally go away?

[Anonymous]

From reading DCUM, I can assume the following:
1. You all wanted kids and have kids. Congrats!
2. Your kids are healthy, or you wouldn't spend time worrying about this stuff.
3. You're married to someone who you loved enough to have kids with.
4. You have a job that pays well. Hence the long hours
5. You live in a decent to nice neighborhood with access to parks and nice restaurants.

So why is everyone so angry?

- Pretty happy father (and DW)

[Anonymous]

I'm not a troll. I responded to the comments made here. I clearly have better arguments and I'm winning-- and just because that pisses you off doesn't mean I'm a troll! You wish, right?