Received Saturday, January 27, 2007
Obviously, I can't be positive, but I think this sighting was of me. I'm a Tribeca nanny for a two and a half year old boy whom I take to a class at Sydney's playground every week. Both the physical description of the nanny, the child, and the fact that I was watching a DVD on my laptop (I've never seen anyone else at Sydney's with a computer) match me.
Everything she wrote is accurate, except for one major detail: during the time I was drinking coffee and watching my computer (The West Wing on DVD--I'm quite addicted) my charge was in his class and 100% not my responsibility. He's in a closed classroom with his teachers and if I wanted to I could leave the building during the hour and a half he's in class--but I like sitting in the cafe and I like knowing that if there is a problem (or just a dirty diaper) I am easy to find. I also like watching the other kids playing in the play space, especially while I'm having my 'down time' and don't have to mitigate disputes over the slide or about sharing cars, etc.
I'm kind of surprised by this poster, it shouldn't have been so hard to tell that I wasn't caring for a child because during that time of day there are usually 3 or 4 other caregivers/moms in the cafe who are also without their kids. It's strange that she got all the details right, and yet missed the major part of me not having a kid to take care of at that time. My charge and I do frequently play in the playground when his class is over, but I would never sit up at the cafe (which is above the play space), work on my computer or even read a magazine while I'm actively watching him. Moreover, I don't think I could get away with it, because he's at the age where he really needs to know he has someone's undivided attention. He's constantly checking in, wanting me to look at him and watch what he's doing. There's no way he would ever let me get away with being so passive as to sit high above where he was playing and just glance down at him occasionally--and I wouldn't do it even if I thought he would let me. We're total buddies, I've been his family's full time nanny since before he was born, and I'm very glad that--for all she got wrong--the OP did note that he and I get along well and have a great deal of affection for each other, because that's the truth.
Click here to Read The Post Being Referenced.
44 comments:
I hate to come across as Debbie Downer, but this sounds a bit contrived. Posting #1 at 1:04 PM today (which makes sure to reference how affectionate the nanny was and how much the child loved the girl) and then within almost hours- (posting #2)the nanny responds? It sounds to me like "the nannies" trying to make a point. If you listened to the nannies who bash this site, they say that none of the posts are relevant because no poster can possibly know what is going on. Right? So let's pad the blog with a bogus sighting and then respond to it to illuminate how a poster could easily misread a situation and make false assumptions about a supercalifragilic nanny.
Am I alone on this? Because I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and I see right through this!
like a backhanded way to say how great you are, right?????
I can see that!
1026...Okay nanny basher!! You are so pathetic!! I am a nanny who checks this site evry morning and again when my charges nap and late at night after dinner because it is fun and only takes 30 seconds to see if there are any new posts!! If there was a post about me in the am..by noon I would be responding!! You are right..you are not the sharpest tool in the shed..not the sharpest in the whole tool bin!!
something is fishy here.
yes. that is so definitely the nannies up to no good. I told you they were out for blood. Look at the writing styles. SAME exact writing style. How many people use the writing style like this:
Post #2 (the "response")
he's in class--but
Post #1 (The "sighting")
child clearly loves this girl--but I really don't think that
Notice the use of the "--".
I am hoping that Caroline was at least legit! But this posting is bogus, phoney and plain pathetic!
Both of this "response" and the original.
Since all the sightings and responses are e-mailed to the blog owner, she could easily check the IP addresses on the emails to check to see if they're coming from the same people. Now, having two different IPs wouldn't prove that they were legit, but if they were both coming from the same one it would prove that they were bogus.
i didn't see anything fishy about it.
I am a nanny myself and I check this site too. you can bet that I would respond asap if it were about me.
my thought in reading this was, doesn't the original poster feel foolish now.
I guess this nanny is just having fun but at the expense of who? Do you know how hard it is for people to get involved when they see a child in danger? Did you see this story about the mom so drunk her children called the father from their cellphone? By that time, the mother had been driving around for awhile and her blood alcohol limit was 4 times the legal limit. Why didn't anyone get involved sooner? Posts like yours, this false posts and the last meant to corrupt this resource- you are sickening.
I don't always agree with how things are phrased by the posters on here, but it is the only resource like it for parents. Shame on you!
http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?pmmsid=1827926
i didnt originally see anything fishy. but look closer. no where else on this blog will you see the use of the "--". And I bet the employers of that sneaky, scheming nanny will recognize her by her double dashes! This post was clearly only posted to take to task the fact that errors can be made. No one ever said they couldn't be made. But this is a ridiculous attempt for a nanny to toot her own horn. The West Wing reference was overkill!
"the nannies"??? so are we a cult now or something? "out for blood"? hahaha I think this sighting could be useful to parents, but the purpose of the comment section is totally beyond me, entertaining true, but useless.
How could this sighting be useful to parents? If the nanny truly was as wonderful as the nanny described herself as being- the parents know.
The nanny was making a point about this blog, she clearly isn't a fan. And I don't mean all nannies, I mean the nanny who wrote these two posts. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is going on here. Which is a shame because my favorite posts are the good nanny sightings, and I really dislike that they were already questioned.
to the poster of this blog and the corresponding blog-
don't you think instead of saying average body type, you should have said "beefy" body type?
IT would seem that someone is just trying to be obnoxious in here "don't you think you should have said 'beefy' body type" and making a big deal out of the use of "~". I use those myself, quite a lot. And really, how often do YOU check back at this site ? It's really not inconceivable that if someone reads this site, that they don't check it nearly every day. IT's just absolutely silly the way you people go on in here, and I think that if that nanny wanted to get some "praise" then she would've been able to come up with something a little more creative and more positive on herself. Like really . . .what is the big deal? If she is the original OP and was just doing this for attention . . .then who cares, you're only giving her that attention ? BUt if she was sincerly the nanny and that really happened, then most of you on here are pretty much being jerks.
I'm a nanny in Boston. I have been outraged by posts and comments in the past. But I completely agree that this post makes no sense. It is a thinly veiled attempt to either discredit all sightings or to celebrate the nanny.
Desperate much?
11:50, I searched the blog. At no other time on any blog does someone use TWO dashes. Except in these TWO blogs. They are clearly written by the same person. I don't understand the motivation though.
this sounds very self congratulatory. the tone of this post suggests that the nanny should never be questioned. That is incorrect. I think you've been caught.
Isn't this what the nanny was trying to get across when so blatantly posting about herself?
"the OP did note that he and I get along well and have a great deal of affection for each other, because that's the truth".
How dare you assume we are all idiots. I treat my nanny like the professional nanny she is and I surf this blog because it's interesting not because I am looking for my own nanny.
Are you the same nanny who comments on every post "it was probably the mother" or somehow blames the parent (for example the recent Province, RI museum sighting of the sick child). If so, I am quite concerned. You come across like a passive agressive control freak. I hope your employers realize what a dangerous and combustible combination that is!
oops, I meant the blog can be useful to parents, not this particular sighting.
just an observation: the use of the double dash is common among people with backgrounds in journalism, or anyone familiar with the AP style guide. i've never commented on this site before (though i read it daily) but if i did i would likely use a double dash somewhere in my post. i don't think the double dash is necessarily an indicator that the post is phony.
also ... as i don't live on the east coast, i think it's unlikely that i would ever see a post about myself on this site, but if i did i would certainly respond promptly.
This sounds like BS to me!
One nanny with an agenda?
This post is of no use to parents because like the preceding post it has been authored by a nanny who either has a grudge or an egenda.
A nanny who was truly an excellent caregiver and confident with her own skills would not need to go to such skeezy lengths.
I think that the nanny at the birthday party inspired this nanny to write her false account. She was hoping we would rally around her like we rallied around Caroline. Step back, we can see the phoniness.
Wipe that smirk off your face.
I don't think it could be more obvious. What this nanny is looking for is "I wish you were my nanny", "I would do anything for a nanny like you" and "I would love to poach you". Etc.
One of the most pathetic attempts at self celebration I have seen in a long time. And I work in Los Angeles media and have to deal with Paris Hilton!
Dear Nanny,
There's nothing like a bad idea poorly executed.
Isn't this board read mainly by person who employ nannies? As in more likely to have obtained a higher education and less likely to believe this kind of bunkum.
Yeah, I aint buyin it either and I'm a nanny who makes a piddly 550 a week.
If this were fake, what does the nanny have to gain from it? I mean, why bother...? It`s not as if she painted a clear picture of herself with flatterning details.
I read the original post and thought, "Huh." Then I read the response and thought, "Huh."
(And I use double dashes all the time -- but I didn`t write either of these two innocuous posts.)
I agree with L for the most part. I read the first and was like "oh" and the second and was like "oh".
But it doesn't ring true to me. I am not sure why. Perhaps the very benign content of suggests that the nanny's hesitation. A bit too timid to make it too dramatic?
Also, only after reading the second post do I get a clearer picture of what actually went on there. Cafe "uptop", class, etc. I can't imagine someone got that wrong. I mean who would that mystery person have been? Wouldn't anyone who goes there KNOW that a class was in progress?
I too think this nanny was influenced by Caroline. If I was a profiler, I would further guess that the poster of these two posts also commented more than once on Caroline's post. (In a supportive way).
It just doesn't matter much. Right? If I was going to plant a story about myself, by damn sure I would be performing an emergency trachetotomy with a bic pen on a stranger while bottle feeding twins and humming lullabyes.
But that's just me.
While I cannot pretend to understand the motivation for such a bastard post; the fictitiousness is indubitable.
I am the nanny who responded to this post. I think it's really ironic that the main thing I love about this site is the varied, eclectic, strange nature of the comments section, and now I'm personally caught up in it.
I realize that it's completely impossible for me to convince strangers that I'm not the type of person who would do what commenters above are suggesting. I don't know if the original post was fake or not, whether a joke is being played on me, but I do know that I was not the original poster. I really like this site and read it regularly, I have no reason to want to screw around with it.
I'm not going to allow wild speculation to taint both my general enjoyment of this site as entertainment, nor my respect for the actual service it provides. I tried my best to respond to the OP without being emotional, and I'm going to continue to try and view these comments in the same way.
Again we see that if the nanny did not reply to the original post she would have been thought of as neglectful and not caring. This is why nannies have to reply and then we see that she was doing exactly as she was supposed to be doing. I hope that this will show people not to judge until they know the truth. Well done to the nanny for answering all the claims.
"again we see"
Looks like you are trying to teach a lesson to someone.
I don't believe this post at all.
Well done, MY ASS!
The first Sydney's playground post reminded me of a pointless and boring episode of Scooby Doo. This, the second post of Sydney's Playground reminds me of the end of every Scooby Doo when the mask is removed from the villain and we are shocked to see that it is ...............
the nanny herself!
Actually, this false posting will probably cause me to be more judgmental in the future. Not less.
This nanny did no one-least of all the nanny community-a favor by attempting to manipulate the post, the blog or the readers!
I have been strongly anti- nanny camera. Now I wonder of my own recent hire, is the good girl routine I see nothing more than a front? Perhaps she is as deviant and toxic as the OP of the Tribecca posts.
Today, I am buying a nanny camera. Tonight, after the nanny is gone I will have my husband set it up.
Maybe this isn't a deviant nanny. Maybe she is just not appreciated or recognized for being a great childcare provider. I am not defending what it appears she did here, but I can say that sometimes the job can be quite thankless. Not from the children, for they are always rewarding of positive care but from the employers. And being a nanny can often be lonely.
Just a thought. Besides it isn't a big deal. You can't have a blog like this without having these kinds of things come up. Move on.
rachel,
i don't think one person's stupid attempt at self promotion is a reason to cast doubt on all nannies. Especially your own.
Blasphemy, I say!
the use of double dashes makes this a fake post? ridiculous.
2:19,
show me one other post on this whole blog with double dashes. It is one in the same. No one is stupid enough not to see through this, so you must be OP.
Double dash away.
no, i am not the OP. so what if there are no other double dash usages on the whole, entire, worldwide isawyournanny blog?!?! glad you guys are not criminal defense attorneys -- your clients would go down in flames every time.
chill out, double dash conspiracy theorists!!
good. now there are other -- unrelated -- instances of the telling double-dash on the blog!! happy?
they feel related to me.
pwned
to the nanny who posted this and the other;
I am embarassed for you.
Indeed, BOO!
Why would a nanny who sounds smarter than most think she could get away with this? That is the last person I would want working for me. Someone who thinks she is smarter than me.
Nannies are the greatest people on earth. But I agree with what the rest of them are saying that I would not hire one who thinks she is more intelligent than the one who hired her. It is just plain arrogant.
Post a Comment