Question:
>>those of us on the net are PROBABLY in the upper 25% of society with regards >to: Intelegince, wealth and knowledge. >Not to mention spelling and grammar…
That’s why they invented spellcheckers and grammercheckers. General diclaimer: Engineers are NOT responsable for spelling.
Response:
> But we can’t childproof or > idiotproof the world. Hundreds of possible topics of discussion could be > banned based on the argument that someone without the ability to properly > understand it might hurt himself.
I understand and at core agree with your concept, but the original thread (as I understood it) was about software blocks for certain groups and a vote on the viability of another group. Neither of these actions represents an authoritarian one size fits all solution to the problem, rather the opposite. * Bob Morrell * * http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ewc/list-main.html#HDR13 *
Response:
>> facts when they are constantly bombared with myth, misnomer and hearsay(sp)? >You are right, it =is= very snobbish, and not true anymore anyways. >Thanks to AOL any fool can get on the net and does. Thanks to the >As to your original point, one must consider the fragility that many >teens and pre-teens personalities are in. An out of context (as everthing >on the net is) advice to use drugs could hit a vulnerable child and do >great harm. Not everyone is as intellectually robust as you.
I think the question is should we stop the flow of information to protect the few at the expence of the many? I hate to bring it down to numbers like that, so let me put it this way: If you have to choose (and we do) who whould you rather hurt? Those who pay the expence of running the internet or those who don’t? Those who use it everyday to do there work or those who are just using it for fun? You can make all of the people happy some of the time…..
Response:
It is time to stop playing parent to every fucking person in the country. There are entirely too many human pieces of shit living on this planet. If we legalize all drugs, a good percentage of these people will be killed off. This is a very desirable occurence, so be sure to write your congressman. Smoke crack and die, The Fuck You Man
Response:
>As to your original point, one must consider the fragility that many >teens and pre-teens personalities are in. An out of context (as everthing >on the net is) advice to use drugs could hit a vulnerable child and do >great harm. Not everyone is as intellectually robust as you.
If they’re so unable to deal with the net (or the Real World in general), their parents shouldn’t let them on the net. Or maybe, they *should* let them on the net so that they can learn better. But we can’t childproof or idiotproof the world. Hundreds of possible topics of discussion could be banned based on the argument that someone without the ability to properly understand it might hurt himself.
Response:
: Gordon E. Follen writes: : >Forbiding a child from reading about drugs on the net or learning : >anything they : >think important is a lousy thing for a parent to do. If : >oneof my kids reads a post that says "I love drugs" i want them to have : >the : >means to find out the facts. The same goes for sex and government. If we : >try to : >keep the information from them we are limiting the knowledge base they : >need to : >make rational adult decisions. We do not have the right to censor thier : >lives : >lik that. : Please allow me to disagree with you. Let’s say that my 14 -year- old : daughter reads a post that says "I love Nine Inch Nails, soccer, Nancy : Drew books, Melrose Place and I think doing coke is really harmless and a : blast". Okay, my daughter thinks "Hey! I love Nine Inch Nails, : too….and soccer is my favorite sport. Nancy Drew is my favorite book : and I just live for Melrose Place….this kid sounds just like me….well, : I haven’t tried cocaine yet because none of my group do drugs….but, it : hasn’t hurt my new friend here and she’s just like me…maybe I should : give it a try." I have a 19-year-old stepdaughter and I know this : scenario is not very far-fetched. Teenagers are VERY impressionable and : easily influenced. Kids today are exposed to too much that is dangerous : for them already…parents should not just turn their backs and let the : kids "raise themselves". In spite of how they protest they NEED us to set : limits and have expectations and protect them. Of course, they have to : learn to make decisions but they’re exposed to so much already at school : and parties that I don’t think we should encourage them to have computer : access to even more detritus. Is your feeling that you should let your : son go live in a crack house so his curiosity is answered? Should your : daughter be encouraged to have unprotected sex so she can see what it : feels like to get pregnant? There is a difference from having age : appropriate questions answered and just being allowed to live an : uncensored life. Teens cannot make "rational adult decisions" yet because : they are NOT "rational" or "adult". They are teens and they still need a : parent’s loving guidance and protection. Perhaps your 19 year old daughter is incapable of making rational decisions, but as a 17 year old "teenager," I can tell you that many people my age are actually quite skeptical, rational, and "adul;t." I have been using the net for about two years, and it really did not take very long to figure out that some posts are misleading or untrue. However, I also quickly discovered a wealth of extremely helpfull information. The information that I have come into contact with through Usenet news, ftp, and www have debunked countless "urban legands," which are potentially harmfull. I have used the information found here to educate my friends about ‘more safely’ using drugs. If your daughter is not yet ready to make her own decisions, you may use one of the many internet "screening" programs currently available; Information, like drugs, should be available to all who are responsible enough to use it. Matt Augustine naotsd sdfbde wsdfdsithdseldhedaaldon maaanady osdfccatigsaonsmedoretahse tkhoeeidisspesgellsednonbfuren
Response:
Corrected copy follows:
: >In reply to "King Irv"’s comments about the various drug groups to which : >he’s subscribed I can only say that I don’t go into these newsgroups. In : >fact, I didn’t even know that they existed (although considering : >everything else that DOES I’m not surprised.) I was simply responding to : >a post in my "Misc. Parenting" newsgroup about allowing a young teen to : >have uncensored access to this type of newsgroup. : > : >I’m not trying to trash anyone who reads these newsgroups so don’t take my : >comments personally. I’m merely speaking as a parent who has the : >well-being of my children at heart. : Very well put, Debra: the "well-being of my children" should be a common : goal of us parents. Now I do NOT know Deborah from Eve, and I have : never communicated with her. This Deborah is a good example of an : Intelligent lady. : Why is it that the three people trying to promote these Hard Drug Groups : are NOT Parents: : Clawed Albino : Lionel Hutz : Jon Freeman : Now we know the real name of the last one, but we do NOT : know the real names of the First two! : All three of these people have taken to "Flaming DrG" to try and : create a divergence here, and it is nice to see some competent people : like Debra here who is a concerned parent, and not fixing the : opinion of Hard Drugs on this UseNet upon the "personality" of any : promoter of their removal. Who knows, she may think DrG is a "radical," : and not agree with him on all issues, but she does not let that personal opinion : detract from the consideration of the REAL issue at hand here, and that : is the Protection of our precious children in this world. : DrG is not the issue here. The ISSUE here is the Use of HARD Drugs : being promoted on this UseNet in the rec.drugs.Misc(Hard) area on the : Big-8 here. You can love or hate DrG, but do not let your personal feelings : resultant from any Flame wars remove your mind from the REAL issue, : which is Hard Drugs On the UseNet. : rec.drugs.(hard) is dangerous for our children and must be voted away. : DrG we can do a chgroup for the whole hierarchy of rec.drugs.* and make sci.med.cannabis the Only area left for "recreational therapy" on UseNet! — John M. Grubor, J.D. INTERNET LAW SYSTEMS Lawyer Systems Analyst P.O. BOX 114 Law Office Operation, Management E. McKEESPORT, PA. 15035 And Trial Preparation Systems (412) 829-7853
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> lik that. Would you not teach your child to cross the street because they might > gt hit by a car? >This is precisely the point: for small children we teach them exactly >that because they are too young to judge when street crossing is safe. In >a similar fashion, certain forums and other environs are not safe for >immature children because they do not yet have the values and perspective >to judge them reliably. Eventually they are ready, but at certain ages >they are not. This is such an obvious, self evident fact that it would >seem to me you must either be talking about something entirely different, >have no experience with children, trolling, or just incredibly, willfully >stupid. >* Bob Morrell * >* http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ewc/list-main.html#HDR13 * >* clever tag line under construction *
Maybe in your rush to hafve your name on a post you didn’t read my entire post. If you had read my entire post you would have realized my analogy was that we can walk the kid across the street one hundred times but if we don’t teach them to cross at the walk, look both ways, wait for the light they won’t know what to do when they are on their own and may get hit by a car. If we don’t provide the kids with the proper facts about drugs they won’t learn how to make responsible decisions when they are on thier own and someone offers them drugs. So you can sit on your high horse and have all the answers but If you censor the facts from the kids you are not being responsible to them. You are trying to make them like you and they will see through you and not respect anything you have to say. Eventually they are ready. Is that when you say so? Are you going to decide the proper age that a person should be able to access the facts? It is obviously self evident that you think you are so smart that you have all the answers. Me, I would rather allow the child to learn at their own pace. If they want information I will give them the facts. They can make their own decisions and theworld will be a better place because the child will grow up having learned how to find the facts and make responsible adult decisions. They will read all the facts before jumping on one line of a long post. Did you even read what you wrote. First you agree that we should teach our kids the facts about crossing the street and then you say we should keep the facts from them until they are mature and have values. — Gordon E. Follen 617-466-2126
Response:
> I can censor anything going into my brain and I can > try to make everyone who will listen believe in the truths I have defined for > my world.
I’m glad for you. Unfortunately all children at some age cannot do this. To insist that they do is folly. To insist that they cannot after they can is also folly. > If we are not providing all of the facts to these fragile teens > we are not teaching them how to be responsible.
I say again, and for the last time: whose facts? Usenet facts? Does the word oxymoron mean anything to you? We must provide facts as parents, yes. Who argues against that? we must also protect them against falsehoods and distortions. A usenet blocker against rec.drugs would certainly fall into that last category. > I would hope that anyone with the ability to get on the net and read it have > the intellectual ability to make decisions about right and wrong. And if not > then they are in the right place because for every post that advocates drug use > there are several that rant for its obliteration. The child will hear both > sides of the argument and then make their own decisions based on the facts.
Again, a free for all forum without context, anonymous authorities without validation where fact, claims anectdotal and fantasy coexist is not going to provide the child with the tools to make the right decision. If you believe it is you still are unable to evision intellects any different from your own. There are many different kinds, not all rely on logic and facts, and during teenage years denial and willing suspension of disbelief are prominant. You ignore that at your peril. > And > if a childcan get on the net they should have already been taught about the > responsibility of being on the net and all the crazy people they will > encounter. The net is not a babysitter for parents who don’t or can’t spend > time with them.
on this we agree. The question is do we feel that there are children who are old enough to use some of the net but too young to be able to handle other parts of it. I think that is true, just as we let young children tour some of the hospital here, but not the autopsy room. It might be good for some of them, but many would be traumatized. * Bob Morrell * * http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ewc/list-main.html#HDR13 *
Response:
>In reply to "King Irv"’s comments about the various drug groups to which >he’s subscribed I can only say that I don’t go into these newsgroups. In >fact, I didn’t even know that they existed (although considering >everything else that DOES I’m not surprised.) I was simply responding to >a post in my "Misc. Parenting" newsgroup about allowing a young teen to >have uncensored access to this type of newsgroup. >I’m not trying to trash anyone who reads these newsgroups so don’t take my >comments personally. I’m merely speaking as a parent who has the >well-being of my children at heart.
Very well put, Debra: the "well-being of my children" should be a common goal of us parents. Now I do NOT know Deborah from Eve, and I have never communicated with her. now Deborah is a good example of an Intelligent lady. Why is it that the three people trying to promote these Hard Drug Groups are NOT Parents: Clawed Albino Lionel Hutz Jon Freeman Now we know the real name of the last one, but we do NOT know the real names of the First two! All three of these people have taken to "Flaming DrG" to try and create a divergence here, and it is nice to see some competent people like Debra here who is a concerned parent, and not fixing the opinion of Hard Drugs on this UseNet upon the "personality" of any promoter of their removal. Who knows, she may think DrG is a "radical," and not agree with him on all issues, but she does not let that personal opinion detract from the consideration of the REAL issue at hand here, and that is the Protection of our precious children in this world. DrG is not the issue here. The ISSUE here is the Use of Herd Drugs being promoted on this UseNet in the rec.drugs.Misc(Hard) area on the Big-8 here. You can love or hate DrG, but do not let your personal feelings resultant from any Flame wars remove your mind from the REAL issue, which is Hard Drugs On the UseNet. rec.drugs.(hard) is dangerous for our children and must be voted away. DrG
Response:
>> lik that. Would you not teach your child to cross the street because they might > gt hit by a car? >This is precisely the point: for small children we teach them exactly >that because they are too young to judge when street crossing is safe. In >a similar fashion, certain forums and other environs are not safe for >immature children because they do not yet have the values and perspective >to judge them reliably. Eventually they are ready, but at certain ages >they are not. This is such an obvious, self evident fact that it would >seem to me you must either be talking about something entirely different, >have no experience with children, trolling, or just incredibly, willfully >stupid.
He was being "willfully stupid" by promoting rec.drugs.(hard) on this Usenet. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->* Bob Morrell * >* http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ewc/list-main.html#HDR13 * >* clever tag line under construction *
Response:
, misnomer and hearsay(sp)? Lots of good stuff cut out. >You are right, it =is= very snobbish, and not true anymore anyways. >Thanks to AOL any fool can get on the net and does. Thanks to the >personal remove of the net, people feel free to let loose with stupid >things even to the point of trolling. What started as a little brain >storming free of the constraints of formal academic exchange has turned >into something with clear cases of fraud, non-experts giving advice in >the guise of experts, urban ledgends in hyperspeed and worse. >There is good and useful stuff on the net, but it is quickly being >submerged in time wasting distractions and now, much much worse.
You will find people like this in every free society. It is the price we pay for the right to say anything we want. That is we have to put up with everyone saying the things they want to. I have found the net to been the best place to weed out all people I think are crazy. I just use the next button on my newsreader. That is power. I can censor anything going into my brain and I can try to make everyone who will listen believe in the truths I have defined for my world. >As to your original point, one must consider the fragility that many >teens and pre-teens personalities are in.
If we are not providing all of the facts to these fragile teens we are not teaching them how to be responsible. All they learn is adults only tell you what they want you to hear and we loose their trust. Then you can’t teach them anything. I have always treated my kids with respect and I provide them with all the information they ask for. They are not afraid to ask me anything and they know I will give them all the facts I can find. They also have to listen to my opinion but I haven’t alienated them and I know what they are thinking and doing when I’m not around. When my kids go off on their own I know they will make it because I have given them the tools to make intelligent decisions all their young lives and not just at some appropriate age that someone decides is the right age for a child to do some particular thing. >An out of context (as everthing >on the net is) advice to use drugs could hit a vulnerable child and do >great harm. Not everyone is as intellectually robust as you.
I would hope that anyone with the ability to get on the net and read it have the intellectual ability to make decisions about right and wrong. And if not then they are in the right place because for every post that advocates drug use there are several that rant for its obliteration. The child will hear both sides of the argument and then make their own decisions based on the facts. And if a childcan get on the net they should have already been taught about the responsibility of being on the net and all the crazy people they will encounter. The net is not a babysitter for parents who don’t or can’t spend time with them. I would rather my kids run into the nuts here on the net than on the street. Because the crazies are everywhere and kids have to learn to deal with them soone or later. Maybe spending a night reading just about any BB would make a chid more cautious on the street and save a life. It scares me to think that some of the people who post here are for real and out there. >* Bob Morrell * >* http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ewc/list-main.html#HDR13 * >* clever tag line under construction *
– Gordon E. Follen 617-466-2126
Response:
: > : > You and your children will probably find MORE view points on the net than : > from your MP or MLA. Why would you want to sheild them from any source of : > facts when they are constantly bombared with myth, misnomer and hearsay(sp)? : You are right, it =is= very snobbish, and not true anymore anyways. : Thanks to AOL any fool can get on the net and does. Thanks to the : personal remove of the net, people feel free to let loose with stupid : things even to the point of trolling. What started as a little brain : storming free of the constraints of formal academic exchange has turned : into something with clear cases of fraud, non-experts giving advice in : the guise of experts, urban ledgends in hyperspeed and worse. : There is good and useful stuff on the net, but it is quickly being : submerged in time wasting distractions and now, much much worse. Many of the time-wasting distractions come from the people who have engineered this UseNet all wrong. : As to your original point, one must consider the fragility that many : teens and pre-teens personalities are in. An out of context (as everthing : on the net is) advice to use drugs could hit a vulnerable child and do : great harm. Not everyone is as intellectually robust as you. or you Bob, but you see, there are many Ph.D.’s now on aol. Tey are not to blame. There are many other old "cabal" members who bear most of the blame. DrG — John M. Grubor, J.D. INTERNET LAW SYSTEMS Lawyer Systems Analyst P.O. BOX 114 Law Office Operation, Management E. McKEESPORT, PA. 15035 And Trial Preparation Systems (412) 829-7853
Response:
: >Have you ever considered that the only source of real information your child : >will recive is from the net? Who uses the net? Drug dealer? People on There are MANY Hard Drug Dealers on ths UseNet. They start out in rec.drugs.misc and then go to e-mail for the info exchange. It is very easy to send a little LSD or CRack or Heroin through the mail. : >wealfare? Gang bangers? Maybe the Hell’s Angels? (Actually I think they are : >starting to) What about grad students? Engineers? Chemists? Doctors? : >Lawyers? PhDs? I know this is going to sound VERY snobbish, but consider; : >those of us on the net are PROBABLY in the upper 25% of society with regards : >to: Intelegince, wealth and knowledge. : Not to mention spelling and grammar… And it does not take any intelligence to run a computer any more. : — : "We travel in packs and we do it from the back, : All the while, we do it Doggy style." Well, with your Signature peter, I guess anything goes on these groups. Just stay off of K12. Sgt.DrG.Esq — John M. Grubor, J.D. INTERNET LAW SYSTEMS Lawyer Systems Analyst P.O. BOX 114 Law Office Operation, Management E. McKEESPORT, PA. 15035 And Trial Preparation Systems (412) 829-7853
Response:
> If we don’t provide the kids with the proper facts about drugs they won’t learn > how to make responsible decisions when they are on thier own and someone offers > them drugs. So you can sit on your high horse and have all the answers but If > you censor the facts from the kids you are not being responsible to them.
Ah, now we come down to the real issue here. You think that the usenet groups on drugs contain =facts=. I do not. You think that a child will only learn facts from usenet groups and never from parents. This is false also. > Eventually they are ready. Is that when you say so? Are you going to decide the > proper age that a person should be able to access the facts?
No I am going to decide when they are the ready to face a group where facts, fantasy, wishful thinking and willful disinformation are mixed freely. Until they have the intellectual tools and ability to discern these they are not ready in my opinion. And as the parent my opinion counts, indeed it is the final arbitor. It is my responsibility, and I take it seriously. > Me, I would rather allow the child to learn at their own pace. If they want > information I will give them the facts.
The facts as you see them obviously. Actually we are not in disagreement in this statement. > Did you even read what you wrote.
Yes. > First you agree that we should teach our kids > the facts about crossing the street and then you say we should keep the facts > from them until they are mature and have values.
We teach them as much as they can absorb. A 2 year old does not understand death, and cannot understand the finality of being hit by a car, and will not understand about the nine times you get away with it and the tenth where you do not. Thus you cannot give them unlimited access to the street even if you have taught them the facts. You have a very idealistic (unrealistic) attitude towards the wisdom and invulnerability of youth. Maybe it is a result of a narrow perspective based on your own experience, maybe it is just stupidity. But the reality of the situation is that children are much more vulnerable to the imperfections of the world than adults. Were that it was not so…. * Bob Morrell * * http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ewc/list-main.html#HDR13 *
Response:
In reply to "King Irv"’s comments about the various drug groups to which he’s subscribed I can only say that I don’t go into these newsgroups. In fact, I didn’t even know that they existed (although considering everything else that DOES I’m not surprised.) I was simply responding to a post in my "Misc. Parenting" newsgroup about allowing a young teen to have uncensored access to this type of newsgroup. I’m not trying to trash anyone who reads these newsgroups so don’t take my comments personally. I’m merely speaking as a parent who has the well-being of my children at heart.
Response:
> Have you ever considered that the only source of real information your child > will recive is from the net? Who uses the net? Drug dealer? People on > wealfare? Gang bangers? Maybe the Hell’s Angels? (Actually I think they are > starting to) What about grad students? Engineers? Chemists? Doctors? > Lawyers? PhDs? I know this is going to sound VERY snobbish, but consider; > those of us on the net are PROBABLY in the upper 25% of society with regards > to: Intelegince, wealth and knowledge. Are you an expert at everything? The > net is because it is greater than the sum of it’s parts. It grows and creates. > You and your children will probably find MORE view points on the net than > from your MP or MLA. Why would you want to sheild them from any source of > facts when they are constantly bombared with myth, misnomer and hearsay(sp)?
You are right, it =is= very snobbish, and not true anymore anyways. Thanks to AOL any fool can get on the net and does. Thanks to the personal remove of the net, people feel free to let loose with stupid things even to the point of trolling. What started as a little brain storming free of the constraints of formal academic exchange has turned into something with clear cases of fraud, non-experts giving advice in the guise of experts, urban ledgends in hyperspeed and worse. There is good and useful stuff on the net, but it is quickly being submerged in time wasting distractions and now, much much worse. As to your original point, one must consider the fragility that many teens and pre-teens personalities are in. An out of context (as everthing on the net is) advice to use drugs could hit a vulnerable child and do great harm. Not everyone is as intellectually robust as you. * Bob Morrell * * http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ewc/list-main.html#HDR13 * * clever tag line under construction *
Response:
Gordon E. Follen writes: >Forbiding a child from reading about drugs on the net or learning >anything they >think important is a lousy thing for a parent to do. If >oneof my kids reads a post that says "I love drugs" i want them to have >the >means to find out the facts. The same goes for sex and government. If we >try to >keep the information from them we are limiting the knowledge base they >need to >make rational adult decisions. We do not have the right to censor thier >lives >lik that.
Please allow me to disagree with you. Let’s say that my 14 -year- old daughter reads a post that says "I love Nine Inch Nails, soccer, Nancy Drew books, Melrose Place and I think doing coke is really harmless and a blast". Okay, my daughter thinks "Hey! I love Nine Inch Nails, too….and soccer is my favorite sport. Nancy Drew is my favorite book and I just live for Melrose Place….this kid sounds just like me….well, I haven’t tried cocaine yet because none of my group do drugs….but, it hasn’t hurt my new friend here and she’s just like me…maybe I should give it a try." I have a 19-year-old stepdaughter and I know this scenario is not very far-fetched. Teenagers are VERY impressionable and easily influenced. Kids today are exposed to too much that is dangerous for them already…parents should not just turn their backs and let the kids "raise themselves". In spite of how they protest they NEED us to set limits and have expectations and protect them. Of course, they have to learn to make decisions but they’re exposed to so much already at school and parties that I don’t think we should encourage them to have computer access to even more detritus. Is your feeling that you should let your son go live in a crack house so his curiosity is answered? Should your daughter be encouraged to have unprotected sex so she can see what it feels like to get pregnant? There is a difference from having age appropriate questions answered and just being allowed to live an uncensored life. Teens cannot make "rational adult decisions" yet because they are NOT "rational" or "adult". They are teens and they still need a parent’s loving guidance and protection.
Response:
>> Censor your kids; fine. But you don’t need to inform the usenet readers > that you’re a bad parent. >let me get this straight… you view =any= filtering of the outside
world you should buy a dictionary >on children of =any= age as censorship?!? >This is one of the most ridiculous ideas I’ve ever seen posted on the >net, showing a complete lack of understanding of parenting, information >theory, and sociology. >* Bob Morrell * * >* http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ewc/list-main.html#HDR13 * >* clever tag line under construction *
The afforelisted post basically says: you consider censoring censoring? Well hell yes I do. If parents do not want there children to access certain info on the net. Let them censor it themselves with one of the many software packages at your family computor store. Gov. censorship is wrong so do your parenting and your censoring at home.
Response:
> Forbiding a child from reading about drugs on the net or learning anything they > think important is a lousy thing for a parent to do. Let them have their > interests and be there to give your opinion on the stuff they read. We can’t > hidethe kids from reality and expect them to live in it when they grow up. If > oneof my kids reads a post that says "I love drugs" i want them to have the > means to find out the facts. The same goes for sex and government. If we try to > keep the information from them we are limiting the knowledge base they need to > make rational adult decisions. We do not have the right to censor thier lives > lik that. Would you not teach your child to cross the street because they might > gt hit by a car?
Well, not the best analogy, but the right idea (how about would you not talk about sex and expect your child never to be interested in it?) As awful as many things are in the world, I’d rather my child know they exist and feel comfortable talking with her about it, but it sure will make extra work for me, keeping track of what she’s learning. . .
Response:
> lik that. Would you not teach your child to cross the street because they might > gt hit by a car?
This is precisely the point: for small children we teach them exactly that because they are too young to judge when street crossing is safe. In a similar fashion, certain forums and other environs are not safe for immature children because they do not yet have the values and perspective to judge them reliably. Eventually they are ready, but at certain ages they are not. This is such an obvious, self evident fact that it would seem to me you must either be talking about something entirely different, have no experience with children, trolling, or just incredibly, willfully stupid. * Bob Morrell * * http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ewc/list-main.html#HDR13 * * clever tag line under construction *
Response:
: Gordon E. Follen writes: : >Forbiding a child from reading about drugs on the net or learning : >anything they : >think important is a lousy thing for a parent to do. If : >oneof my kids reads a post that says "I love drugs" i want them to have : >the : >means to find out the facts. The same goes for sex and government. If we : >try to : >keep the information from them we are limiting the knowledge base they : >need to : >make rational adult decisions. We do not have the right to censor thier : >lives : >lik that. : Please allow me to disagree with you. Let’s say that my 14 -year- old : daughter reads a post that says "I love Nine Inch Nails, soccer, Nancy : Drew books, Melrose Place and I think doing coke is really harmless and a : blast". Okay, my daughter thinks "Hey! I love Nine Inch Nails, : too….and soccer is my favorite sport. Nancy Drew is my favorite book : and I just live for Melrose Place….this kid sounds just like me….well, : I haven’t tried cocaine yet because none of my group do drugs….but, it : hasn’t hurt my new friend here and she’s just like me…maybe I should : give it a try." I have a 19-year-old stepdaughter and I know this In that case, that kid is really stupid. Perhaps the parent should tell the child some facts about drugs? Doesn’t the school do that? And you should teach your children not to trust everything they read on the net. Just look at DrG here. : scenario is not very far-fetched. Teenagers are VERY impressionable and : easily influenced. Kids today are exposed to too much that is dangerous : for them already…parents should not just turn their backs and let the : kids "raise themselves". In spite of how they protest they NEED us to set : limits and have expectations and protect them. Of course, they have to : learn to make decisions but they’re exposed to so much already at school : and parties that I don’t think we should encourage them to have computer : access to even more detritus. Is your feeling that you should let your : son go live in a crack house so his curiosity is answered? Should your : daughter be encouraged to have unprotected sex so she can see what it : feels like to get pregnant? There is a difference from having age : appropriate questions answered and just being allowed to live an : uncensored life. Teens cannot make "rational adult decisions" yet because : they are NOT "rational" or "adult". They are teens and they still need a : parent’s loving guidance and protection. Thank you for that. I can make rational decisions, thnak you. I don’t know about adult, I’ve never tried that. There is a difference between encouraging your daughter to have unprotected sex and letting her read about drugs. Just don’t let her use drugs, but let her read about them. — =-+X+-=-+X+-=-+X+-=-+X+-=-+X+-=-+X+-=->X<-=-+X+-=-+X+-=-+X+-=-+X+-=-+X+-=-+ X+- WWW: http://www.canit.se/~optimus | Cyberspace hater |SWEDEN RULES!!!
Response:
> Censor your kids; fine. But you don’t need to inform the usenet readers > that you’re a bad parent.
let me get this straight… you view =any= filtering of the outside world on children of =any= age as censorship?!? This is one of the most ridiculous ideas I’ve ever seen posted on the net, showing a complete lack of understanding of parenting, information theory, and sociology. * Bob Morrell * * http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ewc/list-main.html#HDR13 * * clever tag line under construction *
Response:
> DrG,Esq. > Father Of Eight Kids > Who will NEVER see any > HARD DRUGS on UUnet/UseNet!
Censor your kids; fine. But you don’t need to inform the usenet readers that you’re a bad parent. Furthmore, you’re setting a bad example for other parents- parents who CAN teach their children good decision making skills. — First Amendment – void where prohibited by law
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Censor your kids; fine. But you don’t need to inform the usenet readers > that you’re a bad parent. >let me get this straight… you view =any= filtering of the outside world >on children of =any= age as censorship?!? >This is one of the most ridiculous ideas I’ve ever seen posted on the >net, showing a complete lack of understanding of parenting, information >theory, and sociology. >* Bob Morrell * >* http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ewc/list-main.html#HDR13 * >* clever tag line under construction *
Forbiding a child from reading about drugs on the net or learning anything they think important is a lousy thing for a parent to do. Let them have their interests and be there to give your opinion on the stuff they read. We can’t hidethe kids from reality and expect them to live in it when they grow up. If oneof my kids reads a post that says "I love drugs" i want them to have the means to find out the facts. The same goes for sex and government. If we try to keep the information from them we are limiting the knowledge base they need to make rational adult decisions. We do not have the right to censor thier lives lik that. Would you not teach your child to cross the street because they might gt hit by a car? — Gordon E. Follen 617-466-2126
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.