If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Trib)   Woman surprised to learn you can't bring a hungry kid to the National Restaurant Association trade show   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 180
    More: PSA, Chicago, McCormick Place, Clearly  
•       •       •

8845 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 May 2014 at 6:15 AM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-19 05:59:23 AM
What part of "no children allowed" did she not understand?

/ yes, the rules DO apply to you
 
2014-05-19 06:20:13 AM
Well, she didn't get to attend the trade show, but on the upside, she got some free advertising.
 
2014-05-19 06:25:31 AM
That NRA, won't they think of the children!
 
2014-05-19 06:27:12 AM
How self-important do you have to be to just assume that the rules wouldn't apply to you?

She could have at least checked with meeting organizers first to see if an exception could be made.
 
2014-05-19 06:30:15 AM
She's wrong.

I doubt the insurance the NRA bought for the show would cover the kid, and the NRA would be at severe financial risk if there were an accident.
 
2014-05-19 06:30:34 AM
They asked her why she didn't leave the infant at home with her husband and their other two children. She answered that she was breast feeding and obviously he couldn't do that. Well, just as obviously, she could have stayed with the infant and other children and sent her husband to the trade show. There are consequences for all decisions, including the decision to breast feed. The trade show excluded children for safety reasons, and that included an infant in arms.
 
2014-05-19 06:31:30 AM
"I'm disappointed mostly," Osborne said. "It was a really big deal they invited us to pour at the show. It was a really big deal for our little whinery."
 
2014-05-19 06:32:36 AM
Someone buy her a breast pump
 
2014-05-19 06:38:00 AM

Doc Daneeka: How self-important do you have to be to just assume that the rules wouldn't apply to you?

She could have at least checked with meeting organizers first to see if an exception could be made.


THIS!  - She shudda checked.  She's the Marketing Wonkette, and the husband (who doesn't sound like he's terribly involved in the biz) would probably not have been a reasonable proxy.
 
2014-05-19 06:39:09 AM
yes, the time hollowed fark thread where one self entitled b*tch is outraged because she can't whip her t*t out and start lactating wherever she wants. oh god. other people have sensibilities too. maybe you could respect those.
 
2014-05-19 06:40:13 AM
I really don't see why this is a story.  There were rules that applied to an event, she did not follow the rules so she was not allowed at the event.  This is exactly the same as if some guy showed up without a shirt and got sent home.  This lady sounds like the same kind of person who would take three crying kids to an R movie because she is special and can opt out of societal rules that everyone else follows out of common courtesy.
 
2014-05-19 06:41:32 AM
DO NOT fark with the bosses and unions at McCormick place. One time at a show I unplugged one of our monitors which was broken from our power strip and our computer and reconnected a working monitor to said equipment. I/we pissed off like 3 unions in the process and I got my show badge pulled.

/Didn't know any better
//Was young and stupid
 
2014-05-19 06:44:00 AM
Osborne, 31, knew about the trade show rule that does not allow children under 16, she said, but did not think it would apply to her sleeping, 10-day-old baby wrapped closely to her chest.

I'm no expert on newborns, but is a loud, crowded convention hall where the one parent present is trying to conduct business really the best place for them?
 
2014-05-19 06:47:08 AM

mjohnson71: /Didn't know any better
//Was young and stupid


Your company should have told you those limitations at a Union show.

Some of those limits are reasonable, some are clearly designed to force the organizers to pay someone $265/hour to plug in the replacement monitor.
 
2014-05-19 06:53:30 AM

ko_kyi: mjohnson71: /Didn't know any better
//Was young and stupid

Your company should have told you those limitations at a Union show.

Some of those limits are reasonable, some are clearly designed to force the organizers to pay someone $265/hour to plug in the replacement monitor.


The way I was told the "big" stuff was union and we could do "small" things. I didn't see switching out a faulty monitor as "big".

Trust me: I learned my lesson.
 
2014-05-19 06:54:31 AM
Ah yes, the old "yer fancy rules don't apply to me and mah Tater Jr". That's always a classic.
 
2014-05-19 06:56:05 AM

ko_kyi: mjohnson71: /Didn't know any better
//Was young and stupid

Your company should have told you those limitations at a Union show.

Some of those limits are reasonable, some are clearly designed to force the organizers to pay someone $265/hour to plug in the replacement monitor.


And some people wonder why others are against unions.
 
2014-05-19 06:58:04 AM

Mirandized: The trade show excluded children for safety reasons


Exactly! I mean, what if that baby had jumped out of her arms and started running around?

""There are knives. There are ovens. There are cooking demonstrations with open flames," Hinsley said. "There's all sorts of equipment that could be very dangerous to a child to have any interaction with...""

Yup, that baby could have crawled onto an oven (after turning it on), and burned itself! Or picked up a knife and cut itself!!
 
2014-05-19 06:58:16 AM

mjohnson71: ko_kyi: mjohnson71: /Didn't know any better
//Was young and stupid

Your company should have told you those limitations at a Union show.

Some of those limits are reasonable, some are clearly designed to force the organizers to pay someone $265/hour to plug in the replacement monitor.

The way I was told the "big" stuff was union and we could do "small" things. I didn't see switching out a faulty monitor as "big".

Trust me: I learned my lesson.


I was at Raytheon years ago bringing a replacement part. When I met my contact in the lobby I offered him the part and he declined. Said if any of the union people saw him carrying it he'd get in trouble. Me carrying it was probably okay.

I'm generally a supporter of unionization, but c'mon.
 
2014-05-19 06:58:58 AM
knew about the trade show rule that does not allow children under 16, she said, but did not think it would apply to her sleeping, 10-day-old baby wrapped closely to her chest

There we go. "I'm a breast feeding mommy! Rules don't apply to me because I'm more important than anyone else"

"I said, 'Clearly he's a breast-feeding baby. I can't separate from him,'"

Then stay home
 
2014-05-19 07:02:20 AM
Osborne, 31, knew about the trade show rule that does not allow children under 16, she said, but did not think it would apply to her sleeping, 10-day-old baby wrapped closely to her chest.

A 10 day old infant is almost EXACTLY the opposite of over sixteen. There's only a 9 day window of younger children possible.

And, to be quite honest, infants shouldn't be out in public anyway. People fought and DIED* for maternity leave. farking take it.


* I count union deaths as being for female workers' issues as well as men's.
 
2014-05-19 07:04:14 AM

fredklein: Mirandized: The trade show excluded children for safety reasons

Exactly! I mean, what if that baby had jumped out of her arms and started running around?

""There are knives. There are ovens. There are cooking demonstrations with open flames," Hinsley said. "There's all sorts of equipment that could be very dangerous to a child to have any interaction with...""

Yup, that baby could have crawled onto an oven (after turning it on), and burned itself! Or picked up a knife and cut itself!!


What about a two-year-old? Or a five-year-old loaded up on sugar? Would your version of these rules say "No body between the ages 16 and  n (where  n is the age at which a child first becomes difficult to manage) admitted"?
 
2014-05-19 07:04:59 AM
Also my first thought when I hear someone has an infant at a restaurant trade show is check their family tree for Fish:

horrornews.net
 
2014-05-19 07:08:10 AM
"Clearly he's a breast-feeding baby..." - stopped reading at that

Biatch
 
2014-05-19 07:13:06 AM
Why is this Breaking News, Chicago Tribune. There's shiat going on in Ukraine and Sudan. Go report on that.
 
2014-05-19 07:17:43 AM
Sorry lady, "But I'm a  Mooommmm!!!" is not actually a superseding standard for everything.
 
2014-05-19 07:21:57 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: What about a two-year-old? Or a five-year-old loaded up on sugar?


They should be banned.

Would your version of these rules say "No body between the ages 16 and n (where n is the age at which a child first becomes difficult to manage) admitted"?

No. But there would be an exception for babies.

You see, if you're concerned about kids 'running around' and getting into trouble, then that, by definition, doesn't apply to a baby, who cannot run (or even crawl).
 
2014-05-19 07:22:54 AM

fredklein: Mirandized: The trade show excluded children for safety reasons

Exactly! I mean, what if that baby had jumped out of her arms and started running around?

""There are knives. There are ovens. There are cooking demonstrations with open flames," Hinsley said. "There's all sorts of equipment that could be very dangerous to a child to have any interaction with...""

Yup, that baby could have crawled onto an oven (after turning it on), and burned itself! Or picked up a knife and cut itself!!


Silence. There are rules. All will obey the rules.

Hail Hydra.
 
2014-05-19 07:23:46 AM

fredklein: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: What about a two-year-old? Or a five-year-old loaded up on sugar?

They should be banned.

Would your version of these rules say "No body between the ages 16 and n (where n is the age at which a child first becomes difficult to manage) admitted"?

No. But there would be an exception for babies.

You see, if you're concerned about kids 'running around' and getting into trouble, then that, by definition, doesn't apply to a baby, who cannot run (or even crawl).


Sure. But as soon as you say "oh, well that's a baby, he can come in" the next Super Special Mommy brings her two year old because he's in a stroller and can't get out and run around.

Until he gets whiny and she lets him out, and he starts running around.
 
2014-05-19 07:25:38 AM
You can`t do everything. Some people seem to think they can though.
 
2014-05-19 07:25:52 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Osborne, 31, knew about the trade show rule that does not allow children under 16, she said, but did not think it would apply to her sleeping, 10-day-old baby


She was told there would be no math.
 
2014-05-19 07:29:44 AM
She owns a 'Whinery'.

heh heheheheh
 
2014-05-19 07:29:46 AM
Air traffic controllers are allowed to ride in the cockpit on familiarization trips. A female air traffic controller brought her baby with and told the flight attendants to watch it while she sat in the jump seat. Did not work out as planned.
 
2014-05-19 07:33:26 AM

what_now: fredklein: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: What about a two-year-old? Or a five-year-old loaded up on sugar?

They should be banned.

Would your version of these rules say "No body between the ages 16 and n (where n is the age at which a child first becomes difficult to manage) admitted"?

No. But there would be an exception for babies.

You see, if you're concerned about kids 'running around' and getting into trouble, then that, by definition, doesn't apply to a baby, who cannot run (or even crawl).

Sure. But as soon as you say "oh, well that's a baby, he can come in" the next Super Special Mommy brings her two year old because he's in a stroller and can't get out and run around.

Until he gets whiny and she lets him out, and he starts running around.


Just make a rule that strollers aren't allowed. I'm on the fence about this. It isn't even an issue of breast feeding so much as it is making barriers to mothers from participating in business - and this is a long standing issue with women who may or may not want to become mothers. Sure, she could have pumped perhaps, but it sounded like this was a longish trip for her (Minnesota to Chicago). How much would she have had to save up to make that feasible for her infant, especially at 10 days old? On the other hand, I can see the policy makers not wanting to have to be the arbiters of which kids are ok and which are not. If she'd been smarter, she would have called them ahead of time to negotiate some sort of possibility of her attendance particularly since she was invited.
 
2014-05-19 07:33:27 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: "I'm disappointed mostly," Osborne said. "It was a really big deal they invited us to pour at the show. It was a really big deal for our little whinery."


www.woodworkingtalk.com
I see what you did there.
 
2014-05-19 07:33:50 AM
Cue Al Bundy pic in 5.....4...3....2....
 
2014-05-19 07:36:51 AM

fredklein: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: What about a two-year-old? Or a five-year-old loaded up on sugar?

They should be banned.

Would your version of these rules say "No body between the ages 16 and n (where n is the age at which a child first becomes difficult to manage) admitted"?

No. But there would be an exception for babies.

You see, if you're concerned about kids 'running around' and getting into trouble, then that, by definition, doesn't apply to a baby, who cannot run (or even crawl).


I'm of the opposite mind. No kids applies ESPECIALLY to babies. Babies basically cry, excrete, and get sick and that's it. There's nothing a baby's presence contributes that's in any way productive to any kind of environment where older children would be banned. They are no infant environments.

Would you take your baby on a roller coaster if it was under that line? Hell no. Would you take your baby to a strip club on the grounds it won't remember anything anyway? Hell no. Let's not bring the baby to the trade shows then, either.
 
2014-05-19 07:40:33 AM
Also, this is the insurance company saying `we will only insure the over 16 at your event` which is stated pretty plain and does not have a baby exclusion clause...

Over 16? fine.
under16? sorry, no admittance.

It`s pretty simple stuff and no reason to get your panties in a twist.

If It`s such a big deal to be there and show off your product then DON`T MESS IT UP BY BEING AN ENTITLED BEECH.
 
2014-05-19 07:42:11 AM

what_now: Sure. But as soon as you say "oh, well that's a baby, he can come in" the next Super Special Mommy brings her two year old because he's in a stroller and can't get out and run around.


Strollers are banned:

"Osborne said. "I understand not having kids run around or not having strollers - that I understand.""

Until he gets whiny and she lets him out, and he starts running around.

Then ban them.

But a baby, sans stroller, and sans the ability to run around? Let him stay.
 
2014-05-19 07:44:22 AM

dready zim: Also, this is the insurance company saying `we will only insure the over 16 at your event` which is stated pretty plain and does not have a baby exclusion clause...

Over 16? fine.
under16? sorry, no admittance.

It`s pretty simple stuff and no reason to get your panties in a twist.


What about a pregnant woman? Does the baby count as 'under 16'??
 
2014-05-19 07:46:15 AM

fredklein: what_now: Sure. But as soon as you say "oh, well that's a baby, he can come in" the next Super Special Mommy brings her two year old because he's in a stroller and can't get out and run around.

Strollers are banned:

"Osborne said. "I understand not having kids run around or not having strollers - that I understand.""

Until he gets whiny and she lets him out, and he starts running around.

Then ban them.

But a baby, sans stroller, and sans the ability to run around? Let him stay.


What about a paralyzed kid floating on a balloon? Let's cover all exceptions to kid being a liabilty in the parents' eyes.
 
2014-05-19 07:47:45 AM

Mirandized: They asked her why she didn't leave the infant at home with her husband and their other two children. She answered that she was breast feeding and obviously he couldn't do that. Well, just as obviously, she could have stayed with the infant and other children and sent her husband to the trade show. There are consequences for all decisions, including the decision to breast feed. The trade show excluded children for safety reasons, and that included an infant in arms.


Or it's not like they haven't invented these fancy things called breast pumps that women can use to have breast milk available for when you cannot be there for or with the infant.
 
2014-05-19 07:48:44 AM

dready zim: Also, this is the insurance company saying `we will only insure the over 16 at your event` which is stated pretty plain and does not have a baby exclusion clause...

Over 16? fine.
under16? sorry, no admittance.

It`s pretty simple stuff and no reason to get your panties in a twist.

If It`s such a big deal to be there and show off your product then DON`T MESS IT UP BY BEING AN ENTITLED BEECH.


Is it? I didn't see that in the article. Source?
 
2014-05-19 07:49:03 AM
For myself, one of the reasons I don`t want kids about is they make noise and are disruptive.

They can be damn loud, especially halfway through a long day at an expo...

It`s not what your kid does that is the problem though, it`s what can be done TO your kid by the other exhibitors.

As stated they have flames, oil etc. If someone over 16 gets splashed with hot oil and claims, that`s covered.

If your 10 day old baby gets splashed with hot oil and you (being an entitled whiny beech) claim then that is NOT covered.

The attitude the woman is displaying is confirming the decision to remove her baby.

Not her, her baby. From a dangerous environment for over 16`s...
 
2014-05-19 07:49:41 AM
The woman can pump, the baby could live on formula for the 3 days of the show.
 
2014-05-19 07:50:32 AM

fredklein: dready zim: Also, this is the insurance company saying `we will only insure the over 16 at your event` which is stated pretty plain and does not have a baby exclusion clause...

Over 16? fine.
under16? sorry, no admittance.

It`s pretty simple stuff and no reason to get your panties in a twist.

What about a pregnant woman? Does the baby count as 'under 16'??


Strawman. There is no baby, a pregnant woman is one entity for insurance purposes.
 
2014-05-19 07:51:15 AM
Reading the responses here and on the site reminds me why most white people annoy me. At their worst, they have very little common sense or kindness.
 
2014-05-19 07:51:21 AM
Breastfeeding is a bodily function like defecation.  And you don't see me defecating in the food court at the mall do you?

/well except that one time, and I did my community service for that
 
2014-05-19 07:53:12 AM

dready zim: fredklein: dready zim: Also, this is the insurance company saying `we will only insure the over 16 at your event` which is stated pretty plain and does not have a baby exclusion clause...

Over 16? fine.
under16? sorry, no admittance.

It`s pretty simple stuff and no reason to get your panties in a twist.

What about a pregnant woman? Does the baby count as 'under 16'??

Strawman. There is no baby, a pregnant woman is one entity for insurance purposes.


So, one second it's "a single person", but a few minutes and a little pushing later it's an unacceptable insurance risk. Nice.
 
2014-05-19 07:53:19 AM
Stupidest thing I've read in a while.
But the morning is early.
 
Displayed 50 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report