Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Marysecretary

Three is the roughest number to have. I'm not sure why, but we saw it in our family (six) and most of the moms at my church agree, three is a tough number of kids.


50 posted on 10/19/2005 2:17:47 PM PDT by Vor Lady (Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Grannyx4

Going from two to three was a harder transition than going from one to two. Individually, we had run out of arms, and collectively, we had run out of laps.
; )


52 posted on 10/19/2005 2:54:04 PM PDT by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Grannyx4

I agree, three is the worst, and after five, the additional ones don't seem like much more work. It's like cats, I guess ... once you hit the Critical Mass, you can add more indefinitely.


53 posted on 10/19/2005 3:03:01 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Neither the depth of despondency nor the height of euphoria tells you how long either will last. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Grannyx4

I think it's because the two older kids gang up on the youngest. And then there's the middle child who thinks everone gets the perks but him. Hmmmm. Such a mystery. We had four in my family--two girls and two boys-- and NONE of us ever got along.


84 posted on 10/23/2005 7:54:57 PM PDT by Marysecretary (Thank you, Lord, for FOUR MORE YEARS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson