Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: PSA, Chicago, McCormick Place, Clearly  
•       •       •

8944 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 May 2014 at 6:15 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2014-05-19 07:53:20 AM  

fredklein: What about...


What about "all children for safety reasons" is confusing to you?

There is no issue here. At all. No matter how hard you try to make one. All children. Because sharp knives and fire.

End of story.
 
2014-05-19 07:54:39 AM  

gulogulo: 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?


My source is working in this sort of environment for quite a while. I buy our public liability insurance, employer liability etc and I know it costs a lot more if you have kids at your event.

This is my opinion but feel free to argue against it if you have anything.

The word `source` is not a counter argument...

/Just because they don`t print `here be dragons` on maps anymore doesn`t mean there are not dragons still there...
 
2014-05-19 07:55:19 AM  

gfid: And some people wonder why others are against unions.


No, it's usually just safe to assume they are ignorant of the conditions that existed which forced the formation of unions in the first place.
 
2014-05-19 08:00:16 AM  

dready zim: gulogulo: 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?

My source is working in this sort of environment for quite a while. I buy our public liability insurance, employer liability etc and I know it costs a lot more if you have kids at your event.

This is my opinion but feel free to argue against it if you have anything.

The word `source` is not a counter argument...

/Just because they don`t print `here be dragons` on maps anymore doesn`t mean there are not dragons still there...


No shiat it wasn't a counter argument, source was a request for your source for your expertise because I find specific claims of insider knowledge spurious.  But like, it's your opinion man, so I'll just take your word for it, I guess?
 
2014-05-19 08:01:46 AM  

fredklein: 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.


Yes, the law (and biology) works that way. There is only a baby after birth.

Are you getting confused by all this? Did your parents explain `the miracle of childbirth` to you?

OK, I`ll give it a go as you seem to have a gap in your education...

Your father farked your mother. At least once, your father and your mother were in bed, and your father got a hard-on, and he stuck it inside your mother and they farked. Sometimes maybe your father farked your mother in the ass, and maybe on the night that you were conceived maybe they did that, before or after, or maybe they didn't, maybe your father never farked your mother's ass, but on the night that you were conceived, one thing is certain: your father farked your mother in her coont.

Maybe your mother sucked your father's dick first, and maybe your father ate your mother's pussy. Maybe your father sucked your mother's clit while sticking a finger or two up your mother's slit until she got really wet. Maybe he got his whole hand up there. If you have older brothers or sisters, then your father probably could have gotten his whole hand up there. If not, then maybe not. But at some point, your mother was wet and loose enough to accommodate your father, and they farked.

Maybe they did it doggy-style. Maybe your mother got on top of your father. Maybe your parents liked to talk dirty to each other when they were farking.

Maybe your mother screamed, "Oh daddy. Oh daddy. fark me, daddy, fark me, fark me, fark me," and then maybe your daddy shouted, "Here it comes! Here it comes! Get ready, biatch, here I come," and then maybe your mother said, "Come in me, come in me, come in me! Oh yeah, baby, fark your mommy, fark your momma's sweet pussy, oh yeah, daddy, oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah."

Or maybe they were very quiet.

But at any rate, eventually your father came and his sperm shot out of his dick and it went up your mother's coont and it fertilized her egg and that was you. That was you in your mother's womb, growing like a virus for nine months, making your mother fatter and fatter, making her sick, making her vomit, making her hate your father for doing this to her, making her hate you, this thing inside of her, like a virus, growing and sucking, like a leech attached to her, sucking her blood, drinking her like a vampire fetus, growing and sucking and growing and sucking until one day you want out, and you burst through the snotty membrane and you pop out of your mother's coont all covered with blood, and a bloody umbilical cord still attaches you to the inside of your mother somewhere 'til someone snips it off and you are severed. You are a separate being.

This is the miracle of childbirth. To some, it is proof that there is a God.

Now after you were born, maybe you sucked milk out of your mother's tit. Maybe your father wiped the shiat off your shiatty ass. I don't know. You'll have to ask them. But that is basically the way people are born. In a nutshell, that is it. Unless you were a test tube baby, which you weren't, so just face it: your father farked your mother, and the next time you're farking somebody, just try to keep that in mind.

(sung ad-libs, including the following)
Miracle
Miracle

fark me, daddy, fark me, fark me, fark me, fark me, fark me

Here I come
Here I come
Get ready, biatch, here I come

Miracle
Miracle
Miracle
Miracle
Miracle

Oh daddy, oh daddy, oh daddy, oh daddy, oh daddy, oh daddy

Miracle
 
2014-05-19 08:02:35 AM  
I agree she shouldn't have gone in the first place, but at least she didn't make a stink. She was just disheartened, but compliant. Plus, someone had let her in, so someone else figured it'd be fine too.
To everyone saying she could pump, boobs aren't infinite stocks of milk. They will run dry long before you could get a (let's say) three day supply for an infant that eats every hour. And you're not supposed to refrigerate it for more than two days either. I don't blame her for trying to get away with it.
 
2014-05-19 08:05:15 AM  

OhioUGrad: 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.


The baby's only 10 days old. It takes a while to pump enough to leave baby away from mom for a few days, not to mention the extreme discomfort and embarassment of full, leaky boobs after missing a couple of feedings.
 
2014-05-19 08:06:12 AM  

tjassen: That NRA, won't they think of the children!


I like the NRA. They support my right to bear claws.
s3-media2.ak.yelpcdn.com
 
2014-05-19 08:15:59 AM  

gulogulo: dready zim: gulogulo: 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?

My source is working in this sort of environment for quite a while. I buy our public liability insurance, employer liability etc and I know it costs a lot more if you have kids at your event.

This is my opinion but feel free to argue against it if you have anything.

The word `source` is not a counter argument...

/Just because they don`t print `here be dragons` on maps anymore doesn`t mean there are not dragons still there...

No shiat it wasn't a counter argument, source was a request for your source for your expertise because I find specific claims of insider knowledge spurious.  But like, it's your opinion man, so I'll just take your word for it, I guess?


No, don`t take my word for it, just do anything rather than the rather sad call for a citation being your *only* rebuttal. I have provided my source, it`s experience. I`ve worked in this environment. I`ve seen plenty of insurance documents (I arrange the public and employer liability insurance for our company) and I am friends with people that run events that need insurance. Things that are definite are stated firmly for example the section that defines terms the term `participant` may well defined it as `A person aged 16 or over` and (alongside other definitions) also restrict that to people with an invitation neither of which apply to the baby.

Not following the conditions of your insurance invalidates it. That`s a pretty big deal for events like this.

Now, what is your counter argument that is not simple incredulity based on your ignorance of my knowledge?

How will you show that my words are false, as you seem to claim?
 
2014-05-19 08:21:17 AM  
Time Magazine put it bluntly.

i.huffpost.com
 
2014-05-19 08:23:18 AM  

No Such Agency: 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


You salivate. That's a bodily function. So get your butt in the restroom, mister! (or miss)
 
2014-05-19 08:23:40 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'??



If it hasn't been born yet, then it's a fetus. Not a baby.
 
2014-05-19 08:28:34 AM  

Madame Ovary: Someone buy her a breast pump


This.

Found it odd that wasn't mentioned in the story.
 
2014-05-19 08:29:12 AM  
She was there to pour wine and network. Since the baby was attached to her, does this mean he was tending?  Where's is Unite Card? No scabs on the floor.
 
2014-05-19 08:29:14 AM  
Forget all the other arguments... what is your major malfunction in that you have to go to a trade show 10 days after your kid is born?  In any civilized part of the planet (and most non-civilized ones, too) that's bonding time with the kid.  Stay at home.
 
2014-05-19 08:29:45 AM  

Matthew Keene: Time Magazine put it bluntly.


Not that I don't appreciate you finding a reason to post that goofy thing, but it had nothing to do with the breast feeding. Kids just aren't allowed, period, because it's a trade show for restaurateurs, so it's full of sharp objects, fire and power kitchen utensils.

/ Now I'm imagining something like the kitchen fight from Gremlins breaking out on the show floor
 
2014-05-19 08:30:34 AM  

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


I see you've taken the Right's redefinition of words as a given.
 
2014-05-19 08:34:01 AM  

dready zim: . From a dangerous environment for over 16`s...


It's a trade show, not a construction site.  An infant is not going to be in any particular danger by going to a trade show, they're not really spraying hot oil all over the participants.  A toddler/grade schooler/preteen is potentially going to get in a lot more trouble, since they can run around, get underfoot, and touch stuff they're not supposed to touch.

That said, I have no doubt the insurance says "nobody under 16", which means nobody under 16, period.  She really should have called first.
 
2014-05-19 08:40:36 AM  
The only opinions that matter a bit in this case are the Insurance company's, and the Jury's.  IF the worst-case scenario happens, can the insurance company find a way to deny coverage? If they can, they will. Then you're off to court with no insurance money to cover your liability.  Additionally, if nothing happens but the insurance company finds out you didn't follow the requirements of the policy, you're likely to have your coverage for the show cancelled.

Finally, as an administrator, if I can find the Security person who let her in with the baby, that person gets fired. I don't want someone at that level bending rules. "No one under 16" is a nice bright easily enforceable rule. Once you start allowing exceptions, complexity ensues. I don't want $10 an hour personnel making complex decisions.

Hint - if she had asked in advance, the lawyers and the insurance people could have been consulted and an advised decision could have been made. It probably would have been 'No', but it would have been a considered answer. Just showing up at the show with the baby is a "Default-to-No" situation.
 
2014-05-19 08:47:18 AM  

Matthew Keene: Time Magazine put it bluntly.

[i.huffpost.com image 570x760]


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-19 08:48:41 AM  
Funny how some peoples' kids are always the exception to the rules.
 
2014-05-19 08:48:50 AM  

d23: Forget all the other arguments... what is your major malfunction in that you have to go to a trade show 10 days after your kid is born?  In any civilized part of the planet (and most non-civilized ones, too) that's bonding time with the kid.  Stay at home.


Beyond that, how can she not realize how incredibly unprofessional "working" with a child strapped to you is?

I get that trade shows are important, and often only happen once a year for a promoter or venue- but come on, lady. If you simply can't be separated for your child for 3 days, maybe you should skip the show to stay home with your child.

I have an infant son. I *once* tried to work with him sleeping and attached to me. It did not go well. Never again.
 
2014-05-19 08:50:25 AM  

fredklein: So, one second it's "a single person", but a few minutes and a little pushing later it's an unacceptable insurance risk. Nice.


Zigot, Fetus, Baby to you they are all the same?  So when a baby is born do we celebrate their first birthday or is that day 0?  If it's day 0 then it was not a baby before that day.
 
2014-05-19 08:54:19 AM  

QueenMamaBee: You salivate. That's a bodily function. So get your butt in the restroom, mister! (or miss)


Well if you are openly drooling then I would hope you would.  But since it's whisked away down your throat then why would you need to?
 
2014-05-19 08:55:34 AM  

Hermione_Granger: 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.


Cracker-ass crackers!
 
2014-05-19 08:56:45 AM  
Restaurants are truly dangerous places. Why they don't require hardhats is a mystery, and that's even before they try to get you to eat food that's delivered by underpaid, disgruntled workers.
 
2014-05-19 09:00:57 AM  

Matthew Keene: Time Magazine put it bluntly.

[i.huffpost.com image 570x760]


img.fark.net

Made this a while back. Seems like a good place to leave it.
 
2014-05-19 09:05:22 AM  

TNel: QueenMamaBee: You salivate. That's a bodily function. So get your butt in the restroom, mister! (or miss)

Well if you are openly drooling then I would hope you would.  But since it's whisked away down your throat then why would you need to?


(that's what breastfeeding does too)
 
2014-05-19 09:05:53 AM  
I said, 'Clearly he's a breast-feeding baby. I can't separate from him,'"

That's why you should be on maternity leave. The infant was TEN DAYS old.
 
2014-05-19 09:07:47 AM  
Something else to consider is the other outraged parents who stood by the rules and didn't bring their children in.  Sure her baby is only 10 days and won't be getting into issues.  But my one year old just might when I set him down because he got pretty damn heavy after carrying him for a couple of hours.

In some places, zero tolerance is appropriate.
 
2014-05-19 09:09:18 AM  

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

That's why you should be on maternity leave. The infant was TEN DAYS old.


Actually, unless you ask her, she tells you, or you witness it.  There is no way to know that he is a breast-feeding baby.  Many 10 day old babies are already bottle babies.
 
2014-05-19 09:09:53 AM  

dready zim: gulogulo: dready zim: gulogulo: 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?

My source is working in this sort of environment for quite a while. I buy our public liability insurance, employer liability etc and I know it costs a lot more if you have kids at your event.

This is my opinion but feel free to argue against it if you have anything.

The word `source` is not a counter argument...

/Just because they don`t print `here be dragons` on maps anymore doesn`t mean there are not dragons still there...

No shiat it wasn't a counter argument, source was a request for your source for your expertise because I find specific claims of insider knowledge spurious.  But like, it's your opinion man, so I'll just take your word for it, I guess?

No, don`t take my word for it, just do anything rather than the rather sad call for a citation being your *only* rebuttal. I have provided my source, it`s experience. I`ve worked in this environment. I`ve seen plenty of insurance documents (I arrange the public and employer liability insurance for our company) and I am friends with people that run events that need insurance. Things that are definite are stated firmly for example the section that defines terms the term `participant` may well defined it as `A person aged 16 or over` and (alongside other definitions) also restrict that to people with an invitation neither of which apply to the baby.

Not following the conditions of your insurance invalidates it. That`s a pretty big deal for events like this.

Now, what is your counter argument that is not simple incredulity based ...


You are quite defensive to being asked to back up your statements of insider knowledge. That's interesting.
 
2014-05-19 09:11:13 AM  

grinding_journalist: d23: Forget all the other arguments... what is your major malfunction in that you have to go to a trade show 10 days after your kid is born?  In any civilized part of the planet (and most non-civilized ones, too) that's bonding time with the kid.  Stay at home.

Beyond that, how can she not realize how incredibly unprofessional "working" with a child strapped to you is?

I get that trade shows are important, and often only happen once a year for a promoter or venue- but come on, lady. If you simply can't be separated for your child for 3 days, maybe you should skip the show to stay home with your child.

I have an infant son. I *once* tried to work with him sleeping and attached to me. It did not go well. Never again.


Her winery is called three daughters, named for her having three daughters, she was promoting the place as family owned and female operated.

she is charge of marketing..

the infant was a prop at that point
 
2014-05-19 09:11:36 AM  

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

That's why you should be on maternity leave. The infant was TEN DAYS old.

Actually, unless you ask her, she tells you, or you witness it.  There is no way to know that he is a breast-feeding baby.  Many 10 day old babies are already bottle babies.


I was quoting her, so yes, she told me.
 
2014-05-19 09:12:00 AM  

TNel: QueenMamaBee: You salivate. That's a bodily function. So get your butt in the restroom, mister! (or miss)

Well if you are openly drooling then I would hope you would.  But since it's whisked away down your throat then why would you need to?


Well, breast milk is whisked down the kid's throat.

I don't agree with the kid being at the trade show, but that was just a crappy argument.

Also, I've seen people openly drooling at a mall food court. Of course, it's usually small children or the developmentally disabled.
 
2014-05-19 09:16:47 AM  

skozlaw: fredklein: What about...

What about "all children for safety reasons" is confusing to you?

There is no issue here. At all. No matter how hard you try to make one. All children. Because sharp knives and fire.

End of story.


The clowns trying to make excuses for this stupid biatch are really ignorant. All children. ALL children. Up to and including the one that just schlorped out of your pussy 10 days ago. Rules are rules, assholes. Follow them or GTFO.
 
2014-05-19 09:17:50 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.


Don't exaggerate, I don't believe they make a cent over $260/hour! I've been doing machinery trade shows there for many years and believe it or not it is a lot better now than it used to be. There are some union guys there that are really good at their jobs but It's really frustrating when the labor desk sends out some dumbass that has no clue how to do his job.

/only had to bride them two times
//absolutely hate shows
 
2014-05-19 09:20:04 AM  
How did this woman not know her due date when she signed up for the trade show in the first place? I think this proves how entitled she thinks she is, because she would have done the math at some point and either thought "Well, I probably won't go into labor - it's only one day of standing on my feet - pregnant" or "Surely they'll make an exception and I should probably ask, but I'm doing the marketing, raising a 2- and a 4-year old plus  I'm pregnant. HELLO!?!"
 
2014-05-19 09:20:27 AM  
Man On A Mission: What part of "no children allowed" did she not understand?

This.

It's also annoying that she apparently called the press to complain about this.
 
2014-05-19 09:22:13 AM  
I prefer the TRA, the Texas Restaurant Association, because "Eating out is Fun".
Am I right, ladies???
Knowwhatimean, nudge nudge, wink wink...

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-05-19 09:25:50 AM  
Oh dear god, woman. Use a pump & get over yourself.
 
2014-05-19 09:34:22 AM  
sucks she had to leave, I was really looking forward to trying some of that crotchfruit whine.
 
2014-05-19 09:34:35 AM  
No one has mentioned exposing the baby to germs from thousand's of people from all over the country.  Not just typical restaurants are invited and attend. There are all types employees including those from health care facilities, strip clubs, schools, military feeders, and often prison personnel.

I work food trade shows on a regular basis, and they are no place for kids.  It is amazing how many people bring them, even though 'no children' is on every invitation and often on signage.  Chafers are mostly heated with Sterno - ie open flame at a child's face height.  Hot pans of food waiting to be toppled over by someone who drank too much the night before - lots of drinking - she was pouring wine in her booth and every major manufacturer has a "suite" they invite their customers to with.  I am waiting for some poor kid tugging on a table cloth getting covered in boiling food, it's going to happen.

And finally, at the national level, nobody is going to remember you specifically unless they knew you at home.  We often hire friends and family to cover us at these shows.  If they are clean, polite, and smell good that's about all you need in your booth passing out samples and literature.
 
2014-05-19 09:35:19 AM  

No Such Agency: Breastfeeding is a bodily function


And normal bodily functions should be hidden from the public.  Makes sense, I think.

No Such Agency: like defecation. And you don't see me defecating in the food court at the mall do you?


Well, they're alike other than the fact people shiatting wherever they like would be a major societal health concern.
 
2014-05-19 09:39:54 AM  

d23: Forget all the other arguments... what is your major malfunction in that you have to go to a trade show 10 days after your kid is born?  In any civilized part of the planet (and most non-civilized ones, too) that's bonding time with the kid.  Stay at home.


Don't forget that childbirth, especially if a c-section, can take quite some time to recover from. 10 days is barely any time to recover.

Taking care of a newborn is a lot of work. To try and take care of a newborn alone for several days, drive hundreds of miles stopping constantly to tend to the baby, waking numerous times during the the night to take care of the baby, and then to try and present at a trade show while still taking care of the baby? And all that on top of just recovering from childbirth? I don't see how its possible to do even half of that and still take good care of the baby. To even think to do something like this seems crazy. Either she is insane or a neglectful parent, and neither option speaks well of her as a parent. I hope the states child services investigates this woman.
 
2014-05-19 09:42:22 AM  
dready zim:
Are you getting confused by all this? Did your parents explain `the miracle of childbirth` to you?

OK, I`ll give it a go as you seem to have a gap in your education...

[manic rant about sex and babies]


Dude. Whatever meds you're on, increase the dosage.
 
2014-05-19 09:48:30 AM  

mutterfark: 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 image 300x250]
I see what you did there.


Came here to note that. Nice work.
 
2014-05-19 09:50:18 AM  

bender16v: Don't exaggerate, I don't believe they make a cent over $260/hour!


The tradesmen get paid $45-$75 an hour.  The company they work for charges $265/hour
 
2014-05-19 09:51:28 AM  

Miss Burns: No one has mentioned exposing the baby to germs from thousand's of people from all over the country

jaylectricity: That's why you should be on maternity leave. The infant was TEN DAYS old.

Chuck Wagon: 't forget that childbirth, especially if a c-section, can take quite some time to recover from.

d23: that's bonding time with the kid. Stay at home.


I have to ask all of you -- How many days after birth is the mother is allowed back out in public with her infant?

This lady was wrong and stupid to bring an infant to a trade show because the trade show had a no one under 16 years old policy.  That's it.  I have no idea why that forced you all to suddenly post stupid things.
 
2014-05-19 09:53:51 AM  

bender16v: /only had to bride them two times


What does this term mean?
 
2014-05-19 09:54:19 AM  
Why are so many people ITT bringing up breastfeeding?  Breastfeeding was never the issue with this woman.  The fact that she brought her CHILD to an event that did not allow CHILDREN is the issue.

No one cares about her tits except her kid.
 
2014-05-19 09:55:28 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.


A 10 day old is physically incapable of walking, crawling or even rolling over.
 
2014-05-19 09:58:00 AM  

mjohnson71: 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


Saw the same thing there and in Philly at an IT conference the guy next to us had to get a laptop monitor adapter and unscrewed one panel on the back of their display because he had been asking for about 30mins to have someone come over because he had a meeting and the union guys were the ones who put his briefcase in there to begin with and no one would come over to help. and the one guy that did was going to charge him and he said for what? the union guy left and the poor guy finally used a screw driver and unscrewed 2 screws got his back and screwed it back up and left. When it was tear down time he was sitting there alone in the huge room with none of his boxes or anything and just sitting there. Saw him later at another show and some of his equipment didn't make the flight and got "lost" and he had to sit in that place for 5 hours.
Chicago and Unions..... shocker?
 
2014-05-19 10:00:18 AM  
eat da poo poo
 
2014-05-19 10:00:24 AM  

Chronomorte: 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.


There is a difference between expectations of "societal rules" and specific, clearly enumerated rules based on liabilities and insurance. Taking the kids to an R-rated movie is something she could indeed do as their parent.

Not that I think she should, or have the capacity to care any less about her feelings. I'm just pointing out that the above situations are not synonymous.
 
2014-05-19 10:00:34 AM  

Lokkii: The only opinions that matter a bit in this case are the Insurance company's, and the Jury's.  IF the worst-case scenario happens, can the insurance company find a way to deny coverage? If they can, they will. Then you're off to court with no insurance money to cover your liability.  Additionally, if nothing happens but the insurance company finds out you didn't follow the requirements of the policy, you're likely to have your coverage for the show cancelled.

Finally, as an administrator, if I can find the Security person who let her in with the baby, that person gets fired. I don't want someone at that level bending rules. "No one under 16" is a nice bright easily enforceable rule. Once you start allowing exceptions, complexity ensues. I don't want $10 an hour personnel making complex decisions.

Hint - if she had asked in advance, the lawyers and the insurance people could have been consulted and an advised decision could have been made. It probably would have been 'No', but it would have been a considered answer. Just showing up at the show with the baby is a "Default-to-No" situation.


I get the insurance liability thing, but if her presence was important *to the show*, surely the lawyers could have come up with some kind of waiver, an agreement to hold harmless if the baby is accidentally cooked? (And honestly, the #1 danger to a 10-day-old in this situation is airborne pathogens, of the type that the kid will be vaccinated for, later.)

I also kind of understand her strategy (though I don't approve). It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission sometimes, especially when you're certain the answer will be "No, because we would have to ask our lawyers, too much trouble." So it didn't go well. Oops.

And please don't be so hard on the security guard. A newborn strapped to its mother can be rendered near-invisible with very little effort. Put a jacket on over the sling, baby fits neatly and snugly under the breast, nothing to here see at all. I'm sure this lady would have taken the typical precautions one does when smuggling in contraband.
 
2014-05-19 10:01:56 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.

Because, in a strange trick of math, 10 days is actually more than 16 years.  Weird, huh?
 
2014-05-19 10:10:33 AM  

lennavan: Miss Burns: No one has mentioned exposing the baby to germs from thousand's of people from all over the country
jaylectricity: That's why you should be on maternity leave. The infant was TEN DAYS old.
Chuck Wagon: 't forget that childbirth, especially if a c-section, can take quite some time to recover from.
d23: that's bonding time with the kid. Stay at home.

I have to ask all of you -- How many days after birth is the mother is allowed back out in public with her infant?

This lady was wrong and stupid to bring an infant to a trade show because the trade show had a no one under 16 years old policy.  That's it.  I have no idea why that forced you all to suddenly post stupid things.


Yes, because all she was doing was showing herself in public. Go fark yourself moran.
 
2014-05-19 10:12:48 AM  

Matthew Keene: Time Magazine put it bluntly.

[i.huffpost.com image 570x760]


I like this version better:

i.huffpost.com
 
2014-05-19 10:12:49 AM  

Chuck Wagon: lennavan: Miss Burns: No one has mentioned exposing the baby to germs from thousand's of people from all over the country
jaylectricity: That's why you should be on maternity leave. The infant was TEN DAYS old.
Chuck Wagon: 't forget that childbirth, especially if a c-section, can take quite some time to recover from.
d23: that's bonding time with the kid. Stay at home.

I have to ask all of you -- How many days after birth is the mother is allowed back out in public with her infant?

This lady was wrong and stupid to bring an infant to a trade show because the trade show had a no one under 16 years old policy.  That's it.  I have no idea why that forced you all to suddenly post stupid things.

Yes, because all she was doing was showing herself in public. Go fark yourself moran.


Hey there, go easy.  I was nice enough to include your comment in my list.  We both know you were trolling.  I thought you'd appreciate it.
 
2014-05-19 10:17:45 AM  

E5bie: I get the insurance liability thing, but if her presence was important *to the show*, surely the lawyers could have come up with some kind of waiver


No, her presence was not important to the show.  It sounds like her winery was more of a glorified one-person hobby.  If she were representing Taylor or Gallo and they had rented several large booths all joined together, then her employer would have had some clout with the NRA.
 
2014-05-19 10:22:07 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Why are so many people ITT bringing up breastfeeding?  Breastfeeding was never the issue with this woman.  The fact that she brought her CHILD to an event that did not allow CHILDREN is the issue.

No one cares about her tits except her kid.


This is Fark, so boobies.
 
2014-05-19 10:27:28 AM  

QueenMamaBee: TNel: QueenMamaBee: You salivate. That's a bodily function. So get your butt in the restroom, mister! (or miss)

Well if you are openly drooling then I would hope you would.  But since it's whisked away down your throat then why would you need to?

Well, breast milk is whisked down the kid's throat.

I don't agree with the kid being at the trade show, but that was just a crappy argument.

Also, I've seen people openly drooling at a mall food court. Of course, it's usually small children or the developmentally disabled.


So women don't squeeze it and spray it around like it's a fountain?!  Damn porn has me all messed up.
 
2014-05-19 10:29:47 AM  

TNel: So women don't squeeze it and spray it around like it's a fountain?!  Damn porn has me all messed up.


That's how it should be, don't let anyone tell you different.
 
2014-05-19 10:38:44 AM  
I am an advocate for breastfeeding, and I think this lady was wrong. Children are not allowed, period. The end. The trade show has every right to make and enforce that rule.

She should have hired someone to attend the show for her, if her business being represented was that important.
 
2014-05-19 10:42:26 AM  
a 10 day old baby isn't a baby. It's a omnipresent parasite in a pink blanket. You can't not feed the little monster. And she shouldn't be penalized for it's presence.
 
2014-05-19 10:45:02 AM  

mjohnson71: 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

I got in trouble at an expo during the takedown. I took a bag we had full of sensitive electronics that I had brought in with me and I left with it. You would have thought I raped everyone in the unions wife teh stink they made. From then on I just let them do it.


I have a feeling she wont be invited back to the expo next year.
 
2014-05-19 10:48:23 AM  

groppet: mjohnson71: 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

I got in trouble at an expo during the takedown. I took a bag we had full of sensitive electronics that I had brought in with me and I left with it. You would have thought I raped everyone in the unions wife teh stink they made. From then on I just let them do it.


I have a feeling she wont be invited back to the expo next year.



If she had used the union wet nurse, this wouldn't have been a problem.
 
2014-05-19 10:51:29 AM  

ko_kyi: 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.


A scary one I read about from New York:  They had identified a serious safety problem with a skyscraper.  While they were engineering a proper fix they quickly stuck some strain gauges in the building in lieu of evacuation.  Speed was important, as was keeping quiet.  The union couldn't get it done fast enough, they brought in some outside people.  One day they quit working--the union had found out about non-union wiring and ripped it out.

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.

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


Yeah, there's no good way to draw a lower line.  Thus they don't try to.  I've been in a decent number of trade shows over the years and there's always stuff around that's not safe for kids.  I've seen all sorts of sharp things lying around, I've seen toxic stuff lying around, I've seen a cup of liquid nitrogen sitting there (it was rather in the focus of attention so I won't say it was just lying around) and I've seen lots of industrial machinery operating without proper guards in place.  (Panels were opened to show how it operated.  This never happened without a rep right there discussing it but you can easily have several people and one rep--he can't watch everyone's fingers.)

gulogulo: 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.


There's no way she could have pumped--not enough time.  What she should have done is arranged some nearby caretaker, she goes out of the show to feed her baby when it's hungry.

yngdaniel: It's a trade show, not a construction site. An infant is not going to be in any particular danger by going to a trade show, they're not really spraying hot oil all over the participants. A toddler/grade schooler/preteen is potentially going to get in a lot more trouble, since they can run around, get underfoot, and touch stuff they're not supposed to touch.


When you're dealing with heavy machinery trade shows can be dangerous places.  About the only thing I've seen on a construction site that I haven't seen in a trade show is concrete equipment (and that's not to say it would never happen, just that I would have no reason to attend the sort of show that would have it) and I've seen some power tools set up for passersby to operate--something you're not likely to get away with on a construction site.

Thosw: How did this woman not know her due date when she signed up for the trade show in the first place? I think this proves how entitled she thinks she is, because she would have done the math at some point and either thought "Well, I probably won't go into labor - it's only one day of standing on my feet - pregnant" or "Surely they'll make an exception and I should probably ask, but I'm doing the marketing, raising a 2- and a 4-year old plus I'm pregnant. HELLO!?!"


You're assuming they could have sent someone else in her place.  That's often not the case.
 
2014-05-19 11:02:46 AM  

groppet: mjohnson71: 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

I got in trouble at an expo during the takedown. I took a bag we had full of sensitive electronics that I had brought in with me and I left with it. You would have thought I raped everyone in the unions wife teh stink they made. From then on I just let them do it.

I have a feeling she wont be invited back to the expo next year.


I also watched the carpenters union rep and the electricians union rep battle it out over who got to hang our HDTVs based upon what the brackets attached to. A whole wood vs metal thing.
 
2014-05-19 11:07:57 AM  
Breastfeeding is irrelevant to this discussion.  It's completely beside the point.

Anywhere the woman and her baby are permitted to be, she is allowed to breastfeed the baby.  That is her right by law and that is not in dispute.

In this case however, the child is not permitted to be there, making the entire breastfeeding angle of this discussion moot.

You can argue all day about whether an exception to the "no kids" policy should be made for a 10-day-old infant, but I'm sure what may seem a reasonable exception to many here may not seem so to the insurance companies providing liability coverage for the event, and then you have the tricky issue of where exactly you draw the line for reasonable exceptions.

This woman admittedly knew about the policy, yet assumed it wouldn't apply to her, without even bothering to check with meeting organizers.  It's the height of arrogance and self-absorption, and IFAIC she has no right to go crying to the press about a problem that should have been easily anticipated ahead of time.
 
2014-05-19 11:11:05 AM  
Two basic facts:

A. She knew the rules stated "No children under 16" before she even went.
B. She thought that her poor widdle snowfwake could be an exception but discovered otherwise.


This isn't 'Nam. This is a trade show. There are RULES.
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-19 11:11:57 AM  
What weirdo brings a 10 day old baby to a trade show?
 
2014-05-19 11:13:24 AM  

sandi_fish: What weirdo brings a 10 day old baby to a trade show?



A whino.
 
2014-05-19 11:22:41 AM  

mjohnson71: 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


And don't forget the end-of-show shakedown to get your shipping crates back.

"They're pretty far back in storage and it'll be a while before we can get to them. Unless..."

I watched them go from booth to booth collecting bribe money. Unions Rock!
 
2014-05-19 11:29:14 AM  
Read to the last line - she was invited to work a booth and planned to be pouring wine drinks there with a baby hanging from her chest. Freedom and protective laws are necessary and awesome, but they don't protect the rest of us from a lack of class.
 
2014-05-19 11:32:18 AM  
l.wigflip.com

It's a 10-day old baby swaddled around her body, not some roaming crotchfuit farking with anything it can touch.  The rule specifies children interacting with things.  This 10-day old baby isnt capable of interacting with anything at any booth unless Mom unswaddles it to play with fire.  The mom, while wanting to network, would certainly know not to take the kid to the Hibachi display.  I get that many here support the food rules but the 10-day old baby isnt capable of being harmed unless the mother was also harmed in the process.

It's really just a mask for all the people who (rightfully so) just dont want to deal with kids.  Her 10-day old isnt a kind of child any of them have to "deal with".  Leaving to be fed/changed every hour (which is what she was doing) also prevented their precious sensibilities from being invaded by it's crying.  This is simply a rule inflexibly taken to extremes.
 
2014-05-19 11:35:53 AM  

The Flexecutioner: It's really just a mask for all the people who (rightfully so) just dont want to deal with kids.  Her 10-day old isnt a kind of child any of them have to "deal with".  Leaving to be fed/changed every hour (which is what she was doing) also prevented their precious sensibilities from being invaded by it's crying.  This is simply a rule inflexibly taken to extremes.


No, it is her expecting the NRA to assume significant financial liability by waiving insurance requirements.  She had every opportunity to work something out ahead of time, but chose to just show up and hope to get her way.  It isn't a mask, it is expecting the event producers to increase their risk purely for her convenience.
 
2014-05-19 11:39:33 AM  

Hermione_Granger: 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.


Don't worry - the feeling is mutual.

That said.

Stated rule.

She was aware of rule.

She did not ask about an exception (as it would have probably been denied anyway).

She was asked to leave.

In a nutshell, between 'ask permission' or 'beg forgiveness' she opted for the latter (probably with the mindset of thinking the organizers would be less likely to deny her once she was there - she was wrong)

Trade show means business.  I am all for mothers in business but understand that there is an expectionation that the mother will need to make reasonable accomodations to handle her personal life.

This lady did not.

Until she joins the "No Sheet Sherlock" club and gets a clue, I do not foresee her business thriving.

Hopefully this recent batch of crotchfruit falls far from the trees from which they were born.
 
2014-05-19 11:42:34 AM  

The Flexecutioner: The rule specifies children interacting with things.


Does it?

The Flexecutioner: I get that many here support the food rules but the 10-day old baby isnt capable of being harmed unless the mother was also harmed in the process.


And if that happens, who is liable for injuries to the child?

The Flexecutioner: It's really just a mask for all the people who (rightfully so) just dont want to deal with kids.


Not at all.  I love kids.  I have a toddler of my own.  I don't take him places where he isn't allowed to be, and I didn't do it when he was a newborn either.

This isn't about kid-hating, this is about people with a sense of entitlement who believe that they are special and rules don't apply to them.  This is a widespread phenomenon that goes far beyond parents.
 
2014-05-19 11:44:06 AM  
has the thing been vaccinated yet?
 
2014-05-19 11:46:21 AM  

skozlaw: fredklein: What about...

What about "all children for safety reasons" is confusing to you?

There is no issue here. At all. No matter how hard you try to make one. All children. Because sharp knives and fire.

End of story.


How, exactly, can a baby, strapped to mommy, get ahold of a knife (not to mention magically grow the muscles and coordination needed to grab it)??

How, exactly, can a baby, strapped to mommy, wind up wandering around to crawl into an oven, or get burned??

I agree the ban on children is a good one- kids can get into all sorts of trouble... But not a 10 day old baby strapped to mommy.
 
2014-05-19 11:49:35 AM  

dopekitty74: OhioUGrad: 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.

The baby's only 10 days old. It takes a while to pump enough to leave baby away from mom for a few days, not to mention the extreme discomfort and embarassment of full, leaky boobs after missing a couple of feedings.


Just milk her like a cow and throw some of those feminine absorption things in her bra and she'll be fine.

/kidding
 
2014-05-19 11:49:49 AM  
Woman shocked to learn that the rules apply to her too.

Film at 11.
 
2014-05-19 11:51:08 AM  

The Flexecutioner:  This is simply a rule inflexibly taken to extremes.



rule
rool/
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.


Words.  They mean things.
 
2014-05-19 11:57:30 AM  

Doc Daneeka: The Flexecutioner: The rule specifies children interacting with things.

Does it?


The NRA spokesperson in TFA says the rule is there for safety reasons as knives, ovens and open flames are dangerous things for children to interact with. A 10 day old is only going to 'interact' with knives or fire if someone attempts to murder it in its mothers arms.
 
2014-05-19 11:59:31 AM  

Doc Daneeka: The Flexecutioner: The rule specifies children interacting with things.

Does it?

The Flexecutioner: I get that many here support the food rules but the 10-day old baby isnt capable of being harmed unless the mother was also harmed in the process.

And if that happens, who is liable for injuries to the child?

The Flexecutioner: It's really just a mask for all the people who (rightfully so) just dont want to deal with kids.

Not at all.  I love kids.  I have a toddler of my own.  I don't take him places where he isn't allowed to be, and I didn't do it when he was a newborn either.

This isn't about kid-hating, this is about people with a sense of entitlement who believe that they are special and rules don't apply to them.  This is a widespread phenomenon that goes far beyond parents.


Who is liable if an adult is harmed? It might be the NRA but it might be the booth/presenter/etc.  This should be no different if an infant was harmed.  Why not have a general waiver she has to sign to indemnify themselves of it?  Seems rational.

And you dont speak for the NRA.  Just because you dont take them places doesnt mean you know why the rule is in place.  Don't confuse kid-hating for the desires of an atmosphere not conducive to children.  Someone who circumstantially doesnt want "kids" present doesnt hate them.  Also don't confuse the capabilities of all children with that of a 10-day old infant.  She had no sense of entitlement.  She had a sense that rationality was a possibility.  Clearly she learned it wasnt.
 
2014-05-19 12:00:01 PM  

fredklein: How, exactly, can a baby, strapped to mommy, wind up wandering around to crawl into an oven, or get burned??


How about a baby, strapped to mommy, getting 3rd degree burns from hot oil splashing over her face due to an accident?

This is about insurance, not mom's rights, not breastfeeding, nothing but insurance and liability.
 
2014-05-19 12:02:28 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner:  This is simply a rule inflexibly taken to extremes.


rule
rool/
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

Words.  They mean things.


Yep.  I love it when a 6 year old is expelled from school for making a gun gesture with his fingers.  Zero tolerance is totally legit.  Totally.

/meanings have meaning
 
2014-05-19 12:02:52 PM  

eggrolls: a 10 day old baby isn't a baby. It's a omnipresent parasite in a pink blanket. You can't not feed the little monster. And she shouldn't be penalized for it's presence.


Except in the event that it's presence was clearly stated as not being allowed, as it was in this situation.
 
2014-05-19 12:05:01 PM  

Doc Daneeka: The Flexecutioner: It's really just a mask for all the people who (rightfully so) just dont want to deal with kids.


Not at all.  I love kids.  I have a toddler of my own.  I don't take him places where he isn't allowed to be, and I didn't do it when he was a newborn either.

This isn't about kid-hating, this is about people with a sense of entitlement who believe that they are special and rules don't apply to them.  This is a widespread phenomenon that goes far beyond parents.


How dare people who may be nurturing parents in their spare time not want to mix family life and work life! Travesty!
 
2014-05-19 12:06:42 PM  
I work in disability and maternity leave laws so I can say a few things in regards to the baby...

Standard post-partum recovery is 6 weeks, 8 for a C-Section.
Her employer may not be obligated to offer Maternity Leave/Family Medical Leave if their company is under 50 employees, which a winery would likely be. (I'm not counting the people picking the grapes.)
Her employer may not be obligated to offer her Maternity/FML if she's a "Key" employee, meaning nobody can replace her.

That said,  she was out of line in assuming she'd be excempt from the "no children" rule without first asking if this could be allowed. But honestly, if I had a baby 10 days ago, I'd not want to be up on my feet dealing with trade show attendees all day long. Not to mention the noise, germs, and constant interruptions to feed said baby or change nappies... Bad choice on her part all around.
 
2014-05-19 12:06:50 PM  

Target Builder: Doc Daneeka: The Flexecutioner: The rule specifies children interacting with things.

Does it?

The NRA spokesperson in TFA says the rule is there for safety reasons as knives, ovens and open flames are dangerous things for children to interact with. A 10 day old is only going to 'interact' with knives or fire if someone attempts to murder it in its mothers arms.


That may be the rationale for the reason, but I think it is unlikely that the rule specifies children interacting with things.  From the sounds of it, it is a blanket "no kids allowed" policy.

Target Builder: A 10 day old is only going to 'interact' with knives or fire if someone attempts to murder it in its mothers arms.


Accidents happen, particularly in a crowded place with heavy equipment, fire, and knives.  I'm not even talking about the infant doing anything.  You people lack imagination.  Scalding liquids can be spilled, knives can be dropped, people can turn and collide, people can trip and fall, etc.  The baby doesn't have to do or cause anything, it is easy to imagine how injuries could happen to a child.  Particularly in a crowded place, with a new mother who isn't accustomed yet to getting around with a child strapped to her.

Accidents happen, and an accident happening at a place like that to a small child is likely to result in far more serious injuries than would be suffered by an adult.

And then who is liable?
 
2014-05-19 12:07:19 PM  

The Flexecutioner: Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner:  This is simply a rule inflexibly taken to extremes.


rule
rool/
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

Words.  They mean things.

Yep.  I love it when a 6 year old is expelled from school for making a gun gesture with his fingers.  Zero tolerance is totally legit.  Totally.

/meanings have meaning


Ah, another strawman generator.  I shall farkie you as such.

One of those has absolutely nothing to do with the other, but you go ahead, you disingenuous farker, you.
 
2014-05-19 12:08:41 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: How dare people who may be nurturing parents in their spare time not want to mix family life and work life! Travesty!


I'm a nurturing parent but I don't bring my kid into my workplace because there is dangerous equipment and toxic chemicals, and because kids aren't allowed by company policy.

I would have thought that would be common sense, but I guess I am some kind of monster.
 
2014-05-19 12:11:09 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: eggrolls: a 10 day old baby isn't a baby. It's a omnipresent parasite in a pink blanket. You can't not feed the little monster. And she shouldn't be penalized for it's presence.

Except in the event that it's presence was clearly stated as not being allowed, as it was in this situation.


Whether the event organizers are legally allowed to set that rule is debatable - the Lawyer in TFA says the law allowing a woman to breastfeed anywhere where she is legally allowed to be can be overruled by safety concerns, however by the standard the trade show is applying ("It's too dangerous - there are knives in the same building!") seems more stringent than the safety exemption would have been intended for.

Given the law does protect women in restaurants, where there are frequently both knives and open flames in close proximity to infants, the NRA may have over-stepped valid safety claims in this instance.
 
2014-05-19 12:12:21 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner: Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner:  This is simply a rule inflexibly taken to extremes.


rule
rool/
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

Words.  They mean things.

Yep.  I love it when a 6 year old is expelled from school for making a gun gesture with his fingers.  Zero tolerance is totally legit.  Totally.

/meanings have meaning

Ah, another strawman generator.  I shall farkie you as such.

One of those has absolutely nothing to do with the other, but you go ahead, you disingenuous farker, you.


likewise.  you didnt actually put forth a genuine sentiment but a condescending ridicule, an extrapolated irrational connotation to what EVERY rule must adhere to based on one of many interpretive definitions of 'rule'.  it is so common you arent even worth a farkie, you disingenuous farker, you.
 
2014-05-19 12:12:22 PM  

Stoj: Hermione_Granger: 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.

Cracker-ass crackers!


I suppose that is a more concise, though somewhat crude, version of my sentiment. However, I concur.
 
2014-05-19 12:13:25 PM  

The Flexecutioner: Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner: Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner:  This is simply a rule inflexibly taken to extremes.


rule
rool/
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

Words.  They mean things.

Yep.  I love it when a 6 year old is expelled from school for making a gun gesture with his fingers.  Zero tolerance is totally legit.  Totally.

/meanings have meaning

Ah, another strawman generator.  I shall farkie you as such.

One of those has absolutely nothing to do with the other, but you go ahead, you disingenuous farker, you.

likewise.  you didnt actually put forth a genuine sentiment but a condescending ridicule, an extrapolated irrational connotation to what EVERY rule must adhere to based on one of many interpretive definitions of 'rule'.  it is so common you arent even worth a farkie, you disingenuous farker, you.



yes, yes, run along.
 
2014-05-19 12:16:22 PM  

Doc Daneeka: The My Little Pony Killer: How dare people who may be nurturing parents in their spare time not want to mix family life and work life! Travesty!

I'm a nurturing parent but I don't bring my kid into my workplace because there is dangerous equipment and toxic chemicals, and because kids aren't allowed by company policy.

I would have thought that would be common sense, but I guess I am some kind of monster.


im sure your house has a water heater, power box, outlets, cleansers, etc. but i'll go ahead and assume you know how to handle children around them.  accidents are possible everywhere. i think most of them occur in the home.  I dont think you are a monster, but clearly someone who'll take meanings to some silly conclusions.  but this is the internet, we all do that.
 
2014-05-19 12:17:03 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner: Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner: Satan's Bunny Slippers: The Flexecutioner:  This is simply a rule inflexibly taken to extremes.


rule
rool/
noun
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

Words.  They mean things.

Yep.  I love it when a 6 year old is expelled from school for making a gun gesture with his fingers.  Zero tolerance is totally legit.  Totally.

/meanings have meaning

Ah, another strawman generator.  I shall farkie you as such.

One of those has absolutely nothing to do with the other, but you go ahead, you disingenuous farker, you.

likewise.  you didnt actually put forth a genuine sentiment but a condescending ridicule, an extrapolated irrational connotation to what EVERY rule must adhere to based on one of many interpretive definitions of 'rule'.  it is so common you arent even worth a farkie, you disingenuous farker, you.


yes, yes, run along.


by all means, dont refute your hypocrisy.
 
2014-05-19 12:18:50 PM  

ConConHead: I work in disability and maternity leave laws so I can say a few things in regards to the baby...

Standard post-partum recovery is 6 weeks, 8 for a C-Section.
Her employer may not be obligated to offer Maternity Leave/Family Medical Leave if their company is under 50 employees, which a winery would likely be. (I'm not counting the people picking the grapes.)
Her employer may not be obligated to offer her Maternity/FML if she's a "Key" employee, meaning nobody can replace her.

That said,  she was out of line in assuming she'd be excempt from the "no children" rule without first asking if this could be allowed. But honestly, if I had a baby 10 days ago, I'd not want to be up on my feet dealing with trade show attendees all day long. Not to mention the noise, germs, and constant interruptions to feed said baby or change nappies... Bad choice on her part all around.


After all that concern-mongering, you must be exhausted.

Oh no, not germs. Not diaper changes. Why what a terrible mother she must be to expose her baby to the public after a mere 10 days out of the womb. Why in the history of motherhood, well, I never heard of such.

tsk, tsk tsk.

I think you'll be putting your hand to your forehead and saying, "I swan," any moment now.
 
2014-05-19 12:22:46 PM  

Doc Daneeka: Accidents happen, particularly in a crowded place with heavy equipment, fire, and knives.  I'm not even talking about the infant doing anything.  You people lack imagination.  Scalding liquids can be spilled, knives can be dropped, people can turn and collide, people can trip and fall, etc.  The baby doesn't have to do or cause anything, it is easy to imagine how injuries could happen to a child.  Particularly in a crowded place, with a new mother who isn't accustomed yet to getting around with a child strapped to her.


If the risks of serious injury due to blades or burns are as great as you indicate the event seems to be violating OSHA regulations by not requiring all attendees to wear appropriate personal protective equipment.

I also note that all your objections would apply in restaurants - probably even moreso, where women in IL do have the right to breastfeed.
 
2014-05-19 12:39:47 PM  

Target Builder: The My Little Pony Killer: eggrolls: a 10 day old baby isn't a baby. It's a omnipresent parasite in a pink blanket. You can't not feed the little monster. And she shouldn't be penalized for it's presence.

Except in the event that it's presence was clearly stated as not being allowed, as it was in this situation.

Whether the event organizers are legally allowed to set that rule is debatable - the Lawyer in TFA says the law allowing a woman to breastfeed anywhere where she is legally allowed to be can be overruled by safety concerns, however by the standard the trade show is applying ("It's too dangerous - there are knives in the same building!") seems more stringent than the safety exemption would have been intended for.

Given the law does protect women in restaurants, where there are frequently both knives and open flames in close proximity to infants, the NRA may have over-stepped valid safety claims in this instance.


Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.
 
2014-05-19 12:40:32 PM  

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).


But it could be an insurance issue.  They get a cheaper insurance rate if they check the "no children" box.  Having an infant would mean that their ARE children present, and change their insurance rates.
 
2014-05-19 12:44:38 PM  

Target Builder: The My Little Pony Killer: eggrolls: a 10 day old baby isn't a baby. It's a omnipresent parasite in a pink blanket. You can't not feed the little monster. And she shouldn't be penalized for it's presence.

Except in the event that it's presence was clearly stated as not being allowed, as it was in this situation.

Whether the event organizers are legally allowed to set that rule is debatable - the Lawyer in TFA says the law allowing a woman to breastfeed anywhere where she is legally allowed to be can be overruled by safety concerns, however by the standard the trade show is applying ("It's too dangerous - there are knives in the same building!") seems more stringent than the safety exemption would have been intended for.

Given the law does protect women in restaurants, where there are frequently both knives and open flames in close proximity to infants, the NRA may have over-stepped valid safety claims in this instance.



My guess that the "safety concerns" were defined by the insurance company they is providing the liability insurance for the event.  IF children are in attendance, they might have to pay more for insurance.  So to prove that they don't have legitimate safety concerns would be also proving that the insurance company has no reason to charge more.   Good luck with that.
 
2014-05-19 12:45:23 PM  

BizarreMan: Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.


Relevant text of the law:

" Sec. 10. Breastfeeding Location.  A mother may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding; however, a mother considering whether to breastfeed her baby in a place of worship shall comport her behavior with the norms appropriate in that place of worship. "

She was authorized to be there.

I'd be interested to see the relevant section of law that provides an exemption if the venue says children are not permitted. I'm having a hard time finding it - perhaps you can help me out.
 
2014-05-19 12:49:39 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Why are so many people ITT bringing up breastfeeding?  Breastfeeding was never the issue with this woman.  The fact that she brought her CHILD to an event that did not allow CHILDREN is the issue.

No one cares about her tits except her kid.


Not true.  She brought it up in the article as a defense for why she brought the baby, and why they should have let her stay with the kid in the convention.
 
2014-05-19 12:53:26 PM  
No kids allowed, including babes in arms. That much is clear, but as for breastfeeding offending sensibilities, get over it.

While the prudish countries of the world wring their hands about whether breastfeeding is a body function, the rest of the world ignores it, smiles at it, and openly supports it.

Three days ago, a woman sat down in front of me on the metro with her child, pulled out her boob and started to breastfeed in a standing room only rush hour train car. At least 15 people saw part of her boob, and more knew what she was doing.

There was not even a pause in conversation. No one cares, nor should they.

This is in South America, but I have also had this happen in Europe, where I am from.

I have only ever heard people from the States, Canada, British Isles, or Australia give a damn about the fact that boobs are primarily for feeding the young or that women don't want to feed their kids in the bathroom. (why don't you go eat your dinner 3 feet from a smelly stall in a public bathroom and see how you like it)

The woman in the article was wrong to bring her kid, but those complaining about breastfeeding need to grow the hell up and get over it.
 
2014-05-19 01:05:21 PM  

bigbobowski: 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.


It's not really so much about breastfeeding here. It's more because she KNEW that children under the age of 16 weren't permitted at the trade show because of safety issues (open flames, knives, etc.). She wasn't denied entry to the trade show because she was breastfeeding. She was denied entry because she had a child with her.
 
2014-05-19 01:05:32 PM  

J.Shelby: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Why are so many people ITT bringing up breastfeeding?  Breastfeeding was never the issue with this woman.  The fact that she brought her CHILD to an event that did not allow CHILDREN is the issue.

No one cares about her tits except her kid.

Not true.  She brought it up in the article as a defense for why she brought the baby, and why they should have let her stay with the kid in the convention.


True in that she was NOT told to leave because she was breastfeeding.  That was a non issue.  The issue is there are no children allowed at the event, and a 10 day old baby is still a child, therefore not allowed at the event.

She only brought up breastfeeding as her excuse to exempt herself from the attendance rules of the event without checking in advance to see if that would indeed be the case.

So, no, it's not about breastfeeding.
 
2014-05-19 01:10:04 PM  

gulogulo: You are quite defensive to being asked to back up your statements of insider knowledge. That's interesting.


You are failing to counter my arguments and are *only* questioning my knowledge.

That`s boring.
 
2014-05-19 01:22:19 PM  

Rain Fall: No kids allowed, including babes in arms. That much is clear, but as for breastfeeding offending sensibilities, get over it.

While the prudish countries of the world wring their hands about whether breastfeeding is a body function, the rest of the world ignores it, smiles at it, and openly supports it.

Three days ago, a woman sat down in front of me on the metro with her child, pulled out her boob and started to breastfeed in a standing room only rush hour train car. At least 15 people saw part of her boob, and more knew what she was doing.



So in other words....she exposed a group of people to her bodily fluids which may or may not be contaminated with bloodborne pathogens including, but not limited to, Hep-B or HIV.
 
2014-05-19 01:23:06 PM  

ConConHead: I work in disability and maternity leave laws so I can say a few things in regards to the baby...

Standard post-partum recovery is 6 weeks, 8 for a C-Section.
Her employer may not be obligated to offer Maternity Leave/Family Medical Leave if their company is under 50 employees, which a winery would likely be. (I'm not counting the people picking the grapes.)
Her employer may not be obligated to offer her Maternity/FML if she's a "Key" employee, meaning nobody can replace her.

That said,  she was out of line in assuming she'd be excempt from the "no children" rule without first asking if this could be allowed. But honestly, if I had a baby 10 days ago, I'd not want to be up on my feet dealing with trade show attendees all day long. Not to mention the noise, germs, and constant interruptions to feed said baby or change nappies... Bad choice on her part all around.


Yeah, while I think it's kinda rotten that she was kicked out AFTER being let in WITH the baby, I too think she's either very dedicated to her business, to the detriment of her own and baby's well-being, or just a glutton for punishment.
 
2014-05-19 01:31:30 PM  

dready zim: gulogulo: You are quite defensive to being asked to back up your statements of insider knowledge. That's interesting.

You are failing to counter my arguments and are *only* questioning my knowledge.

That`s boring.


Yup.

/Would people really do that? Just go on the internet and lie?
 
2014-05-19 01:35:11 PM  

BizarreMan: Target Builder: The My Little Pony Killer: eggrolls: a 10 day old baby isn't a baby. It's a omnipresent parasite in a pink blanket. You can't not feed the little monster. And she shouldn't be penalized for it's presence.

Except in the event that it's presence was clearly stated as not being allowed, as it was in this situation.

Whether the event organizers are legally allowed to set that rule is debatable - the Lawyer in TFA says the law allowing a woman to breastfeed anywhere where she is legally allowed to be can be overruled by safety concerns, however by the standard the trade show is applying ("It's too dangerous - there are knives in the same building!") seems more stringent than the safety exemption would have been intended for.

Given the law does protect women in restaurants, where there are frequently both knives and open flames in close proximity to infants, the NRA may have over-stepped valid safety claims in this instance.

Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.


So why did they let her in with the baby in the first place?
 
2014-05-19 01:41:40 PM  
dopekitty74:

So why did they let her in with the baby in the first place?

I have no proof, but having been to a couple of trade shows, both as exhibitor and attendee, I'd guess (and it's only a guess) that in the chaos of getting through the back exhibitor entrance, she basically slipped through.  Pretty much once you get your exhibitor ID tag (usually in advance) around your neck in plain view, no one really pays attention to you unless you're doing something weird.  A baby that old wouldn't be hard to semi-conceal under a loose shawl/babby carrier/sling thing.

Like I said, just a guess, but I'd be willing to put up a soft drink for it.  :)
 
2014-05-19 01:57:00 PM  

Target Builder: BizarreMan: Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.

Relevant text of the law:

" Sec. 10. Breastfeeding Location.  A mother may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding; however, a mother considering whether to breastfeed her baby in a place of worship shall comport her behavior with the norms appropriate in that place of worship. "

She was authorized to be there.

I'd be interested to see the relevant section of law that provides an exemption if the venue says children are not permitted. I'm having a hard time finding it - perhaps you can help me out.


The law is clearly intended to allow a mothers to breastfeed in any location that she and her child are authorized to be.

It cannot be the case that the breastfeeding law is intended to enable mothers to bring small children into places that children are not allowed (whether for safety, security, or other reasons), because that would be an absurd loophole.  There are many places that children are not allowed to be for any number of reasons.
 
2014-05-19 02:37:33 PM  

Target Builder: BizarreMan: Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.

Relevant text of the law:

" Sec. 10. Breastfeeding Location.  A mother may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breastfeeding; however, a mother considering whether to breastfeed her baby in a place of worship shall comport her behavior with the norms appropriate in that place of worship. "

She was authorized to be there.

I'd be interested to see the relevant section of law that provides an exemption if the venue says children are not permitted. I'm having a hard time finding it - perhaps you can help me out.


So she is free to breastfeed all she wants.  That isn't the issue.  The infant was not allowed to be there.  So the infant had to leave.  As the infants caretakers, that means she had to leave with the baby.
 
2014-05-19 02:44:34 PM  
My wife was breastfeeding our son one day and some jackass cop decided to try to give her a ticket.  If I had known that there was a law stating "A mother may breastfeed her baby in any location, public or private, where the mother is otherwise authorized to be..", I would have told her to ignore the cop and keep driving.
 
2014-05-19 03:22:06 PM  
ts4.mm.bing.net
Add kids+ wood spoons and we got hell.
 
2014-05-19 04:04:23 PM  
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.

What?  When you say "no children", you mean *my* children?

lol
 
2014-05-19 05:20:53 PM  

fredklein: skozlaw: fredklein: What about...

What about "all children for safety reasons" is confusing to you?

There is no issue here. At all. No matter how hard you try to make one. All children. Because sharp knives and fire.

End of story.

How, exactly, can a baby, strapped to mommy, get ahold of a knife (not to mention magically grow the muscles and coordination needed to grab it)??

How, exactly, can a baby, strapped to mommy, wind up wandering around to crawl into an oven, or get burned??

I agree the ban on children is a good one- kids can get into all sorts of trouble... But not a 10 day old baby strapped to mommy.


I have worked retail and have seen parents with babies do the most insane, unthinking, dangerous things. And I've gone to Walmart and seen far worse.

I watched a woman with a newborn (later revealed to be 1 week old) try to haul a heavy box, balancing part of it on the baby in the sling so she could pull it off the shelf.

I watched another woman, frustrated by the slow meandering pace of her toddler, yank the leash, causing the kid to fall, and then DRAG him about 10 feet.

Another fool dashed for the revolving door lugging a toddler and didn't get the timing right.

I've also had babies puke on books, sneeze all over the salad bar, etc.

Parenting definitely isn't for everybody, and even the smart ones can't be omniscient and omnipresent.

Unless it's a specifically family-friendly show that welcomes kids, the child will be a problem for liability and for adding to the mix of noise and distraction. Rules exist for a reason.
 
2014-05-19 05:23:19 PM  

fredklein: 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.


Take it to the abortion threads where it belongs. 

This is about whether there is one body or two -- if the womb is occupied, that's one person.
 
2014-05-19 06:43:55 PM  
I read the first maybe third of the comments, and some of you people are such self-entitled a-holes that I thought I'd better chime in and set you dumbfarks right.

How about an emergency occurs at the event and there is a mad scramble.  She's top heavy what with swollen knockers and a baby in a sling thing, and thus takes a tumble in a mad scramble to escape.  The baby, with it's still-forming skull, is severely injured, far more than any adult would be in a similar situation.  Who pays for his extensive future medical care, when a sane policy could have been put in place to protect the child (as it was, in this case, by excluding children)?

Or how about I provide a solution to the whole thing:  She's in town for a few days, apparently, for a multi-day trade show (correct me if I'm wrong about that.  So, she obviously has a hotel room in town.  How about the husband and two other kids come along and he can watch them all day while she works?  Or maybe you bring some neighbor kid with you to babysit?  Or maybe you find child care in Chicago for a couple of days?  No can do?  OK, then I guess you can't make the reality of your life match what you want to do with your career.  Tough.  That is, by definition, life.  Not everything works out just so.
 
2014-05-19 06:49:50 PM  

dopekitty74: BizarreMan: Target Builder: The My Little Pony Killer: eggrolls: a 10 day old baby isn't a baby. It's a omnipresent parasite in a pink blanket. You can't not feed the little monster. And she shouldn't be penalized for it's presence.

Except in the event that it's presence was clearly stated as not being allowed, as it was in this situation.

Whether the event organizers are legally allowed to set that rule is debatable - the Lawyer in TFA says the law allowing a woman to breastfeed anywhere where she is legally allowed to be can be overruled by safety concerns, however by the standard the trade show is applying ("It's too dangerous - there are knives in the same building!") seems more stringent than the safety exemption would have been intended for.

Given the law does protect women in restaurants, where there are frequently both knives and open flames in close proximity to infants, the NRA may have over-stepped valid safety claims in this instance.

Except the breast feeding is totally irrelevant to the story.  If she and the infant were allowed to be in the show and were evicted due to breast-feeding then yes, it's a point that must be addressed.  But she is allowed in and the infant is not.  Plain and simple.  The baby isn't a get away from the rules and do whatever I want because I may need to nurse it at some point in time card.

So why did they let her in with the baby in the first place?


Because somebody made a mistake and it was later corrected.
 
2014-05-19 08:51:25 PM  

Man On A Mission: What part of "no children allowed" did she not understand?

/ yes, the rules DO apply to you


Done in one. Don't see a problem here. If it's clearly posted that no children are allowed, and she clearly acknowledged it, then it's a non-story. The only, only reason we're seeing anything about it here is that the initials "NRA" are involved.
 
2014-05-19 11:52:24 PM  
FTA:

who takes charge of marketing for her family-owned Spring Valley winery, Four Daughters Vineyard


I now think there was another ploy - any publicity is good publicity. Guess who I am going to advocate boycotting?
 
2014-05-20 12:50:25 PM  

JustLookin: I read the first maybe third of the comments, and some of you people are such self-entitled a-holes that I thought I'd better chime in and set you dumbfarks right.

How about an emergency occurs at the event and there is a mad scramble.  She's top heavy what with swollen knockers and a baby in a sling thing, and thus takes a tumble in a mad scramble to escape.  The baby, with it's still-forming skull, is severely injured, far more than any adult would be in a similar situation.  Who pays for his extensive future medical care, when a sane policy could have been put in place to protect the child (as it was, in this case, by excluding children)?

Or how about I provide a solution to the whole thing:  She's in town for a few days, apparently, for a multi-day trade show (correct me if I'm wrong about that.  So, she obviously has a hotel room in town.  How about the husband and two other kids come along and he can watch them all day while she works?  Or maybe you bring some neighbor kid with you to babysit?  Or maybe you find child care in Chicago for a couple of days?  No can do?  OK, then I guess you can't make the reality of your life match what you want to do with your career.  Tough.  That is, by definition, life.  Not everything works out just so.


Or the rest of the world could just stfu while the infant quietly sleeps on her chest at the goddamned trade show.

See how farking simple that was. One sentence even.

/assholes
 
2014-05-20 05:11:34 PM  

Hermione_Granger: Or the rest of the world could just stfu while the infant quietly sleeps on her chest at the goddamned trade show.


Because that's what babies do, they quietly sleep.  They never scream and throw a fit bothering everyone around them.
 
Displayed 180 of 180 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report