Is it wrong for family to make me feel like I want to die?
me
have 8 siblings. My stepdad says he wants nothing to do with children on my mom's side of the
family, and his kids are completely conceited. Whenever someone gets hurt at my house, his
asshole kids blame it on my 8 year old brother. They get that from their dad. I want to die
I wish I saw dyslexic
spider...@yahoo.com (me) wrote:
When you mailed me you didn't seem so depressed. Mail me if you've got
problems. Oh, fuck! I'm going on holiday. Fuck, Bastard, Shit. What the
hell, mail me anyway. It's not that bad. You don't want to die, trust me he
isn't that bad is he?
--
jack
fuck.
Ash
>> Family is supposed to be the best thing you can have. Through a remarriage
>> of my mother's, I now have 8 siblings. My stepdad says he wants nothing
>> to do with children on my mom's side of the family, and his kids are
>> completely conceited. Whenever someone gets hurt at my house, his asshole
>> kids blame it on my 8 year old brother. They get that from their dad. I
>> want to die
Of course, by your logic, to certain unnamed people, this is just
attention seeking, so I won't bother dealing with it.
>When you mailed me you didn't seem so depressed. Mail me if you've got
>problems. Oh, fuck! I'm going on holiday. Fuck, Bastard, Shit. What the
>hell, mail me anyway. It's not that bad. You don't want to die, trust me he
>isn't that bad is he?
Well, I don't know about you, but I feel better already, a psychiatrist
in the making perhaps.
Ash, if it moves, flirt with it.
--
I thought about you last night,
all made up in gold,
with a single teardrop in your eye,
and your lips soaked in blood.
raspberry swirl
> me <spider...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Family is supposed to be the best thing you can have.
no, coke is the best thing you can have. and good music.
> : Through a remarriage of my mother's, I now have 8 siblings.
> That is a really scary number of siblings.
it sure as hell is.
i thought my brother was too much to handle. good lord.
> : My stepdad says he wants nothing to do with children on my mom's
> : side of the family, and his kids are completely conceited.
does your mom know this?
> : Whenever someone gets hurt at my house, his asshole kids blame
> : it on my 8 year old brother. They get that from their dad.
> Heh, my advice? Get the hell out as soon as possible.
no, shoot them all while they're asleep.
mel
--
angels fall without you there
and i go on as you get colder.
sarah marie
Dave Brown wrote in message <1z0i3.6652$ml3....@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>...
>In article <1Ooh3.28235$g02....@news.rdc1.ab.wave.home.com>,>I wonder where that's written down.
well, whoever wrote it was probably an orphan.
>
>: Through a remarriage of my mother's, I now have 8 siblings.
>
>That is a really scary number of siblings.
i know a family with 8 kids. there's a family in my town with 10 kids, which
is far, far scarier somehow. i mean...i'd have to sell a few to the zoo or
something. 10!!! anyone ever heard of birth control? i don't even think they
were catholic or anything..
>
>: My stepdad says he wants nothing to do with children on my mom's
>: side of the family, and his kids are completely conceited.
>
>Wow, he sounds like a real find, too.
i can't understnad why so many people remarry complete asses. why is that?
is it some strange rebound phenomenon that i don't know about?
>
>: Whenever someone gets hurt at my house, his asshole kids blame
>: it on my 8 year old brother. They get that from their dad.
>
>Heh, my advice? Get the hell out as soon as possible.
hmm...
if you can. that's usually the hardest part.
if you get the chance, take it.
sarah
"Why do fools fall in love? ...Fools fall in love because it's more socially
acceptable than falling in mudpuddles."--The Usenet Oracle
>
>--Dave
Daniel Ratcliffe
wrote:
>Of course, by your logic, to certain unnamed people, this is just
>attention seeking, so I won't bother dealing with it.
now that was just vindictive, and there really wasn't much point,
was there?
incidentally, i see you completely ignored the section of my
postings that dealt with the fact that people are not all different?
that psychologists can class each person in a group? is that because
you know it's true but can't admit it, or you just don't have a decent
retort?
~daniel
--
http://www.isis-29.demon.co.uk
bah, can't be bothered with a proper sig ;)
Ash
>>Of course, by your logic, to certain unnamed people, this is just
>>attention seeking, so I won't bother dealing with it.
>
> now that was just vindictive, and there really wasn't much point,
>was there?
Oh, well, if you missed the point to it....
> incidentally, i see you completely ignored the section of my
>postings that dealt with the fact that people are not all different?
>that psychologists can class each person in a group? is that because
>you know it's true but can't admit it, or you just don't have a decent
>retort?
Actually, I completely ignored a lot of things, which I am sure Cat will
explain why I didn't say much, just as I promised her.
Does that make it clear enough?
I wish I saw dyslexic
Ash <A...@websters.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I wish I saw dyslexic;
>
>>> Family is supposed to be the best thing you can have. Through a remarriage
>>> of my mother's, I now have 8 siblings. My stepdad says he wants nothing
>>> to do with children on my mom's side of the family, and his kids are
>>> completely conceited. Whenever someone gets hurt at my house, his asshole
>>> kids blame it on my 8 year old brother. They get that from their dad. I
>>> want to die
>
>Of course, by your logic, to certain unnamed people, this is just
>attention seeking, so I won't bother dealing with it.
That isn't very nice. Or is it very nice? Oh, fuck it.
>
> > When you mailed me you didn't seem so depressed. Mail me if you've got
> > problems. Oh, fuck! I'm going on holiday. Fuck, Bastard, Shit. What
> > the hell, mail me anyway. It's not that bad. You don't want to die,
> > trust me he isn't that bad is he?
>
>Well, I don't know about you, but I feel better already, a psychiatrist
>in the making perhaps.
*snort*
--
jack
The name's Nahasapeemapetilon. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon.
Bobbye Bates
Eybbob
The-Exorcist
>Oh, fuck! I'm going on holiday. Fuck, Bastard, Shit.
> jack
alt.kids-talk is not for swear words its for kids not for foul
mouths like you
ABUSE REPORT SENT
--
The
Exorcist
EMAIL ADDRESS BLOCKED AGAINST SPAMMERS
I wish I saw dyslexic
"The-Exorcist" <spam...@home.suck> wrote:
>some foul mouth called I wish I saw dyslexic Wrote
>
> >Oh, fuck! I'm going on holiday. Fuck, Bastard, Shit.
>
> > jack
>
> alt.kids-talk is not for swear words its for kids not for foul
>mouths like you
>
>ABUSE REPORT SENT
>
I'm really sorry if I offened you but I got this in the FAQ:
"There is no rule against using offensive words. People of all ages use
offensive words in real life and alt.kids-talk is real. That's perfectly all
right and we don't need to be told to watch our language."
Did you get a different one?
--
Share and Enjoy
Daniel Ratcliffe
wrote:
> alt.kids-talk is not for swear words its for kids not for foul
>mouths like you
>
>ABUSE REPORT SENT
fuck off =)
~daniel
more eloquently, this is not a place you can legislate, and so
trying to is futile. most likely you weren't trying to anyway, just
being a troll. so sod it :)
The-Exorcist
on Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:13:04 GMT you was reading the bible then wrote
>
> Apparently he did. Ignore him. If anyone complains about your
> language--well, do what you just did. Point them at the FAQ.
>
> Since this idiot has "antispammed" his email address (this used to
> be known as "forging" it, and was considered a bad thing. Me, I
> still consider it a bad thing, and I don't get that much spam), he
> never received a copy of the FAQ.
>
> Is it still being posted here on a Regular Basis?
>
> --Dave
Dave i have not used my original email address to avoid getting spammed
in PC mag's Mac mag's Amiga mag's it all ways says Do not use you personaly
email address on news groups, Spam...@home.suck is not a valid email address
and its not a forgery so its not a bad thing
The first time i put my email address on a newsgroup i got 7 emails (SPAM)
i am glad you dont get much spam you are lucky
i get 1-2 spams nearly everyday
--
The
Exorcist
EMAIL ADDRESS BLOCKED AGAINST SPAMMERS OR IS IT?
ninnie
it out. the e-mail had the faq included and i do remember a part saying
" There is no rule against using offensive words. People of all ages
use offensive words in real life and alt.kids-talk is real. That's
perfectly all right and we don't need to be told to watch our
language."
do i need to elaborate?
"Don't demand or expect that events happen as you would wish them to.
Accept events as they actually happen. that way peace is possible."
-Epictetus
The-Exorcist wrote:
>
> some foul mouth called I wish I saw dyslexic Wrote
>
> >Oh, fuck! I'm going on holiday. Fuck, Bastard, Shit.
>
> > jack
>
> alt.kids-talk is not for swear words its for kids not for foul
> mouths like you
>
> ABUSE REPORT SENT
>
an indirect reflection
[the FAQ]
>Is it still being posted here on a Regular Basis?
No. I suppose I could bite-size it some more.
debbie - nominal keeper of the FAQ
Ash
>some foul mouth called I wish I saw dyslexic Wrote
> alt.kids-talk is not for swear words its for kids not for foul
>mouths like you
>ABUSE REPORT SENT
*Checks his watch*
Ah ha, three weeks, told you, they hit alt.teens, and then the weirdo's
come to akt.....
space cadet
wrote:
>Ah ha, three weeks, told you, they hit alt.teens, and then the weirdo's
>come to akt.....
yeah, we had noticed weirdos from alt.teens turning up in
alt.kids-talk. never bothered to time it before tho :)
~daniel
* Arrest this girl, her Himler hairdo is making me feel sick
--
"if you think that you're strong enough; nice dream. if you think you belong
enough; nice dream"
http://www.isis-29.demon.co.uk - a collection of all my webpages, old & new
I wish I saw dyslexic
nort...@isis-29.demon.co.uk (space cadet) wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:12:28 +0100, Ash <A...@websters.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Ah ha, three weeks, told you, they hit alt.teens, and then the weirdo's
>>come to akt.....
>
> yeah, we had noticed weirdos from alt.teens turning up in
>alt.kids-talk. never bothered to time it before tho :)
>
>~daniel
>
>* Arrest this girl, her Himler hairdo is making me feel sick
>
Isn't that her Hitler hairdo that is making you feel ill?
--
jack
Ohhhhhh ... baby
I wish I saw dyslexic
Kids Online
respond... It sounds like your fellow siblings need your support. Even
though life is tough for us all at times, we must muddle through the bad to
get to the good... Indeed your stepdad has the greatest problem. He sounds
like a miserable man both to himself and you. You stated that his kids were
concieted. I have found that concieted people are often some of the most
miserable. They seem to think that by living a "mightier than thou" life,
they somehow are able to pass themselves off as better than others...
Eventually, as these people age, they start realizing how shallow and narow
minded they are... By then it is usually too late to atone for their
mistakes. It appears that your 8 year old brother needs you to look out for
him. Of course you probably don't have to look far before you realize that
there are also many others who need your support. If something were to
happen to you, what would happen to them? Try to be strong no matter how
tough things get. If they get tougher, try to become tougher yourself.
Although it's hard to see at times, struggles in life, like this, make you a
stronger person, more capable of facing other obstacles later. Concentrate
on using your hurt to accel in something like learning, sports, or other
areas. Often, great scholars and athletes came from very difficult
situations where they had to vent their frustrations by learning or playing
sports. NEVER dwell on things like this. Its hard not to, I realize that,
but you have to make yourself. Deep down you really don't want to die, you
just want your miserable situation to end. Dying will only make things more
miserable on those people who care for you, still alive. Use this situation
to your advantage. Create a greater bond between you and your fellow
siblings, which will offset your misery. Achieve a positive attitude that
will help you become a stronger person by being able to deal with the
struggles life brings. NEVER EVER give up or think you can't because then
you won't! Always remember you CAN!
--
Kids Online
Kids Online
graded on grammer... :-P
--
Kids Online
Dave Brown wrote in message ...
>In article <s4On3.427$zJ1....@news1.usit.net>,
>Kids Online <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>[29 lines of blocktext]
>
>Haven't you ever heard of *paragraphs*? They work wonders on
>Usenet to make your text readable.
>
>--Dave
raspberry swirl
> On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:12:28 +0100, Ash <A...@websters.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Ah ha, three weeks, told you, they hit alt.teens, and then the weirdo's
> >come to akt.....
>
> yeah, we had noticed weirdos from alt.teens turning up in
> alt.kids-talk. never bothered to time it before tho :)
hrm. sinister was originally from alt.teens :)
i sorta miss that asshole.
-m
Matthew Skala
Kids Online <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>Hmmmmm.... How about sentence structure? :-)
>
>>Spelling counts.
"Spelling counts." is perfectly correct sentence structure. It's got a
subject ("spelling") and an intransitive verb ("counts"). That makes a
complete sentence.
--
Free laser networking and other crazy ideas @
http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/netfree.html
Kids Online
>Spelling counts.
--Dave
If you find my posts too difficult to read, I won't be offended if you don't
read them. My original post wasn't directed toward you anyway. The subject
of the girls post seems pretty serious to me and I find it very irrelevant
for you to feel obligated to be my grammer check. Are all your posts without
flaw? I doubt it, but even if their not, who cares? This girl wants to die
and your worried about where I put my commas.... I guess grammer is pretty
important to you so please ignore my less than perfect posts....
Kids Online
Thank you for your grammar advice! I thought you might also benefit
from some "friendly" grammar advice. I could screen all your posts, but I
hope that after helping you with this thread, you will improve without me
doing that.
You may want to forget about using contractions until you understand
them better Dave. Your sentence, "Haven't you ever heard of *paragraphs*?,"
doesn't work "uncontracted." Here is your sentence "uncontracted," "Have not
you ever heard of *paragraphs*?" It is a lot "easier to read" if you write,
"Have you ever heard of *paragraphs*?"
The old saying, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," may also help
you Dave.
--
Kids Online
Dave Brown wrote in message ...
>In article <s4On3.427$zJ1....@news1.usit.net>,
Kids Online
Thank you for your grammar advice! I thought you might also benefit
from some "friendly" grammar advice. I could screen all your posts, but I
hope that after helping you with this thread, you will improve without me
doing that.
You may want to forget about using contractions until you understand
them better Dave. Your sentence, "Isn't he in jail now or something?,"
doesn't work "uncontracted." Here is your sentence "uncontracted," "Is not
he in jail now or something?" It is a lot "easier to read" if you write, "Is
he in jail now or something?"
The old saying, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," may also help
you Dave.
--
Kids Online
Dave Brown wrote in message ...
>In article <Pine.BSF.4.10.990729...@shadows.aeon.net>,
>
>I sure don't.
>
>Isn't he in jail now or something?
>
>--Dave
Kids Online
Thank you for your grammar advice! I thought you might also benefit
from some "friendly" grammar advice. I could screen all your posts, but I
hope that after helping you with this thread, you will improve without me
doing that.
You need a lot of help with this one Dave. You told me "grammar
counts" and "posts need to be easy to read." As my teacher, you really let
me down with this post. I guess your not as smart as I thought you were. I
wish I had time to explain each mistake to you, but for now, I'll just say
this post gets an "F." I really am sorry Dave, but you deserve it on this
one. Pay special attention to your comma mistakes.
Here is your post, which I hope isn't your idea of easy to read!
>Since this idiot has "antispammed" his email address (this used to
>be known as "forging" it, and was considered a bad thing. Me, I
>still consider it a bad thing, and I don't get that much spam), he
>never received a copy of the FAQ.
Now here is your post, better posted: ;-)
Since this idiot "antispammed" his email address, he never
received a copy of the FAQ. Antispamming used to be considered
"forging" a person's email address, which was a bad thing. I
still consider it a bad thing. I don't receive much spam.
You did pretty good with contraction use in this post Dave, but
really blew it with commas and everything else. A little "friendly" advice,
go back to school before you try teaching anyone grammar!
The old saying, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," may also help you Dave.
--
Kids Online
Dave Brown wrote in message ...
>In article <fbfd3b2549%ja...@ivanhoehouse.freeserve.co.uk>,
>Since this idiot has "antispammed" his email address (this used to
>be known as "forging" it, and was considered a bad thing. Me, I
>still consider it a bad thing, and I don't get that much spam), he
>never received a copy of the FAQ.
>--Dave
Ash
>>Ah ha, three weeks, told you, they hit alt.teens, and then the weirdo's
>>come to akt.....
>
> yeah, we had noticed weirdos from alt.teens turning up in
>alt.kids-talk. never bothered to time it before tho :)
I wonder WHO he could mean... I'm just not quite sure. =-)
see, I'm not all bad... mostly bad... but not all bad.
raspberry swirl
> raspberry swirl <m...@shadows.aeon.net> wrote:
> : hrm. sinister was originally from alt.teens :)
> : i sorta miss that asshole.
>
>
> Isn't he in jail now or something?
er.
i highly doubt it. he acted like he was tough, but he really wasn't.
-m i love this computer!
andrea
<uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
> The old saying, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," may also help you Dave.
um, isn't that "judge not, lest ye be judged?" ;>
a.
Matthew Skala
Kids Online <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>It's is not perfect for a formal writer like Dave. Try it in a college level
>composition class... :-)
I was going to killfile you, but I think it's going to be more fun to
watch you squirm.
Don't disappoint me, now.
Matthew Skala
Dave Brown <dagb...@home.com> wrote:
>My sentence, "uncontracted," is "Is he not in jail now or
>something?"
Actually, I'm inclined to think that "Is not he in jail now or something"
would be acceptable, too, though quite unusual and stilted. I sometimes
use that kind of construction when I'm trying to rub people's noses in the
fact that I'm smarter than them. (It serves that purpose whether or not
it's "really" correct.) I don't have an authority to cite on it.
I consider the language of English-speaking Usenet to be a dialect
distinct from, and generally more complicated than, other written English;
the vocabulary is certainly different, and we have entire kinds of
grammatical constructions (for instance in the use of certain
abbreviations) that don't exist in other written English. So it may not
be completely appropriate to try to apply the rules of other written
English to Usenet communication. The best authority on what is or is not
correct Usenetese grammar, in the absence of any scholarly study of it,
would be a consensus of Usenetters.
Kids Online
heard of the King James Version. If you would take time to look at Matthew
7:1, you will find that your wrong again. If you want people to perceive you
as intelligent, at least get your facts straight!
--
Kids Online
Dave Brown wrote in message ...
>
>Incidentally, the "old saying" as you have it, has a grammatical
>error. It's: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." Luke 6:37.
>If you're going to cite the word of God, at least try to get it
>right. There is no version of the Bible which contains the "judge
>not" verse worded the way you did.
>
>--Dave
Kids Online
composition class... :-)
--
Kids Online
Matthew Skala wrote in message <7nu337$ku5$1...@ruby.ansuz.sooke.bc.ca>...
Kids Online
--
Kids Online
andrea wrote in message ...
>In article <T3Eo3.653$zJ1.1...@news1.usit.net>, "Kids Online"
Kids Online
"uncontract" isn't, there isn't a "he" anywhere to be found..... ;-) Man!
You really do need more help than I thought! Oh and by the way.... I am not
the one worried about my grammar style... It was you who brought it up...
You make excuses for your mistakes... If you can't take the heat, get out of
the kitchen... :-)
--
Kids Online
Dave Brown wrote in message ...
>: Your sentence, "Isn't he in jail now or something?," doesn't
>: work "uncontracted." Here is your sentence "uncontracted," "Is
>: not he in jail now or something?"
>
>My sentence, "uncontracted," is "Is he not in jail now or
>something?"
>--Dave
Kris Dow
Kids Online <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>Not according to Mathew 7:1 in the King James Version...
>
Actually, both citations are correct. Luke 6:37 does, in fact,
say "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged..."
Clearly, you need to do more homework. Saying "no, that is
not correct" when it *is*, it's just referring to a different section
of the quoted work, is a bit... judgemental, perhaps?
See, the better way to have handled this would have been to
say: "No, the passage I am quoting is Matthew 7:1. The one you are
referring to is Luke 6:37." (Note the spelling of "Matthew".)
And, for what it's worth, "Uncle Mikey", you need to
review some netiquette to go with your vaunted grammar and
spelling skills. Your attributions for this post are entirely
wrong, given that you didn't quote the previous poster at all,
and yet are posting a direct reply to what she said, and all
of your grammar corrections of Dave Brown should properly have
been emailed to him, as they were not at all relevant to the
conversation on the newsgroup itself. I'm pretty sure they also
had formatting flaws, but I can't be bothered to go back and
check.
-The quiet one
(Obnewsgroupcontent: Boo. Look, it's a sheep!)
Kris Dow
Kids Online <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
> Did you ever pass any English classes??? Sorry dude, but when you
>"uncontract" isn't, there isn't a "he" anywhere to be found..... ;-) Man!
Ahem. The original version: "Isn't he [...]". The uncontracted
version, if you do a straight "uncontraction": "Is not he [...]". However,
the "Is not he [...]" sentence construction is awkward and not
really stylistically correct given normal word usage in speech and
so on (I have no idea if it's actually grammatically correct that way-
I don't have a grammar guide handy, and freely admit that grammar isn't
my strong point[1]) so the words are rearranged to be less awkward:
"Is he not [...]".
So, the "he" in question is, in fact, there, if you look at
the context in which "isn't" is being used in the original sentence.
You, Uncle Mikey, are trying to drop the context and then say that
Dave is wrong. This will ultimately fail, because English is a highly
contextual language.
And, once again, your quoting style for the post you are
following up is incorrect. The text you are adding goes after the
text you are quoting, to make it easier for readers to see the
context (there's that word again) of your post. The post you are
quoting should also be trimmed for content, such that parts of
the post which you are not addressing are removed from the quoted
text, but not to the extent that you remove the necessary context
for the section you are actually replying to. (see, look, *again*.
Very important, this context thing.)
"That's just the way my newsreader does it" is not, btw,
an acceptable excuse for posting incorrectly. Please do not say it.
-The quiet one
[1]- Oh, the horrors, the horrors, look at all those contractions.
Kids Online
Yippee! Your exactly right Dave! I could care less about "appearing"
intelligent! Your the one who seems plagued with that idea! You're able to
criticize others, but when the criticism directs itself towards you, you
seem to take offense. Maybe that should tell you something. Now your
stooping to hurling insults. I have heard that it is often those who point
the fingers who have things to hide. Go ahead and insult me all you want, if
it makes you feel more intelligent. I will just let your own ignorance speak
for you. By the way, you should break apart two main clauses with a comma.
"Does he do that for anyone else or is it just me?"
You see Dave, "Does he do that for anyone else," and, "is it just
me?," are what's called "main clauses." Evidently with all your education,
somehow you weren't taught that. I think it's taught in the first or second
grade now. :-) Even though I am stupid, and nowhere near your intellect,
let me see if I can remember. Oh yes! It all comes back to me now.
"Does he do that for anyone else, or is it just me?"
There you go Dave. Just hope it helps! I also noticed you failed to
retract your arrogant statement about the passage from Matthew 7:1, where
you specified, "There is no version of the Bible which contains the "judge
not" verse worded the way you did." Why is it that most intelligent
"wannabes" are like that? I like being on everyone else's playing field
Dave. It makes life so much easier and enjoyable. Maybe you should try it
sometime.
Take care!
--
Kids Online
Dave Brown wrote in message ...
>I take it you don't care whether people perceive you as
>intelligent or not?
>
>BTW: Folks, this guy makes me feel really uncomfortable. He gives
>me really nasty "pedophile" vibes. Does he do that for anyone
>else or is it just me?
>--Dave
Kids Online
argument with Dave in the first place. He was correcting my grammar and I
should have just ignored him. I hope the girl's original post does not go
unnoticed! I hope someone has responded to her with some concern. Again, I
appologize for my behavior. I am just as much to blame as anyone, for
continuing this argument. I just posted a response to Dave before I read
this. I won't do it again on this thread.
--
Kids Online
Kris Dow wrote in message ...
Matthew Skala
Dave Brown <dagb...@home.com> wrote:
>BTW: Folks, this guy makes me feel really uncomfortable. He gives
>me really nasty "pedophile" vibes. Does he do that for anyone
>else or is it just me?
Based on his postings in alt.kids-talk, he struck me as merely an idiot,
but then again, I've encountered so few genuine paedophiles here that I'm
not sure I could recognize them on vibes from postings alone anyway.
Most people on Usenet who superficially resemble paedophiles, turn out to
be reporters, police, or teenage boys, all faking it. The immediate
willingness to help decode the multimedia boys MPEGs *does* look a bit
bad; it would be more in character, for the type of idiot I imagine Kids
Online to be, for him to give the asker a lecture on how this is a group
for children and you should take your icky porn elsewhere.
The deja.com posting history for uncle...@kids-online.net looks like
this:
11 alt.kids-talk
5 misc.kids
5 misc.kids.computer
4 alt.kids-talk.penpals
2 csn.ml.kids
1 misc.jobs.offered.entry
which doesn't seem particularly damning. Obviously this person's main
interest in the Net is to talk about kids, but if that's the criterion, a
large fraction of akt regulars would qualify as "paedophiles" too. The
one post to misc.jobs.offered.entry looked like this:
>Very true Lisa. I admire your post! It takes a low IQ to post stuff like
>that and an even lower (possibly non-existant) IQ to post it on children's
>news groups! Take care!
and I had to look twice to realise that this was not, in fact, just
another side of the crossposting of a similar message we saw in akt.
Apparently Uncle Mikey has a standardized followup for porn spammers.
I just took a look at the Web site he advertises, www.kids-online.net, and
I've gotta admit that *it* gives me bad vibes. First thing I see on
visiting the page is a complete set of "we are safe" labels from all the
major Web rating systems. That gives me pedophile vibes. It's also a bit
odd that the site has no visible means of support; they don't seem to have
paid advertising (although my using Lynx could have simply rendered it
invisible to me), they don't seem to be selling anything, and yet it seems
to be a commercial-style site, "amateur" in the degree that "amatuer" porn
sites are. I don't mind admitting that I know enough about those to have
an opinion. Most computer science students I know, if they wanted to put
up a Web site as a public service, would do it on a user ISP account
instead of by buying a virtual domain hosting service. But maybe Uncle
Mikey is just a much richer computer science student than I am. The
writing level of the copy on the site is certainly consistent with the
"stupid student" hypothesis.
In the "Internet Safety" quiz, here are the questions. Sorry about the
bad formatting, this is clipped from the source code. I never run
JavaScript for safety reasons.
ques[0]="When in a chat room, it's ok to tell nice people my name if:";
ques[1]="If someone tells me they are an Internet Police Officer:";
ques[2]="If some one is my same age, I can tell them where I live if:";
ques[3]="It's ok to tell the people at Microsoft my address if:";
ques[4]="I am going to meet a friend I met online because:";
ques[5]="Disney, or other children's sites, are always safe because:";
ques[6]="My older sister decided to meet her internet friend, so:";
ques[7]="It is safer to talk to strangers on the internet because:";
ques[8]="If I get a picture of someone, I feel safer because:";
ques[9]="As long as I keep everything secret, I am always safe.";
The answers are obvious. They're revolting, but sadly, not unusual enough
these days to indicate anything particularly sinister about the writer of
the test. I was also annoyed by the comment "Remember always use
nic-names [sic] online!". That may be partly evidence of my own state of
mind, though: I believe the trend towards psuedonymity on the Net is
unfortunate and self-fulfilling; if we all used our real names, most of
the reasons for not doing so would disappear, and the world would be a
better place. Hey, remember when we would revoke lusers' accounts for
posting under fake names? The sad part is that I'm only 23 (just
turned, today) and already an old-timer, just because I can remember
those days. The "programming" tutorial, (subject for the day: HTML!)
is, similarly, perverted in a way too subtle for the law to handle. The
page answering the question "What is the Internet?" says:
>The Internet is a World Wide Web (www) of computers connected to each
>other by wires (phone lines mostly).
before launching into another tirade on how you should never ever give out
personal information online, but that argues, again, in favour of idiocy
rather than paedophilia.
Under "stories", story number one is "Gina's Chat Friend Lisa". We've all
heard that one before, of course. I gotta admit, it does give me a lot of
bad vibes. Gotta love the picture at http://www.kids-online.net/story/1h.gif
Yes, children, the difference between guardian angels and evil predators
*always* boils down to the difference between a nice clean blue uniform
and a stained tractor pull T-shirt!
Here's the registration for kids-online.net. This information is already
publicly available in the whois database, so I've no qualms about posting
it. My own name and address are in the registration for ansuz.sooke.bc.ca
and I don't much care if someone wants to look up and post them. Anyway:
#[rs.internic.net]
#
#Access to Network Solutions' WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in
[6 lines deleted, sheesh, every time I do a lookup their policy has gotten
sillier than the last time]
#policy. All rights reserved.
#
#
#Registrant:
#Tommy Barnard (KIDS-ONLINE4-DOM)
# 6351 Panther Creek Road
# Talbott, TN 37877
#
# Domain Name: KIDS-ONLINE.NET
#
# Administrative Contact:
# Barnard, Tommy (TB10136) kids-...@ADDR.COM
# 423-587-5817
# Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
# Hostmaster, Addr.com (BA2362) hostm...@ADDR.COM
# (408) 615-1545 (FAX) (408) 615-1569
# Billing Contact:
# Barnard, Tommy (TB10136) kids-...@ADDR.COM
# 423-587-5817
#
# Record last updated on 14-Feb-99.
# Record created on 14-Feb-99.
# Database last updated on 31-Jul-99 04:16:51 EDT.
#
# Domain servers in listed order:
#
# NS.ADDR.COM 209.249.147.233
# NS2.ADDR.COM 209.249.147.237
addr.com is "Pacific Tech" out of California, a Web hosting service.
They're pretty cheap as such things go, but Mr. Barnard is paying at least
$8.95/mo for site hosting alone, plus InterNIC fees. The record creation
date is amusing, but probably not significant.
Verdict: he *could* be a paedophile, but it's not clear, and I'd hate to
make that kind of accusation and then have it turn out to be wrong. For
legal exposure reasons, as much as any moral qualms I may have about
bearing false witness. He's definitely a sicko, but that covers a lot of
ground including many types that we can't reasonably punish. But I
wouldn't have much sympathy for him if he got in trouble. As far as I'm
concerned, it's open season on people who endorse Web safety rating schemes.
My own evil kiddie brainwashing site is at
http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/isp-age.html
Feel free to read it and call me nasty names.
Kris Dow
>
>Apparently you never even went to English class. Or possibly you
>went to one of those touchy-feely English classes where they want
>you to "express your ideas" without actually giving you any of the
>tools to do so.
>
Oy. I went to a touchy-feely English class. There's nothing
overly wrong with my writing. :P (Ok, so I have spelling issues. And
I never used periods until 6th grade. I learned quickly. :P )
-The quiet one
(Who writes, or used to, more or less like a reader. Which
is probably why I can't stand to read some of my earlier work. Ugh.
It's awful. It's PAINFUL.)
Kids Online
Matthew Skala wrote in message <7o212a$nmg$1...@ruby.ansuz.sooke.bc.ca>...
> The immediate
>willingness to help decode the multimedia boys MPEGs *does* look a bit
>bad; it would be more in character, for the type of idiot I imagine Kids
>Online to be, for him to give the asker a lecture on how this is a group
>for children and you should take your icky porn elsewhere.
Actually I will plead stupidity on this one Matthew. I did not
realize that the MPEGs were porn. Are you sure about that? I mean. not all
multimedia files are porn you know.
>I was also annoyed by the comment "Remember always use
>nic-names [sic] online
There is nothing wrong with kids using nic-names Matthew. If you
surf around, you will quickly find that the FBI, Missing Kids Organization,
and most any "sincire" kid's sites warn them about giving out personal
information. If your condoning it, maybe your the idiot.
>>The Internet is a World Wide Web (www) of computers connected to each
>>other by wires (phone lines mostly).
>
>before launching into another tirade on how you should never ever give out
>personal information online, but that argues, again, in favour of idiocy
>rather than paedophilia.
I do not see how I am suggesting kids give out personal info by
describing the internet.
>Under "stories", story number one is "Gina's Chat Friend Lisa". We've all
>heard that one before, of course. I gotta admit, it does give me a lot of
>bad vibes.
Yes the story is a good lesson for all kids. I hope they all read
it. Here is the URL:
http://www.kids-online.net/story/story1a.html
>#Tommy Barnard (KIDS-ONLINE4-DOM)
># 6351 Panther Creek Road
># Talbott, TN 37877
># Domain Name: KIDS-ONLINE.NET
># Administrative Contact:
># Barnard, Tommy (TB10136) kids-...@ADDR.COM
># 423-587-5817
># NS.ADDR.COM 209.249.147.233
># NS2.ADDR.COM 209.249.147.237
I have nothing to hide. Make copies for everyone. :-) By the way, my
full name is Tommy Michael Barnard. That's why I normally go by Mike. You
can do a reverse search with the phone number to verify that. :-)
>addr.com is "Pacific Tech" out of California, a Web hosting service.
>They're pretty cheap as such things go, but Mr. Barnard is paying at least
>$8.95/mo for site hosting alone, plus InterNIC fees
Yeah, InterNIC fees are only $35.00 a year. And the Pacific Tech
rate is pretty close, not counting tax of course. So correct me if I am
wrong but does $8.95 a month sound high to anyone else? Maybe because I work
it doesn't seem like that much money to me... Who knows?
>He's definitely a sicko, but that covers a lot of
>ground including many types that we can't reasonably punish. But I
>wouldn't have much sympathy for him if he got in trouble. As far as I'm
>concerned, it's open season on people who endorse Web safety rating
schemes.
"Web rating schemes" like the ones I use, are used my all of the
"major" sites. Just surf around. Several of the "schemers" as you might call
them, regularly visit the site to make sure the content remains child safe.
I personally love the idea! It keeps a lot of sites from misrepresenting
themselves.
I am trying to figure out the basis for you thinking I am a sicko...
Is it because I pay a whopping $8.95 a month for an internet site, (not
counting the major $35 a year InterNIC charges of course). Is it because I
warn kids to be careful online? Or was it the color selections I used on my
website? :-)
If it makes you and Dave feel more secure, call me an idiot all you
like. :-) I don't mind at all.
Best Wishes!
andrea
<uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
> Not according to Mathew 7:1 in the King James Version...
you're a silly bat.
andrea
Kids Online
part, but I am pretty silly! ;-)
--
Kids Online
>you're a silly bat.
>
>andrea
raspberry swirl
> Kids Online <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
> : If you want people to perceive you as intelligent, at least get
> : your facts straight!
>
> me really nasty "pedophile" vibes. Does he do that for anyone
> else or is it just me?
aye.
and i'm also sensing he has a crush on you. =;)
-m
space cadet
<uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>I am pretty popular it seems...
heh. the irony.
> There is nothing wrong with kids using nic-names Matthew. If you
>surf around, you will quickly find that the FBI, Missing Kids Organization,
>and most any "sincire" kid's sites warn them about giving out personal
>information. If your condoning it, maybe your the idiot.
yes, they may well advise to use nicks, but that doesn't mean it's
the right thing to do. i'm sure most paedophiles advise young children
to sleep with much older men. that doesn't mean that is right either.
why is condoning the use of personal information idiotic? how are you
meant to get to know someone if they are at worst lying to you, or at
best hiding themselves from you? how can you have a relationship based
on deceit and false impressions?
> I do not see how I am suggesting kids give out personal info by
>describing the internet.
nononononono.....you're advising that we _don't_ give out personal
information, that we don't tell our friends about ourselves and our
lives.
> Yes the story is a good lesson for all kids. I hope they all read
>it. Here is the URL:
i'm not going to dignify your blatent advertising with a visit, but
i guess your story is about some child who got abused because of the
internet? can i ask you a question? do you also post stories about all
the many _more_ kids who get abused without any connection to the
internet whatsoever? you are peddling an irrational fear, and by
claiming to be legitimate, even seeming to rationalise this fear.
> "Web rating schemes" like the ones I use, are used my all of the
>"major" sites. Just surf around. Several of the "schemers" as you might call
>them, regularly visit the site to make sure the content remains child safe.
>I personally love the idea! It keeps a lot of sites from misrepresenting
>themselves.
"child safe"? who are you to judge what is safe and what is not? who
is any one person, for that matter? how do you think children feel
when they find out that people like you are controlling what they see,
censoring their viewing. nobody ever said that the internet was a safe
place for children, but it does come as a package deal. the internet
is a method of communication more than anything else, and so i don't
see how you can deign yourself important enough to have the right to
shove these ideas on children. nobody censors phone lines or face to
face conversations, so why should they web pages or other aspects of
the internet, such as private email or public newsgroups?
~daniel
* Two out of three ain't bad
--
"if you think that you're strong enough; nice dream. if you think you belong
enough; nice dream"
http://www.isis-29.demon.co.uk - a collection of all my webpages, old & new
space cadet
<ja...@ivanhoehouse.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Isn't that her Hitler hairdo that is making you feel ill?
no. you asked :p
~daniel
* Is a promise something people used to keep, when love was worth fighting for?
space cadet
<m...@shadows.aeon.net> wrote:
>hrm. sinister was originally from alt.teens :)
figures ;p
>i sorta miss that asshole.
never got to know him. only ever saw him aroudn the flamenet times,
i think. they were fun tho :)
space cadet
wrote:
>I wonder WHO he could mean... I'm just not quite sure. =-)
don't flatter yourself, you are just one of many :)
>see, I'm not all bad... mostly bad... but not all bad.
how are we supposed to see that?
~daniel
* You loved us more than we could ever have loved you back
space cadet
<uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
> You're able to criticize others, but when the criticism directs
>itself towards you, you seem to take offense.
i don't think he took al lthat much offence, it seemed to be you who
got all defensive. but still, i'm not complaining, you're entertaining
the rest of us well =) that is "you're", as in "you" "are", not your.
remember :)
> Now your stooping to hurling insults.
that's you are. or you're.
~daniel
btw, i agree about the creepy vibe thing :)
space cadet
<uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
> You're exactly right Kris! I appologize for getting into this silly
>argument with Dave in the first place.
if you're sorry, what are you doing here continuing the argument?
again, don't take this as a cue to leave, you're too much fun to leave
:)
>has responded to her with some concern.
the original post was sent _ages_ ago, so your concern appears a
little redundant. but i seem to remember many people responding when
she first posted.
~daniel
* I get the joke, and yes I know what it means.
Kids Online
> yes, they may well advise to use nicks, but that doesn't mean it's
>the right thing to do.
It doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do either. Ultimately it's the
kid's own choice. If you have the right to suggest to kids that it's ok to
give out personal information to everyone online, then should not I also
have the same right to advise against it?
>do you also post stories about all
>the many _more_ kids who get abused without any connection to the
>internet whatsoever? you are peddling an irrational fear, and by
>claiming to be legitimate, even seeming to rationalise this fear.
My site is computer and internet oriented. I could never hope to cover every
area of child abuse or neglect. That's way to broad of a topic! I stick to
content related to my site. Your right in saying that many more kids are
abused without any connection to the internet, although that is not a valid
comparison. One should compare apples to apples. A closer comparison might
be how many kids, who tell every stranger they meet, everthing they want to
know, end up abused. If only two kids get killed by a faulty car seat, is
that enough to warrant a warning? Should we wait for three kids to die, or
four, or maybe more, before offering a warning?
> "child safe"? who are you to judge what is safe and what is not?
It is my website. I should be able to judge what content I put there. You
had the freedom of judging the content of your newsgroup post. Shouldn't I
have the same freedom?
>i don't see how you can deign yourself important enough to have the right
to
>shove these ideas on children.
I don't shove anything on anyone. I offer my advice, as you offer yours. The
whole idea behind the freedom of speech is that everyone has the right to
voice his or her opinion. If you take away my right to warn, then I take
away your right to oppose warning, then neither of us have any rights.
I try to be pretty open minded about most stuff. Most people find my site
not overly protective! I do not say "Never chat!" Instead I say "Be careful
when you chat!" Before a long trip, your parents would probably tell you to
be careful, would you be offended by that?
Kids Online
>spelling and punctuation. just so someone could be told 'you don't
>belong here.' or 'some of us don't like you' or whatever.
I am starting to feel even stupider than I normally do ;-) I think I will
appologise to Dave and hopefully everyone can be happy again! I am getting
tired of having to spell check all my posts anyway! ;-) Grammar is actually
one of my weakest points anyway! :-) And please, noone has to agree with
that!!! hehehehehe.....
Matthew Skala
miasma <ly...@shadows.aeon.net> wrote:
>i can't believe you people went into a discussion on grammar and
>spelling and punctuation. just so someone could be told 'you don't
>belong here.' or 'some of us don't like you' or whatever.
Ain't Usenet grand?
Matthew Skala
Kids Online <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>realize that the MPEGs were porn. Are you sure about that? I mean. not all
>multimedia files are porn you know.
I haven't looked at them myself; I was going by Dave's description.
>>I was also annoyed by the comment "Remember always use
>>nic-names [sic] online
>
> There is nothing wrong with kids using nic-names Matthew.
I disagree. When people of all ages use fake names on the Net, it
increases their tendancy to believe that the Net is some sort of game, and
that people and events on the Net aren't real. That belief causes people
to hurt each other. It's bad, and something (like casual psuedonymity)
that creates it is also bad. I'm not saying that if you use a fake name
it will automatically cause you to be an evil person: only that I don't
approve of encouraging people to use fake names, and I emphatically
disapprove of suggesting that fake names ought to be a routine safety
precaution for everybody.
> If you
>surf around, you will quickly find that the FBI, Missing Kids Organization,
I don't think very highly of the FBI in Internet-related matters. They
are the same people who wanted not only the ability to tap everyone's
email without a warrant, but also wanted Internet service providers to
foot the bill for building the infrastructure to conduct those wiretaps.
I don't know much about the "Missing Kids Organization".
>and most any "sincire" kid's sites warn them about giving out personal
>information. If your condoning it, maybe your the idiot.
Signing your name on the messages you write is not "giving out personal
information". It is common courtesy. I condone politeness.
> I do not see how I am suggesting kids give out personal info by
>describing the internet.
It is true, but completely irrelevant, that a description of the Internet
is not a suggestion that kids give out personal info. When I quoted that
section of your Web page, where you suggested that the Internet and World
Wide Web were the same thing, I was making an entirely different point.
> I have nothing to hide.
Then you must be a very boring person.
>wrong but does $8.95 a month sound high to anyone else? Maybe because I work
>it doesn't seem like that much money to me... Who knows?
Oh yes, *well done*!
> "Web rating schemes" like the ones I use, are used my all of the
>"major" sites. Just surf around.
Of course any debate on that point would boil down to an argument as to
what constitutes a "major" site, but a few sites I like that do not
carry rating tags include:
http://www.peacefire.org/ - Political organization
http://slashdot.org/ - News service
http://www.ohio-state.edu/ - University, one of the oldest servers on
the World Wide Web
http://www.yahoo.com/ - "Portal"
http://www.iana.org/ - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
http://www.gc.ca/ - Canadian Federal Government
http://www.nsa.gov/ - Spy agency
http://www.akt.org/ - alt.kids-talk Web server
Web rating is by no means universal among the big players.
> I am trying to figure out the basis for you thinking I am a sicko...
I think you're a sicko because your idea of what constitutes a "danger" to
children is so far different from my own that I consider your promotion of
your ideals to *itself* be a threat to children. Please note that I do
think you've got a right to talk about your beliefs, and I hope you will
continue to do so: I am simply exercising my similar right to comment on
your beliefs and express my own.
I believe that children benefit from exposure to the entire range of human
thought; only through such exposure can they learn to distinguish good
ideas from bad ones. Our society is full of dysfunctional adults who
can't think for themselves. If you want to raise another generation of
marching morons, ripe for manipulation by any governmental or corporate
puppet masters who come along, then "protecting" kids from "adult" (read:
different) ideas is *exactly* the way to do it. I believe that minds are
like gardens. Gardens grow when you throw shit on them. You seem to
believe that it's not only acceptable, but even *desirable* for children
to not see ideas that you think are bad, and you promote the use of
technology to accomplish that purpose, and for that reason, I think
you're a sicko.
I believe that it's a good idea for people to take responsibility for
their actions. Responsibility is important everywhere we go, including on
the Net. You encourage people to create false personae in Internet
communication. You say it's for safety from paedophiles (a laudable
goal), but the use of such personae also causes people to think that what
they do on the Net isn't real. You also tell people that the others they
meet on the Net are fake; even if that were true (and it is only ever true
of a small minority of Net users), it further contributes to the "This is
just a game" mentality. People who think that the Net is just a game hurt
themselves and others. If you cause that to happen, I think you're a sicko.
Matthew Skala
space cadet <nort...@isis-29.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> i'm not going to dignify your blatent advertising with a visit, but
>i guess your story is about some child who got abused because of the
You should visit the story, Daniel, it's got amusing pictures. Just be
sure not to BELIEVE it. The general outline is a girl talking to two
other girls on the Net, one of them is really an evil kiddie stalker
wearing a tractor pull T-shirt, the other is really a nice policeman.
She narrowly escapes an unspecified fate because the cop catches the bad
guy in the "nic" of time.
miasma
i can't believe you people went into a discussion on grammar and
spelling and punctuation. just so someone could be told 'you don't
belong here.' or 'some of us don't like you' or whatever.
then again, i can't believe i spent 3 hours stuck in traffic and
moved only 1.5 miles on saturday.
it just reminded me of how amusing liberal-thinking people are.
debbie - who will never write that story. it seems doomed.
Kids Online
Matthew Skala wrote in message <7o5tge$98j$1...@ruby.ansuz.sooke.bc.ca>...
>I disagree. When people of all ages use fake names on the Net, it
>increases their tendancy to believe that the Net is some sort of game, and
>that people and events on the Net aren't real
I do not see any harm in the use of nic names. I agree that intentionally
lying about one's name is wrong. Nic names are commonly used in day to day
life. The child would not have to lie about anything; he or she could be
honest and tell the other person that this was his or her nic name. There is
no lie being told there. I do not see the reason one should have to reveal
his or her actual name. If they are honest and specifically state that they
are using a nic name, they protect themselves, while they also refrain from
lying. Of course, inevitably the person must decide for themselves and I
merely am making a suggestion. I do not want to force any idea on anyone. I
just feel both sides should be weighed.
>Then you must be a very boring person.
I hate to admit it, but this is true most of the time; although when I said
I had nothing to hide, I meant nothing major. I am sure everyone has done
things they wish they could go back and change.
>You also tell people that the others they meet on the Net are fake;
If I have, I was wrong in doing so. By no means do I want to suggest that
anyone is fake on the net.
By the way, would you mind looking at my dictionary on the site and seeing
if you find any mistakes? I have tried to make it as correct as I can but I
wouldn't mind getting a second opinion. You did say you were a programmer
also. It doesn't have to be anytime soon, just if you get the chance.
Thanks, Mike
space cadet
<uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>If they are honest and specifically state that they are using a nic
>name, they protect themselves
i don't understand how creating some false persona instead of
telling someone your name is protecting you. how exactly am i putting
myself in danger by telling you i am daniel? or telling anyone here?
~daniel
* A kiss is a terrible thing to waste
space cadet
Skala) wrote:
[many things i agree with, including this]
>I believe that it's a good idea for people to take responsibility for
>their actions. Responsibility is important everywhere we go, including on
>the Net.
people try to take that responsibility away from children with
things like what is discussed here. they seem to think that they
can't, and shouldn't be able to handle. so we end up with many people
knowing next to nothing about the world as they are always being
sugar-coated. if i had the choice, i would much rather have the
greater life experience than many of my peers than to be ignorant of
so much.
basically, my points more or less are what matthew is saying, it's
just that he's had more practice at making them, and can be
significantly more eloquent than my humble self :)
~daniel
* I get the joke, and yes I know what it means.
--
space cadet
Skala) wrote:
> The general outline is a girl talking to two other girls on the Net,
>one of them is really an evil kiddie stalker wearing a tractor pull
>T-shirt, the other is really a nice policeman.
wow, so only one third of the girls i talk to are actually girls?
the rest are evil kiddy stalkers and police? i don't know which of
those i'd rather talk to ;) sounds so wonderfully fake it might just
be entertaining, i'll take a peek :)
~daniel
* A kiss is a terrible thing to waste
--
space cadet
<uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>It doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do either. Ultimately it's the
>kid's own choice. If you have the right to suggest to kids that it's ok to
>give out personal information to everyone online, then should not I also
>have the same right to advise against it?
so is this what you do? you simply make your suggestion openly,
without any pressure? by labelling yourself a kid-safe site, and going
on about certificates, surely you are adding some kind of fake
authenticity and authority to your words. if you pretend to be some
big internet expert, surely they are going to think you must be
telling the truth. do you make it clear it's just your opinion?
somehoe i doubt, but feel free to correct me, please.
>My site is computer and internet oriented. I could never hope to cover every
>area of child abuse or neglect.
no, you couldn't. but my point is that you blow the cases of child
abuse well out of proportion. it is hardly a common occurance, or
something that happens to the majority of under 18 internet users. but
the spin people put on these cases lead people to believe it is
common, and it is a large threat. which is not true.
>Should we wait for three kids to die, or four, or maybe more, before
>offering a warning?
i don't think that is fair. i know that people have been harmed by
sickos on the internet and elsewhere, but that is not the point. the
point is the presentation. you ask someone who doesn't use the
internet what it is, they will invariably mention the web, porn, and
paedophiles and people with other mental problems. because of the spin
that is put on it, and the inappropriate emphasis. do you make it
clear that it is a really rare thing to happen, and that many more
children who do give out personal information haven't been abused?
>It is my website. I should be able to judge what content I put there. You
>had the freedom of judging the content of your newsgroup post. Shouldn't I
>have the same freedom?
so you are saying that in your opinion such a site is safe and such
a site isn't? or are you just saying that these sites _aren't_ safe,
and that it _isn't_ safe to give out personal information? you people
peddle irrational fears and manipulate them and people with sick tales
like the one matthew and dave were so entertained by. incidentally,
isn't the idea of the certificate schemes to deny children access to
sites without (or with) certain certificates, and so changing it from
an opinion to an inforced rule?
>Before a long trip, your parents would probably tell you to be
>careful, would you be offended by that?
i don't remember them telling me to be careful, because they know
that just because i am not 18 does not mean that i do not have common
sense. but that might just be them, this is not important. what is
important is that a chat is not a long trip. you are talking about
communication. little children are told not to talk to strangers, yes,
but this warning is not given to people in secondary school, or even
top years of primary schools. it is left to their judgement. it is
insulting to people to suggest that they cannot have a good judgement.
~daniel
* Why don't we ever get the signals we send?
Ash
>BTW: Folks, this guy makes me feel really uncomfortable. He gives
>me really nasty "pedophile" vibes. Does he do that for anyone
>else or is it just me?
Something about "Uncle-Mikey" really threw something... but I thought he
might be one of you lot, so I wasn't going to say it.
Ash, if it moves, flirt with it.
--
I thought about you last night,
all made up in gold,
with a single teardrop in your eye,
and your lips soaked in blood.
Ash
> I hate to disappoint you again Dave, but evidently you have never
>heard of the King James Version. If you would take time to look at Matthew
>7:1, you will find that your wrong again. If you want people to perceive you
>as intelligent, at least get your facts straight!
It is necessary to be able to remember a large volume of facts to be
perceived as intelligent? I always thought it was more than that...
69% of websites are pornographic.
$7.68 billion is made from the market every year.
Ash "...and suddenly, I'm a genius."
Kris Dow
space cadet <nort...@isis-29.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 2 Aug 1999 22:08:30 -0700, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca. (Matthew
>Skala) wrote:
>
> [many things i agree with, including this]
>
>>their actions. Responsibility is important everywhere we go, including on
>>the Net.
>
>things like what is discussed here. they seem to think that they
>can't, and shouldn't be able to handle. so we end up with many people
>knowing next to nothing about the world as they are always being
>sugar-coated. if i had the choice, i would much rather have the
>greater life experience than many of my peers than to be ignorant of
>so much.
>
Then again, one must remember that we live in a society that
is full of commericals for antibacterial everything, to the point
where children today are growing up and getting sick from incredibly
common things because they weren't exposed to the everyday germs and
allowed to develop an immunity the way they should be.
As well, these are people who don't actually attempt to
teach their children *how* to think- just to repeat the right things
and complete tasks by rote. If you don't teach your kids to think,
they cannot possibly make their own judgements about, well, *anything*.
Porn included.
And as far as this "don't give out personal details or
you'll be kidnapped, raped, and murdered" rubbish, well... EVERY
single person I have *ever* heard of getting into trouble as a
result of the 'net has done something astoundingly stupid to
get themselves into that situation that has *nothing* to do
with the 'net. I mean, if you agree to meet someone you've never
met before in a private place, no matter *how* you met them
('net, newspaper ad, whatever) you're being a moron.
But then, I've successfully met lots and lots of people
that I started talking to on the 'net, and I've not been kidnapped,
raped, or murdered yet. (hell, I *live* with one of those people.
We'll probably get married eventually.) And I've never hidden
my name, in all the years I've been on the 'net. I don't hand
out my address, or my phone number, but if someone really wants
to find out, they can manage it. That's true of pretty much
*everyone*, though. Do you advise people to go around always
introducing themselves as "Cow87896" or "CoolKid", in case the
guy they meet at soccer practise is also a kidnapper, rapist,
and murder?
We need to teach our children skills about thinking
for themselves, and skills about recognising what really *is*
a dangerous situation. If you lead them to believe that everything
is a dangerous situation, well.... It's kinda like the boy who
cried "wolf!", isn't it?
-Kris
Kids Online
Kris Dow wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:33:46 GMT,
>where children today are growing up and getting sick from incredibly
>common things because they weren't exposed to the everyday germs and
>allowed to develop an immunity the way they should be.
If your exposed to some "everyday germs" (I like the paraphrase), you won't
have the chance to develop an immunity.
>I mean, if you agree to meet someone you've never
>met before in a private place, no matter *how* you met them
>('net, newspaper ad, whatever) you're being a moron.
Most definately!!
> But then, I've successfully met lots and lots of people
>that I started talking to on the 'net, and I've not been kidnapped,
>raped, or murdered yet. (hell, I *live* with one of those people.
>We'll probably get married eventually.)
Sounds like your old enough to take care of yourself. Most 7 and 8 year olds
aren't always as capable.
>Do you advise people to go around always
>introducing themselves as "Cow87896" or "CoolKid", in case the
>guy they meet at soccer practise is also a kidnapper, rapist,
>and murder?
It probably wouldn't do them any good then would it? If the kidnapper only
knew them by CoolKid, then he wouldn't be at the practice in the first
place. :-)
>If you lead them to believe that everything
>is a dangerous situation, well.... It's kinda like the boy who
>cried "wolf!", isn't it?
Well... I know that people in this newsgroup are from all parts of the
globe. Some may actually live in a Utopia-like society where people run
through fields of flowers, singing, dancing, and smiling and all that. If
there are people and places like that, then I am happy for them. Here, in
the United States, everyday you pick up a newspaper you can read about
drive-by shootings, school shootings, cult killings, kidnapping, rape, child
porn, drugs, murder, gang wars, the list goes on and on.... If it has never
happened to us, we ignore it, thinking it is just something that happens far
far away. April 20, 1999, at a Colorado high school, 12 innocent kids were
shot to death while at school. Many others were seriously injured. May 20,
1999 a similar incident at a Georgia high school resulted in 6 more students
being injured. Where isn't it dangerous? Maybe a church? May 24, 1998 in
Danville Illinois, 30 people were injured by a bomb while attending worship
service. If there is anything or anyplace which isn't potentionally
dangerous, please tell me where it is. The "boy who cried wolf," did so when
he wasn't in danger. "Crying wolf," when your in danger, is quite a
different matter. Am I suggesting that we all lock ourselves in a closet and
hide? No because a spider can bite you there. :-) Seriously, today's world
is quite dangerous for many of us. Some, might live in a much less violent
area than the U.S.. For those, I am sincerly happy for you! But for some,
ignoring the potential danger that surrounds us can lead to a tragic
situation. We can't sit around and worry about what "might" happen all the
time, but we can be careful while we're sitting around thinking. There is
nothing wrong with preventive medicine. Exposing people to "everyday germs"
quite often leads to serious, if not fatal complications, before they ever
have a chance for their "immunity" system to kick in.
Matthew Skala
Ash <A...@websters.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>69% of websites are pornographic.
>$7.68 billion is made from the market every year.
But how much of that is absorbed into the elephant? :-)
Matthew Skala
Kris Dow <kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> *That* depends how one defines innocent. I think you'll find
>that there are some people out there who very much sympathize with
>the shooters. We may have a bit more sane, and thus *didn't* take
>machine guns into school, but damn do I understand the *desire* to.
I think Uncle Mikey, and probably everyone else, ought to take a look at
these stories about the Littleton shootings:
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/04/25/1438249.shtml
http://slashdot.org/features/99/04/27/0310247.shtml
http://slashdot.org/features/99/04/29/0124247.shtml
They're not nice, but they're important.
--
Matthew Skala "Why should the fates of the groovy
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca and the creepy be intertwined?"
http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/ - Valerie Solanas
Matthew Skala
Kids Online <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>Again... Correct me if I am wrong but Cancer, AIDS, common colds, and many
>various other diseases are not affected by these "antibodies" you speak of.
Cells in your body go cancerous quite frequently, and the vast majority of
the time, your immune system kills them immediately. Antibodies are the
main way it does that. When someone gets sick from cancer, it's in the
rare cases where the antibodies didn't work. AIDS: it's primarily because
of antibodies that it takes years to kill you instead of hours. Common
colds: it's because of antibodies that colds don't kill you, and you can't
normally catch the *same* cold twice.
But I think Kris was talking primarily about bacterial diseases anyway.
A virus tends to either infect you or not, but low levels of bacteria can
allow you to build an immunity which will protect you from future exposure
to high levels. The immune situation is complicated and nobody really
understands it all. The point is just that "protecting" people from any
and all exposure to biological nasties, attractive as the idea may sound,
is in fact a spectacularly bad thing to do because it'll leave people
unable to cope with those nasties when they eventually do encounter them,
and it works in exactly the same way with ideas. Or as I put it, gardens
grow when you throw shit on them.
>"cure" a child once he or she has been subjected to a virus like a kidnapper
>or rappist. It would be nice if you were right, and I really, sincerly wish
>you were, but once a child is infected with this type of virus, there is no
The thing is that immunity is transferable between different related
diseases - and it works the same with personal safety. Take a common
pathogen, like say Staphylococcus. There are lots of different kinds of
Staph. A few of them are really really dangerous; most of them are much
less dangerous. When you're born, chances are good that the first one
you'll encounter will be one of the less bad ones. No big deal, and your
immune system learns to deal with it. Then some day you encounter one of
the really bad ones, and maybe it makes you sick, but it doesn't
automatically kill you, you've got a fighting chance, because your immune
system has already learnt how to fight Staphylococcus by practicing on the
less virulent strain.
But suppose your parents had somehow managed to protect you from all
Staphylococcus, all your life, until you were an adult. Well, at that
point your immune system is much less able to learn. So you encounter a
relatively safe kind of Staph, and your immune system fights it off, no
big deal... without learning much, note. Later, you encounter one of the
more virulent strains, and your immune system tries unsuccessfully to
fight it off, again treating it as a new thing because it doesn't remember
the innocuous strain it fought off last week, and so you get sick and die.
Now: if you're an innocent youngster and you go on the Net, you'll
encounter a whole parade of freaks, and you'll quickly learn to
distinguish the scary people from the annoying people from the people you
actually want to be around. Chances are extremely good that you'll do
this before you encounter anyone who poses a really serious threat. If
you're "protected", though, by hanging out only with nice people all the
time (even assuming that were possible), you'll build the habits of not
watching out for yourself (equivalent to the immune system losing its
ability to learn) and then when the protections go away, as they surely
will do eventually, you present a huge target.
That brings up another factor, which gets into the whole antibiotics
overuse thing. If you spray antibiotics on your counter and then check it
for bacteria, what do you find? No bacteria? No such luck. What you
find is a lot *fewer* bacteria than before, but the ones that are there
are the ones that resisted the antibiotics. The really nasty ones.
Bacteria even have the ability to adapt to antibiotics - you've heard
maybe of superbugs? When penecillin was first discovered it killed
everything, but nowadays, lots of germs resist it. By using the germ
killer, you haven't guaranteed that you won't find germs, but you've
guaranteed that any germs you find will be the worst ones. It's the same
way with the Net. Suppose you build a chat room that's hardened against
paedophiles. Will that guarantee that there aren't any paedophiles in the
chat room? No, it'll only guarantee that the paedophiles in the chat room
are the sneakiest of the lot, who were able to get through your
protections. This does not seem like a good thing.
Kris Dow
Kids Online <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>
>Kris Dow wrote in message ...
>>On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:33:46 GMT,
>
>>where children today are growing up and getting sick from incredibly
>>common things because they weren't exposed to the everyday germs and
>>allowed to develop an immunity the way they should be.
>
>If your exposed to some "everyday germs" (I like the paraphrase), you won't
>have the chance to develop an immunity.
Er. No. You're missing the point. We are not born with an
immunity to anything. To become immune to something, you *have*
to be exposed to it. That's how vaccinations work. The disease is
rendered less-harmful in some way, and then administered. Yes,
occasionally people get really sick and die from everyday germs.
But if you keep someone in an environment where there are no
everyday germs, then they can't ever go ANYWHERE or do ANYTHING,
because their immune system is so woefully unprepared that the
second they *are* exposed to the everyday germs that are out
there, they will get sick, and they will likely die, because
they have no protection, no ability to cope with anything themselves.
It works *exactly* the same way with thought. If children
are kept away from anything that *might* be "harmful" (for pretty
pathetic definitions of harmful, imo) then when they're adults
they will have *no* protection. They won't know how to deal with
it, and they won't be able to think for themselves, or make
decisions about what they want to see and don't, or what they
should do and what they shouldn't, etc. etc.
>> But then, I've successfully met lots and lots of people
>>that I started talking to on the 'net, and I've not been kidnapped,
>>raped, or murdered yet. (hell, I *live* with one of those people.
>>We'll probably get married eventually.)
>
>Sounds like your old enough to take care of yourself. Most 7 and 8 year olds
>aren't always as capable.
Actually, I was 12 when I started using the 'net, and I
haven't met all of those people recently.
However. Here's a question for you: If those 7 and 8 year olds
aren't old enough to take care of themselves, why the HELL are they
just being sat down at the computer to amuse themselves? Does the
phrase "parental responsibility" mean anything? The Internet does
NOT exist to amuse young children. It is a facet of the Real World.
It has good people. It has bad people. It has porn and god knows
what other horrible things, just like the Real World.
>>Do you advise people to go around always
>>introducing themselves as "Cow87896" or "CoolKid", in case the
>>guy they meet at soccer practise is also a kidnapper, rapist,
>>and murder?
>
>It probably wouldn't do them any good then would it? If the kidnapper only
>knew them by CoolKid, then he wouldn't be at the practice in the first
>place. :-)
Why do you think that? People volunteer to help with
soccer practises. What about the coach? Little Bobby's uncle Fred?
Kidnappers don't exactly *advertise* you know. They don't come
labelled in real life "Hi, don't tell me your name, I'll
kidnap you."
>>If you lead them to believe that everything
>>is a dangerous situation, well.... It's kinda like the boy who
>>cried "wolf!", isn't it?
>
>Well... I know that people in this newsgroup are from all parts of the
>globe. Some may actually live in a Utopia-like society where people run
>through fields of flowers, singing, dancing, and smiling and all that. If
>there are people and places like that, then I am happy for them. Here, in
>the United States, everyday you pick up a newspaper you can read about
I would be highly surprised if anyone lives in the Utopia
you describe. Furthermore, I am, surprise, surprise, American. Spent
18 years in the US. And the UK is just as fucked up as the US.
My arguement stands. You cannot produce adults who can cope
with society if you insist on protecting children from everything
and don't let them learn to think and judge things for themselves.
Including whether or not something is a safe situation, and what
is and is not the intelligent thing to do.
Furthermore, the news media is hardly an accurate representation
of what really goes on out there. They make their money by reporting
news, after all, and news isn't exactly interesting if it's common
place. They're *looking* for exceptions. And that means that in our
society, things like rape and kidnapping *are* the exceptions. The
evening news would be dreadfully boring and no one would watch if
they told you about the hundreds of thousands of children who *aren't*
raped and kidnapped every day.
>far away. April 20, 1999, at a Colorado high school, 12 innocent kids were
>shot to death while at school. Many others were seriously injured. May 20,
*That* depends how one defines innocent. I think you'll find
that there are some people out there who very much sympathize with
the shooters. We may have a bit more sane, and thus *didn't* take
machine guns into school, but damn do I understand the *desire* to.
If you want to stop things like the Columbine shooting,
you teach kids that you don't ridicule people for being different,
or more intelligent, or interested in something other than sports
and cheerleading.
>service. If there is anything or anyplace which isn't potentionally
>dangerous, please tell me where it is. The "boy who cried wolf," did so when
>he wasn't in danger. "Crying wolf," when your in danger, is quite a
>different matter. Am I suggesting that we all lock ourselves in a closet and
The key here is "potentially dangerous". EXISTING is
potentially dangerous- everyone dies sometimes, after all. You might
well pop off from a heart attack just sitting there, reading this
post. So my post is potentially dangerous. Damn. Better not let
me post it, then. Might hurt someone.
The crying wolf, in this situation, is that you are seeing
*real* danger when there *is* no practical danger.
>hide? No because a spider can bite you there. :-) Seriously, today's world
>is quite dangerous for many of us. Some, might live in a much less violent
Um. So life wasn't dangerous before we had antibiotics? Before
medical science got to the point it is now? Do you have any idea what
the *infant* mortality rate was at the turn of the centry? For most
of our history, you were damn lucky to *make* it to age 7. By age
14 or 15, you were married and had your own family. I think you will
find that the life expectancy these days, even with all of your
"dangerous" is pretty damn good, considering what it's been for
most of our recorded history.
Something to think about: Every single ride you take in a
car, statistically, is quite likely a LOT more likely to result
in you being kidnapped, raped, or murdered as a result of you
posting to Usenet with your real name. And yet we use cars
every day. The US is, in fact, heavily car-dependent in many
areas.
>nothing wrong with preventive medicine. Exposing people to "everyday germs"
>quite often leads to serious, if not fatal complications, before they ever
>have a chance for their "immunity" system to kick in.
>
Uncle Mikey, get a book on basic human biology. Read about
how the immune system works. 'Cause you're quite wrong. Here's
a hint: Look up "antibodies".
-The quiet one
taryn wege
>>where children today are growing up and getting sick from incredibly
>>common things because they weren't exposed to the everyday germs and
>>allowed to develop an immunity the way they should be.
>If your exposed to some "everyday germs" (I like the paraphrase), you won't
>have the chance to develop an immunity.
[snip]
>nothing wrong with preventive medicine. Exposing people to "everyday germs"
>quite often leads to serious, if not fatal complications, before they ever
>have a chance for their "immunity" system to kick in.
ok. i might not be the smartest person in the world, but hell. i passed high
school biology, and introductory biology in my first year of university. i'm not
a doctor, i merely have an interest in biological sciences. you're very wrong
with your statements that you wont have the chances to develop immunity to germs
if exposed to them. what enables your body to make antibodies is the fact that
you *are* exposed to those germs in teh first place, enableing your cells to
recognize them in the future and attack them quickly. without being exposed to
these germs in childhood, it only makes things worse. its like with adults with
chicken pocks, its often much worse for them to have it as adults than children.
the problem is the fact that children are on antibiotics too often (in many
cases) which is the fault of nobody but the doctor and the parents.
antibacterial soa[ps and the whatnot, while a good idea in theory, may actually
do more harm then good in some cases.
its in all teh textbooks, i'm sure you can find it on the web if you look, too,
that its exposure to the germ that develops the antibody(immunity) to it.
i'm trying to be nice with this. i've not really sworn, or insulted. very good
for me.
taryn
--
me..
Kids Online
> Er. No. You're missing the point. We are not born with an
>immunity to anything. To become immune to something, you *have*
>to be exposed to it. That's how vaccinations work. The disease is
>rendered less-harmful in some way, and then administered
Well... Maybe I wasn't specific enough. Take AIDS, Cancer, The Common Cold,
as far as that goes.... Where are the vaccines for those?
>>Sounds like your old enough to take care of yourself. Most 7 and 8 year
olds
>>aren't always as capable.
>
> Actually, I was 12 when I started using the 'net, and I
>haven't met all of those people recently.
Still.... An 8 year old is a lot more "wise to the world," than an 8 year
old. Also, statistically speaking, When you were 12, there were no where
near as many people using the net. With increased net population, brings
increased wacko population, thus increased danger.
> However. Here's a question for you: If those 7 and 8 year olds
>aren't old enough to take care of themselves, why the H**L are they
>just being sat down at the computer to amuse themselves? Does the
>phrase "parental responsibility" mean anything?
That I can't answer. It is a shame that it happens. Parental responsibility
is very minimal, if even existant in many families... Should the kids suffer
because they have dead beat parents?
> My arguement stands. You cannot produce adults who can cope
>with society if you insist on protecting children from everything
>and don't let them learn to think and judge things for themselves.
>Including whether or not something is a safe situation, and what
>is and is not the intelligent thing to do.
Sure they have to think and judge for themselves. Thats what education is
all about. If a child never has access to any information, how do they
decide and learn? Put a baby in an empty room with no books, tv, newspaper,
or human interactivity.... How much can they learn? Thats why they must view
differing opinions like yours and my own, and decide for themselves.
Inevitably, you or me will not be there to protect them when the need most
likely will arise.
> Furthermore, the news media is hardly an accurate representation
>of what really goes on out there.
It's about all we have to go on usually. For me, there is enough "first
hand" information to tell me that the world is not all "hunky dory."
Locally, there have been similar incidents, which I know to be true.
>The evening news would be dreadfully boring and no one would watch if
>they told you about the hundreds of thousands of children who *aren't*
>raped and kidnapped every day.
Again, speaking statistically, of course your right. But then again, if more
were raped or kidnapped each day, than there weren't, within a few days
there wouldn't be anyone left. Besides, how many kidnappings or rapes have
to happen before it is considered bad? One rape or kidnapping is enough to
concern me.
> If you want to stop things like the Columbine shooting,
>you teach kids that you don't ridicule people for being different,
>or more intelligent, or interested in something other than sports
>and cheerleading.
Actually if you'll investigate those who actually were killed, you'll find
that most were not the type you describe. Here is a url to a memorial site
for those killed.
http://datvis.net/fi/columbine/
If you look at them, and read their biographies, I guarantee you'll find at
least a few who you won't feel "deserved to die."
Pay special attention to: Kyle Velasquez, Daniel Mauser, the teacher... They
weren't the jocks you describe... You may say it's media hype, but the
biographies of several of the other kids also explain how they would give
the shirts off their backs for anyone. One even commonly befriended the
assassins... How can two assassins can become martyrs? It's beyond me to
even imagine.
I strongly disagree with your idea of how to stop the shootings. Even if
those who lost their lives had been guilty of ridicule, it doesn't mean they
deserved to die for Gods sake! To stop things you have to administer
punishment, applicable the crime. No one has ever got the chair for
ridiculing someone, maybe you would argue they should, but I tend to
disagree. Ridicule is terrible, it hurts, it scares very deep. I should
know, I was very much a nerd as a child. I was picked on daily and hated to
goto school. I was forced to stand up for myself one day, thereafter I was
rarely picked on anymore. Killing is not a solution or reason for others to
deem the deaths acceptable. If the media is a faulty source of info, like
you say, then why are you quick to make judgements about the charachter of
those slain, based on what the media says?
>post. So my post is potentially dangerous. D**n. Better not let
>me post it, then. Might hurt someone.
Your post may not be dangerous, but some posts could lead to danger.
> Something to think about: Every single ride you take in a
>car, statistically, is quite likely a LOT more likely to result
>in you being kidnapped, raped, or murdered as a result of you
>posting to Usenet with your real name
Sure, statistically speaking, there are a whole lot more people who take car
rides each day than use the net. Statistics are often not made by fair
comparisons.
> Uncle Mikey, get a book on basic human biology. Read about
>how the immune system works. 'Cause you're quite wrong. Here's
>a hint: Look up "antibodies".
Again... Correct me if I am wrong but Cancer, AIDS, common colds, and many
various other diseases are not affected by these "antibodies" you speak of.
If they were, people might live to 200... Comparitively, nothing is going to
"cure" a child once he or she has been subjected to a virus like a kidnapper
or rappist. It would be nice if you were right, and I really, sincerly wish
you were, but once a child is infected with this type of virus, there is no
cure. They live a scared life forever. Sure, they can learn to cope and live
normal lives, but all the "antibodies" in the world won't wipe away the
scars..............
bh...@my-deja.com
> >common things because they weren't exposed to the everyday germs and
> >allowed to develop an immunity the way they should be.
>
> If your exposed to some "everyday germs" (I like the paraphrase),
> you won't have the chance to develop an immunity.
Hmm. I guess your knowledge of the human immune system is about as good
as your grasp of english grammar?
When the immune system is exposed to small quantities of germs, it learns
and recognizes them as something to fight against. If it sees them a
second time, it will be much more able to attack them. This is the
reason that you only get some diseases like chicken pox once. Once your
immune system has been exposed to it, it'll stop you from getting it
again. This is the same principle that vaccinations work on. For
whatever reason, it seems that the body is much more capable of dealing
with infections safely in the pre-teen years.
I was talking to a US Army medic, and he was explaining how different
people reacted to minor injuries, like cuts and scratches. Some people
would pretty much ignore them. Maybe a bit of cleaning, but nothing
paranoid. They would tend not to have many infection problems.
Another type of person would be paranoid. Immediate disinfectant,
antiseptic cream, the works. You know what? They were much more likely
to get infections, to get sick, and to get wound infections. Their
immune systems failed to develop as well primarily due to their lack of
exposure to common germs.
If you disagree with this, please cite a source for your information.
You are taking a position of authority with children, and are morally
obligated to do your best to be accurate and honest. The horrible
epilepsy-inducing backgrounds and bad grammar on your web site are a big
turn off just to begin with. Find yourself a good remedial english
course or something. I'm sure you can find someone to help.
bhima.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Kids Online
taryn wege wrote in message <7oin2h$hj1$1...@shadows.aeon.net>...
>you're very wrong
>with your statements that you wont have the chances to develop immunity to
germs
>if exposed to them. what enables your body to make antibodies is the fact
that
>you *are* exposed to those germs in teh first place, enableing your cells
to
>recognize them in the future and attack them quickly
I understand Taryn, but my point was it doesn't work on all germs, all the
time....
taryn wege
>taryn wege wrote in message <7oin2h$hj1$1...@shadows.aeon.net>...
>time....
right. you mentioned cancer, i believe? here's some news fo ryou, as you seem to
know little to nothing about cancer. seeing as i've lived thru seeing 3 people
die of it, i know a little. cancer isnt caused by a germ, or a virus. nobody
knows why, for sure, people get cancer. it happens when teh bodies own cells
start mass-producing themselves, for example, the white blood cells, when they
start to reproduce, and dont stop, is cancer. no germ involved. sorry.
and the common cold? you know why people continue to get colds, despite having
already had one? simple. there are so many different colds, you build up
antibodies to each one, and you never get that strain again. however, because
there are others, you can catch another strain just as easily as before.
sheesh. are you *sure* you're an adult? most of these things you learn in
higshcool, before, even./
ohwell.
--
me..
taryn wege
>near as many people using the net. With increased net population, brings
>increased wacko population, thus increased danger.
hmm. not quite right, that statistic. with increased net population, sure, it
brings an increased wacko population. _but_ it also brings an increased
population of completely normal, sane, someone-you-talk-to-everyday kind of
people. and if we assume that the numbers of each are both growing at the same
level rate, the internet is just as safe as it was years and years ago. thats
simple math, right there. (we assume that they're both growing at the same rate
because we're assuming that the small percentage of wackos there are on the
internet isa sample size. as in, if we have a population in the real world of
5billion normal people to 200000 wackos, or something, if we take a smaller
sample size of say, 1million people on the internet, we'd have a number of
wackos that directly relates, as in, 40, or whatever number it divides by. i'm
too lazy to work it out. i think what i'm trying to say is fairly basic. its
like taking a census. rather than talking to the whole population, they use a
sample size to represent the whole. its similar. yadda yadda. now i'm rambling.
sopmone pleas tell me that made some sense)
>Sure, statistically speaking, there are a whole lot more people who take car
>rides each day than use the net. Statistics are often not made by fair
>comparisons.
are there? are you *sure*?
>Again... Correct me if I am wrong but Cancer, AIDS, common colds, and many
>various other diseases are not affected by these "antibodies" you speak of.
>If they were, people might live to 200... Comparitively, nothing is going to
no. some diseases are genetic. say. down syndrome. trisomy-21 (having 3 of
chromosome 21 instead of noly 2 like is normal), causes it. which just *ahppens*
sometimes for absolutely no apaprent reason. antibodes cant help that.
similarily with cancer, which isnt a germ so you cant build up antibodies
against it..and well, i explained all that, already.
[kidnap/rape]
>you were, but once a child is infected with this type of virus, there is no
>cure. They live a scared life forever. Sure, they can learn to cope and live
>normal lives, but all the "antibodies" in the world won't wipe away the
>scars..............
we wanna talk cscars? ok. are you going to wrap a kid in foam rubber and send
him out into the worldlike that every day so he cant fall down and scrape his
knee(and get scars..)? are you going to force the kid to stay indoors all the
time, and live in a circular room with nothing hard, sharp, pointy, or any other
characteristic he could possibly injure himself with, in order to prevent scars?
are you going to follow behind him as he learns to walk, and everytime he moves
on his own accord, holding a pillow out under his ass in case he falls? i should
think not. sure, children need to be protected. but there's certainly no need to
go to extremes. and children needt o learn to cope with stress. while i
certainly dont think kidnapping or rape are right, or anything that one should
havet o deal with, sometimes shit happens. if you turly are in your 20's as i
believe it says on your webpage that you are, you should certianly know by now
that thigns happen in life sometimes, things that you cannot prevent, try as you
might. and tehy'll scar you.
but kids are amazing. tehy're very suited to adapt. they can cope very well with
situations, bad and good. my father died a year ago. that certainly changed my
life, it certainly hurt, and i have scars from that. i wish it hadn't happened.
but nobody could have prevented that from happening, nobody at all. my father
introduced me to the internet. as a matter of fact, when he was alive, and i met
some net boys, he kept reassuring my mother with "they're net geeks. they're
harmless"
i dont know where i'm going with this. i'm not very good at explaijing myselfm,
especially not when i get worked up. but you should hopefully have gottenm the
jist of what i'm trying to say.
--
me..
Kids Online
taryn wege wrote in message <7oiroa$ka5$1...@shadows.aeon.net>...
>right. you mentioned cancer, i believe? here's some news fo ryou, as you
seem to
>know little to nothing about cancer. seeing as i've lived thru seeing 3
people
>die of it, i know a little. cancer isnt caused by a germ, or a virus.
nobody
>knows why, for sure, people get cancer
hehehehe.... I think you responded so quickly you failed to think.... Lets
see..... hmmmmm.... did you say "nobody knows why, for sure"..... Well
doesn't that tend to mean anything to you? Anyway, as paraphrases tend to
lead some people away from the actual topic which the paraphrase was
intended... I think the actual issue here is not "medcal" germs or
sickness... But "lifes" germs... Soooooo..... lets just say that murder or
kidnapping might not be a so called "life" germ... maybe it is like a
"sickness" for which there is no cure... Oh and by the way you also failed
to mention AIDS.... ;-)
>and the common cold? you know why people continue to get colds, despite
having
>already had one? simple. there are so many different colds, you build up
>antibodies to each one, and you never get that strain again. however,
because
>there are others, you can catch another strain just as easily as before.
>sheesh. are you *sure* you're an adult? most of these things you learn in
>higshcool, before, even./
Well forgive me if I place little faith in medical science... but since they
can cure the common cold, and know little about it... I tend to place little
emphasis on whether they decide it's caused by a germ, bacteria or
whatever... And besides.... I think your talking about the flu... But this
is all meaningless as applied to the content of this discussion anyway....
sorry... ;-)
Kids Online
--
Kids Online
bh...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oiqvs$tuf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Hmm. I guess your knowledge of the human immune system is about as good
>as your grasp of english grammar?
Again... whether my grammer ;-) or my medical knowlege ;-) is sufficient to
get me any awards... Is comletely off the subject matter of this
disussion... It does appear it is turning into a medical discussion but this
is, (or was) about "lifes germs." Since medicine is incapable of curing
cancer, colds, or AIDS, I do not place any faith in what they say causes it.
Sources? Lets just say its my own hunch... (Why does AIDS keep getting left
out of these germ lessons for me?) ;-)
Kids Online
taryn wege wrote in message <7oiskn$kv5$1...@shadows.aeon.net>...
>hmm. not quite right, that statistic. with increased net population, sure,
it
>brings an increased wacko population. _but_ it also brings an increased
>population of completely normal, sane, someone-you-talk-to-everyday kind of
>people
Well actually I doubt all the wacko's had the ease of access they do
now..... The earlier users were more computer oriented people.... Everyone
can get online about as easy as picking up a phone...
>>Sure, statistically speaking, there are a whole lot more people who take
car
>>rides each day than use the net. Statistics are often not made by fair
>>comparisons.
>
>are there? are you *sure*?
Think about it.....
>we wanna talk cscars? ok. are you going to wrap a kid in foam rubber and
send
>him out into the worldlike that every day so he cant fall down and scrape
his
>knee(and get scars..)?
I don't think warning kids of danger is quite the same as the scenario your
trying to depict here.... As long as there is people out there trying to
blindfold kids and push them out in traffic with no advice or warning,
telling them everything is going to be fine, (Pardon my scenario) ;-) there
are going to be people like me who try to stop the traffic and lead them
safely out of danger... You seem to think an 8 year old child has the same
knowlege as an adult. While it seems like some may, most kids are trusting,
innocent, and common targets for uncaring adults who want to hurt them. I
don't make the rules. Life does.....
bh...@my-deja.com
"Kids Online" <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>
>
> --
> Kids Online
>
> http://www.kids-online.net
>
> uncle...@kids-online.net
>
You know absolutely nothing about medicine or bacteriology. Your "hunch"
is based on nothing but ignorance of even the most basic facts. The idea
that you must be able to cure something before you can say you understand
it is incomprehensible. Would you say that we don't understand how
bullets kill people because people still die due to gunshots? Of course
not. Understanding something is only the first stage to curing it.
I should also point out that they do have treatments for AIDS. They
definitely have treatment for cancer, and can often cure it if they catch
it before it spreads throughout the entire body. And the common cold
consists of so many different entirely separate viruses that a cure for
the common cold is about as logical as one size fits all shoes.
Let me remind you again that you are presenting yourself to children as
an authority, trying to suggest to them that you are somebody who can be
trusted. By continuing to talk about hunches on a subject that you admit
you are entirely clueless and ignorant about you are abusing that trust.
Abuse of trust is what you claim to be against, yet it's what you
yourself are doing by promoting downright wrong information here.
miasma
>miasma <ly...@shadows.aeon.net> wrote:
>>i can't believe you people went into a discussion on grammar and
>Ain't Usenet grand?
*simpersimper* *whine*
I guess I figured that most people here wouldn't be like that.
Anyway, I think it's moving on from being authoritative on the
American-English language to biology. Or the net knowledge in
general. I don't know.
It just somehow reminds me of bad junior high memories. Almost
like setting someone up or sniggering in between words.
debbie
miasma
Happy Belated Birthday. It looks so weak when it's written like
that. muchsigh.
Matthew Skala <msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca.> wrote:
>mind, though: I believe the trend towards psuedonymity on the Net is
>unfortunate and self-fulfilling; if we all used our real names, most of
>the reasons for not doing so would disappear, and the world would be a
>better place. Hey, remember when we would revoke lusers' accounts for
Hm. I'll be thinking and pondering about this for the ride back.
Thanks. It makes me want to go "Yeah, but.." but there's nothing attached
to the "but". I can put my real name down, but it's not something I
sometimes have a burning desire to. If IRC had forced everyone to
put their real names down, that'd be too amusing.
>posting under fake names? The sad part is that I'm only 23 (just
>turned, today) and already an old-timer, just because I can remember
>those days. The "programming" tutorial, (subject for the day: HTML!)
I suppose you can just be glad that your memory is still intact. I
was watching a tape of TV shows a few years back, and some of the commercials
that were on the tape are still being run today. It made me think of how
short-term my memory is.
debbie
Kids Online
bh...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ojd39$a70$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>is based on nothing but ignorance of even the most basic facts. The idea
>that you must be able to cure something before you can say you understand
>it is incomprehensible.
I comprehend it... If they understand it so well, why isn't there cures?
>I should also point out that they do have treatments for AIDS.
Maybe I should point out, as we stray from child saftey to medical debates,
because of paraphrasing, (funny how that happens), treatments are not the
same thing as vacines. I am no medical authority as some appear to be, but
even I know that....
>Let me remind you again that you are presenting yourself to children as
>an authority, trying to suggest to them that you are somebody who can be
>trusted. By continuing to talk about hunches on a subject that you admit
>you are entirely clueless and ignorant about you are abusing that trust.
If I have presented that I am entirely clueless and ignorant about
something, I tend to think that, that in itself, should be enough for most
people to see I am not trying to present myself as an authority. Let me make
it perfectly clear.....
I am NOT an authority!!!
Kids Online
Matthew Skala wrote in message <7oirci$sgf$1...@ruby.ansuz.sooke.bc.ca>...
>I think Uncle Mikey, and probably everyone else, ought to take a look at
>these stories about the Littleton shootings:
> http://slashdot.org/articles/99/04/25/1438249.shtml
> http://slashdot.org/features/99/04/27/0310247.shtml
> http://slashdot.org/features/99/04/29/0124247.shtml
I went to take a look, but the page was taking forever to download. I got to
1000k before I gave up... How large is the page's file size?
Matthew Skala
Kids Online <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>> http://slashdot.org/articles/99/04/25/1438249.shtml
>> http://slashdot.org/features/99/04/27/0310247.shtml
>> http://slashdot.org/features/99/04/29/0124247.shtml
>
>I went to take a look, but the page was taking forever to download. I got to
>1000k before I gave up... How large is the page's file size?
Probably pretty big, but the first hundred K or so is the part I wanted to
draw attention to. If you hit "stop" at that point you should be okay.
Slashdot, if you're unaware, is a news service that allows people to add
their own comments to the stories, so popular stories like the ones I
mention above can generate very large pages.
bh...@my-deja.com
"Kids Online" <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
> bh...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ojd39$a70$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >is based on nothing but ignorance of even the most basic facts.
> >The idea that you must be able to cure something before you can
> >say you understand it is incomprehensible.
>
> I comprehend it... If they understand it so well, why isn't
> there cures?
Knowing how damage by a disease or condition is caused is not always
enough to fix the damage. In the case of cancer, a lot is understood
about the cell division problems and what causes them, but they have not
yet fully suceeded in stopping the damage that has been caused. At least
for some types of cancer, they have a very detailed understanding of what
has gone wrong in the cells that has cause dthem to mutliple without
limits, but they haven't yet suceeded in creating anything that can
actually fix the problem.
> >I should also point out that they do have treatments for AIDS.
> treatments are not the same thing as vacines. I am no medical
> authority as some appear to be, but even I know that....
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had implied there was a similarity.
> >Let me remind you again that you are presenting yourself to
> >children as an authority, trying to suggest to them that you
> >are somebody who can be trusted. By continuing to talk about
> >hunches on a subject that you admit you are entirely clueless
> > and ignorant about you are abusing that trust.
>
> If I have presented that I am entirely clueless and ignorant
> about something, I tend to think that, that in itself, should
> be enough for most people to see I am not trying to present
> myself as an authority. Let me make it perfectly clear.....
>
> I am NOT an authority!!!
You were posting about the immune system before and claiming things that
were entirely false. While some of us around here seem to have realized
that you were wrong, I'm sure not everybody did. Certainly not most 8
year old kids.
You're running a web site where you give kids advice and, in theory, are
trying to help them out. Having a web site like that, and having all the
"kid safe" ratings up there that you do, implies that you are somebody
who's trustworthy. It just seems to me that if you're aware that you
know nothing about a subject, you should say that at the beginning
instead of waiting until other people have challenged you before finally
admitting that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Kids Online
Dave Brown wrote in message ...
>Of course, you've started by telling the child to tell lies, so,
>hey....
I really don't think using nic names is quite the same as lying. The kid
isn't lying if he or she specifies that he or she is using a nic name. They
keep personal info private while being completely honest about it.
Kids Online
again... thanks!
Ash
ARGH! The crap control over the text, ruining my eyes, burning....
The elephant is the only one who knows that, and it aint telling.
Ash, if it moves, flirt with it.
Edward Bradley
Reply-To: edw...@pplmail.moc
Followup-To:
On Sun, 08 Aug 1999 02:45:18 GMT, bh...@my-deja.com <bh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I was talking to a US Army medic, and he was explaining how different
> people reacted to minor injuries, like cuts and scratches. Some people
> would pretty much ignore them. Maybe a bit of cleaning, but nothing
> paranoid. They would tend not to have many infection problems.
>
> Another type of person would be paranoid. Immediate disinfectant,
> antiseptic cream, the works. You know what? They were much more likely
> to get infections, to get sick, and to get wound infections. Their
> immune systems failed to develop as well primarily due to their lack of
> exposure to common germs.
<snip>
That's interesting. I was never drenched with disinfectants, and my
parents were far from paranoid. But all my life, if I had/have an
extremely shallow, non-bleeding wound such as a paper cut or a floor/rug
burn, it WILL get infected (oozing pus, not just red and sore) if I
ignore it or just wash it off and don't use disinfectant. The worst
infected "wound" I ever had was a floor burn that I ignored because "I
just lost a bit of skin, no problem."
Deeper/bloodier but still mild wounds will get mildly infected (red around
the wound, more painful than before, no or little pus) unless I use a
band-aid for the first day or two (no disinfectant necessary).
Maybe the "paranoid" ones are that way because they're reacting to
the fact that they're already more likely to get infected.
Maybe there's individual variation in native susceptibility to "bad ideas"
as well.
Edward (edward at pplmail dot com)
daniel in devon
<uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>Again... whether my grammer ;-) or my medical knowlege ;-) is sufficient to
>get me any awards... Is comletely off the subject matter of this
>disussion...
no it isn't. because when you are using these things to argue with,
they are nearly as important as the argument itself.
~daniel
daniel in devon
<uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>I am NOT an authority!!!
will you put that at the top of all your webpages? will you dedicate
your main page to illustrating the fact to everyone who visits there
that you are NOT an authority? that you are not trying to be, and that
all your ideas are just your own and the kids should make their own
decisions?
because then you would be part way there towards having a decent
"kids" site, if that isn't an oxymoron.
~daniel
Kids Online
daniel in devon wrote in message <37adfc19...@news.akt.org>...
> will you put that at the top of all your webpages? will you dedicate
>your main page to illustrating the fact to everyone who visits there
>that you are NOT an authority? that you are not trying to be, and that
>all your ideas are just your own and the kids should make their own
>decisions?
I could do that I guess. I am the type of person who can't admit they are
wrong. If I am unsure of things on the site I try to make sure by double
checking with people, looking things up, and all that... If you really think
about it... Nobody is really an authority on anything... Pick up one book,
it says this is this way.... Pick up another and it says something
contrary... It's hard to learn when there are so many differing sources...
> because then you would be part way there towards having a decent
>"kids" site, if that isn't an oxymoron.
Thanks Daniel
Kris Dow
Kids Online <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>
[.sig snipped]
Ok, first off, the .sig goes at the *bottom* of the post,
not at the top. I have no idea what newsreader you use, but it's
fucked up. It's irritating.
>bh...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7oiqvs$tuf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>>Hmm. I guess your knowledge of the human immune system is about as good
>>as your grasp of english grammar?
>
>
>Again... whether my grammer ;-) or my medical knowlege ;-) is sufficient to
>get me any awards... Is comletely off the subject matter of this
>disussion... It does appear it is turning into a medical discussion but this
>is, (or was) about "lifes germs." Since medicine is incapable of curing
Actually, no, it's not. I was relating the way the immune
system functions to the way people interact with the outside world,
as overprotection has the same effect in both situations. However,
you seem to be a bit confused about the function of the immune
system, so clearly we need to work that out before we can go any
further.
Also, I want to point out that if you know so little about
these things, you would do well to pay *attention* to what we're
saying, instead of saying "no, you're wrong, but I have no proof, it's
just a hunch" as quite a few of us have a) taken high school level
biology, and b) learned about these things from outside sources.
I have seen every indication that most of the people posting in
this thread know what they're talking about, at *least* better
than you.
>cancer, colds, or AIDS, I do not place any faith in what they say causes it.
>Sources? Lets just say its my own hunch... (Why does AIDS keep getting left
>out of these germ lessons for me?) ;-)
>
The reason they both keep being left out is that they're
not relevant. The problem with AIDS is that it isn't actually a
germ. AIDS stands for Aquired Immuno Deficency Syndrome. At
this time, we *think* that AIDS is caused by a virus called HIV.
The problem with HIV, and, in a slightly different way, the
"common cold" is that neither of them is consistent. In the case
of HIV, the virus is *constantly* mutating, and thus a form of
treatment that was effective ceases to be, and the antibodies
your body has formed are no longer effective, so it has to
develop more. (It also interferes with your body's production
of antibodies, but I'm not getting into that.) So you can't
vaccinate against it, because there's no one virus to use-
any antibodies you form won't work on the virus that's a few
mutations down the line. It's not a failing of our immune
system *or* medical science. It's just a damn tricky bugger
to kill. (And, as a reference, my brother, who has a Phd in
Biophysics, was working on HIV research at a large pharmacutical
company a few years back.)
As I said, the "common cold" is similar, because it
isn't *a* disease. There are a large number of varieties of
virus that produce cold-like symptoms- each time you get
a cold, your body develops an immunity to that particular
strain, which lasts for several years. However, there are
enough varieties going around that you can very easily
be exposed to a different strain, and thus start having
cold-like symptoms. Furthermore, my partner informs me
that there *is* a "cure" for the "common cold" now- it's
currently undergoing testing for FDA approval, and reduces
the severity of the symptoms, and lessens the duration of
the "cold" by about 60%, according to the current results.
Score another one for medical science.
FYI, the flu is similar- there is no generic
flu vaccine- you have to be revaccinated every year for
the strain of flu that is common in your area then.
Cancer has been explained to you a number of
times, but since you appear to be missing it, basically,
Cancer doesn't work the same way as germs, because it's
*not*. You do not "catch" cancer. It develops. It is
something which your body does to itself, effectively.
This makes treating it extremely difficult, because
your own immune system cannot be relied upon to
fight it properly, and it is *very* hard to come up
with treatments which attack only the cancerous cells.
And yet we *do* still have treatments for it, and,
provided it is detected soon enough, a lot of forms
of cancer actually have pretty good survival rates.
Does that clear anything up for you at all?
-The quiet one
(Is there *any* chance you're going to go
away, btw? No one really actually likes you. We're
just using you as a form of entertainment.)
Kids Online
Kris Dow wrote in message ...
> (Is there *any* chance you're going to go
>away, btw? No one really actually likes you. We're
>just using you as a form of entertainment.)
Ahhhh... hmmmm.... Lets see..... Nope! Not a chance... ;-)
bh...@my-deja.com
"Kids Online" <uncle...@kids-online.net> wrote:
>
> daniel in devon wrote in message <37adfc19...@news.akt.org>...
> > will you put that at the top of all your webpages? will you dedicate
> >your main page to illustrating the fact to everyone who visits there
> >that you are NOT an authority? that you are not trying to be, and that
> >all your ideas are just your own and the kids should make their own
> >decisions?
>
> I could do that I guess. I am the type of person who can't admit
> they are wrong. If I am unsure of things on the site I try to
That's a pity. Because around here, anyway, it seems like you're wrong
pretty often.
> make sure by double checking with people, looking things up,
> and all that... If you really think about it... Nobody is really
> an authority on anything... Pick up one book, it says this is
> this way.... Pick up another and it says something contrary...
> It's hard to learn when there are so many differing sources...
Well, when sources differ, you have to try doing something else as well.
You have to use your _own_ intelligence. Look at who's _writing_ the
information. If you read a book that describes how horrible the British
were to the Irish in Northern Ireland, and it's written by an ex IRA
member, you probably want to take it with a grain of salt.
I must say, though, the argument that nobody knows anything because not
everybody always agrees totally is a pretty pathetic argument. Even more
so when we look at what you have written recently that's wrong. The
incorrect stuff that you wrote was blatantly incorrect according to any
number of sources you can pull up. Very little of it is even vaguely
controversial. So we must assume that you made no attempt to actually
find a source.
Let me ask you again, please. Use your brain. You must have one
somewhere. Think before you post, and only act like you know what you're
talking about when you do? Is that so hard to do?
Matthew Skala
Kris Dow <kr...@vilnya.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Cancer doesn't work the same way as germs, because it's
>*not*. You do not "catch" cancer. It develops. It is
I probably shouldn't say this, because Kids Online will read more into it
than should be read, but there are *some* cancers that have been linked to
infections. For instance, sexually-transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV)
causing cervical cancer. The vast majority of cancers are not like that,
though.
Matthew Skala
Edward Bradley <Edward.B...@pplmail.com> wrote:
>Maybe the "paranoid" ones are that way because they're reacting to
>the fact that they're already more likely to get infected.
This is a really good point - it's what they try, unsuccessfully, to drum
into you in beginning classes on the scientific method. Correlation is
not causation. Based on the observation that people who are paranoid
about infections get more of them, it *could* be that paranoia causes
infections, but it could also be that infections cause paranoia, and there
are other explanations possible as well.
Matthew Skala
miasma <ly...@shadows.aeon.net> wrote:
>>unfortunate and self-fulfilling; if we all used our real names, most of
>>the reasons for not doing so would disappear, and the world would be a
>
>to the "but". I can put my real name down, but it's not something I
Well, I don't know if this is what's worrying you, and it's skating away
from the realnames topic, but my whole "I'm going to do this because the
world would be better if *everyone* did it" approach is something that a
lot of people aren't comfortable with. It ties in to the whole Prisoner's
Dilemma thing: sure, the world would be better if everyone did as I did,
but it's ludicrously naive to believe that everyone will follow my
example, right? And as long as everyone *isn't* doing as I do, I'm
supposedly opening myself to all kinds of unpleasantness. This applies to
things like giving away the results of my work as well - I routinely give
away for free, various computer-related services valued at more, on
average, than my income. That could be seen as a really stupid thing to do.
About all I can say in defense of my attitude is that I'm happier this
way, and seem to have done pretty well with it so far despite everything.
In some company I could say "it's part of my religion, so leave me alone",
which is *true* to some extent, but wouldn't fly here.