4 year old son on a KX65
Håkan Renning
fork and, until the PW50 gets repaired, I've let him use his older
brothers KX65. He has been riding it for a week now, and handles it
rather good. The clutch is a bit too heavy and sometimes he forgets to
shift, but most of the time it looks just fine. Starting and stopping
is a problem of course, as he would need another 10 cm to touch the
ground... My son, however, thinks this is great fun and doesn't want
to go back to the PW50. I had planned to let him have the KX65 next
year, when he was 5. He's been riding the PW50 for almost a year and a
half - since he was 3.
What should I do? Could he stay on the KX65 or should he return to
PW50?
Are there any risks in letting him use the KX65 - apart from the risk
of higher speed (today, he is slower on the KX than on the PW - but
for how long).
Are there any benefits of getting used to a real motorcycle this early
or is it better for him to develop on the PW?
I don't want to buy any PW80, 50cc Senior or any other bike "in
between" the PW and the KX...
Thanks in advance
Håkan
Daniel H
ha...@renning.se says...
i think that bike is still a little too fast for him.
DirtCrashr
Absolutely it accellerates his shifting and clutch coordination skills - the
kind of fine motor skills that girls usually develop before boys...
It's good, and when he gets faster he'll be more ready for it.
Dirtcrashr
Mark Nelson
can handle and more importantly respect the bigger machine, it might work out
well.
I'm looking for a starter bike for a 5 year old that is 4' tall. He's big for
his age, but I can't see him on a KX65. He seems too big for a PW50 though.
Trying to find something for a beginner of his size if harder than I thought it
would be.
Mark Nelson
#567 Oklahoma Cross Country Racing Association
1996 YZ 125
1999 YZ 250
2001 YZ 250F
MXOldtimer
>kind of fine motor skills that girls usually develop before boys...
Damn, I'm 47 and Im still waiting.
Doug
Nutcase
Håkan Renning wrote:
Mate,
Your a dreamer, book a hospital bed for him you moron!
It's a wonder his mother lets you do it.
I have yet to see a 4 year old with enough physical strength
to handle one. Fix the bloody Peewee!
Nut
peewee racer dad
Dan D
>Last weekend, my son ran into a tree with his PW50 and broke the front
<<snip>>
>Håkan
Kind of depends on what you're looking for. Are you planning a
professional racing career for your boy or is the point of his riding
strictly for fun? One can argue that by giving him a more complex
bike he'll master riding at an earlier age. What, exactly, does that
actually gain for him? The thing to never forget is that children
pass through developmental stages and until his brain has myelinated
enough neurons, no matter how hard you try to teach him, if he's not
ready to learn something, he won't learn. 4 year boys have only been
out of diapers for a couple of years, he is mentally incapable of
understanding risk and danger. If he sticks a hand or foot in the
chain, or runs into a tree a little bit faster and ends up crippled at
the age of 4 or 5, you'll never forgive yourself. And frankly, you
wouldn't deserve forgiving yourself.
-Dan
Chris M
good air for 9-12 year olds and the PW 50 is meant for just beginners who
still have training wheels on their bicycles like your son and im sitting
here wondering if you even care about your sons well being or are you trying
to get rid of him or trying to make it look like an accident when he hits
the same tree only breaking the forks and his face along with all the other
brittle body parts of that little tyke. I suggest u lock up that kx and get
him like a pw 12 or something cus it sounds like a 50 is too big if he is
hitting trees forget the 65.
Peter Patton
especially if he is doing fine on the KX. First on all........riding and
racing at 3 !?!? That is SOOOOO cool! Most kids aren't even riding
bicycles at that age. As far as what to let him do.........I would leave
that up to him. Sounds like he is learning and liking it pretty well and
fast. There are only advantages to letting him keep going on the KX if
that's what he really wants (obviously don't push him. Actually it sounds
like he is pushing you :-) I know after I bought my RM250 years ago I
could not even get on my XR200 any more :-) Who knows.........you may
have the next Travis Pastrana on your hands.
Peter
Håkan Renning wrote:
--
http://www.minnesotamotocross.com
Pe...@minnesotamotocross.com
Motocross Rules!!
Peter 3 # 524
Peter # 739
Peter Patton
aren't we all. The poster didn't say how he hit the tree. Probably just one of
those things. Sounds like the kid is a pretty good rider. Reminds me of some of
the early Travis vids........especially the one where his mom and dad got him a
motorcycle for his 4th or 5th birthday (or however old he was). Even with all
his injuries over the years his parents have tried to hold him back more than he
would let them. I say let your kid go and live up to the potential he may have.
There have been many threads on safety issues and how much to let you kids do,
etc. I'm sure they are archived on Deja. I get no feeling from this dad's post
that he is uncaring or not worried about his boy's safety. Sounds like as
controlled environment as you can get with dirtbikes.
Peter
Chris M wrote:
--
steve s
the little guy. In fact, he wouldn't be asking for advice if he were bent
on breaking him. Come on. But with that said, I think he should ride the
pw until his body is better suited to the bigger ride. Maybe he can jump
onto the kx occasionally in areas where he might be less prone to breaking
forks or ribs.
"Håkan Renning" <ha...@renning.se> wrote in message
news:5d0d4972.01071...@posting.google.com...
Håkan Renning
Here's the story:
My youngest son looks up to his older brother and wants do to
everything he does, he is more stubborn and competitive than his big
brother ever was and already have all the equipment needed - from
motocross to ice hockey - and usually is doing better than his older
brother at that age. But he doesn't know that, and I don't tell him
nor his big brother. I suppose this is quite common for a little
brother...
So, from the day he was born he has been determined to ride a
motorcycle. At the age of 2, he could ride a bicycle without training
wheels because I wouldn't let him ride the PW50 until he could ride a
two wheeled bike. We never had training wheels on the PW50. Of course
he was too small to ride the PW50 at 2, but he made a few attempts and
he was satisfied.
He started riding the PW50 for real when he was 3. We had to invent a
foot brake as his fingers was too short for the two hand brakes. Now,
he thinks he masters the PW50, trying to go faster all the time. He
doesn't crash too often anymore, but sometimes he goes too fast into a
turn and this one time there happened to be a tree too close. Our
track is really not safe enough - you don't have to make a big mistake
go into the woods. By the way - he wasn't hurt by the tree, just the
PW50.
Yes, of course the PW50 will be repaired asap. He must have the choice
of not using the KX65.
No, I don't push him. He has got the ambition already. Maybe I've been
a bit too eager supporting his older brother (who's doing "average"),
trying to make him be a better rider (you know - do this, do that -
technical stuff, I can't make him go faster, just more secure and then
I suppose he will increase the speed by himself). But never the little
one... No need.
And no, I don't necessarily want him to be a professional racer. If he
wants to try to get there, I'll support him all the way. To me, he can
be a carpenter, scientist or dentist. Or the CEO of IBM. I'll support
both of my kids, whatever they choose and as good as I can.
My problem about the KX65 is this "supporting" part. Is it good or bad
if I let him do as he wants. Will he be a better rider using the KX65?
Or would be gain more from using the PW50 for another year? I only
have one chance to find out.
He rides on a closed track, never alone and I can stop it if it gets
out of hand.
Finally. I think the PW50 is junk. Too small wheels, lousy brakes, no
suspension, strange behaviour "in the air" (at least with a small
pilot), wobbles at "high" speed and once in a while the throttle gets
stuck (I have rebuilt half the bike to fix that problem)... I'm more
worried when I have a kid on the PW than on the KX. When kids get a
little older and "explores the limits of the PW50", it sure isn't
safe. So, on one hand I'd prefer him to use the KX65 as it's a better
bike and on the other hand I've got a too small kid with a lot of
will.
I even think a KX65 might be a better choice than a racing 50cc, like
KTM, Husky Boy or Polini - they almost have the same power but still
have tiny wheels - and to get the high speed out of the KX65 you need
to know how to handle the gears - with a 50cc automatic you get the
speed at once. A KX65 in the second gear is almost like riding the
PW50, just a bit taller...
MXOldtimer
motorcycle. Your son is way more advanced than 99% of the kids on bikes, and if
he is tall enough to hold the bike up safetly, stop, start, then I would
say,,,let him try. Some kids are just plain GIFTED, they dont need music
lessons to play music. I would say he need to be closely monitered, thats alot
of power for the lil guy , but if he has the gift and the love othe sport , why
hold him back but I say KEEP ALL THE SAFETY GEAR ON HIM AND WATCH HIM CLOSE!
Doug
Hoyt McKagen
>
> Last weekend, my son ran into a tree with his PW50 and broke the front
> fork and, until the PW50 gets repaired, I've let him use his older
> brothers KX65. He has been riding it for a week now, and handles it
> rather good.
FWIW, I wouldn't put a kid 4 years old on any bike. Too much cartelidge
in the bones and not enough bone. You often see back problems in kids
exposed to gymnastics too soon. Why would riding be any different?
Regards,
Hoyt McKagen
Belfab CNC - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
The world is not seen as it is, it's seen as we are.
Peter Patton
Lipinski (Gold Metal ice skater in opympics last year). They also say kids
under a certain age should definitely not do any weight lifting because of
the bone growth/cartilage issue. Dunno what that translated into as far as
MX and at what age kids should NOT be doing it. Keep in mind that in most
cases motocross at an early age (3, 4, 5) is pretty much self limiting. In
other words most kids that age can't/don't go fast enough or jump high
enough to do any bone damage. At least that is what I would think. Would be
interesting to see studies on it though.
Peter
Hoyt McKagen wrote:
--
Dan D
>Yes, of course the PW50 will be repaired asap. He must have the choice
>of not using the KX65.
I hate to sound like Dr. Laura but, since when do adults stop making
decisions for their kids because a 4 year old boy "must have the
choice"? I assume if he chose to play with matches you'd step in and
make a better decision for him?
>Will he be a better rider using the KX65?
>Or would be gain more from using the PW50 for another year? I only
>have one chance to find out.
You also have only one chance to bring your boy up right, and that
means having most of his parts still working good when he turns 18.
You really seem like a decent guy who genuinely cares for his kids, so
please don't interpret anything I say as suggesting otherwise. My
view on this is that I separate sports into 2 categories: fun or
money. Unless you're making money, then it really doesn't matter
being the absolute best. So your boy becomes a litle better rider on
the KX65 a year or 2 earlier. What does that get you? Do you think
your boy might want to try something else later? Maybe his gift is
actually music or basketball. Everyone now points to Travis Pastrana.
He busted his pelvis at the age of 15. I really wonder if all of his
bits south of the border still work as good as they're supposed to
(think of the nerves and the plumbing down there). Do you think he
can still drive to the bucket? Do you think he won't be popping
Motrin every night by the time he's 30?
-Dan
DirtCrashr
>decisions for their kids because a 4 year old boy "must have the
>choice"?
Marketing? Because 12-year olds dictate the musical preferences of the radio
industry in America? Of course its ridiculous, didn't Dr. Laura pose nude
somewhere or was that just an old ex-married-man boyfriend who posted those.
:-)
>I assume if he chose to play with matches you'd step in and
>make a better decision for him?
And of course you only start with matches, then it steps-up to sparklers and
gasoline, and then firecrackers, M-80's and propane and other flammables, like
fertilizer and what's that other stuff? ;-)
DirtPyro
JOKERKX250
>cases motocross at an early age (3, 4, 5) is pretty much self limiting. In
>other words most kids that age can't/don't go fast enough or jump high
>enough to do any bone damage. At least that is what I would think.
Unless they are riding on a KX60!! I have no problem with the kid wanting to
ride the kx on occasion, but I would most certainly rig a regulator on the
throttle.(we have a kx60 still..and dont recall if this is even
possible...)..cause if he does manage to hit the powerband however...its gonna
throw him good or worse.
JOKER....(Steve)
'98KX250 ( Dad's Green Machine! )
'88KX250 (napping in the basement..)
'88KX60 (Junior's delight...Big air=busted rim!!)
'00KX80 (Junior's Latest Greatest!!)
'80Italjet50 ('lil Deano's future ride!!)
"Lets Rock!"
Peter Patton
know you are not dissing the kid's dad. I do think, however, that kids can
be allowed to make choices under supervision at even an early age.
Obviously 'under supervision' is the key here. Even then you may not be
able to let them follow through with THEIR choices, but hopefully even that
becomes a learning experience for them. Obviously their are other things
that they should have NO say in. It all depends on the kid and and you as a
parent and your beliefs and comfort level on these issues concerning
raising your children.
I also hear what you are saying about the Travis thing. Sounds like in his
particular case he could barely be held back. In his interviews it is very
obvious that he just loves to ride. Unfortunately in our sport broken bones
and the like are a typical consequence, although ever sport and every job
has their own. Computer programmers typically get hand related problems.
Pitchers have shoulder related problems. The list can go on with every type
of sport. It's just the risk you take. By bringing up your small child in
motocross even before he has a chance to know if that's what he really
likes or not..........I guess you could say that would be a parent's
influence to a great degree. In other words, if you brought him up in music
or basketball he may love those. Hopefully as a parent you help them expore
other areas of interest that you see them lean toward and always give them
a way out of the thing YOU want them to do if that's what they want.
I don't know that I think of the same as you do with the sports catagories.
Obviously at the beginning Travis (and others like him) started out with it
being a fun thing, but because of their talent, hard work, and aggressive
riding, they are making alot of money. I don't think this should be ANY
parent's goal and striving. It should simply be encouraging their kids to
be the best they can, and if it later becomes a proffession for them, then
that's all good too. I know me and my son, though somewhat competitive out
on the track, don't take unneccessary chance because we are just having
fun, and it doesn't ultimately matter how we do. Just having fun and doing
the best we can is the end point for us.
Peter
Dan D wrote:
--
Andy Dragon
"Peter Patton" <Pe...@minnesotamotocross.com> wrote in message
news:3B4F0161...@minnesotamotocross.com...
> I hear what you are saying and don't neccessarily disagree with it and I
> know you are not dissing the kid's dad. I do think, however, that kids can
> be allowed to make choices under supervision at even an early age.
> Obviously 'under supervision' is the key here. Even then you may not be
> able to let them follow through with THEIR choices, but hopefully even
that
> becomes a learning experience for them. Obviously their are other things
> that they should have NO say in. It all depends on the kid and and you as
a
> parent and your beliefs and comfort level on these issues concerning
> raising your children.
Peter, you have stated the obviously very eloquently here. The problem lies
on both sides of this happy medium.
Some parents are not really parents at all, they let their spawn do anything
they like and wonder later in life why their children are so messed up. I
watch friends of mine who let "babysitting devices" raise their kids just a
little too much; TV, video games, Internet, etc. I spend time with my son.
That's not to say I don't ever send him off to watch TV, but I also make
sure I see what he watching and if there are things that may need
explaining, I ask him if he understood - it's called parenting.
Other people (usually people who feel the insidious need to force their
ideas of parenting on others) are not tree-huggers but child-huggers.
People who want to wrap children inside plastic bubbles and keep them from
everything harmful. Those children grow up to be hypochondriac pussies.
They have no experience with life or pain or learning because they've been
so sheltered from it all. My son breaks an arm falling out of a tree - this
is a bad thing, but a valuable life lesson for him, he now knows some of his
limits and what he is capable of. Parents here might cringe here but once
my son dropped a piece of fruit on the ground and picked it up. I let him
and said nothing. He took another bike, I am sure it was rather crunchy. I
asked him if he understood what the problem was. He handed me the piece and
asked me to wash it. I threw that piece out and cut him another, fresh
piece. He dropped a third piece and looked at me, picked it up and asked
for a new piece. Learning comes so natural to them.
I see people who try to keep their children from making mistakes early in
life and I understand why, but it's ultimately wrong, IMO. All you end up
with are young adults who make larger mistakes with raises consiquences and
you have a person who is incapable of dealing with the fact that they made a
mistake. I am sure most of these people end up in therapy later in life.
My son gets to make his own mistakes and I help him learn from them - it's
called parenting.
<snip>
> I don't know that I think of the same as you do with the sports
catagories.
> Obviously at the beginning Travis (and others like him) started out with
it
> being a fun thing, but because of their talent, hard work, and aggressive
> riding, they are making alot of money. I don't think this should be ANY
> parent's goal and striving. It should simply be encouraging their kids to
> be the best they can, and if it later becomes a proffession for them, then
> that's all good too. I know me and my son, though somewhat competitive out
> on the track, don't take unneccessary chance because we are just having
> fun, and it doesn't ultimately matter how we do. Just having fun and doing
> the best we can is the end point for us.
Again, Peter, you state what should be obvious perfectly. I watch hockey
parents who push their kids to play even if they don't want to. I recently
overheard a hockey mom (and I wanted to thrash her) tell her young son when
he complained about playing that he was going to get his "f&*kin' lazy ass
on the ice and play because you little ingrate, you are going to pay for my
retirement once you play for the Maple Leafs". I was blown away at just how
crass this lady was. That kid is heading for tragedy or therapy. My son
plays hockey and I foot the bill until he stops liking it. I won't let him
quit if it's because he's lazy, but as soon as he says it's no longer fun,
it's over.
To Hakan, the original posted, I say let him decide and then exorcise your
judgment (which I think you are doing anyway, good job dad!). Do you feel
comfortable when he's on the larger bike? Do you feel he is safe? If so,
watch him closely (which I think you are doing) and make sure he understands
the use of the bike and keep him protected (which I think you are doing).
To all the people who are crying out saying Hakan is a bad father...screw
you. He is not being negligent. He was watching the boy in a controlled
environment. Who the hell are you to condemn him?
--
~Andy
'01 Kawasaki KX 250 / '01 Honda CR 125
'00 Skidoo MXZX 600
'99 Seadoo GSX Limited
and more...
JOKERKX250
>~Andy
Nice follow up Mr. Dragon...
The ''spawn neglector" vs. the"child hugger"...very well put indeed! I
totally agree with your statements...good parental guidance indeed.
Jay C
> Do you think he won't be popping
> Motrin every night by the time he's 30?
OTOH, with the coin he is bringing in how, by the time he's 30 he'll
probably be able to afford to pay Traci Lords to pop his Motrin for him.
Something to think about....hmmmmmm.
Jay
Brian Wagner
>
> limits and what he is capable of. Parents here might cringe here but once
> my son dropped a piece of fruit on the ground and picked it up. I let him
> and said nothing. He took another bike, I am sure it was rather crunchy. I
> asked him if he understood what the problem was. He handed me the piece and
> asked me to wash it. I threw that piece out and cut him another, fresh
> piece. He dropped a third piece and looked at me, picked it up and asked
> for a new piece. Learning comes so natural to them.
But the REAL lesson there is not to drop the fruit in the first
place, which he won't learn if you keep giving him more instead
of saying, "you blew it!"
> To Hakan, the original posted, I say let him decide and then exorcise your
> judgment (which I think you are doing anyway, good job dad!). Do you feel
> comfortable when he's on the larger bike? Do you feel he is safe?
Now you're falling into the mushy-headed thinking. Does he
**FEEL** that his son is safe; does he **FEEL** comfortable?
Feelings have nothing to do with it. Whether the kid is safe is
an objective, deterministic result of the circumstances. The
question is, do the circumstances reasonably support the
proposition that he is safe?
Andy Dragon
"Brian Wagner" <bwa...@mr.marconimed.com> wrote in message
news:3B5314D3...@mr.marconimed.com...
> Now you're falling into the mushy-headed thinking. Does he
> **FEEL** that his son is safe; does he **FEEL** comfortable?
> Feelings have nothing to do with it. Whether the kid is safe is
> an objective, deterministic result of the circumstances. The
> question is, do the circumstances reasonably support the
> proposition that he is safe?
Disagree. As a parent, it is almost entirely about *feel*. There was no
shop manual and Clymer's was fresh out of manuals for my son - wrong year
and model I'd guess. Damn sure wish there was, it would have made my job as
a parent a LOT easier. The point is, it is always a judgment call of the
parent to determine this, not someone else. There are no rules or
regulations tables he could look at to determine the child's
ability/inability to ride the bike safely. He looks at the situation,
remembers with imperfect memory and adds the factors to get a general
"feeling" for the situation. There is no deterministic result...
Nice to be on the opposite side of the table with you again, Brian...
Dan D
>Disagree. As a parent, it is almost entirely about *feel*. There was no
<snip>
Andy,
I basically agree with you until you got to here:
>The point is, it is always a judgment call of the
>parent to determine this, not someone else.
Actually no, your philosophy works only when people are basically
sensible and well-meaning, but totally breaks down when stupidity and
amorality become an issue. I took care of a cute little 8 year old
girl not too long ago. When she was about 3, her parents let her run
around their sty of a home and she ripped her left eye out (as in
gone, no more eyeball) on a piece of scrap metal laying around the
backyard. Her mother carefully explained to me how it was all the
girl's fault. I was seeing her on Christmas Day because her idiot
grandfather gave her some junk old minibike with an exposed flywheel.
She fell off and tore her leg out so bad, I could stick a finger in
the cut and feel the gouge in her tibia. Stupid and uncaring people
have the right to mess themselves up, but not anyone else, including
and especially their own kids.
-Dan
Andy Dragon
> Actually no, your philosophy works only when people are basically
> sensible and well-meaning, but totally breaks down when stupidity and
> amorality become an issue. I took care of a cute little 8 year old
> girl not too long ago. When she was about 3, her parents let her run
> around their sty of a home and she ripped her left eye out (as in
> gone, no more eyeball) on a piece of scrap metal laying around the
> backyard. Her mother carefully explained to me how it was all the
> girl's fault. I was seeing her on Christmas Day because her idiot
> grandfather gave her some junk old minibike with an exposed flywheel.
> She fell off and tore her leg out so bad, I could stick a finger in
> the cut and feel the gouge in her tibia. Stupid and uncaring people
> have the right to mess themselves up, but not anyone else, including
> and especially their own kids.
Okay, I can concede that there are cases of parents who are stupid in the
real sense and should obviously not be parents. My statement was meant to
portray normal, somewhat intelligent, thinking homo sapiens sapiens parents,
not some slope-forehead homo erectus parents with horrid judgment. I read
Hakan's original post and saw care and concern for the child. To me, this
denotes intelligence - he has already pieced together there is a possibility
of danger and was asking for advice. To me, this denotes human parent
intelligence.
This case you present is disheartening. Some people should never breed.
However, your example is probably a case of the "spawn neglector" as
JOKER256 so excellently summed up my description of parents who don't spend
time parenting (watching what the kid is doing with any sort of minimal
interest at all). I've seen the same around here, although not to the
severe extent.
Hoyt McKagen
> have the right to mess themselves up, but not anyone else, including
> and especially their own kids.
My point exactly. I mentioned the possibility that this kid is going to
have a bad back like mine, but at ten years old instead of almost 60. And
we all saw how he brushed that off. You can't tell a person like that
anything. It's about as effective as resuscitating a dead dinosaur by
butt-fucking it.
Regards,
Hoyt McKagen
Belfab CNC - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving - http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
Help fight mailbots with these: tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprintmail.com
ab...@earthlink.net u...@ftc.gov
MXOldtimer
>butt-fucking it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Hoyt McKagen
>
But its OK, to post something like this in an open forum for kids to read.
Doug
Håkan Renning
But I still feel that my original question remains ... regardless of
everything else - will my son learn more from riding the KX65 than
from riding the PW50?
Will the increased complexity of riding the larger bike set him back
or will it make him a better rider?
My opinion concerning "is he safe": No, he's not. But he is safe
enough for the moment - maybe I make another decision tomorrow. My son
is not safe on the PW50 either. And he's not even safe when he's
playing in our own garden. For example, my son loves climbing - and I
think he's less safe sitting on a branch of our old apple tree, four
or five meters off the ground than he is riding the KX65 or when he is
trying to do a nacnac on he bicycle or a superman on his micro
scooter.
When he is at the track, it's in a controlled environment and I watch
him constantly. He wears a HJC Junior helmet, goggles, elbow pads,
knee pads, back protection, shoulder protection, jock, motocross
boots, pants, jersey and gloves. And the equipment he uses (the
motorcycle) is in perfect condition. He sure doesn't have all that
when playing.... The only way I could keep him safe would be keep him
indoors, to force him to look at the TV or play playstation games. But
that's not what my kid likes, and me neither.
"Being a parent": Generally, I think a child has the right to make a
decision. Then the parent can allow or forbid. And to forbid only when
the kid's decision is very wrong. It's always much easier to say NO
than to say YES. The parents task is to bring up his kids to make
right decisions, legal and moral. A kid must be allowed to make the
wrong choices, as well, within the rules the parents have given him
since he was very small.
In this specific case - my son makes the decision to ride the KX65
instead of the PW50. I, as the parent, don't think it's a really
dangerous decision (this is my decision only - based of my knowledge
and my judgement), so I say yes. I know that my son might find out
that his decision was wrong and return to the PW50. Or find out that
it was a correct choice to ride the KX65.
Then, another part of being a parent - to guide him - if it's obvious
that he will be a better rider staying on the PW50, then I have a real
cause and a real argument for not letting him ride the KX65.
So, from a motocross point of view: KX65 or PW50?
By the way, I think it's quite hard to try to express these kind of
thoughts in a "foreign language", so I hope I'll be forgiven for not
being very precise and maybe clumsy...
Håkan
Eric
> Thanks for all advices and an interesting discussion.
>
> But I still feel that my original question remains ... regardless of
> everything else - will my son learn more from riding the KX65 than
> from riding the PW50?
> Will the increased complexity of riding the larger bike set him back
> or will it make him a better rider?
>
Well, guess I'l chime in here. Last weekend at the track the kid who won
the mini division was a 11 yr old on a KX60. He told me he'd been riding
that bike for 5 years. He was pretty good, really new how to ride that
bike.
As far as safety goes, don't know about your kid, but my daughter doesn't
wreck the PW80 hardly ever and then it's usually something spody at low
speeds. This bothers me, as she will be way overconfident when she moves
to something bigger and will probably have her first "big one" going a lot
faster on a less forgiving bike. Your kid might be better off having his
first "big one" on the KX65 right off the bat while he's still riding slow
and getting used to it, that way he'll learn a little caution without the
hospital type injury. Believe me, that first "big one" is pretty devasting
to a small kid. That's the first time they get a hint of their own
mortality. Just went through it with my son about a month ago-he hit a dog
going about 35mph on his DS80. Went OHB and the whole nine yards, hit the
ground really hard. It took him a while to get over it. The dog, however,
never recovered and is petrified of dirtbikes! He hasn't chased any since,
hehehehe!
--
00 XR250R
00 DS 80
74 MR50 (original owner)
01 PW80
01 Lakota
Brian McGarry
Dan D wrote:
> ha...@renning.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E5kan_Renning?=) wrote:
>
> >Last weekend, my son ran into a tree with his PW50 and broke the front
> <<snip>>
> >Håkan
>
> Kind of depends on what you're looking for. Are you planning a
> professional racing career for your boy or is the point of his riding
> strictly for fun? One can argue that by giving him a more complex
> bike he'll master riding at an earlier age. What, exactly, does that
> actually gain for him? The thing to never forget is that children
> pass through developmental stages and until his brain has myelinated
> enough neurons, no matter how hard you try to teach him, if he's not
> ready to learn something, he won't learn. 4 year boys have only been
> out of diapers for a couple of years, he is mentally incapable of
> understanding risk and danger.
Interesting comments Dan. My 19 year old Son's brain de-myelinated
from complications with Mono. He was in a brain dead coma
for three weeks. No responds to pain, complete life support.
The point being, while his brain re-myelinated over
the next 2 years of recovery, it was like watching a toddler grow into
an adult, compressed into a 2 year time span. His risk assessment
skills took along time to sort out again. We went through a lot
of scary stuff during the recovery, one being, letting him ride his bike
again too early on. Glad the crash broke the bike and not him.
He wasn't ready to properly judge the dangers of riding. I left the bike
broke, until he had regained the skills and patients to fix it.
Now when we ride together, he's cautions me of riding too reckless:).
Brian
JOKERKX250
>first "big one" on the KX65 right off the bat while he's still riding slow
I think the effect could be worse on the KX compared to the PW....the KX is
taller/heavier, and if the kid is caught up in the bike, its gonna be worse
than a PW..for sure.
> Believe me, that first "big one" is pretty devasting
>to a small kid.
Yeah, its sad to see some of the kids at the track, who are amazingly fast,
until they come face to face with that first moment of truth and
destiny...cause we all know its not IF...just WHEN. My son just recently had
his worse wreck a few weeks ago on his kx80....endo'ed on a 30' double
...which he has jumped furthur...and broke side of his hand...casted for a few
weeks...luckily minor really...but shook him up good. His last really bad
wreck was ages ago (hes 11 now) on his ktm50...he was about wfo and the front
got squirrly and he went down. I was right behind and saw the whole
thing...lucky for him, he just saw "stars" for awhile....that was his first
major "enlightenment"...lol...lucky when you can laugh about em now for sure,
but it never is easy to see your kid down and hurting...but a cruel/necessary
part of the fun for sure..
Brian McGarry
Peter Patton wrote:
> Computer programmers typically get hand related problems.
> Pitchers have shoulder related problems. The list can go on with every type
> of sport. It's just the risk you take.
How many computer programers or baseball players are in wheelchairs?
As a parent, I wouldn't let my kid ride until he has the mechanical skills and
proficiency to work on a bike (demonstrated maturity). Maybe I'm over
cautious, but I've spent some time in rehab hospitals and seen first hand the
Gen X kids rolling around in wheelchairs from X sport accidents.
Brian
Eric
>>Your kid might be better off having his
>>first "big one" on the KX65 right off the bat while he's still riding slow
>
> I think the effect could be worse on the KX compared to the PW....the KX
> is
> taller/heavier, and if the kid is caught up in the bike, its gonna be
> worse than a PW..for sure.
>
Well sure, agree with you completely. Problem is, I don't think my
daughter will have that big wreck on her PW. I'm afraid she'll be
overconfident and not have the caution/respect instilled by a really hart
crash when she moves up to a bigger/faster/less forgiving bike.
Eric
--
Brian Wagner
>
> Okay, I can concede that there are cases of parents who are stupid in the
> real sense and should obviously not be parents.
Exactly. You're starting to see it.
> My statement was meant to
> portray normal, somewhat intelligent, thinking homo sapiens sapiens parents,
> not some slope-forehead homo erectus parents with horrid judgment.
Now, what do you think separates these two groups?
> I read
> Hakan's original post and saw care and concern for the child. To me, this
> denotes intelligence - he has already pieced together there is a possibility
> of danger and was asking for advice. To me, this denotes human parent
> intelligence.
The core of which is.... using common sense and logic rather than
relying on mush-headed feelings to guide one's decisions. When
the kid wants to do something moronic and dangerous, do you say
no, or give in because it makes you both feel good (at least
until the compound fractures begin.)
Brian Wagner
>
> Thanks for all advices and an interesting discussion.
>
> But I still feel that my original question remains ... regardless of
> everything else - will my son learn more from riding the KX65 than
> from riding the PW50?
> Will the increased complexity of riding the larger bike set him back
> or will it make him a better rider?
Only you know his maturity and judgement. If they are
appropriate, then go forward.
Although, I have to say, if at 4 he can physically ride a 65,
you're probably better off selling both bikes, because you're
going to need all the money you can get to keep that kid fed and
clothed the way he's growing.
Brian Wagner
>
> Disagree. As a parent, it is almost entirely about *feel*. There was no
> shop manual and Clymer's was fresh out of manuals for my son - wrong year
> and model I'd guess.
Plenty of good manuals out there. From the Bible to Dr. Spock,
there's one to suit every possible philosophical bent.
> Damn sure wish there was, it would have made my job as
> a parent a LOT easier. The point is, it is always a judgment call of the
> parent to determine this,
Judgement implies cognition, rational consideration of the facts,
and logical conclusions, not mush-headed emotional feelings.
> not someone else.
Tell that to the thousands whose children are seized daily,
sometimes just for teaching them a politically incorrect
worldview.
> There are no rules or
> regulations tables he could look at to determine the child's
> ability/inability to ride the bike safely.
Sure there are. There are the physical dimensions of the child
and of the bike, the child's coordination, reflexes and physical
strength, all of which are mathematically quantifiable
attributes, and then there's the child's maturity and mental
development, also measureable.
> He looks at the situation,
> remembers with imperfect memory and adds the factors to get a general
> "feeling" for the situation. There is no deterministic result...
If he's a good parent, or, as YOU put it in another post today,
fit to be allowed to breed, then it's absolutely a rational
deterministic process, not a matter of feelings. Andy, the fact
that you are a parent means that you've ventured at least once in
your life you've played with the fire called romance, and likely
been burned at least once, so I know that you are aware of how
our feelings can and do deceive us, usually to our detriment.
The woman who locked her kids in the car and pushed it in the
lake was operating on her feelings, which told her she couldn't
deal with being a mom. Rational application of principle would
have stopped her because she'd know it was wrong and unacceptable
to do that.
> Nice to be on the opposite side of the table with you again, Brian...
You are only a master of evil, Darth.
Hoyt McKagen
> But its OK, to post something like this in an open forum for kids to read.
As long as you got the point! Do you think the impact of a 'bad' word on
someone's ear-pan is as harsh as the impact of a flying W on his spine?
Andy Dragon
> Andy Dragon wrote:
> > My statement was meant to
> > portray normal, somewhat intelligent, thinking homo sapiens sapiens
parents,
> > not some slope-forehead homo erectus parents with horrid judgment.
>
> Now, what do you think separates these two groups?
Intelligent decision making and the ability to make the proper judgement
calls based on gut "feelings" generated by intelligent logical problem
solving. The two are easily and visibly different. The HSS parents watch
their child, spend time with their child and explain the parts of the world
to their child - the good, the bad and the ugly. The HE parent use
baby-sitting devices and pay no attention to their child. The HE are
basically the "spawn neglector" mentioned in this thread while parents with
over active parenting can become the "child hugger". Also, I think social
status has a lot to do here. Most poor parents tend to be forced into being
"spawn neglectors" because the abnormal pressure placed on them to work 24
hours a day to survive. This group is split into two: the parents who are
really good parents and try their hardest under horrible conditions and
those that are too lazy to give a damn. Middle classes are rife with both
kinds, parent who try hard and those that are too "busy" making themselves.
The upper class tend to be shit parents who care little for their spawn
other than providing large amounts of money to the offspring when they
croak. That's why so many are in therapy because 'Daddy never loved me.'
> The core of which is.... using common sense and logic rather than
> relying on mush-headed feelings to guide one's decisions. When
> the kid wants to do something moronic and dangerous, do you say
> no, or give in because it makes you both feel good (at least
> until the compound fractures begin.)
This is the problem itself. If the kid wants to do something dangerous, it
would NOT make me "feel" good. My "feeling" would be, 'hey, son, that is
dangerous, don't do that'. If it's just embarrassing, I'd say 'go for it!',
he'll learn something without getting hurt. What you are failing to admit
is that good judgment "feelings" are driven by intelligence. Intelligence
provides the logic to make the judgment call, but it is still a judgment
call made of gut "feelings". There is nothing mushy-headed about it.
Question, are you a parent?
Andy Dragon
> Andy Dragon wrote:
> >
> > Disagree. As a parent, it is almost entirely about *feel*. There was
no
> > shop manual and Clymer's was fresh out of manuals for my son - wrong
year
> > and model I'd guess.
>
> Plenty of good manuals out there. From the Bible to Dr. Spock,
> there's one to suit every possible philosophical bent.
Read some of them. For what my opinion is worth, the bible is not a manual
for anything, it's a damn fine story book, even has a few factual,
historical parts where the truth wasn't buried in religious ferver or
blinded because it contridicted some other falsehood. Then again, I was
never a good christian. Most of the other manuals are from child-huggers
who would love to force their parenting ideas on you (hey, sorta like
religion!) and place your child in a plastic bubble. Yeah, I've read a
couple of these so-called child raising manuals.
> > Damn sure wish there was, it would have made my job as
> > a parent a LOT easier. The point is, it is always a judgment call of
the
> > parent to determine this,
>
> Judgement implies cognition, rational consideration of the facts,
> and logical conclusions, not mush-headed emotional feelings.
LOL. This is interesting. So judgement in your opinion has nothing to do
with "feeling", it's strictly logic-based? Judgement is based on the
"feeling" which is left when intelligent logic fails to generate a complete
answer. One of the most wonderous things that makes us human and not
automation is the ability to employ fuzzy logic which is little more than
filling in the wholes in cognitive logic with snippets of feeling to produce
a judgement. This is were modern computers are still lacking. Many chaos
mathematitions are beginning to wonder if this is something that is
impossible to produce in computers. Computer memory is static, it is
perfect. Human memory is dynamic, it is perfectly human. We perceive the
past differently from what actually happened based partly on previous
imperfect recollections. This provides a biased and warped sense of reality
which is the foundation for our fuzzy or "feeling" logic. Computers can
only make decisions by being random or by being logical, they don't have
this ability to distort their world to produce the same type of fuzzy logic.
> > not someone else.
>
> Tell that to the thousands whose children are seized daily,
> sometimes just for teaching them a politically incorrect
> worldview.
And this is the most evil and perverted thing I could think of up to the
point where the child becomes abused. Government should never be involved
in child raising and communities should take the responsibility for
preventing abuse. Government can't control itself, how can it parent better
than 99% of the natural parents in the world. This is one section of US and
Canadian government (along with many others) which is plain and simply an
abuse of it's people to propogate it's own views. This puts the governments
into the same altruistic position of dictatorships and fascist states like
the Soviet Union and even Nazi Germany. It's wrong.
> > There are no rules or
> > regulations tables he could look at to determine the child's
> > ability/inability to ride the bike safely.
>
> Sure there are. There are the physical dimensions of the child
> and of the bike, the child's coordination, reflexes and physical
> strength, all of which are mathematically quantifiable
> attributes, and then there's the child's maturity and mental
> development, also measureable.
Most of these are NOT mathematically quantifiable at all Brian, the
dimensions of the child and the dimensions of the bike are only useful in
gross decisions, like "can the child riding a YZ250F?" Probably not, the
dimensions are incorrect. Using such macro decision making underminds the
thought process. I concede that the child's maturity and mental development
are important and generally based on the parent's "feeling". Damn, there's
that word again. :-)
> > He looks at the situation,
> > remembers with imperfect memory and adds the factors to get a general
> > "feeling" for the situation. There is no deterministic result...
>
> If he's a good parent, or, as YOU put it in another post today,
> fit to be allowed to breed, then it's absolutely a rational
> deterministic process, not a matter of feelings.
The logic of this statement eludes me, can you expand on it? I think you
are trying to equate good parenting with intelligence and trying to remove
judgement from the equation.
> Andy, the fact
> that you are a parent means that you've ventured at least once in
> your life you've played with the fire called romance, and likely
> been burned at least once, so I know that you are aware of how
> our feelings can and do deceive us, usually to our detriment.
Undoubtly. I am divorced and that was an ugly part of my life that I am
glad is in the past. However, all those episodes, good and bad, define who
I am. My imperfect recollections of my history has determined my outlook,
my philosophies (feelings - again!) and how I employ fuzzy, or feeling,
logic to solve life's everyday problems.
> The woman who locked her kids in the car and pushed it in the
> lake was operating on her feelings, which told her she couldn't
> deal with being a mom. Rational application of principle would
> have stopped her because she'd know it was wrong and unacceptable
> to do that.
And in some extreme cases, feelings lead to the incorrect judgement.
> > Nice to be on the opposite side of the table with you again, Brian...
>
> You are only a master of evil, Darth.
Why thank you, you say the nicest things...
Brian Wagner
>
> This is the problem itself. If the kid wants to do something dangerous, it
> would NOT make me "feel" good. My "feeling" would be, 'hey, son, that is
> dangerous, don't do that'.
No, there's your fallacy. "That's dangerous" is a cognitive
judgement based on foresight - looking down the road at possible
negative outcomes. Feelings don't look ahead, don't anticipate -
they tell you what tickles your pleasure center, fight/flight
response, or depression right now. The only feeling involved at
the time of the decision is either the headache of conflict from
dealing with a kid who is angry for being told no, or the ego
stroking afforded by the response of a happy kid and the
gratification of dodging a condlict. See, child huggers and
spawn neglectors are just branches of the same thing - avoiding
conflict because it makes them feel bad.
> If it's just embarrassing, I'd say 'go for it!',
Again, this is directly against feelings, one of the strongest of
which is the deisre for approval and acceptance, which makes us
avoid embarrassing things.
> he'll learn something without getting hurt. What you are failing to admit
> is that good judgment "feelings" are driven by intelligence. Intelligence
> provides the logic to make the judgment call, but it is still a judgment
> call made of gut "feelings". There is nothing mushy-headed about it.
No, the judgement call is made based on several factors, feelings
being one of them. You are confusing opinions and value
judgements with feelings. Feelings are nothing more than
hormonal emotional impulses. The judgement calls you speak of are
not "gut feelings," they are the result of considering several
factors and arriving at a conclusion that, while not patently and
universally obvious, is nonetheless a result of weighing
cognitive factors.
> Question, are you a parent?
I was, briefly, but it's not relevant. The issue is decision
mechanisms, not parenting.
DirtCrashr
>"spawn neglectors" because the abnormal pressure placed on them to work 24
>hours a day to survive.
An interesting thing we learned in research from a social-anthropology course
was that poor parents overwhelmingly buy their children MORE educational toys
and learning tools than the wealthy, who buy almost none.
They want them to get ahead further, while the wealthy elite want them to stay
put.
DrtCrshr
Dan D
> Problem is, I don't think my daughter will have that big wreck on her PW. I'm afraid she'll be
>overconfident and not have the caution/respect instilled by a really hart
>crash when she moves up to a bigger/faster/less forgiving bike.
>Eric
OK, so the way I read this is that you believe that a child would be
better off having a higher performing bike because you're doubtful
she'll have a "big wreck" on the smaller bike. Therefore, you would
put her on a bigger, faster bike so she will have a "really hard
crash." You actually want her to have a "really hard crash" because
you believe that will instill in her caution and respect.
Wow! This is a troll, right?
-Dan
Tim H.
>
<snip a bunch of well thought out, perfectly valid points>
Andy, you are wasting your time arguing semantics with someone who
doesn't really care that you are right, he just wants to try and make
you say "Uncle" to his self seen superior debating skills. I agree with
you wholeheartedly.
Tim H.
Real parent, all the time.
BTW, how are you "briefly" a parent? If you have lost a child, Brian,
then I am truly sorry. If you lived with one that wasn't yours and
subsequently left with his/her mother, then you obviously don't get it
at all.
Jay C
DirtCrashr <dirtc...@aol.comKeinSpam> wrote in message
>
> An interesting thing we learned in research from a social-anthropology
course
> was that poor parents overwhelmingly buy their children MORE educational
toys
> and learning tools than the wealthy, who buy almost none.
> They want them to get ahead further, while the wealthy elite want them to
stay
> put.
That's a total crock, though it wouldn't surprise me if that fantasy is
being passed off as truth in Kalifornia. The "wealthy" don't stay that way
for nothing. Ever notice how the kids of rich people tend to get rich
themselves? I have first hand experience with how the poor and
"underprivileged" regard education and advancement. They might be teaching
their kids how to stand on a corner with their hands out, but that's about
as far as they go. There are exceptions to every rule, but looking at the
vast majority - cream rises to the top. On the other hand, when you mix
shit and ice cream, you still end up with shit.
Jay
Jim Gary
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Restaurant."
- Mayor Samantha Campana, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998
"Jay C" <stu...@tp.net> wrote in message
news:9j53q3$li$1...@nntpsp2-ld.pvd.loa.net...
Eric
Look idiot, you took it all out of context. My point is, a little pain (a
little, as I obviously have to be specific with you) is good for body and
spirit. It teaches respect for the machine and speed. Having a few
tumbles on a small bike as a young rider will usually instill this. My
daughter has never really wrecked her bikes (either the MR50 or the PW80).
She has absolutely no fear. I should have moved her from the MR50 to a
KX60 or XR80. At this point she is so confident in her abilities that if I
put her on a KX, she would immediately hammer it. If I had put her on a
KX after the MR50 she would probably have dumped it a couple of times
tooling along in first and learned more caution. The PW80 is damn near
crash proof. If I put her on the KX now she would likely dump it tooling
along in 5th and about 8 feet in the air. Do you see the point? Probably
not, you don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. Of course you
applied Al Bore reading techniques to my original post, no where did I say
"I want her to have a hard wreck". You may not see the difference between
dumping a bike at 5mph or 40mph, but I do and believe me, the kid does.
Glad you aren't raising my kids, apparently the best part of you ran down
that chunk of lard your mother fondly refers to as her thigh.
JOKERKX250
>>> I'm afraid she'll be
>>>overconfident and not have the caution/respect instilled by a really hart
>>>crash when she moves up to a bigger/faster/less forgiving bike.
>She has absolutely no fear.
Ok...so she already is in this "zone"...that she will come out of and into a
"crash of reality" sooner or later. I think you better be talking to her
...and take her to a track and let her see firsthand some good
crashes....especially since you are prepared for that 40+ mph wreck you
envision in the near future.....that one is gonna be a wake up call for both of
you brother....because believe us....all of us with kids who have been
there...it aint a easy site/situation for the kid...or you to deal with... its
EASY TO TALK ABOUT IT...BUT WAIT TILL IT REALLLLLLY HAPPENS MAN....It will rock
your world. I am talking about the one that HURTS THE KID...NOT THE EASY
GET-OFF...BRUSH IT OFF/LAUGH IT OFF...on the way again....Im talking about the
one that has you wondering....does this make sense?
All I am saying is.....make sure you talk to her....no , it aint easy ...cause
you can scare them if not handled correctly. You
get the drift eh?
Anyway, good luck to you and the lil gal...hopefully she will never have to
have that 'getoff that is a bummer....for sure
Andy Dragon
> Andy Dragon wrote:
> >
> > This is the problem itself. If the kid wants to do something dangerous,
it
> > would NOT make me "feel" good. My "feeling" would be, 'hey, son, that
is
> > dangerous, don't do that'.
>
> No, there's your fallacy. "That's dangerous" is a cognitive
> judgement based on foresight
Foresight is based on feeling. You put things so succinctly for me, thanks
Brian.
> See, child huggers and
> spawn neglectors are just branches of the same thing - avoiding
> conflict because it makes them feel bad.
This we both agree on to a degree. Even more so, I think it's a sign of
laziness - the unwillingness to own up to the awesome responsibility called
parenthood. This goes back to my issue that some people should not be
allowed to breed.
> > If it's just embarrassing, I'd say 'go for it!',
>
> Again, this is directly against feelings, one of the strongest of
> which is the deisre for approval and acceptance, which makes us
> avoid embarrassing things.
Um, don't know about that. I don't like being embarrassed, but I've done
some downright embarrassing things in my life.....
> > he'll learn something without getting hurt. What you are failing to
admit
> > is that good judgment "feelings" are driven by intelligence.
Intelligence
> > provides the logic to make the judgment call, but it is still a judgment
> > call made of gut "feelings". There is nothing mushy-headed about it.
>
> No, the judgement call is made based on several factors, feelings
> being one of them.
You conceed already?!? Brian, I expected more vigor! :-)
> You are confusing opinions and value
> judgements with feelings. Feelings are nothing more than
> hormonal emotional impulses.
No, there are different types of feelings. There is the strictly emotional
and the cognitive/emotional. What we are both talking about is the same.
Example: Fear is the fight-or-flight feeling based on a situation. If fear
provokes a strong enough reaction (the feeling of danger is high enough), we
will make a "safe" judgement. This could be drastic such as "I will not go
kick the bear in the nads, that would be dangerous" or as mild as "I feel my
son would be in danger riding a KX 65".
> The judgement calls you speak of are
> not "gut feelings," they are the result of considering several
> factors and arriving at a conclusion that, while not patently and
> universally obvious, is nonetheless a result of weighing
> cognitive factors.
Nope, humans are wired by feelings, it's what separates us from our
computers (poor creations at best). We are animals like all the other
beasties on the planet and all of our cognitive decision making is based on
cognitive/emotional feelings. Why do we motorcycle? Almost all people in
this NG will same something similar, "It makes me feel good" or "I enjoy it"
or "Makes me feel free". The decision to bike is based on feeling, in
particular, fulfilling an emotional desire.
> > Question, are you a parent?
>
> I was, briefly, but it's not relevant. The issue is decision
> mechanisms, not parenting.
Was not part of the discussion, was just being nosy.
Andy Dragon
> being passed off as truth in Kalifornia. The "wealthy" don't stay that
way
> for nothing. Ever notice how the kids of rich people tend to get rich
> themselves?
You are right, in a capitalistic and corrupt higher education system, the
rich simply buy their education. Then they get a position of power and hire
smart drones to keep them that way. I've dealt with many rich assholes who
didn't do a bit of work in their lives and life off the backs of their slave
labour. The theory is basically the richer you are, the less work you
actually need to do to stay rich.
Conversely, poorer people need to work like slaves to get to any position to
eek out any existance at all and provide for their families. The parents
work like dogs, the children are unsupervised and don't have a relationship
with their parents.
In North America, we now have the great equalizer, however. Drug dealing,
high crime, etc. Why spend all the time to get an education to work like a
dog to prop up some dickless rich asshole when you can sell drugs and live
better. One problem, it's illegal.
> I have first hand experience with how the poor and
> "underprivileged" regard education and advancement. They might be
teaching
> their kids how to stand on a corner with their hands out, but that's about
> as far as they go. There are exceptions to every rule, but looking at the
> vast majority - cream rises to the top. On the other hand, when you mix
> shit and ice cream, you still end up with shit.
Wow, that is the harshest judgement I've seen in a long time. So, in other
words, screw 'em, they are shit and will always be shit? Interesting.
Andy Dragon
> Andy, you are wasting your time arguing semantics with someone who
> doesn't really care that you are right, he just wants to try and make
> you say "Uncle" to his self seen superior debating skills. I agree with
> you wholeheartedly.
Actually Tim, I enjoy debating with Brian. He is intelligent and does not
stoop to name-calling and bashing. I love open conversation even if we both
know there is little hope of persuading the other person of your beliefs or
arguments.
If people in RMD are sick of reading this, we can take it offline.
Jim Gary
post.........
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Restaurant."
- Mayor Samantha Campana, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998
"Jim Gary" <ji...@cableaz.com> wrote in message
news:dEt57.12351$ps6....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>You are right, in a capitalistic and corrupt higher education system, the
> rich simply buy their education. Then they get a position of power and
hire
> smart drones to keep them that way. I've dealt with many rich assholes
who
> didn't do a bit of work in their lives and life off the backs of their
slave
> labour. The theory is basically the richer you are, the less work you
> actually need to do to stay rich.
>
> Conversely, poorer people need to work like slaves to get to any position
to
> eek out any existance at all and provide for their families. The parents
> work like dogs, the children are unsupervised and don't have a
relationship
> with their parents.
>
> In North America, we now have the great equalizer, however. Drug dealing,
> high crime, etc. Why spend all the time to get an education to work like
a
> dog to prop up some dickless rich asshole when you can sell drugs and live
> better. One problem, it's illegal.
Andy is right!! The Proletariat need to unite to rid society of the
emperialistic, decadant capitolists pigs. Only then will we be free to
prosper under the banner of equality and social justice. Mother America can
be the worker's paradise that it was intended to be by the doctrine of our
founders. No longer will the bourgeoisie grow fat on the backs of the
workers. Brother's Unite!!!
UNITE!!!!!!!
Dan D
Eric <ewb...@theriver.com> wrote:
>Look idiot, you took it all out of context....
>Of course you applied Al Bore reading techniques to my original post, no where did I say
>"I want her to have a hard wreck".
Maybe you didn't, but considering I never suggested that you did, why
do you bring this up?
Here's what you said:
>> Problem is, I don't think my daughter will have that big wreck on her PW.
>> I'm afraid she'll be overconfident and not have the caution/respect instilled by a really hart
>>crash when she moves up to a bigger/faster/less forgiving bike.
Here's what I said:
>> OK, so the way I read this is that you believe that a child would be
>> better off having a higher performing bike because you're doubtful
>> she'll have a "big wreck" on the smaller bike. Therefore, you would
>> put her on a bigger, faster bike so she will have a "really hard
>> crash." You actually want her to have a "really hard crash" because
>> you believe that will instill in her caution and respect.
Read them carefully. Go ahead and move your lips if you think it will
help. This is a lot like those tricky SAT questions but note that my
paragraph directly refers to and quotes verbatim your paragraph.
>My point is, a little pain (a little, as I obviously have to be specific with you) is good for body and
>spirit.
There you go, that's another "trick" to effectively communicate a
rational opinion, specificity. You expressed a belief that it is a
problem that your daughter would not have a "big wreck" on a PW and
you're afraid she won't gain a certain benefit from "a really hart
(sic) crash." That is the extent of what you said. You shouldn't be
surprised or offended when you're taken at your words and if you mean
otherwise, you need to say so.
So, to get to the point you are now trying to make, if I may
paraphrase this redundant meandering:
>My daughter has never really wrecked her bikes (either the MR50 or the PW80).
<<snip>>
>along in 5th and about 8 feet in the air.
It sounds like you believe that your daughter's motorcycles have
heretofore been so stable that she has not yet had a crash that has
taught her to appreciate the risk of crashing. You regret not moving
her to a less stable bike at an earlier point in her development
because now you fear that she still does not adequately understand the
danger of crashing, but is more likely to suffer serious injuries on
higher performance bikes. There's a certain primitive logic to this
but I see some disadvantages. By definition, you can't plan or
control crashes and even apparent low speed crashes can have
unexpected consequences. The difference between a radial head
fracture, requiring only a sling for 6 weeks, and a radial nerve
transection causing a withered and nonfunctional arm, is only a few
millimeters. In addition, the desired psychological benefit of
learned caution and respect after a crash can just as easily be
replaced by fear and avoidance. So, instead of improved skills, it's
back to the Barbies. In my observation of motorcycling, crashes are
inevitable. One does not need to manipulate the conditions to promote
them. I think a child can arrive at the same skill level with
practice and instruction by an intelligent and wise parent. A child's
ability to comprehend risk is much more a function of maturity and
development than memories of fear and pain. This is not conjecture,
but well-established scientific observation.
>Do you see the point? Probably not, you don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Oh, I admit I'm no brain surgeon.
>Glad you aren't raising my kids, apparently the best part of you ran down
>that chunk of lard your mother fondly refers to as her thigh.
What can I say? With this, you've proven you're my intellectual and
social superior. I bet the fellas at the feed store just hoot 'n
holler no matter how many times they hear that put down!
-Dan
Eric
>
> Here's what you said:
>>> Problem is, I don't think my daughter will have that big wreck on her
>>> PW.
>>> I'm afraid she'll be overconfident and not have the caution/respect
>>> instilled by a really hart
>>>crash when she moves up to a bigger/faster/less forgiving bike.
>
> Here's what I said:
>>> OK, so the way I read this is that you believe that a child would be
>>> better off having a higher performing bike because you're doubtful
>>> she'll have a "big wreck" on the smaller bike. Therefore, you would
>>> put her on a bigger, faster bike so she will have a "really hard
>>> crash." You actually want her to have a "really hard crash" because
>>> you believe that will instill in her caution and respect.
>
> Read them carefully. Go ahead and move your lips if you think it will
> help. This is a lot like those tricky SAT questions but note that my
> paragraph directly refers to and quotes verbatim your paragraph.
>
I see the problem now. Anyone can read the two paragraphs above, and see
that they are not "verbatim". Perhaps we should get you a copy of
Websters? I know, verbatim is a big word.
>>My point is, a little pain (a little, as I obviously have to be specific
>>with you) is good for body and spirit.
>
> There you go, that's another "trick" to effectively communicate a
> rational opinion, specificity. You expressed a belief that it is a
> problem that your daughter would not have a "big wreck" on a PW and
> you're afraid she won't gain a certain benefit from "a really hart
> (sic) crash." That is the extent of what you said. You shouldn't be
> surprised or offended when you're taken at your words and if you mean
> otherwise, you need to say so.
>
> So, to get to the point you are now trying to make, if I may
> paraphrase this redundant meandering:
>>My daughter has never really wrecked her bikes (either the MR50 or the
>>PW80).
> <<snip>>
>>along in 5th and about 8 feet in the air.
>
Interesting, I like the way you pick and choose lines from my post, then
paste them together in a different order-interesting way to get your point
across.
>
>>Do you see the point? Probably not, you don't seem to be the sharpest
>>knife in the drawer.
>
> Oh, I admit I'm no brain surgeon.
Well, I guess we can't say were not in agreement about something.
>
>>Glad you aren't raising my kids, apparently the best part of you ran down
>>that chunk of lard your mother fondly refers to as her thigh.
>
> What can I say? With this, you've proven you're my intellectual and
> social superior. I bet the fellas at the feed store just hoot 'n
> holler no matter how many times they hear that put down!
Yes, as a matter of they do. But hey, if the shoe fits.......
Brian Wagner
>
> You are right, in a capitalistic and corrupt higher education system, the
> rich simply buy their education. Then they get a position of power and hire
> smart drones to keep them that way. I've dealt with many rich assholes who
> didn't do a bit of work in their lives and life off the backs of their slave
> labour. The theory is basically the richer you are, the less work you
> actually need to do to stay rich.
> Conversely, poorer people need to work like slaves to get to any position to
> eek out any existance at all and provide for their families. The parents
> work like dogs, the children are unsupervised and don't have a relationship
> with their parents.
Thank you, Karl Marx.
DirtCrashr
>toys
>> and learning tools than the wealthy, who buy almost none.
>> They want them to get ahead further, while the wealthy elite want them to
>stay
>> put.
>
>That's a total crock, though it wouldn't surprise me if that fantasy is
>being passed off as truth in Kalifornia. The "wealthy" don't stay that way
>for nothing.
The wealthy aren't in danger of losing ground the way the poor are, they're
over the financial bell-curve on the other side and they know their children
will succeede since they are much better positioned and poised for success.
They "reward" their offspring's complacency with toys, while the poor buy a lot
of speak-and-spell gadgets.
The rich aren't called conservative for no reason, and their focus is keeping
the children and the family's money and future within the well established
compound of wealth.
They don't want a lot of wild experimentation and losses.
>Ever notice how the kids of rich people tend to get rich
>themselves?
Yes. Don't you think it's because they have had a lifetime of training and
education and direction especially in the matter of achieving this wealth, and
that they are well poised and know more?
>I have first hand experience with how the poor and
>"underprivileged" regard education and advancement. They might be teaching
>their kids how to stand on a corner with their hands out, but that's about
>as far as they go.
The paper-wrapper evidence collected from people's dustbins and through
surveilence shows that the less wealthy buy more educational toys for their
children.
Whether that's to get hem to succeeded or just to stop saying "axed" instead of
"asked" I don't know ;-)
Endemically poor are probabaly another issue.
I was watching a TV show last night about the Roman Empire.
Inside the city of Rome at the turn of the Millinnium-0 there were some 250,000
people (the narrator said a couple hundred thousand) called "the Mob" who were
unemployed, lacked housing, and were basically rabble who intentionaly didn't
"fit-in" to Society and had to be placated with free-food and shelter and
entertainment.
They were substantially "different" than regular, orderly Roman citizens, and
dangerous and also organized enough so that they could make demands that the
Emperor had to keep.
On more than one occasion they massed together and surrounded the Senate
building and threatened them with fire if they didn't comply with one request
for free stuff or another.
Maybe this was the begining of *it* all. Or maybe they were disaffected
ancient Etruscans who'd been disenfranchised by the Roman Legions? ;-)
>There are exceptions to every rule, but looking at the
>vast majority - cream rises to the top. On the other hand, when you mix
>shit and ice cream, you still end up with shit.
There are a lot of unqualified rich kids in positions of cream exercising power
by divine intervention of the Family Dollar. Not everyone works their way to
the top by work alone - but on the other hand some of the richest people didn't
inherit it either and got where they are by fleeing poverty. Once they get
"there" they don't tend to encourage a lot of "creativity" financially
though...
When you mix shit and ice cream you get Spumoni.
I had a job once selling ice-cream, my only retail experience - and people
bought it anyhow.
>Jay
DirtCrashr
'97 KTM 300 MX/C '95 CB1000
CERA, D-36, BRC, CORVA, COHVCO, HHORA, AMA and FOLMA
IRKurt
plausible. The independent variable seems to be the condition of the individual
being scrutinizied.
I think I only fear the one with the means and power to enact and enforce his
opinion of societies ills.
Kurt -
In article <20010719140120...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
Andy Dragon
Nope. I believe in a TRUE/HONEST capitalist society were the best rise to
the to top to rule. North America is not much different that a caste system
and if you can't see it, you are blind. Poor people in North America cannot
rise when oppressed from lazy, arrogant and rich people.
Karl Marx had a completely different philosophy where everybody was equal
and got an equal lot in life. I don't. I think the best and brightest
should leave the rest to wither and die. Simply not the same.
Andy Dragon
"DirtCrashr" <dirtc...@aol.comKeinSpam> wrote in message
> I was watching a TV show last night about the Roman Empire.
> Inside the city of Rome at the turn of the Millinnium-0 there were some
250,000
> people (the narrator said a couple hundred thousand) called "the Mob" who
were
> unemployed, lacked housing, and were basically rabble who intentionaly
didn't
> "fit-in" to Society and had to be placated with free-food and shelter and
> entertainment.
> They were substantially "different" than regular, orderly Roman citizens,
and
> dangerous and also organized enough so that they could make demands that
the
> Emperor had to keep.
> On more than one occasion they massed together and surrounded the Senate
> building and threatened them with fire if they didn't comply with one
request
> for free stuff or another.
There you have it. The world's first "lobby" groups...
Jim Gary
Poor people in North America cannot
rise when oppressed from lazy, arrogant and rich people.
Wanna give this some credibility with some facts. I can give specific
examples that counter it.
Jim Gary
prosper under the banner of equality and social justice. Mother America can
be the worker's paradise that it was intended to be by the doctrine of our
founders. No longer will the bourgeoisie grow fat on the backs of the
workers. Brother's Unite!!!
UNITE!!!!!!!
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Restaurant."
- Mayor Samantha Campana, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998
"Andy Dragon" <Andy_...@hotmail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:Wvo57.75$7M6.1...@news2.tor.primus.ca...
Andy Dragon
> "Andy Dragon" <Andy_...@hotmail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in message
>
> Poor people in North America cannot
> rise when oppressed from lazy, arrogant and rich people.
>
>
>
> Wanna give this some credibility with some facts. I can give specific
> examples that counter it.
You can give a few examples which are contradictory to history? I can
concede to that... :-)
Andy Dragon
strong and intelligent taking over and leaving the weak and stupid to wither
and die. Funny, usually it's the soft liberals who take issue with my
ideology, it's neat being seen on the other side of the fence...
--
~Andy
'01 Kawasaki KX 250 / '01 Honda CR 125
'00 Skidoo MXZX 600
'99 Seadoo GSX Limited
and more...
"Jim Gary" <ji...@cableaz.com> wrote in message
news:r%M57.28554$B4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Jim Gary
fact like one of those really high dollar synthetic sponges that cost $9 at
the Checker/Kragen and promise to get your car cleaner than a 3/$1 foam
sponge.
In the history of the United States of American (not concerned with the rest
of North America) what policy or gap in constitutional protection has not
been corrected thus giving *everyone* who is a full vested American the same
opportunity to excel and advance?
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Restaurant."
- Mayor Samantha Campana, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998
"Andy Dragon" <Andy_...@hotmail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:xbN57.26442$ja4.10...@news1.tor.primus.ca...
Jim Gary
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Restaurant."
- Mayor Samantha Campana, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998
"Andy Dragon" <Andy_...@hotmail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:gdN57.26446$ja4.10...@news1.tor.primus.ca...
Andy Dragon
> In the history of the United States of American (not concerned with the
rest
> of North America)
How typically American.....
> what policy or gap in constitutional protection has not
> been corrected thus giving *everyone* who is a full vested American the
same
> opportunity to excel and advance?
Excel and advance. Like Microsoft? So, in America, everyone should be able
to excel to their fullest free of government intervention? Unless, of
course, they actually beat their competition into submission. Then they are
a monopoly. Guess no everyone is created equal after all.
Andy Dragon
capitalist society. Read on...
I recently read this statement in an online thesis about capitalism: "The
essential nature of capitalism is social harmony through the pursuit of
self-interest. Under capitalism, the individual's pursuit of his own
economic self-interest simultaneously benefits the economic self-interests
of all others. In allowing each individual to act unhampered by government
regulations, capitalism causes wealth to be created in the most efficient
manner possible which ultimately raises the standard of living, increases
the economic opportunities, and makes available an ever growing supply of
products for everyone."
There is no sector in either country which allows "each individual to act
unhampered by government regulations", nor is there any "social harmony
through the pursuit of self-interest". Instead each country is set up via
regulation to keep those with power and wealth in charge, that is, keeps
them in power and keeps them wealthy. Unlike the very notion of capitalism
where anyone with intelligence and drive can rise to the top echelon, both
countries are mired in a hierarchical caste system which keeps people where
they are. My Dad often said that "only money can make money."
I believe that those with intelligence and strength should rise to the top,
replacing those in power who cannot keep up. Contrary to a few exceptions,
the average Joe will die an average Joe, no matter how strong and
intelligent he is. Those is power are used to it and like it there, they
are not about to give it up. At the same time, those weak and stupid should
not be propped up through liberal, socialistic programs designed to create
this level playing field which is EXACTLY what Marx espouses in his
doctrine.
I am one of the examples of contradiction to the rule. I came from a
lower-middle class family where my Dad worked 32-40 hours a week _overtime_
and my Mom worked full time. This paid the bills on a moderate house, food,
bills and evil taxation from a corrupt government (nor were they victims of
bad economic decisions like credit card hell). I am now a multi-millionaire
because of intelligence and drive. I worked my ass off and now I am
upwardly mobile (don't that beat all!). Still my government is not happy
seeing that I came from one segment of the population and dared to rise
above my station and tried to take my earned money in over-taxation. I
moved back to my home town and realize what a stroke of luck I found,
because there are LOTS of hard-working, intelligent, driven people who will
die with a mortgage and struggle with funeral costs...
--
~Andy
'01 Kawasaki KX 250 / '01 Honda CR 125
'00 Skidoo MXZX 600
'99 Seadoo GSX Limited
and more...
"Jim Gary" <ji...@cableaz.com> wrote in message
news:ptN57.28936$B4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
JOKERKX250
>because of intelligence and drive. I worked my ass off and now I am
>upwardly mobile (don't that beat all!).
Congrats on your success....so what line of "work" you into?...just
curious...and gotta know how/why you would want the CR125 when you got the KX
?!?...lol ..or is it for pals who stop by or kids?...
Email direct if ya wanna....to keep the "spammers" and Government
varmints/trolls at bay...lol
Andy Dragon
"JOKERKX250" <joker...@aol.comscrwspam> wrote in message
news:20010720002138...@ng-ms1.aol.com...
> Congrats on your success....so what line of "work" you into?...just
> curious
Software development. Not web development or design, and sure as hell not
"IT". I am a system architect and C++ programmer with 14 years experience.
I've architected and written operating systems, large-scale CAD systems and
NLVPPS (non-linear video post-production systems). I worked for Microsoft
for three years which is where I made the bucks.
> ...and gotta know how/why you would want the CR125 when you got the KX
> ?!?...lol ..or is it for pals who stop by or kids?...
> Email direct if ya wanna....to keep the "spammers" and Government
> varmints/trolls at bay...lol
Okay, I bought the KX for myself and love it to death, and if I keep going,
I'm sure that'll be the outcome. I don't like to ride alone and I live in a
rural, small town. So I decided to get my brother hooked as well. My
brother is not so gung-ho as I am (and that's not much either), so I started
him on a TTR-125L. Nice smooth power and easy to learn on. He loved it and
was learning at an incredible pace. So then I had two bikes, the KX and the
TTR. The plan was to eventually replace the TTR with a full-size 4stroke
(YZ250F) or if time waited long enough, whatever Honda's 4stroke 250 was
going to be.
Then my sister decided to try out the TTR. She loved it. Now having bought
the bike for them to ride would not have made any difference, I would be
moderator of the TTR and hated by one person or the other most of the time.
Screw that, I started looking for a YZ250F. No one had one at a reasonable
price and the dealer was selling the CR at a steal (IMO) and so I picked it
up. Now my brother hates the power of the CR. I am totally pissed.
Actually he hates the thing outright - he hates that it's hard to get
rolling due to no low-end and he hates the awesome power once it hits the
powerband, he likes the arm-chair ride of the TTR. He rides it on the
weekends when my sister is riding the TTR, but leaves it all week and when
riding, I can tell he doesn't want to be on the bike. So I trade off,
riding the CR and the KX. I like the attention-to-terrain and thinking
required to ride the little 125, makes me more confident on my "big green
pig beast". So, since I do most of the riding, I consider it "mine" and
added it to my signature. I don't force it on him either, it's his right to
not like the bike.
If that didn't crowd the garage enough, a quad rider stopped and talked to
my Dad and Renee (my fiancée) one day and let her take it for a ride. Yep,
you guessed it. Next day I was signing the ownership for a Bayou 300 quad.
Now we can all ride and I spend most of my time maintaining the "fleet"...
;-)
john
that's all
john
"Andy Dragon" <Andy_...@hotmail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:3uM57.26335$sU3.10...@news1.tor.primus.ca...
Brian Wagner
> Nope. I believe in a TRUE/HONEST capitalist society were the best rise to
> the to top to rule. North America is not much different that a caste system
> and if you can't see it, you are blind. Poor people in North America cannot
> rise when oppressed from lazy, arrogant and rich people.
>
poor - heck, we give them welfare, food stamps, free education,
AND when the kids don't learn in school, we PAY them to come to
summer school.
The richest man in the world, Bill Gates, came from very humble
beginnings, right here in North America, and the last president
we had was originally born into a family that fit the classic
definition or po' white trash (and his behavior in office proved
that you can take the boy out of the trailer park, but you can't
take the trailer park out of the boy.)
Tim H.
>
> Nope. I believe in a TRUE/HONEST capitalist society were the best rise to
> the to top to rule. North America is not much different that a caste system
> and if you can't see it, you are blind. Poor people in North America cannot
> rise when oppressed from lazy, arrogant and rich people.
>
> Karl Marx had a completely different philosophy where everybody was equal
> and got an equal lot in life. I don't. I think the best and brightest
> should leave the rest to wither and die. Simply not the same.
>
> --
> ~Andy
Thank you, Charles Darwin.
Tim H.
Preying on the slow and weak
Tim H.
>
> um how rich was gates in 1971?
> that's all
> john
>
Um, richer than most of us. His daddy is a big bucks lawyer up here in
Seattle.
Tim H.
Brian Wagner
>
> Excel and advance. Like Microsoft? So, in America, everyone should be able
> to excel to their fullest free of government intervention? Unless, of
> course, they actually beat their competition into submission. Then they are
> a monopoly.
Only when a democrat is in the white house.
john
idea for cheep entry to 1% club
get something that strikes your fancy.
then work for the best in the field to learn the biz
discover new application for existing product
then find someone else's capital to run the product.
use their structure to support your sales.
your overhead: laptop car & couple of suits.
growth potential unlimited, try it, it works.
john
where ever you hear people complaining about something
that's where the money is."
Brian Wagner
>
> There is no sector in either country which allows "each individual to act
> unhampered by government regulations", nor is there any "social harmony
> through the pursuit of self-interest".
Nor will there be, anywhere. Oxygen is good; pure oxygen is
toxic. Pure capitalism is anarchy.
Your dirt bikes? those are something we would compete for - if I
could get them out of your garage without you noticing, they'd be
mine - that's pure capitalism. Laws against theft, or even
insuring property rights, are a dilution of capitalism.
> Instead each country is set up via
> regulation to keep those with power and wealth in charge, that is, keeps
> them in power and keeps them wealthy.
There ARE other conceivable motives.
> Unlike the very notion of capitalism
> where anyone with intelligence and drive can rise to the top echelon, both
> countries are mired in a hierarchical caste system which keeps people where
> they are.
Tell that to Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, Walton, Clinton,
Reagan, Nixon, Truman, Eisenhower, Michael Jordan, Madonna - need
I go on? Al started out in the lower socio-economic strata. The
heirarchy did a lousy job of keeping them where they were.
> I believe that those with intelligence and strength should rise to the top,
> replacing those in power who cannot keep up.
You forgot drive and ambition. Some people are too lazy, and
some are just content where they are.
> Contrary to a few exceptions,
> the average Joe will die an average Joe, no matter how strong and
> intelligent he is.
If his strength and intelligence are above the mean, he's not an
average Joe, by definition.
You seem to be forgetting the bell curve.
> Those is power are used to it and like it there, they
> are not about to give it up.
How'd they get it in the first place?
> I am one of the examples of contradiction to the rule.I came from a
> lower-middle class family where my Dad worked 32-40 hours a week _overtime_
> and my Mom worked full time. This paid the bills on a moderate house, food,
> bills and evil taxation from a corrupt government (nor were they victims of
> bad economic decisions like credit card hell). I am now a multi-millionaire
> because of intelligence and drive. I worked my ass off and now I am
> upwardly mobile (don't that beat all!).
Thus disproving your own rule. You seem to be venting over
others not doing as you did. SOme power structure conspiracy is
not the independent variable separating you from them, since you
were subject to it, too, or do you think that in some star
chamber somewhere, some robber baron committee decided, "let's
let this Andy guy break out, just to help conceal our little
plot?"
> Still my government is not happy
> seeing that I came from one segment of the population and dared to rise
> above my station and tried to take my earned money in over-taxation.
NEWS FLASH - guess what! They do the same thing to people who
are tenth generation rich.
They do it to their own. They do it to EVERYONE! It has nothing
to do with your rise to where you are; it's just that they take
more from you because you have more to take. They know better
than to try to get blood out of a turnip. It's the same reason
burglars don't work the ghetto - simple opportunism.
> I
> moved back to my home town and realize what a stroke of luck I found,
> because there are LOTS of hard-working, intelligent, driven people who will
> die with a mortgage and struggle with funeral costs...
Obviously, they're not as hard-working, intelligent, and driven
as you were.
Now, since you're so darn rich, how about helping out your poor
cousins?
IRKurt
>> Karl Marx had a completely different philosophy where everybody was equal
>> and got an equal lot in life. I don't. I think the best and brightest
>> should leave the rest to wither and die. Simply not the same.
>>
>> --
>> ~Andy
The utopia sounds like a blast when you are 30 years old. Bummer for sweet
Grandma and the kids though.
Wouldn't you soon develop coalitions of "best and brightest to cover each
other's back though? Then, together you could crush the competition and make
agreements determining who's deemed "strong" and who "weak" - to be left
outside the estate, to die on their own ("their ideas were weak - and certainly
not in accordance with our own"). Of course you could offer the weak a chance
to align with your "cause" (conscription, serfdom) in exchange for protection
from other outsiders...
I'll stick with this republic thing. At least we get the opportunity to throw
the dumbasses out of office once in a while. :^)
Kurt
DirtCrashr
>Reagan, Nixon, Truman, Eisenhower, Michael Jordan, Madonna - need
>I go on? Al started out in the lower socio-economic strata.
Bill Gates family was/is quite well off, his dad was a prominant lawyer in
Seattle and his Mom was like head of the Chamber of Commerce - anyhow she was
was a schoolteacher, University of Washington Regent, and chairwoman of United
Way
International. They socialized among the upper levels of Seattle Society -
and they sent him to a private school. They were serious overachievers and
very upwardly mobile. Not exactly low-strata stuff.
DirtCrashr
Andy Dragon
"Tim H." <don'tmailme@work> wrote in message news:3B58392D.40313CF0@work...
> Thank you, Charles Darwin.
Now you are onto something. Survival of the "fittest". What this really
means is "survival of the meanest, toughest, most intelligent species thrive
and the weak die off". Darwin and his like who put forth intelligent ideas
knowing full well that they would be persecuted are my real heroes.
Andy Dragon
> The class warfare rhetoric is pure Marx. No one oppresses the
> poor - heck, we give them welfare, food stamps, free education,
> AND when the kids don't learn in school, we PAY them to come to
> summer school.
Sure, we educate them and place them in positions to prop up the upper
crust. Since when is class struggle rhetoric? It exists. You are blind to
think that it does not exist, quite the opposite, it's rampant.
> The richest man in the world, Bill Gates, came from very humble
> beginnings, right here in North America,
Gates was a rich kid. His parents were upper class... Having worked for
Mr. Gates, I did a lot of research on the man.
Lets take this further? Research the top 10, no 100 richest people on the
Earth and see if _any_ started without previous wealth.
> and the last president
> we had was originally born into a family that fit the classic
> definition or po' white trash (and his behavior in office proved
> that you can take the boy out of the trailer park, but you can't
> take the trailer park out of the boy.)
His "office behavior" and America's reaction was pure entertainment. I love
watching the president get caught in shit like this and watch all the
holier-than-thou people point and whine and call for immediate impeachment
when he does not meet moral criteria they themselves cannot meet. I picture
Ken Starr with his dick in some ugly prostitute watching this unfold on TV
and screaming, "Oh, he has got to go!" while pounding the pudding... LOL
;-)
Andy Dragon
"john" <j...@willy.wag> wrote in message news:9j9bvd$7r6$1...@plonk.apk.net...
> um how rich was gates in 1971?
> that's all
> john
Gates was a rich kid. His parents were upper class. Good example. :-)
john
al caperna. jerry ehrlich...most good examples are not public figures (by
choice).
john
"Andy Dragon" <Andy_...@hotmail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:pLY57.28047$El6.10...@news1.tor.primus.ca...
Brian Wagner
>
> Gates was a rich kid. His parents were upper class... Having worked for
> Mr. Gates, I did a lot of research on the man.
Compared to his current status, he was poor. You said people
can't move up.
> Lets take this further? Research the top 10, no 100 richest people on the
> Earth and see if _any_ started without previous wealth.
You mean like Sam Walton? Poor.
> His "office behavior" and America's reaction was pure entertainment. I love
> watching the president get caught in shit like this and watch all the
> holier-than-thou people point and whine and call for immediate impeachment
> when he does not meet moral criteria they themselves cannot meet. I picture
> Ken Starr with his dick in some ugly prostitute watching this unfold on TV
> and screaming, "Oh, he has got to go!" while pounding the pudding... LOL
1. You assume a lot about what criteria others may meet,
particularly Ken Starr. You assume incorrectly.
2. You conveniently ignore that Clinton went from being the
fatherless child of a trailer park welfare queen to the most
powerful position on earth. I suppose that was pre-ordained by
some fat cats in a smoke filled room to make the rest of us think
it was possible.
Brian Wagner
>
> They socialized among the upper levels of Seattle Society -
> and they sent him to a private school. They were serious overachievers and
> very upwardly mobile. Not exactly low-strata stuff.
>
It's all relative - Andy said you can't move up. Little Billy
moved up to surpass all those above his parents who, according to
Andy, have a foolproof caste system to prevent just such ascents.
Andy Dragon
> > Unlike the very notion of capitalism
> > where anyone with intelligence and drive can rise to the top echelon,
both
> > countries are mired in a hierarchical caste system which keeps people
where
> > they are.
>
> Tell that to Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, Walton, Clinton,
> Reagan, Nixon, Truman, Eisenhower, Michael Jordan, Madonna - need
> I go on? Al started out in the lower socio-economic strata. The
> heirarchy did a lousy job of keeping them where they were.
YES, you DO need to go on, for a long time. You think 1% of your population
has risen from socio-economic hardship? 3 million people? I don't.
However, I'd be willing to bet there is a hell of a lot more than 1% of your
population who SHOULD have.
On a side note, have you read any Anne Rand?
> > I believe that those with intelligence and strength should rise to the
top,
> > replacing those in power who cannot keep up.
>
> You forgot drive and ambition. Some people are too lazy, and
> some are just content where they are.
And some people like my Dad will work their asses off and not move from
their "station". I content in my rural home town, 30% of the population is
driven. 10% have above average intelligence, ~2% extremely high. So why
will 99% of them die with a huge mortgage having gone nowhere when they have
the potential and drive?
> > Those is power are used to it and like it there, they
> > are not about to give it up.
>
> How'd they get it in the first place?
Being daddy's little glob of cum that struck home does not mean someone
earned any rights above anyone else, in theory. In reality, this person,
regardless of skill, will not move down the economic ladder even if they
should due to lack of skills to remain at the top. You know this to be
truth even if you can't admit it. Daddy had the brains and the drive to get
where he is and the lazy, spineless and retarded spawn had a good life
dropped in his lap. I also don't think all people who start from an upper
class background need fall, just the stupid weak ones.
> Thus disproving your own rule. You seem to be venting over
> others not doing as you did.
Absolutely not. I challenge that I am the exception, the small minority to
break the general rule of the hiearctical caste system.
> Obviously, they're not as hard-working, intelligent, and driven
> as you were.
>
> Now, since you're so darn rich, how about helping out your poor
> cousins?
Charity? Not me. Earn it if you want it. No one gave me jack shit and I
did everything myself.
Andy Dragon
> Andy Dragon wrote:
> >
> > Gates was a rich kid. His parents were upper class... Having worked
for
> > Mr. Gates, I did a lot of research on the man.
>
> Compared to his current status, he was poor. You said people
> can't move up.
Oh, right, Gates went from rich kid to phenomenally rich. Yep, that's
moving up...
> > Lets take this further? Research the top 10, no 100 richest people on
the
> > Earth and see if _any_ started without previous wealth.
>
> You mean like Sam Walton? Poor.
I never said there weren't any exceptions, I'm one myself. It's not the
norm by any stretch of the imagination either, Brian.
> > His "office behavior" and America's reaction was pure entertainment. I
love
> > watching the president get caught in shit like this and watch all the
> > holier-than-thou people point and whine and call for immediate
impeachment
> > when he does not meet moral criteria they themselves cannot meet. I
picture
> > Ken Starr with his dick in some ugly prostitute watching this unfold on
TV
> > and screaming, "Oh, he has got to go!" while pounding the pudding...
LOL
>
> 1. You assume a lot about what criteria others may meet,
> particularly Ken Starr. You assume incorrectly.
Please, the guy was a whiner and a punk who took a man who did great things
(aside from the whole treehugger movement). Ken Starr is a fucking prick
lawyer who wasted millions of YOUR tax dollars persecuting the president for
putting his dick in some ugly girl's mouth. Actually, Clinton got
persecuted for getting caught...
> 2. You conveniently ignore that Clinton went from being the
> fatherless child of a trailer park welfare queen to the most
> powerful position on earth. I suppose that was pre-ordained by
> some fat cats in a smoke filled room to make the rest of us think
> it was possible.
Again, you can pull thousands of contradictions to the rule from a hat, you
will never come close to 1% of your population, so what is your point? More
than 1% of your population has the intelligence and drive to run your
country regardless of social-economic background and most will never get the
chance. Besides, being president of the US is NOT the most powerful
position on earth, stop with the bragging. Leader of the free-world my ass,
we'll take our own leaders thank you just the same...
Andy Dragon
> Compared to where their son is now, they were in the gutter.
> It's all relative - Andy said you can't move up. Little Billy
> moved up to surpass all those above his parents who, according to
> Andy, have a foolproof caste system to prevent just such ascents.
I love when people put words in my mouth. Read my posts, where did I ever
say the caste system is foolproof? It is far from and because it is loose
enough to let a select few through the cracks in their ceilings, there is no
outright rebellion.
Jay C
> > The theory is basically the richer you are, the less work you
> > > actually need to do to stay rich.
> > > Conversely, poorer people need to work like slaves to get to any
> position to
> > > eek out any existance at all and provide for their families. The
> parents
> > > work like dogs, the children are unsupervised and don't have a
> relationship
> > > with their parents.
Dude - you watch WAY to much TV. Turn off WDEM and step away slowly... The
"rich" (I hate that term - according to the gub'ment, you are "rich" if your
hosehold income exceeds $65,000) are that way because they work their ass
off. The "poor" are that way because they sit on their asses and drink beer
instead of busting ass making money. The rich don't get to see their kids
or have family lives. Drive around in one of those neighborhoods that are
filled but 5000+ sq. ft. homes and check out the people you see. Guess
what - there won't be anybody around except the greenskeepers. Those
neighborhoods are veritable ghost towns because the "idle rich" that own
them are all working 14 hour days to afford them. If you want to see a
zillion "idle" folk hanging around with their kids all day, drive through
the low rent district.
Quite frankly, the "idle rich" aren't. AND the "disagvantaged" poor aren't
either. The rich bust ass and the poor are just lazy.
Jay
Jeff Deeney
: bad economic decisions like credit card hell). I am now a multi-millionaire
: because of intelligence and drive. I worked my ass off and now I am
Andy, would you be willing to adopt me? I really would like a new bike
or three :-) I promise not to rant about Canada too much.
: because there are LOTS of hard-working, intelligent, driven people who will
: die with a mortgage and struggle with funeral costs...
Nobody struggles with their funeral costs. All your worries are gone at
that point.
A great discussion here. What is the importance of wealth? You can't
take it with you. Those who are truely evolving are usually not those
with excessive wealth. Not that I'm advocating poverty. Many have
misinterpreted the bible to indicate it's noble to be poor. It is not.
At the other end of the spectrum, too much wealth causes one to become
complacent and stop developing. Emmett Fox has some good writing on
this subject. Doing your best every day and having faith that you will
be provided for is one of the most powerful things you can do.
-Jeffrey Deeney- DoD#0498 NCTR UTMA BRC COHVCO AMA
'99 ATK 260LQ-Stink Wheels '94 XR650L-DreamSickle
We don't stop riding because we get old, we get old because we stop riding.
Jim Gary
>Excel and advance. Like Microsoft?
Excellent example. Yes, like Microsoft.
>So, in America, everyone should be able to excel to their fullest free of
government intervention?
Absolutely. Of course. If you think differently, you *are* the socialist I
thought you were.
>Unless, of course, they actually beat their competition into submission.
Then they are
>a monopoly.
That is the goal of *any* business and there is NO SUCH THING as a monopoly
except those created by government interfering with business.
>Guess no everyone is created equal after all.
They are. Its what they do with it that defines them as human beings.
Failure is their problem. My failures have been my problem. My successes
have been my achievement. Government cannot create success. Government can
only get the hell out of the way and let human ambition and profit create
wealth and advancement. The free market by nature of its cause and effect
relationships always raises the bar.
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Jim Gary
> Earth and see if _any_ started without previous wealth.
Nah.....Screw that. To practical value to it. Lets get to the meat of this
matter and hear what you would propose we do to change this system where, as
*you* say, only the rich get richer on the backs of the little people.
Jim Gary
First: Taxing income is THEFT!! At gunpoint no less. It is so foul a
practice that I cannot begin to find words for it other than to say I want
to start shooting to protect the product of my mind and sweat.
Second: Do you really think that any body of nameless, faceless whoevers sat
in a darkened conference room with bizarre lighting that seems to come from
the center of the table and decide that the "lesser humans" cannot earn any
station and therefore must be taxed into submission.
No taxation is just grabbing what can be grabbed. The group that is least
outraged by their level of taxation is always the middle and upper middle.
No different than the fucking shit pile that jumps some lady with her head
in her ass and her eyes on her shoes at the ATM and steals her money. That
same shit hole never seems to jump me. Wonder why that is. I'm not a victim.
She is. I see taxation for what it is and the taxers for what they are.
This only real difference here is that taxers are harder to keep from
stealing that is the predator at the ATM. That can be changed though......
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Restaurant."
- Mayor Samantha Campana, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998
"Andy Dragon" <Andy_...@hotmail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:LSN57.26537$ru4.10...@news1.tor.primus.ca...
Jim Gary
regardless of government, there are still moral imperatives and there is
right and wrong.
Competition is capitalism. Theft is theft. In your silly scenario, you would
not be the more prosperous capitalist, you would be a shit thief. You would
be dead before the man who gets his dirtbike by earning it.
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Restaurant."
- Mayor Samantha Campana, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998
"Brian Wagner" <bwa...@mr.marconimed.com> wrote in message
news:3B585B57...@mr.marconimed.com...
Jim Gary
daddy. Not the United Way. He did.
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Restaurant."
- Mayor Samantha Campana, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998
"DirtCrashr" <dirtc...@aol.comKeinSpam> wrote in message
news:20010720130917...@ng-md1.aol.com...
Jim Gary
with you a few minutes later....???? Something ain't right here......
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Restaurant."
- Mayor Samantha Campana, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998
"Brian Wagner" <bwa...@mr.marconimed.com> wrote in message
news:3B58881B...@mr.marconimed.com...
Jim Gary
dark room with the weird fluorescent light coming from the table.
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Restaurant."
- Mayor Samantha Campana, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998
"Andy Dragon" <Andy_...@hotmail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:2n467.905$2g7.3...@news1.tor.primus.ca...
Jim Gary
--
Jim Gary
00 DRZ400E
81 RM465X
"Hi 9-1-1! This is Mayor Campana. I'm lost, I can't find the Pink Pony
Restaurant."
- Mayor Samantha Campana, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998
"Andy Dragon" <Andy_...@hotmail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:el467.900$rf7.3...@news1.tor.primus.ca...
Eric Myers
> Quite frankly, the "idle rich" aren't. AND the "disagvantaged" poor
aren't
> either. The rich bust ass and the poor are just lazy.
Bullshit!
Andy Dragon
"Jeff Deeney" <nos...@thank.you@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE> wrote in
message news:9j9d6v$fc6$1...@fcnews.fc.hp.com...
> Andy, would you be willing to adopt me? I really would like a new bike
> or three :-) I promise not to rant about Canada too much.
I've practically adopted my brother already. He lives with us and we hang
around a lot. As for ranting about Canada, Canada has a whole, long list of
issues as well as great things. I think every place in the world has two
lists, some are longer on one side, some in the other...
Here's an interesting side note, my cousin has won a lottery here and now
has a lot of cash. Even though I have earned more, because he had won his
quickly, he had many new "friends" and "relatives" which showed up.
Everyone thought they deserved a piece of his pie. This struck me because
even with a greater wealth, people left me undistrubed. Don't get me wrong,
those are not the friends you want, just queer that they went after him so
quickly.
> Nobody struggles with their funeral costs. All your worries are gone at
> that point.
Actually, I thought about this for a long time. That fact that I thought
how my funeral cost would affect my loved ones above and beyond their
personal loss is an indication that people do struggle - they struggle to
have a plan in place for the invitible. Good point though.
> A great discussion here. What is the importance of wealth? You can't
> take it with you.
This whole long thread started when I put forth that people who exist in the
lower to middle classes (incomes which make life difficult to spend time
with children) often leads to "spawn neglecting". This is because both
parents work a lot of time that is taken away from their relationships with
their children. Wealth allows people to spend less time trying to make the
bills and more time doing whatever. This time _could_ be spent with
children, or could be spend knocking boots with your neighbour, but the
possibly is less likely to exist when parents work constantly. From there,
the thread dwelved into many different discussions.
> Those who are truely evolving are usually not those
> with excessive wealth.
I can understand your point. I wonder how much time can be devoted to
"evolving" when you work too much. Take my Dad. He is a brilliant oil
artist - he paints wildlife. He is an industrial millwright and is a truely
awe-inspiring welder. He loves to keep a small vegatable garden. He even
makes his own rigging knifes and fishing lures. Most of these things, the
things that make him truely happy and advance him as an inspired human being
he had little time when paying bills and putting food on the table for a
family with three kids. Was he lazy? Nope. Was he bad with money? Nope.
Just economics. I am truely happy that I could pay off his mortgage and
allow him to spend more time on these things that make him happier.
> Not that I'm advocating poverty. Many have
> misinterpreted the bible to indicate it's noble to be poor. It is not.
Poverty sucks. There's a song by Ice-T I _think_ where the lyrics include
the statement: "poverty is the worse form of violence".
> At the other end of the spectrum, too much wealth causes one to become
> complacent and stop developing.
Exactly. Resting on one's laurels. Not everyone does this, some do. I
work now just because I cannot turn off the creative tap. I _love_ to write
and design software. I've often been the exception though.
Andy Dragon
> Excellent example. Yes, like Microsoft.
And your wonderful land of "capitalism" has beat the crap out of Microsoft
(or at least they _tried_) because their competitors could not compete and
cried to the government like the bunch of spoiled brats. So much for the
freedom in America to acheive and be the best.
I can see the arguments coming, "Oh but Microsoft set out to destroy
Netscape or Apple..." And what altruistic company is out there trying _not_
to be the best? Have they been in business longer than 5 days?!?
> >So, in America, everyone should be able to excel to their fullest free of
> government intervention?
>
> Absolutely. Of course. If you think differently, you *are* the socialist I
> thought you were.
Then you live a socialist country, see above. Microsoft was shafted (or the
attempt was made) by your government, your DOJ, and they were not allowed to
grow and excel without government intervention because of whining lapdog's.
Guess it isn't good for a business to be too good. I love it when you help
me out so much, Jim 'ole boy! ;-)
> >Unless, of course, they actually beat their competition into submission.
> Then they are
> >a monopoly.
>
> That is the goal of *any* business and there is NO SUCH THING as a
monopoly
> except those created by government interfering with business.
See above, you making this really easy...
Actually, the statement is not quite correct. Customers make monopolies.
Look at your law books for the definition of monopoly. If we were both
Americans and started businesses with the same product and you made yours
better (or even if you made it worse and convinced people it was better, I
am trying to proposition the Microsoft case here), I would loose business.
You didn't make the monopoly, our _customers_ made their descision to buy
the "better" product. By the American legal definition of monopoly, you are
one and I can petition the government to break you down so we are on a level
playing field. Sounds slightly socialist to me... Even worse is if you
still get customers to buy your product, I can further sanction you. Down
right evil government, don't you think Jim?
> >Guess no everyone is created equal after all.
>
> They are. Its what they do with it that defines them as human beings.
> Failure is their problem. My failures have been my problem. My successes
> have been my achievement. Government cannot create success. Government can
> only get the hell out of the way and let human ambition and profit create
> wealth and advancement. The free market by nature of its cause and effect
> relationships always raises the bar.
No, but welfare programs and all the other social benefits of living in your
country mean you can screw everything up completely and the government will
coddle you. They will save you from your own stupidity if you fail. Don't
worry, my country is even worse than yours in this respect...