The boys’ peace treaty

Some days, your blog writes itself.

I came home to discover this on the linen closet door, between the boys’ rooms:

They were all already gone to Vacation Bible School when I arrived, so I don’t yet know what precipitated this.  I hope it wasn’t too bad.  VBS week is a somewhat draining experience for Lea, and we’ve got a busy weekend too.  She’ll be due for some pampering next week.

I’m afraid I must quibble with some of the language.  I’m not so sure “shots to the groin” should be allowed, even if “in play.”

But ten years of peace?  Yeah, I’ll take that.

You might also like:

5 thoughts on “The boys’ peace treaty”

  1. I, for one, am in total support of the “unlimited consequences” clause and agree that peace treaties should cover annoyance.

    Reply
  2. I would fall over dead if my kids came up with something like that. The oldest (and smallest) is bossy, and the youngest knows he can beat her up if he really wanted to. Good times.

    Reply
  3. I’m pretty sure “shots to the groin” was a direct lift from Middle East Peace Accords.

    Neanyahu “Bang-COCK!”

    Reply
  4. I’m a little confused by this line: “..when a boy makes a joke that the other laughs at he may not make harmful contact with the other boy.” I mean, if one boy makes a joke, doesn’t he WANT the other boy to laugh at it?

    But I do like this line: “If something is fair the other must not get angry.” I don’t see though which of the boys gets to decide what is “fair.” That might require an addendum to said Treaty. 🙂

    Anxiously awaiting an update on what prompted the Treaty…

    Reply

Leave a Comment

CAPTCHA


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

BoWilliams.com