How would you respond to this email, Brothers wedding invite?

spugzbunny

This is totally totally bonkers!

People are taking this as a personal attack on their own decisions and their children.

The only FACTS we have from the OP are the emails sent back and forth, the date and the fact that they live at the opposite end of the country (no mileage).

From this we have tales of bridezilla the SIL, the brides evil parents, selfish family obbsessed OP mother (who is actually a father), staying in a hotel alone on Christmas day 400 miles away.

People ... take ... it ... down ... a ... notch. Your mental is showing.

Torry_Quine

It may not even be the lack of a baby sitter, they may just not want to go away to a family wedding without all of their family.

moggylover

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

[/B]



Why do you insist on twisting things? No one has hurled abuse at you for expressing your opinion but you have worded your opinion in such a way as to be offensive IMHO.

Exactly, and it is not the first time during the discussion:(

andrealm

Torry_Quine wrote: »

It may not even be the lack of a baby sitter, they may just not want to go away to a family wedding without all of their family.

Yes, and that is entirely their choice, just as it's the couple's choice to have a child free wedding. BOTH their choices should be equally respected, but now some people are trying to make out the OP is in the wrong for turning down the invitation.

poet123

spugzbunny wrote: »

This is totally totally bonkers!

People are taking this as a personal attack on their own decisions and their children.

The only FACTS we have from the OP are the emails sent back and forth, the date and the fact that they live at the opposite end of the country (no mileage).

From this we have tales of bridezilla the SIL, the brides evil parents, selfish family obbsessed OP mother (who is actually a father), staying in a hotel alone on Christmas day 400 miles away.

People ... take ... it ... down ... a ... notch. Your mental is showing.

To be fair it is all just supposition, but there was no invective until Elvis weighed in with not so subtle insult of those with opposing viewpoints.

dizziblonde

I see the usual hysterical "child-free weddings are evil" brigade are out in force now. Could have predicted the hysteria by about page 3.

Their wedding = their choice.

andrealm

dizziblonde wrote: »

I see the usual hysterical "child-free weddings are evil" brigade are out in force now. Could have predicted the hysteria by about page 3.

Their wedding = their choice.

Along with the "anyone who doesn't go to the ends of the earth to find a babysitter at Xmas is evil" brigade.

Their children= their choice.

poet123

dizziblonde wrote: »

I see the usual hysterical "child-free weddings are evil" brigade are out in force now. Could have predicted the hysteria by about page 3.

Their wedding = their choice.

You see, if those who are debating the opposing viewpoint had said " I see the child hating, self centred, selfish mob are out in force" they would in the wrong......;) Two rules methinks:T

But, of course, they didn't!:D

POPPYOSCAR

dizziblonde wrote: »

I see the usual hysterical "child-free weddings are evil" brigade are out in force now. Could have predicted the hysteria by about page 3.

Their wedding = their choice.

I don't think child free weddings are evil and havn't seen that said on here.

Their wedding = their choice- has been said over and over again.
Their invitation= their right to turn it down. works both ways.

moggylover

dizziblonde wrote: »

I see the usual hysterical "child-free weddings are evil" brigade are out in force now. Could have predicted the hysteria by about page 3.

Their wedding = their choice.

I've never considered them evil: petty, uptight, anal, and even unnatural yes, but not evil:)

Could have predicted all the "children will spoil it" hysteria by page 3 as well;)