| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
04 Aug 2004 08:05:03 PM |
| Object: |
Why Aren't We All Dead? |
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us
who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's
probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with
bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on medicine
bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we had no
helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.)
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a ute or truck on a warm day was always a special
treat. We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.
Horrors!
We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank soda pop with sugar in it,
but we were never overweight because we were always outside playing.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one
actually died from this. We would spend hours building our go-carts out
of scraps and then rode down the hill, only to find out we forgot the
brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve
the problem.
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were
back when the street lights came on. No one was able to reach us all
day. WE HAD NO MOBILE PHONES!!!!! Unthinkable!
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo 64, X-Boxes, no video games at
all, no 99 channels on cable, video tape movies, surround sound,
personal cell phones, personal computers, or Internet chat rooms.
We had friends! We went outside and found them.
We played brandy, and sometimes, the ball would really hurt.
We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were
no lawsuits from these accidents. They were accidents. No one was to
blame but us. Remember accidents? We had fights and punched each other
and got black and blue and learned to get over it. We made up games with
sticks and tennis balls and ate worms, and although we were told it
would happen, we did not poke out any eyes, nor did the worms live
inside us forever.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's home and knocked on the door, or
rang the bell or just walked in and talked to them.
Footy and netball clubs had tryouts and not everyone made the team.
Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.
Some students weren't as smart as others, so they failed a grade and
were held back to repeat the same grade. Tests were not adjusted for any
reason. Our actions were our own. Consequences were expected.
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke a law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law. Imagine that!
Our generation produced some of the best risk-takers and problem solvers
and inventors, ever. The past 50 years have been an explosion of
innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and
responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all. And you're one
of them! Congratulations! Please pass this on to others who have had the
luck to grow up as kids, before lawyers and government regulated our
lives, for our own good !!!!!
People under 30 are WIMPS !
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
04 Aug 2004 09:21:09 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953BD675A4327fstone69@207.69.154.202
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us
who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's
probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with
bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on medicine
bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we had no
helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.)
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
I have a simple explanation: the people who survived to write this are the
ones who didn't die. The people who were children back then who *were*
poisoned by the paint in their rooms, who *did* eat medicine not belonging
to them, who *did* suffer brain injuries from falling off their bikes, and
who *did* die in automobile crashes aren't around today to point this out.
[...]
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
05 Aug 2004 05:31:39 PM |
|
|
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:pQgQc.1906$Ri5.1865@news02.roc.ny:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953BD675A4327fstone69@207.69.154.202
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us
who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's
probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with
bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on
medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we
had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.)
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
I have a simple explanation: the people who survived to write this are
the ones who didn't die. The people who were children back then who
*were* poisoned by the paint in their rooms, who *did* eat medicine
not belonging to them, who *did* suffer brain injuries from falling
off their bikes, and who *did* die in automobile crashes aren't around
today to point this out.
[...]
Well of course, but I think the author is making a point about the
*degree* of threat from each of those causes. If you appropriately
summed all the individual probabilities as predicted by the proponents
of all the regulations for all those things would there be anything left
for us survivors?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
05 Aug 2004 08:44:18 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953CBC7983298fstone69@207.69.154.203
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:pQgQc.1906$Ri5.1865@news02.roc.ny:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953BD675A4327fstone69@207.69.154.202
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us
who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's
probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with
bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on
medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we
had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.)
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
I have a simple explanation: the people who survived to write this are
the ones who didn't die. The people who were children back then who
*were* poisoned by the paint in their rooms, who *did* eat medicine
not belonging to them, who *did* suffer brain injuries from falling
off their bikes, and who *did* die in automobile crashes aren't around
today to point this out.
Well of course, but I think the author is making a point about the
*degree* of threat from each of those causes. If you appropriately
summed all the individual probabilities as predicted by the proponents
of all the regulations for all those things would there be anything left
for us survivors?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people who
supported all these regulations predicted higher death rates from not having
them than there actually were?
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
05 Aug 2004 10:08:01 PM |
|
|
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:SnBQc.322$dT2.166@news01.roc.ny:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953CBC7983298fstone69@207.69.154.203
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:pQgQc.1906$Ri5.1865@news02.roc.ny:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953BD675A4327fstone69@207.69.154.202
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us
who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's
probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with
bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on
medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we
had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.)
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
I have a simple explanation: the people who survived to write this
are the ones who didn't die. The people who were children back then
who *were* poisoned by the paint in their rooms, who *did* eat
medicine not belonging to them, who *did* suffer brain injuries from
falling off their bikes, and who *did* die in automobile crashes
aren't around today to point this out.
Well of course, but I think the author is making a point about the
*degree* of threat from each of those causes. If you appropriately
summed all the individual probabilities as predicted by the
proponents of all the regulations for all those things would there be
anything left for us survivors?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that
people who supported all these regulations predicted higher death
rates from not having them than there actually were?
I think that's what the author of the article was implying.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
06 Aug 2004 03:02:22 AM |
|
|
Le Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:08:01 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people
who supported all these regulations predicted higher death rates from
not having them than there actually were?
I think that's what the author of the article was implying.
Is he pointing to any hard numbers? Or is he just anaware of the
constantly rising life expectancy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
06 Aug 2004 08:59:41 AM |
|
|
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:pan.2004.08.06.08.02.22.580375@127.0.0.1:
Le Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:08:01 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that
people who supported all these regulations predicted higher death
rates from not having them than there actually were?
I think that's what the author of the article was implying.
Is he pointing to any hard numbers? Or is he just anaware of the
constantly rising life expectancy?
The rising life expectancy doesn't refute the notion that the originally
hyped risk factors were portrayed as being much higher than they should
have been.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
07 Aug 2004 05:57:05 AM |
|
|
Le Fri, 06 Aug 2004 13:59:41 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
The rising life expectancy doesn't refute the notion that the originally
hyped risk factors were portrayed as being much higher than they should
have been.
Can you point to hard numbers for this? Or is it just your vague
impression?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
07 Aug 2004 07:26:13 AM |
|
|
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:pan.2004.08.07.10.57.05.163139@127.0.0.1:
Le Fri, 06 Aug 2004 13:59:41 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
The rising life expectancy doesn't refute the notion that the originally
hyped risk factors were portrayed as being much higher than they should
have been.
Can you point to hard numbers for this? Or is it just your vague
impression?
You're asking for hard numbers for media hype? Spare me. It's no vague
impression, it's *memory* of the last thirty years of overhyped media scare
stories about everything from artificial sweetners to genetically modified
crops.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
08 Aug 2004 03:52:31 AM |
|
|
Le Sat, 07 Aug 2004 12:26:13 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Can you point to hard numbers for this? Or is it just your vague
impression?
You're asking for hard numbers for media hype? Spare me. It's no vague
impression, it's *memory* of the last thirty years of overhyped media
scare stories about everything from artificial sweetners to genetically
modified crops.
I won't spare you. Those health warnings result from hard, difficult yet
sound science, such as epidemiology. It takes lots of hard, systematic
work to find the patterns that point to such health risks; and here you
are, dismissing all this with just your "vague impression".
"Quantum physics sounds weird to me, so it's gotta be wrong, innit?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
08 Aug 2004 10:46:19 AM |
|
|
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:pan.2004.08.08.08.52.31.226735@127.0.0.1:
Le Sat, 07 Aug 2004 12:26:13 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Can you point to hard numbers for this? Or is it just your vague
impression?
You're asking for hard numbers for media hype? Spare me. It's no
vague impression, it's *memory* of the last thirty years of overhyped
media scare stories about everything from artificial sweetners to
genetically modified crops.
I won't spare you. Those health warnings result from hard, difficult
yet sound science, such as epidemiology. It takes lots of hard,
systematic work to find the patterns that point to such health risks;
and here you are, dismissing all this with just your "vague
impression".
"Quantum physics sounds weird to me, so it's gotta be wrong, innit?"
I'm sorry but I can't put hard numbers on media hype levels from the
sixties through today to compare that to the actual epidemiological
predictions, but that's the nature of hype.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
08 Aug 2004 02:38:45 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953F77C1BC3CDfstone69@207.69.154.205...
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:pan.2004.08.08.08.52.31.226735@127.0.0.1:
Le Sat, 07 Aug 2004 12:26:13 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Can you point to hard numbers for this? Or is it just your vague
impression?
You're asking for hard numbers for media hype? Spare me. It's no
vague impression, it's *memory* of the last thirty years of overhyped
media scare stories about everything from artificial sweetners to
genetically modified crops.
I won't spare you. Those health warnings result from hard, difficult
yet sound science, such as epidemiology. It takes lots of hard,
systematic work to find the patterns that point to such health risks;
and here you are, dismissing all this with just your "vague
impression".
"Quantum physics sounds weird to me, so it's gotta be wrong, innit?"
I'm sorry but I can't put hard numbers on media hype levels from the
sixties through today to compare that to the actual epidemiological
predictions, but that's the nature of hype.
--
Fred Stone
and smoking doesnt really kill *that* many people either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "commutator" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
06 Aug 2004 09:18:53 AM |
|
|
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.08.06.08.02.22.580375@127.0.0.1>...
Le Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:08:01 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people
who supported all these regulations predicted higher death rates from
not having them than there actually were?
I think that's what the author of the article was implying.
Is he pointing to any hard numbers? Or is he just anaware of the
constantly rising life expectancy?
I think you guys are missing the point of his post. Length of life
and quality of life are two different things. Secondly, should we be
willing to sacrifice the character development of our children so that
they could live that extra 5 days? The author is right, people are
being raised as wimps, long-living wimps, but wimps all the same.
Personally I have made the life choice of shrotening my life by 10
years or so so that I could live in a non-*****-like way. Life
expectancy increases are far more likely to do with the advancement of
nutrition and medical science/access than with the lifestyle choices
the author has commented on. Nowadays everyone is obsessed with life
extension but they completely ignore quality. Longer is NOT
necessarily better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
08 Aug 2004 02:39:53 PM |
|
|
"commutator" <mikesantos15@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:380b9069.0408060618.21f1f606@posting.google.com...
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.08.06.08.02.22.580375@127.0.0.1>...
Le Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:08:01 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that
people
who supported all these regulations predicted higher death rates from
not having them than there actually were?
I think that's what the author of the article was implying.
Is he pointing to any hard numbers? Or is he just anaware of the
constantly rising life expectancy?
I think you guys are missing the point of his post. Length of life
and quality of life are two different things. Secondly, should we be
willing to sacrifice the character development of our children so that
they could live that extra 5 days? The author is right, people are
being raised as wimps, long-living wimps, but wimps all the same.
Personally I have made the life choice of shrotening my life by 10
years or so so that I could live in a non-*****-like way. Life
expectancy increases are far more likely to do with the advancement of
nutrition and medical science/access than with the lifestyle choices
the author has commented on. Nowadays everyone is obsessed with life
extension but they completely ignore quality. Longer is NOT
necessarily better.
Yes
let your child die from lead poisoning or a drug overdose so they don't grow
up to be a wimp......
You should tell that to the familes who lost children through all those
things that didn't kill you. Im sure they'd appreciate it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
06 Aug 2004 02:45:06 PM |
|
|
(commutator) wrote in message news:<380b9069.0408060618.21f1f606@posting.google.com>...
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.08.06.08.02.22.580375@127.0.0.1>...
Le Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:08:01 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people
who supported all these regulations predicted higher death rates from
not having them than there actually were?
I think that's what the author of the article was implying.
Is he pointing to any hard numbers? Or is he just anaware of the
constantly rising life expectancy?
I think you guys are missing the point of his post. Length of life
and quality of life are two different things. Secondly, should we be
willing to sacrifice the character development of our children so that
they could live that extra 5 days? The author is right, people are
being raised as wimps, long-living wimps, but wimps all the same.
Personally I have made the life choice of shrotening my life by 10
years or so so that I could live in a non-*****-like way.
What specific choices have you made? Please give details.
Life
expectancy increases are far more likely to do with the advancement of
nutrition and medical science/access than with the lifestyle choices
the author has commented on. Nowadays everyone is obsessed with life
extension but they completely ignore quality. Longer is NOT
necessarily better.
However, longer and better is definitely a plus.
Liz #658
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
06 Aug 2004 10:55:22 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 10:02:22 +0200 in episode
<pan.2004.08.06.08.02.22.580375@127.0.0.1> we saw our hero Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1>:
Le Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:08:01 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people
who supported all these regulations predicted higher death rates from
not having them than there actually were?
I think that's what the author of the article was implying.
Is he pointing to any hard numbers? Or is he just anaware of the
constantly rising life expectancy?
He's a typical "kid's these days, the world is going to hell in a hand
basket" type who will ***** and whine and moan about "modern" this and
"modern" that but soon as he develops any serious medical complication
will be in a hospital shrieking his demands to have the most advanced
medical technology and science deployed to save his fool life.
You see it every day. Lots of whiners about all things modern can be found
in the waiting rooms of hospitals, waiting their turn to use the most
advanced medical science available. Then they go home and ***** about all
things modern. While turning up the air conditioning, popping something
into the microwave oven, and flipping on the satellite TV...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "commutator" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
07 Aug 2004 05:56:12 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.08.06.15.55.21.987208@org.webmaster>...
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 10:02:22 +0200 in episode
<pan.2004.08.06.08.02.22.580375@127.0.0.1> we saw our hero Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1>:
Le Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:08:01 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that people
who supported all these regulations predicted higher death rates from
not having them than there actually were?
I think that's what the author of the article was implying.
Is he pointing to any hard numbers? Or is he just anaware of the
constantly rising life expectancy?
He's a typical "kid's these days, the world is going to hell in a hand
basket" type who will ***** and whine and moan about "modern" this and
"modern" that but soon as he develops any serious medical complication
will be in a hospital shrieking his demands to have the most advanced
medical technology and science deployed to save his fool life.
You see it every day. Lots of whiners about all things modern can be found
in the waiting rooms of hospitals, waiting their turn to use the most
advanced medical science available. Then they go home and ***** about all
things modern. While turning up the air conditioning, popping something
into the microwave oven, and flipping on the satellite TV...
You guys are so damn preoccupied with neing "right" that you can't
seem to carry on a discussion without resorting to simple attacks.
Did I complain about technology or medical science? NO. Did I rail
against the advancement of science? NO. I said I disagree with the
lifestyle choices offered to children today as they deplete there
chances of developing the elusive concept of character... The
littlest things like playing tackle football and snowball fights are
banned from the schoolyards of todays schools, and yes, injury totals
are down because of this. That's a cold hard easily observable fact.
What isn't as observible is the lack of comraderie (sp?), confidance,
and drive that physical sports build in youth. There's a trade-off
whether you recognize it or not. If I could show statistics showing
'fun' has decreased 50% on the schoolyards of today I would but
unfortunately there are intangibles that not that easy to measure.
Secondly I don't know why everyone equates technological advancement
with advancement of a society. Personally, I would consider
'advancement' on a more human scale. Less crime, Higher literacy
rates, greater access to education, etc. Yes, Increased life span is
a plus. Once again I have no problem with Tech. It's just that we,
as a society, focus on awful lot on advancing it (lookie lookie I have
a cool new cell phone!)and very little on smaller things like
developing affordable housing.
And yes I would still whine for modern medical science if I got
hurt/scik but you guys would whine for affordable housing if you were
disabled and lost all prospects of holding down a paying job. People
take what they can get...
My complaints are the focus we place on life longevity vs. life
quality and on technological advancement vs. social advancement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
07 Aug 2004 10:59:21 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 03:56:12 -0700 in episode
<380b9069.0408070256.3722b04b@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
mikesantos15@hotmail.com (commutator):
You guys are so damn preoccupied with neing "right" that you can't seem to
carry on a discussion without resorting to simple attacks. Did I complain
Are you claiming to be the author of the piece?
about technology or medical science? NO. Did I rail against the
advancement of science? NO. I said I disagree with the lifestyle choices
offered to children today as they deplete there chances of developing the
elusive concept of character...
Yeah. That's a "kid's these days" rant.
The littlest things like playing tackle
football and snowball fights are banned from the schoolyards of todays
schools, and yes, injury totals are down because of this. That's a cold
hard easily observable fact.
Yes, it is.
What isn't as observible is the lack of
comraderie (sp?), confidance, and drive that physical sports build in
youth. There's a trade-off whether you recognize it or not.
So if you say so, it is truth?
From where I sit, most of these claims of what sports "do" are just
horseshit. That's why they're "intangible." They're a load of crap.
And with the constant stream of sports "star" rape, abuse, drug, and
violence scandals, I can't help but question the kind of "character" being
built.
But these are side issues. Your complaint is society is changing in a way
you don't like. Well, who asked you? Does society need your permission?
If I could
show statistics showing 'fun' has decreased 50% on the schoolyards of
today I would but unfortunately there are intangibles that not that easy
to measure.
Secondly I don't know why everyone equates technological advancement with
advancement of a society. Personally, I would consider 'advancement' on a
more human scale. Less crime, Higher literacy rates, greater access to
education, etc. Yes, Increased life span is a plus. Once again I have
no problem with Tech. It's just that we, as a society, focus on awful lot
on advancing it (lookie lookie I have a cool new cell phone!)and very
little on smaller things like developing affordable housing.
And yes I would still whine for modern medical science if I got hurt/scik
but you guys would whine for affordable housing if you were disabled and
lost all prospects of holding down a paying job. People take what they
can get...
My complaints are the focus we place on life longevity vs. life quality
and on technological advancement vs. social advancement.
The piece (which you appear to claim to have written) still bitches about
what amounts to an advancing knowledge of risks of which we were not
previously aware. And, mind you, amounts to the same old crap that,
somehow, everything was "better" in the past. It's just boring, tired,
muddle headed nostalgia. The kind that's been going on for generations.
Every single goddamned generation has insisted it was "better" when they
were growing up. All the way back to the first spoken word.
Oh, *now you want to introduce significant topics like social justice and
human development and such. But in the piece we get things like:
"We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle."
You know how *stupid that is? What? People are being denied the freedom
and joy of drinking from a water hose? Oh. The. Horror.
It's not like some horrible oppression is being imposed on an unwilling
public. People are being told things like "water hoses can introduce
into the water trace amounts of chemicals that can be detrimental to
health if ingested regularly over the long term." If it's important to
them, they can change their behavior. If they don't care, they don't have
to care. We're not talking about Health Police arriving to haul you off in
the middle of the night for letting your kid drink from a water hose.
And are we all supposed to stop talking about things *you don't like? What
about all the parents who *do consider this important information? They
should shut up and recreate your youth for you?
If you *are the author that means you're almost two decades older than I
am (allegedly at least). But I'm still going to say it:
Grow up.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "commutator" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
08 Aug 2004 10:18:35 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.08.07.15.59.20.563881@org.webmaster>...
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 03:56:12 -0700 in episode
<380b9069.0408070256.3722b04b@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
mikesantos15@hotmail.com (commutator):
You guys are so damn preoccupied with neing "right" that you can't seem to
carry on a discussion without resorting to simple attacks. Did I complain
Are you claiming to be the author of the piece?
about technology or medical science? NO. Did I rail against the
advancement of science? NO. I said I disagree with the lifestyle choices
offered to children today as they deplete there chances of developing the
elusive concept of character...
Yeah. That's a "kid's these days" rant.
The littlest things like playing tackle
football and snowball fights are banned from the schoolyards of todays
schools, and yes, injury totals are down because of this. That's a cold
hard easily observable fact.
Yes, it is.
What isn't as observible is the lack of
comraderie (sp?), confidance, and drive that physical sports build in
youth. There's a trade-off whether you recognize it or not.
So if you say so, it is truth?
From where I sit, most of these claims of what sports "do" are just
horseshit. That's why they're "intangible." They're a load of crap.
And with the constant stream of sports "star" rape, abuse, drug, and
violence scandals, I can't help but question the kind of "character" being
built.
But these are side issues. Your complaint is society is changing in a way
you don't like. Well, who asked you? Does society need your permission?
If I could
show statistics showing 'fun' has decreased 50% on the schoolyards of
today I would but unfortunately there are intangibles that not that easy
to measure.
Secondly I don't know why everyone equates technological advancement with
advancement of a society. Personally, I would consider 'advancement' on a
more human scale. Less crime, Higher literacy rates, greater access to
education, etc. Yes, Increased life span is a plus. Once again I have
no problem with Tech. It's just that we, as a society, focus on awful lot
on advancing it (lookie lookie I have a cool new cell phone!)and very
little on smaller things like developing affordable housing.
And yes I would still whine for modern medical science if I got hurt/scik
but you guys would whine for affordable housing if you were disabled and
lost all prospects of holding down a paying job. People take what they
can get...
My complaints are the focus we place on life longevity vs. life quality
and on technological advancement vs. social advancement.
The piece (which you appear to claim to have written) still bitches about
what amounts to an advancing knowledge of risks of which we were not
previously aware. And, mind you, amounts to the same old crap that,
somehow, everything was "better" in the past. It's just boring, tired,
muddle headed nostalgia. The kind that's been going on for generations.
Every single goddamned generation has insisted it was "better" when they
were growing up. All the way back to the first spoken word.
Oh, *now you want to introduce significant topics like social justice and
human development and such. But in the piece we get things like:
"We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle."
You know how *stupid that is? What? People are being denied the freedom
and joy of drinking from a water hose? Oh. The. Horror.
It's not like some horrible oppression is being imposed on an unwilling
public. People are being told things like "water hoses can introduce
into the water trace amounts of chemicals that can be detrimental to
health if ingested regularly over the long term." If it's important to
them, they can change their behavior. If they don't care, they don't have
to care. We're not talking about Health Police arriving to haul you off in
the middle of the night for letting your kid drink from a water hose.
And are we all supposed to stop talking about things *you don't like? What
about all the parents who *do consider this important information? They
should shut up and recreate your youth for you?
If you *are the author that means you're almost two decades older than I
am (allegedly at least). But I'm still going to say it:
Grow up.
I'm not the damn author. My original post said I agreed with "SOME"
of the stuff the author said. I thought a lot of it was ***** (A BIG
LOT) but I agreed with some of the basic themes in the post and felt
that the discussion was focusing on life expectancy alone rather than
these issues so I said something to see what people thought. What I
think is in my posts, Commutator, everything else you think I 'may'
agree with is just your assumption......
About MY POSITION, I wasn't talking about sport stars I was talking
about people in general participating in sports, otherwise known as
physical activity, that thing PROVEN to better health in a multitude
of ways such as lowering stress. Whether or not you want to admit it
people who are HEALTHY/FIT tend to have a higher view of themselves
thus higher confidance. Secondly, playing in sports and doing well
amongst ones peers leads to a sense of accomplishment which in youth
translates into the development of ambition and drive. Thirdly, the
comraderie (sp?) I refer to is seen to develop frequently between
youth who have shared experiences of accomplishment such as when they
work together to get a winning TD. Fourthly, playing sports provides
a great medium for unawkward socialization in youth who are still
developing their conversation skills. Why do you thing they recommend
placing children in daycare to expose them to other children? They
don't sit there debating, They INTERACT, via play which develops into
physical play later.
I refer to these points as intangible because they lie in the realm of
pyschology not mathematics. Through all of time it has been difficult
to have empirical data in this field yet I would say that it has
advanced and does qualify as a science.
As to the 'kids these days' rants I think that each generation can
recognize the general differences between themselves and the next on
some level. Thus, the 'rants' appear where they complain about the
alleged difference. Since, I believe that people are not all insanely
stupid I'm sure at least some of the differences DO exist although the
decision as to whether or not those differences are for the better or
for the worse is probably best answered by history.
Finally I don't know what your problem is but this is a DISCUSSION
group right? I had something I wished to discuss so I posted. I'm
not here to be lectured I'm here for conversation and if you can't
even take the time to consider discussion points before trying to
smash them down then do us all a favour and don't bother posting here
anymore.
Finally, if you were just being so hostile because you were sure I
wrote the original post and you really really hated it (I personally
would go with dislike) than I apologize for my returned hostility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
09 Aug 2004 06:15:27 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 20:18:35 -0700 in episode
<380b9069.0408081918.9f8fcf4@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
mikesantos15@hotmail.com (commutator):
I'm not the damn author.
<snip>
And:
Finally, if you were just being so hostile because you were sure I wrote
the original post and you really really hated it (I personally would go
with dislike) than I apologize for my returned hostility.
Well, the message to which you replied was this one:
Message-ID: <pan.2004.08.06.15.55.21.987208@org.webmaster>
And contained this:
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 10:02:22 +0200 in episode
<pan.2004.08.06.08.02.22.580375@127.0.0.1> we saw our hero Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1>:
Le Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:08:01 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that
people who supported all these regulations predicted higher death
rates from not having them than there actually were?
I think that's what the author of the article was implying.
Is he pointing to any hard numbers? Or is he just anaware of the
constantly rising life expectancy?
My reply followed.
I was, clearly, talking about the article and the author of same.
You replied in first person. As in "Did I complain
about technology or medical science?" etc.
I'm not sure what else I was *supposed to think except that you were
claiming to be the author of the piece...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "commutator" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
09 Aug 2004 05:24:20 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message news:<bc2dnQoCLO5SwYrcRVn-vA@megapath.net>...
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 20:18:35 -0700 in episode
<380b9069.0408081918.9f8fcf4@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
mikesantos15@hotmail.com (commutator):
I'm not the damn author.
<snip>
And:
Finally, if you were just being so hostile because you were sure I wrote
the original post and you really really hated it (I personally would go
with dislike) than I apologize for my returned hostility.
Well, the message to which you replied was this one:
Message-ID: <pan.2004.08.06.15.55.21.987208@org.webmaster>
And contained this:
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 10:02:22 +0200 in episode
<pan.2004.08.06.08.02.22.580375@127.0.0.1> we saw our hero Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1>:
Le Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:08:01 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that
people who supported all these regulations predicted higher death
rates from not having them than there actually were?
I think that's what the author of the article was implying.
Is he pointing to any hard numbers? Or is he just anaware of the
constantly rising life expectancy?
My reply followed.
I was, clearly, talking about the article and the author of same.
You replied in first person. As in "Did I complain
about technology or medical science?" etc.
I'm not sure what else I was *supposed to think except that you were
claiming to be the author of the piece...
My first post was number 23, to which you wrote underneath, to which I
re-replied. Anyway I would say it's safe to assume that most authors
of threads at least keep the same sig within the thread.... whatever,
it's all good...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
06 Aug 2004 03:43:59 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953CBC7983298fstone69@207.69.154.203...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:pQgQc.1906$Ri5.1865@news02.roc.ny:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953BD675A4327fstone69@207.69.154.202
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us
who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's
probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with
bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on
medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we
had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.)
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
I have a simple explanation: the people who survived to write this are
the ones who didn't die. The people who were children back then who
*were* poisoned by the paint in their rooms, who *did* eat medicine
not belonging to them, who *did* suffer brain injuries from falling
off their bikes, and who *did* die in automobile crashes aren't around
today to point this out.
[...]
Well of course, but I think the author is making a point about the
*degree* of threat from each of those causes. If you appropriately
summed all the individual probabilities as predicted by the proponents
of all the regulations for all those things would there be anything left
for us survivors?
I remember those days, and Fred, you are quite correct...as I have had
confirmed by the responses to this thread.
People under 30 ARE a bunch of wusses.
DianaC
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
06 Aug 2004 04:04:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 20:43:59 GMT in alt.atheism, DianaC ("DianaC"
<dianaiad@verizon.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953CBC7983298fstone69@207.69.154.203...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:pQgQc.1906$Ri5.1865@news02.roc.ny:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953BD675A4327fstone69@207.69.154.202
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us
who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's
probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with
bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on
medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we
had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.)
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
I have a simple explanation: the people who survived to write this are
the ones who didn't die. The people who were children back then who
*were* poisoned by the paint in their rooms, who *did* eat medicine
not belonging to them, who *did* suffer brain injuries from falling
off their bikes, and who *did* die in automobile crashes aren't around
today to point this out.
[...]
Well of course, but I think the author is making a point about the
*degree* of threat from each of those causes. If you appropriately
summed all the individual probabilities as predicted by the proponents
of all the regulations for all those things would there be anything left
for us survivors?
I remember those days, and Fred, you are quite correct...as I have had
confirmed by the responses to this thread.
People under 30 ARE a bunch of wusses.
Personally I'm not too sure about the ones under 40.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
07 Aug 2004 02:37:11 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 20:43:59 GMT in alt.atheism, DianaC ("DianaC"
<dianaiad@verizon.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953CBC7983298fstone69@207.69.154.203...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:pQgQc.1906$Ri5.1865@news02.roc.ny:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953BD675A4327fstone69@207.69.154.202
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us
who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's
probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with
bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on
medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we
had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.)
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
I have a simple explanation: the people who survived to write this are
the ones who didn't die. The people who were children back then who
*were* poisoned by the paint in their rooms, who *did* eat medicine
not belonging to them, who *did* suffer brain injuries from falling
off their bikes, and who *did* die in automobile crashes aren't around
today to point this out.
[...]
Well of course, but I think the author is making a point about the
*degree* of threat from each of those causes. If you appropriately
summed all the individual probabilities as predicted by the proponents
of all the regulations for all those things would there be anything left
for us survivors?
I remember those days, and Fred, you are quite correct...as I have had
confirmed by the responses to this thread.
People under 30 ARE a bunch of wusses.
Personally I'm not too sure about the ones under 40.
PAH !! Kids today....they can't even get it up right !
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/story.jsp?story=548819
Young men turn to Viagra as love drug of choice
By Maxine Frith, Social Affairs Correspondent
07 August 2004
It was once seen as the saviour of older men who wanted to reignite
their sex lives. But now it seems the anti-impotence pill Viagra is
increasingly becoming the recreational drug of choice for millions of
men in their thirties.
A study in the International Journal of Impotence Research found that
Viagra prescriptions to men under 45 have tripled in the past three
years. The fastest-growing segment of the market for the little blue
pills was among men aged 30-39, according to the research.
Its use among men under 45 has risen from 0.8 per cent of that age
group's population in 2000 to 1.8 per cent in 2002.
Experts believe that thirty-something men may be taking the drug to
boost their performance as they try to satisfy a generation of young
women reared on Cosmopolitan magazine and programmes such as Sex and the
City.
There is also anecdotal evidence that young male clubbers who take the
so-called love drug ecstasy are finding that its effects can dampen
desire to a sometimes disastrous degree.
Viagra is now available from thousands of internet sites, where supplies
can be posted anonymously to a home address. Viagra UK, a site which
actually operates out of Mexico, offers to ship the little blue diamonds
to British customers for as little as £2 a tablet.
Michael (not his real name), 31, from Wandsworth, south London, started
using Viagra last year. He said: "I would go clubbing and take drugs and
then not be able to have sex for hours and sometimes days, which was
obviously a bit annoying. A friend had some Viagra and when I tried it,
it really did the trick. Everyone is taking it. I get it off friends or
just buy some off a website during my lunch hour."
He added: "The only problem now is that I've started to feel I want it
all the time."
Viagra sales have topped $1bn (£665m) a year since it was launched as
the first oral cure for impotence in 1998. It works by increasing the
flow of blood to the penis. The majority of prescriptions are still
written for men over 50 who have been made impotent through conditions
such as diabetes.
But experts have expressed doubt Viagra has any dramatic impact on most
young men's performance, and believe they may simply be experiencing an
imaginary, "placebo" effect. Annette Owens, a sex therapist, said:
"Young men have good erections anyway."
___________________________________________________________________________
Redicoulous !
Whats wrong with some Pot and Acid....like we used in my youth !
:)
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
05 Aug 2004 09:17:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 02:21:09 +0000 in episode
<pQgQc.1906$Ri5.1865@news02.roc.ny> we saw our hero "Adam Marczyk"
<ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com>:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953BD675A4327fstone69@207.69.154.202
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were
kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's probably
shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored
lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors
or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets. (Not to
mention the risks we took hitchhiking.) As children, we would ride in
cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
I have a simple explanation: the people who survived to write this are the
ones who didn't die. The people who were children back then who *were*
poisoned by the paint in their rooms, who *did* eat medicine not belonging
to them, who *did* suffer brain injuries from falling off their bikes, and
who *did* die in automobile crashes aren't around today to point this out.
[...]
The author of that little rant does ignore that the life expectancy of his
generation is less than that of the generation he's whining about. Not to
mention that the ones of his generation who lived to whine about things
are benefiting from what we've learned in those intervening years and can
expect to live longer as a result.
One of the fastest growing segments of our population now is the over 80
crowd. Wonder how long the author's grandparents lived...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
04 Aug 2004 09:38:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 02:21:09 GMT, "Adam Marczyk"
<ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953BD675A4327fstone69@207.69.154.202
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us
who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's
probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with
bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on medicine
bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we had no
helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.)
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
I have a simple explanation: the people who survived to write this are the
ones who didn't die. The people who were children back then who *were*
poisoned by the paint in their rooms, who *did* eat medicine not belonging
to them, who *did* suffer brain injuries from falling off their bikes, and
who *did* die in automobile crashes aren't around today to point this out.
[...]
Or were lynched because of the color of their skin (but at least they
took it like a man and didn't sue!). This mythical heoric golden age
of the past is way oversold be it Biblical antiquity or 50's America.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -913 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
04 Aug 2004 09:48:09 PM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:q673h0pn0t5qhm12s2hlabrj9jf4iaqfqp@4ax.com:
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 02:21:09 GMT, "Adam Marczyk"
<ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns953BD675A4327fstone69@207.69.154.202
http://www.gravett.org/bizarrescience/
According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us
who were kids in the 40's, 50's, 60's, or even maybe the early 70's
probably shouldn't have survived. Our baby cribs were covered with
bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on
medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we
had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.)
As children, we would ride in cars with no seatbelts or air bags.
I have a simple explanation: the people who survived to write this are
the ones who didn't die. The people who were children back then who
*were* poisoned by the paint in their rooms, who *did* eat medicine
not belonging to them, who *did* suffer brain injuries from falling
off their bikes, and who *did* die in automobile crashes aren't around
today to point this out.
[...]
Or were lynched because of the color of their skin (but at least they
took it like a man and didn't sue!). This mythical heoric golden age
of the past is way oversold be it Biblical antiquity or 50's America.
Yep. the Clinton years were pretty good times to be an American.
Employment up, wages up, peace at home, relative peace abroad. Blow jobs
in the oval office, but I'd take that over sodomized Iraqi kids in
American run prisons. If you have to have sex scandals, at least have
consenting adults doing the deed.
--
Enkidu aa 2165
Now playing: Ani Difranco - As Is
American Military Deaths in Iraq
http://antiwar.com/casualties/
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
05 Aug 2004 01:49:24 AM |
|
|
TV's Enkidu wrote:
Yep. the Clinton years were pretty good times to be an American.
Employment up, wages up, peace at home, relative peace abroad. Blow
jobs in the oval office, but I'd take that over sodomized Iraqi kids
in American run prisons. If you have to have sex scandals, at least
have consenting adults doing the deed.
And the music...especially in his first term.
Enkidu aa 2165
Now playing: Ani Difranco - As Is
A great song from a great artist.
--
If you don't like my lyrics you can press fast forward. - Jay-Z
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
05 Aug 2004 02:40:40 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 01:49:24 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
TV's Enkidu wrote:
Yep. the Clinton years were pretty good times to be an American.
Employment up, wages up, peace at home, relative peace abroad. Blow
jobs in the oval office, but I'd take that over sodomized Iraqi kids
in American run prisons. If you have to have sex scandals, at least
have consenting adults doing the deed.
And the music...especially in his first term.
Absolutely! Nirvana, Nine Inch Nails, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains,
Pearl Jam (before they sucked), STP (ditto)... . What a great era!
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
06 Aug 2004 02:54:33 AM |
|
|
TV's raven1 wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 01:49:24 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
TV's Enkidu wrote:
Yep. the Clinton years were pretty good times to be an American.
Employment up, wages up, peace at home, relative peace abroad. Blow
jobs in the oval office, but I'd take that over sodomized Iraqi kids
in American run prisons. If you have to have sex scandals, at least
have consenting adults doing the deed.
And the music...especially in his first term.
Absolutely! Nirvana, Nine Inch Nails, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains,
Pearl Jam (before they sucked), STP (ditto)... . What a great era!
Only thing I disagree with you on is PJ...IMO their music has gotten better
if anything over the years.
--
If you don't like my lyrics you can press fast forward. - Jay-Z
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Aren't We All Dead? |
06 Aug 2004 06:56:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 02:54:33 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
TV's raven1 wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 01:49:24 -0500, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
TV's Enkidu wrote:
Yep. the Clinton years were pretty good times to be an American.
Employment up, wages up, peace at home, relative peace abroad. Blow
jobs in the oval office, but I'd take that over sodomized Iraqi kids
in American run prisons. If you have to have sex scandals, at least
have consenting adults doing the deed.
And the music...especially in his first term.
Absolutely! Nirvana, Nine Inch Nails, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains,
Pearl Jam (before they sucked), STP (ditto)... . What a great era!
Only thing I disagree with you on is PJ...IMO their music has gotten better
if anything over the years.
I love their first two albums and about 2/3 of "Vitalogy", after that
they kind of fell off a cliff for me musically, although parts of
"Yield" were pretty good. Don't get me started on "Binaural"...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
