Think Of The Children! No, really.



On 15 Oct 2004 16:15:42 GMT, [email protected]omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

>>>We were kids once too.

>>
>>Still am. 20 days to go. :)
>>
>>James

>
>James, sweetie, boys *never* grow up ;-)


<g>

Well, Helen, to change one of my sigs. for a moment ('tis my sig.,
after all) ...

.... 40 is neither a limit nor a target :)

The ever young
James
 
Just zis Guy, you know? [email protected] opined the following...
> Look at pictures from 50 years ago and see what was going on in the
> average residential street. Now speculate on what might be a leading
> cause of the increasing insularity of modern British society.


Margaret Thatcher?

Jon
 
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:08:20 +0100, David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Same here. I haven't said which 20 days though...


<g>

My DOB = 04/11/1964

James
 
>My DOB = 04/11/1964
>
>James


Just a babe really ;-)

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
 
James Hodson <[email protected]>typed


> Well, Helen, to change one of my sigs. for a moment ('tis my sig.,
> after all) ...


> .... 40 is neither a limit nor a target :)


It's history, for some...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:05:37 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>one of the things that I find
>genuinely nice[1] about my street is that kids feel they can play in it,
>and do.


That is one of the things I like about where I live. No doubt this
makes me a child molester in the eyes of the politically correct,
especially as I spend some time fixing bikes and skateboards for
them as well as loaning them tools.

The children also enjoy sliding down the bank onto a relatively
major road. I think that they have now trained the car drivers, who
seldom beep their horns at them now.

The children used to play fairly serious football at the back of the
house, but adults parking cars have prevented this over the past
five years or so.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:50:07 GMT someone who may be Sniper8052
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>A road is a highway for the passing and repassing of traffic and
>pedestrians.


Incorrect, for reasons already given.

>British roads are amongst the safest in the world.


So the road "safety" lobby claims. However, it is more complicated
than that because it depends on what one looks at [1].

What is not doubted by any significant group, including the road
"safety" lobby, is that British roads are not among the safest in
the world for children.


[1] should you wish to study this further I recommend finding a copy
of "Death on the streets Cars and the mythology of road safety" by
Robert Davis. Your library should be able to get hold of a copy. The
whole book is worth a read, but in this context the first two
chapters (and perhaps the third) are the ones to read.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 
On 15 Oct 2004 16:15:42 GMT, [email protected]omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

>James, sweetie, boys *never* grow up ;-)


---their toys just get more expensive.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
 
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> That is one of the things I like about where I live. No doubt this
> makes me a child molester in the eyes of the politically correct,
> especially as I spend some time fixing bikes and skateboards for
> them as well as loaning them tools.


Oh, David, I didn't think you'd be one of those people using 'politically
correct' as a term of abuse. Interestingly the targets of your use of it
will almost certainly be completely different to the targets of the other
more common abusive use. (viz people too stupid to see that you're doing a
good thing, vs 'lefty do-gooders').

(I have no complaint about the rest of the post, it's just I have an issue
with the way the term 'politically correct' has come to mean 'people I don't
agree with', esp. as used by those on the right).

cheers,
clive
 
On 15 Oct 2004 18:13:49 GMT, [email protected]omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

>>My DOB = 04/11/1964
>>
>>James

>
>Just a babe really ;-)


As previously stated! 20 days to go.

James
 
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:22:20 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's history, for some...


Hi Helen

That reminds me of a song I've hated for ages: The chorus begins with
a high-pitched "It's History". By whom? I cannot recall.

James
 
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:41:47 GMT, Dave Kahn <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 15 Oct 2004 16:15:42 GMT, [email protected]omcom
>(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:
>
>>James, sweetie, boys *never* grow up ;-)

>
>---their toys just get more expensive.


Hi Dave

My latest "toy" is MSFlight Sim 2002, a programme I bought quite a
while ago. I've spent many an hour recently ploughing through
<http://www.navfltsm.addr.com/index.htm>

Still crashed in great style, FWIW :)

James
 
in message <[email protected]>, Nathaniel Porter
('[email protected]') wrote:

> <snip>
>
> Just to let you know that your previous post came with an attachment
> ("this_is_not_a_virus.vbs") - is that expected? My newsreader removed
> it, so I was just wondering what it was.


Sorry, rather poor joke. It is, in fact, not a virus. Sometimes when it
gets selected by the patent AI .sig selector I decide to delete it, but
on that occasion I didn't.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; 'I think we should trust our president in every decision
;; that he makes and we should just support that'
;; Britney Spears of George W Bush, CNN 04:09:03
 
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:35:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Sorry, rather poor joke. It is, in fact, not a virus. Sometimes when it
>gets selected by the patent AI .sig selector I decide to delete it, but
>on that occasion I didn't.


Hi Simon

I have recently ben trying out the free version of
<http://www.avast.com/>. It seems to be OK in that it has picked up a
virus or two that both NAV and AVG missed.

James
 
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> But having children playing on main roads would bring effectively traffic

to
> a halt. Not exclusion as you say - but it would have much the same impact.



Permitting private cars clog up our main transport arteries has pretty much
the same effect.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:16:04 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> But what is being argued for is not the right of children to play on
> >> major roads, but their right to be able to move freely on minor roads
> >> which are currently infested with rat-running traffic.

>
> >Of course, and I entirely agree. I would go furtther as to say children

do
> >have a right to move freely (if not play) also on the major roads, and

that
> >they need to be recognised as equal road users with everyone else, but I
> >think thats different to the playing-in-the-streets issue this part of

the
> >thread has stumbled into.

>
> The thing is, the reason it is not safe to play football in a
> lightly-trafficked residential street is the same reason why it is not
> safe to let children cross that same street. We should aspire to a
> situation where residents feel ownership of their environment, and
> people travelling through do so courteously and carefully,


Absolutely

> as they do
> when they are driving along their own road.
>


I think a part of the problem is that a significant proportion won't even
drive carefully down their own street
 
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> where is the benefit in allowing children to play in major roads?


Because it is their community that the road is passing through.

Children need to be able to move about their neighbourhoods
to meet their freinds, get to school, go shopping etc. These
places are often on the other side of or along main roads.

Playing is simply the way children behave much of the time.

If you are going to drive a motor vehicle in an area where children
could be present (basically within any built up area)
then you have to expect playful behaviour.
The responsibility for the safe use of your motor vehicle
ought to be completely, utterly and entirely with the driver -
just as it would be for the operator of ANY other potentially
hazardous piece of equipment.
 
James Hodson <[email protected]> writes:

> That reminds me of a song I've hated for ages: The chorus begins with
> a high-pitched "It's History". By whom? I cannot recall.


The chorus to the song "You're History" by Shakespear's Sister begins
with a high-pitched "You're History", if that helps.

http://www.elyrics.net/go/s/shakespear_s-sister-lyrics/you_re-history-lyrics/

but watch out for the evil popups (blocked in my browser)


-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"
 
"Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:psfvn5zxa2wix5t@hogwarts-83efbf...
> A road is a highway for the passing and repassing of traffic and
> pedestrians.


Indeed, and some of those pedestrians will be children.

> Aside from that children should not be playing in a street.


Why not?

> A hundred years ago children were being killed by delivery drays and
> hansom cabs, today it is cars.
> The world has changed out of all recognition from the streets which
> existed at the turn of the last century and people must change their
> expectations about the liberties which they expect to recieve from that
> world.


Why?

> Everyone now expects to have a level of personal freedonm and
> transportation which was unknown to our great grandparents and their
> parents who grew up in an age when children were born into a predominently
> stable relationship.


And that personal freedom come with the responsiblity to excersise
it without killing anybody else in the process.

> I often see children as young as six and occasionally a four year old with
> a six year old out by themselves in North London streets. These children
> are the accident statistics which are a direct result of the parents.


Why?

>It
> is symptomatic of some parents, and as the report quoted here said, lower
> income parents are predominent in this case, to refuse to take
> responsibility for their children by supervising the recreation of their
> offspring. If in abdicating their responsibility concequences then ensue
> be they shoplifting or accidents they then throw up their hands and seek
> retribution from everyone else but themselves.


It is symptomatic of the attitudes of some drivers that they refuse to take
responsibiliy for their own actions and expect everybody else to keep out
of their way.

> British roads are amongst the safest in the world.


They are the safest for the occupants of motor vehicles.
We have a very poor record for vulnerable road users.

>In the UK last year
> there were 171 child fatalities of which some would have been related to
> vehicle accidents and others would have been caused by the child and
> beyond all reasonable hope of avoidance.


If you cannot avoid hitting a child then you are driving too fast for the
conditions - period.

> Given that the total for all
> child casualties in the UK was 4,100 and that pedestrian accidents
> comprised roughly half of these, being 2,381 the statistical chances of
> being involved in a fatal or personal injury accident are very small
> indeed.


This has mostly come about through the forced removal of children
from most of our roads. Its not that the roads have become any safer.

>
> Clearly one death is a death to many but some responsibility has to be
> taken in all of this by the parents


The responsibility for controling a vehicle is entirely down to the driver.
If you drive a car through an urban area you should do it in such a way
as to avoid hitting anybody who might move into your path.

> and blindly ignoring the fact that the
> traffic environment has evolved from a time when there were few cars to
> one where personal transportation is considered a right denies the truth
> of the above.


And the whole point is that we should not accept that drivers have a
right to impose an environment that denies children the right to
move about their own neighbourhoods.
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:

>> Just to let you know that your previous post came with an attachment
>> ("this_is_not_a_virus.vbs") - is that expected? My newsreader removed
>> it, so I was just wondering what it was.

>
> Sorry, rather poor joke. It is, in fact, not a virus. Sometimes when it
> gets selected by the patent AI .sig selector I decide to delete it, but
> on that occasion I didn't.


I am annoyed and somewhat embarassed to admit that clicking on it
crashed my news reader, taking with it about two weeks' of emacs
state.

Serves me right for using beta Gnusen, perhaps


-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"