'grammar correctness has little to do with cogitative competence.'

So you're not dyslexic, you just have no respect for anyone trying to read your posts. How can you demand 'manners', yet not give any respect to people who you wish to address.

How are your comments of more 'substance' than mine? So I jokingly use 'Prozac' (a commonly used symbol for depression) as a shorthand way of saying that someone's view of the world is overly negative. Do you think depression is somehow shameful? Do you think it's offensive to see a glass half full?

Provocation can include substance, and I'm under no obligation to supply substance anyway, especially to your requirements.

'It is not some arcane code for anyone in particular'
That's my point. You think my comments are personally insulting, I think the attitude portrayed in your comments is generally insulting.

'Your solution analysing why one has wants children'
No it wasn't. You're always the one going on about context, and I explained in my last post that was nothing to do with wanting children and everything to do with self-loathing earth worshippers and general human haters.

'What do you think this says about the real you? '
Nothing. As on OLO I am but a persona. I play a part to keep the ball rolling where I would like it to roll. What the statement means is that instinct is under-rated and micro-analysis over-rated in problem solving. Some people find feeling harder or more scary. You should read the book 'Blink'.

In summary, you insult people while hiding behind a cloak of civility and formality, whereas I insult people outwardly and cushion it with humour.

'Your made the personal criticism of you. I challenged what you SAID.'
You lumped me in with your 'other' and threw scorn and disdain at the 'other'. I remained indifferent to the lumping me in, but wanted to point out the ugliness of your disdain for a great many people.

BTW: pontificator is very apt, I originally called you that, and you only bother to use 1 letter to address me,

The egos, they clash, yes?
Yet opinions abound and observation of life pours forth. It is a good thing.
Examinator
It is true that there exists extremes in the way parents attend to their children. Your examples were right on the mark. There are children in our society that do not have the moral guidance that we would wish. As I pointed out, the regulatory mechanisms available in smaller close knit societies are missing.
Houellebecq
I commend your attitude to your own children. I believe they should have autonomy to explore their world without pressure to achieve every step of the way.
I wonder how we arrived at this point. Most of us posting here would have experienced the delicious freedom during our childhoods of messing about beyond the gaze of our parents. Richard Louv wrote a book titled "Last Child In The Woods" on this subject.
We have taken the extra step of homeschooling our son. We do some prescribed book work , but most of his learning is self-directed. We find this works beautifully for him. We find that he is more likely to soak up information and experience if he is interested in the subject. So his life is not full of being rushed here and there, and yet he learns - he moves forward with a bit of guidance from us and a lot of enthusiasm on his part.
I suppose it is difficult for people without children to understand the idea of what they represent in one's life - and this means different things to different parents. To be a parent is a many faceted experience as new emotions are revealed as you move through the years.

From today’s Courier Mail:

‘Million dollar munchkins’.

‘The cost of raising kids has hit the $1 million mark.’

‘Adding the cost of electronics, private tutoring and sports and dance classes and considering the average child now stays home until 24 the real cost to the Australian parent of raising children is $1 028 093.’

Hooweee, am I ever glad that I’m not a parent!!

I love random statistics as much as the next man. Ludwig. but I'm not sure about this one

>>the real cost to the Australian parent of raising children is $1,028,093<<

Average full-time earnings in Australia were $62,270 per annum in 2009 according to the ABS.

Tax on that would be around $13,581, leaving $48,689.

Net earnings over the 24 years would therefore be $1,168,536.

Which leaves you $16 a day to live on.

On second thoughts, that sounds about right...