Nice try, c-dub, but you really aren't reading what I am saying anymore than you claimed I wasn't reading what you were saying. First off, not inviting someone to your party isn't mistreatment. It's not even rude. It's just a personal choice based on your relationship with that person. If that person chooses to feel bad, that's their problem. Perhaps it will teach Kid 1 a lesson in slighting people (and yes, that could come back to haunt this kid too...that's life). Perhaps Kid 2, who had a falling out with this kid, wouldn't even care. Either way, I'm sure those kids aren't scarred for life.

The teacher acted inappropriately. She did not pay for the invitations or put work into them as this kid and his parents did, so she basically stole them. She humiliated rather than act in a way that might have taught the boy to be more tactful, but since teacher had no clue what tact really is, this happened. He was in no way obligated to invite those two kids, so why is the teacher punishing him so harshly by confiscating the invitations? The idea that it was such a disruption doesn't hold water. Were it just a matter of disrupting class, the teacher could have easily gotten the point across minus the drama, which was probably a bigger disruption than his handing out the invitations was in the first place. Had he invited the whole class, the invitations would not have been a disruption, but now that the parents are involved, it's convenient to call his handing out invitations a disruption, isn't it?

Coming down on a child like some rabid harpy and taking his things is not deserved, and actually a bit cruel. It's one thing to allow a child to go through the little heartbreaks and humiliations that come along with childhood. Everyone's been slighted at one point or another. Everyone has done the slighting at one point or another too. That's normal, natural, and not really a big deal. Again, I'm sure that the uninvited kids will live.

Talking to someone about a behavior they feel is inappropriate when the child was acting innocently is not coddling. The teacher could have done this, but instead chose to be a tool.

The logic you are claiming is mine is conveniently and wrongly twisted. Children shouldn't make the team if they can't hit the ball and it sucks. Children shouldn't be coddled and told that they can all be Snow White. Children should learn that treating their peers like crap won't get them invited to the party. However, an adult has no business acting like a spoiled child and should know better than to call someone out the way she did this kid.

I resent the hell out of anyone that has the gall to tell me my life is meaningless because I am not interested in having kids. If anything, I am more responsible than the idiots who have them for all the wrong reasons and come to regret it and become the cause for that kid's therapy as an adult. I'm happy without them, thank you very much. I'm not selfish. I'm not a child hater. I am perfectly fulfilled, and the only thing that would make me even more fulfilled will be getting my tubes tied when time allows.

No, life is not happy 24/7 whether you have kids or not. That's a very narrow and judgemental comment there, Colt. But, for some of us, it's a whole lot happier without children to raise. If kids are for you, flippin' wonderful, have as many as you can afford, but please, don't pretend that being a parent makes a person somehow more noble or superior to those that don't want them.

The teacher blew things right out of proportion. All she had to do was pull the kid aside and ask him to do it either a. on his own time, or b. during a break in the day where it would not be as obvious to the other kids (like they weren't going to find out if they'd been mailed anyhow). To take them away from the kid was ten times more humiliating for the kid that it would have been for the two uninvited kids no matter how it was done. The teacher is a tool.

Great headline, but really, while I think it's a fashion crime to wear one's pants like that, making it an actual crime is ridiculous. Have they solved all the cases in their department and run out of doughnuts?

How is it impolite to not invite two people you aren't friends with to a party? It's not rude if he is not disrupting the class. A teacher can and should correct bad behavior, but it's not his or her business to get bent out of shape over a snub. And remember, the one kid that was not invited didn't invite him to a party earlier. How come that was not an issue at the time? We don't know if that kid handed out invitations in class, granted, but that's what most kids do when they have a party.

Did it occur to you that this PC idiocy is why the father got fed up and took the issue to the government? Is it extreme? Sure. I would have just dealt with it through a conference with the teacher. However, this coddling and making everyone feel special trend is producing a bunch of soft people that are kept in a bubble until the big bad world drives them to file frivolous lawsuits because someone distressed them.

Forg, I ran into the same problem in the US. I have it on good authority however, that they respect a woman's right to tie her tubes in the UK.

Superunknown pretty much said it right there, but I'm just responding to c-dub. It is a PC driven bit of drivel when you are not allowed to hand out party invitations to everyone but those two kids that aren't your friends to begin with. Again, none of us really know whether he did this in a disruptive manner or if the teacher happened to notice and made an issue out of it. However, as Superunknown has said, it's not the kid's responsibility to avoid the snub nor the teacher's to prevent it. You wouldn't invite people to your house that you don't like, would you? That's not being mean.

It seems that the people outraged by this and insisting that it should be all or none invited are bitter that they didn't get an invitation to something at some point and are still angry, or are of the kind who think the losing team deserves a trophy too and that there should be 25 Snow Whites. That's not how life works.

Besides, even if he had mailed the invitations, after the party, the two kids that weren't invited would feel snubbed anyway because the other kids would be talking about it.

Grandchildren are different. They are a source of intense pride, but they go home at the end of the day. ;)

I think everyone is missing something here, except for maybe PK. As long as it's not a big production number, what is the big deal about handing a kid you get along with an invitation? You are not obligated to invite everyone just so they don't feel left out. He was not invited to that one kid's party and had a falling out with the other one. Big whoooooop. Just because the teacher happened to twig on what he was doing doesn't mean he had to invite everyone, or that his invitations were necessarily a disruption. Grow up. Part of it is not always getting invited to the big party. This is one of those things where the kid is being honest in who he wants at his house, and the administration is trying to control it. I'm so glad that I am not a part of this weak, soft, PC generation.

This is just another example of the PC Brigade going to far. When will this idiotic trend end?

Mr. Evilbeagle and I have chosen not to have children for a whole myriad of reasons. My sister on the other hand, is on her third in three years and forever asking when we'll change our minds. I love my sister and her kids, but when I compare her responsibilities to mine, it just makes me all the more happy to have dogs instead. This article isn't saying anything new, it's just admitting what people have been afraid to say for fear of being deemed horrible parents. I'm sure that there's a lot to be happy about when you have kids, but the trade off was never worth it to me.

Good for them!!!

And yes, the nun had the classic, "Ay Dios mio!!" look on her face. I lost it when I saw that.

Even as a little girl, I was never a big Barbie fan, but I would soooo buy this.

LOL, Neatoramawont... I thought the same thing.

Kyraii, do you know that if you do not take a person off of a list when they request, that after three more calls, they can report the company to the FCC and as of 1993, it was a $10,000 fine in Florida? This is why I always made sure that in my messing with the telemarketers, I got as much information as I could because one of those companies, thanks to me, did get hit with that fine.

I do not tolerate telemarketing calls. Again, I am not one to tell off the poor sod that has to work there and make the call, but I will have fun with them because it's the nicest I can be when someone is calling me with a useless phone call.

When I lived in the US, I was one of the first on the do not call list, and any abuses of that were reported. Why? Because I only give out my phone number to people I want to hear from. My home is my sanctuary. I don't want anyone to disrupt the peaceful, personal world I have carved out for myself unless that person is a welcome disruption, such as a friend or family member.

Telemarketing is rude by its very concept. Of all the things a person can do on a phone, next to hanging up on someone, it is the rudest thing you can do. Calling someone to sell them something, push for donations, or take surveys is akin to walking into a stranger's bathroom while they are on the toilet and striking up a conversation. This is why I make it a point to never buy from, or give to a charity that uses these tactics.