Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Today's watercooler discussion

Hawk

By Hawk,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Hawk Newbie

Hawk

Posted
Posted

there was a report the other day of an Asian airline that has implemented a child free section on their flights. For $11 extra, you can sit in an 8 row section where there are no children under 12 allowed.

so that opened the discussion around planes and then restaurants etc.

What do you think of kid free zones and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pstall Newbie

pstall

Posted
Posted

Some rests already do that. I think that those who have kids want this more than those that don't.

Hey honey isn't it great to finally have some time alone. Just you and me and the entire 8 yr old little league who have glueten allergies and are seeing who can scream the loudest?

So. Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darth Biscuit Mentor

Darth Biscuit

Posted
Posted

Great idea... but if it's only 8 rows on an airplane, that really just means you won't sit right beside them... you'll still hear them.

In other places I have no problem with "kid free" zones or times.

When my kids were really little and prone to crying/making a nuisance, we either went to kid friendly places or just didn't go out.

I see kids at late movies, nice restaurants and other places where etiquette would dictate that they not be... people are just rude in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hawk Newbie

Hawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

that's I guess why I think it's a silly idea though....there's lots and lots of other people that annoy the hell out of me more than kids!!!

I would pay to sit in the part of the plane that doesn't allow stinky, yappy, got to have the light on all night long on the red eye, squirmy, space hogging fat bastards people too!!!

then there's them asshats that don't realize that their cellphone is way different than a can on a string and you don't have to yell into it constantly too! the list goes on

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Pantherfan Newbie

Mrs Pantherfan

Posted
Posted

that's I guess why I think it's a silly idea though....there's lots and lots of other people that annoy the hell out of me more than kids!!!

I totally get what you're saying....BUT...you can't tell the kid "Godamnit kid! sit the fug down and shut the hell up!"....

You can however, say it to an adult :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kurb Newbie

Kurb

Posted
Posted

I have the right to sit my kid whereever I want.

YOU can just deal with it.

Kids are kids man.

Just suck it up and let read your hippy books or some poo.

People telling where kids can and can't be GTFO

who all will I get with this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darth Biscuit Mentor

Darth Biscuit

Posted
Posted

To me it's not a matter of kids being anywhere... it's like MPF said, it's the behavior...

If your kid is running around, screaming like a banshee and annoying the living poo out of everyone around... then you're an asshole if you don't do something about it.

Kids being kids is one thing... kids screaming and crying and generally being brats is something else entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hawk Newbie

Hawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

again...I go back to the spanking!!!!

I know when I was a kid and I acted up, it was kersmacko time. Just the thought of that worked for me and watching my two older brothers get regular beat downs worked for me!

now, that's boys...maybe girls are different. My daughters are both very well behaved and always have been without the need for a spanking

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hawk Newbie

Hawk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

ya...there's a serious lack of discipline in society these days. and please, don't get me wrong...I don't advocate child abuse or anything even remotely close to that at all. I just think that a little swat on the ass from time to time can be a useful thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...