I'm sorry; what I sought to convey was the impression that the attitude you hold is not altogether different from the one owned by pts1, whose post emphasizing said attitude you appraised to be "entirely out of order"; this attitude is to the main theme of the thread in which this conversation is being made - that theme which I see so often recurring in the annals of Pianostreet sparking discontentment in such cases as now: m1469 and her personal philosophical posts.
Thank you for your clarity on this.
The particular contents of the post to which I took exception began
"m1469
You are 38 years old now. You don't seem to be in touch with reality. Its almost too late for you to have a baby, and I don't think you should. You are a child yourself. You should ask for help from the people in your church or your family. I will talk with them if you like. What does your sister say?"
The reasons for my reaction are as follows.
1. If such sentiments are to be expressed at all (and I am not implying that they should be), the proper place in which to do so in in a PM or personal email addressed to m1469 herself.
2. Revealing m1469's age (correctly or otherwise) is publishing a statistic that is pesonal and of no relevance to the matter under discussion.
3. To state that m1469 seems not to be in touch with reality is a personal opinion and any public expression of such an opinion should make that clear rather than presenting it as though an incontrovertible fact.
4. The suggestion that it's almost too late for her to have a baby is as offensive as it is inaccurate, since the poster offering it has no idea whether or when she might want to consider doing so and the age of 38 is hardly close to the end of the line for conception these days; more importantly, however, not only would any decision on this be for m1469 and her husband alone to make, it has absolutely no bearing on what's been discussed in the thread.
5. For the poster to add insult to injury by suggesting that m1469 shouldn't have a baby in any case would do better to mind his/her own business since, as I have already stated, that decision is not his/hers to make and, in any case, unless he/she has a longstanding close personal acquiantanceship with m1469, his/her assertion here can have no foundation whatsoever.
6. The suggestion that m1469 (whose age has already been revealed, accurately or otherwise, by the poster as 38) is "a child herself" is gratuitous, especially if the poster is not personally acquainted with her.
7. The suggestion that m1469 seek "help from the people in (her) church or (her) family is likewise gratuitous, since it does not mention what help or for what, why any "church" should be involved or on what grounds which members of her family might beneficially be consulted about what; the poster's offer to "talk with them" smacks of patronising interference and the question of what mayl's sister says about a subject unspecified by the poster is likewise.
I have expressed few views on any aspect of the matter covered in this thread but none that I have expressed are in any sense incompatible either with the reaction that I expressed to the post to which I took exception or indeed to what I've written above in response to yours. For the record and for the avoidance of doubt, I do indeed harbour reservations about the manner and extent to which m1469 follows what has increasingly of late become a common trend to lay bare far more facts and thoughts in a public forum than are likely to be of any benefit to her or to anyone else - the spectacle of such indiscriminately self-enforced public nudity is often a less than welcome one - but my view on this in no wise gainsays my opinion that the post concerned was "out of order".
Best,
Alistair