Limit program access for kids

[YZ]

Great. We already see a split in the ranks of pro-personal interaction
party (Bruce/Kurt): Kurt is all, like, "..abdicating your parental
responsibilities to soul-less technologies", while Bruce is willing to
acknowledge that he's "not opposed to using technological tools". Like
catholics/protestants, bolsheviks/mensheviks before them, they come from
the same beginning, but gradually part their ways. How soon before they
start teaching each other the true flavor of their faith? Time will tell.

If you hunt, and have a rifle at home, do you teach your kids not to use
it, may be have a bi-monthly firearms awareness week, and proced to keep
it under your bed? Or do you lock it away in a steel safe? I agree that
"the most important component of any computer security policy is - and
always will be - a knowledgeable and pro-active computer user. " One
that uses anti-viral programs, firewalls, spyware-removal tools, etc., I
might add.

enough of my ramblings

YZ

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

YZ wrote:

[snip]

If you hunt, and have a rifle at home, do you teach your kids not to
use it, may be have a bi-monthly firearms awareness week, and proced
to keep it under your bed? Or do you lock it away in a steel safe? I
agree that "the most important component of any computer security
policy is - and always will be - a knowledgeable and pro-active
computer user. " One that uses anti-viral programs, firewalls,
spyware-removal tools, etc., I might add.

enough of my ramblings

YZ

I grew up in a household with shotguns and rifles--lots of them--because
my father was both a hunter and collector. They were kept in the "gun
room," which was not locked.

Nonetheless, both my sister and I knew--without question--that we were
not to touch the guns unless we were supervised by an adult (my father).

There were no accidents and no close calls.

If children are taught from an early age by adult human beings, the
lessons will be ingrained. If you allow TV (and other technologies) to
rear your children, you're asking for trouble. Involvement from birth is
the key. In the absence of that, your kids are going to find the keys to
the gun safe (or how to disable all the precautions you've taken with
the computer), and when you're not watching, all hell will break loose.

rl
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

 

[PaulFXH]

I'm absolutely amazed that this thread which began with a very simple
one-line request for assistance has gravitated into a sucession of
self-righteous, moralistic pontifications conducted, at times, with
only a little more dignity than a bar-room brawl.
I think it is arrogant in the extreme for anybody to reply to this
request as if they alone know what's really behind this entreaty and to
then proceed to address themselves solely to this "hidden" feature. As
I have noted before in this thread, the OP said absolutely nothing
about throwing in the towel as far as parenting is concerned.
To second-guess a parents motivations in this manner is, I believe,
unhelpful, irresponsible and insulting.
While the majority of the "extra-curricular" points raised are valid
and moralistically praiseworthy, they are not directly relevant (except
perhaps as a footnote) to the OP's request.
By the same token, I disagree with canabalism and child-slavery but I
don't launch into an attack on these matters everytime I post to an NG.
Of the 23 posts in this thread up to now, only two have in any way
addressed themselves to the OP's concern. That's less than 10%.
No wonder the OP hasn't posted back.
Paul

 

[kurttrail]

I'm absolutely amazed that this thread which began with a very simple
one-line request for assistance has gravitated into a sucession of
self-righteous, moralistic pontifications conducted, at times, with
only a little more dignity than a bar-room brawl.
I think it is arrogant in the extreme for anybody to reply to this
request as if they alone know what's really behind this entreaty and
to then proceed to address themselves solely to this "hidden"
feature. As I have noted before in this thread, the OP said
absolutely nothing about throwing in the towel as far as parenting is
concerned.
To second-guess a parents motivations in this manner is, I believe,
unhelpful, irresponsible and insulting.
While the majority of the "extra-curricular" points raised are valid
and moralistically praiseworthy, they are not directly relevant
(except perhaps as a footnote) to the OP's request.
By the same token, I disagree with canabalism and child-slavery but I
don't launch into an attack on these matters everytime I post to an
NG. Of the 23 posts in this thread up to now, only two have in any way
addressed themselves to the OP's concern. That's less than 10%.
No wonder the OP hasn't posted back.
Paul

Um, you can't always get what you want. Sometimes you get what you
need.

And you need a backhand to your head.

This is a newsgroup. If you don't want to get a wide range of peoples'
opinions, then bugger off.

I'd tell you to chill, but I don't believe you would know how. You
probably think I'm telling you to go get cold.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[PaulFXH]

kurttrail escreveu:

Um, you can't always get what you want. Sometimes you get what you
need.

Don't you think that, in general, it is more appropriate for the
parents to decide what is needed for their children's upbringing rather
than you who knows nothing of their circumstances.

This is a newsgroup. If you don't want to get a wide range of peoples'
opinions, then bugger off.

Indeed, I both welcome and enjoy listening to other peoples opinions.
However, I do not at all feel obliged to agree with them. I trust you
are not pouting because I didn't agree with yours.
Actually, it was less what you said than how you said it that I found
objectionable. If you truly want to get a point across such that
appropriate action is taken in respect of it, it is always much more
fruitful to couch your view in considerate, empathic and diplomatic
tones.
The "in your face" approach that you appear to favor is more likely to
lead to your views being flushed with your other outpourings and duly
forgotten about.
The fact that you chose to attack a point of view that was neither
expressed by the OP nor, in my opinion, implicit in the wording of the
post is even more reason to believe that your point would be taken more
seriously were it enunciated with a little more grace and elegance.
Paul

 

[kurttrail]

kurttrail escreveu:


Don't you think that, in general, it is more appropriate for the
parents to decide what is needed for their children's upbringing
rather than you who knows nothing of their circumstances.

Um, am I deciding anything other than just giving my opinion? The
premise of your question is flawed.

Indeed, I both welcome and enjoy listening to other peoples opinions.
However, I do not at all feel obliged to agree with them.

Did I say you needed to?

I trust you
are not pouting because I didn't agree with yours.

ROFL! Like I care what a stick in the mud like you thinks about my
opinion.

Actually I do. I wouldn't want a stick in the mud like you to agree
with my opinion.

Actually, it was less what you said than how you said it that I found
objectionable.

Ah, the style over substance, judge the book by its cover kinda bloke,
are you?! I wouldn't have guessed that!!! [Heavy sarcasm]

If you truly want to get a point across such that
appropriate action is taken in respect of it, it is always much more
fruitful to couch your view in considerate, empathic and diplomatic
tones.

No. That is what you'd want. But it is not what you derserve.

The "in your face" approach that you appear to favor is more likely to
lead to your views being flushed with your other outpourings and duly
forgotten about.

Again you are speaking about yourself. Personally, I distrust people
that don't speak their mind, and put on the affectation of being
considerate, empathetic, and diplomatic.

I am empathic, so I tend to give people what they need over what the
want. To me, that is more honest, than being a vapid little suckup.

The fact that you chose to attack a point of view that was neither
expressed by the OP nor,

See, that's where you are wrong. My original post in answer to the OP
was not an attack.

"Parent Guidance is more than suggested. It is required."

Is that an attack to you? Merely a statement of my opinion.

"All you do by putting technological controls on them is to abdicate
your
parental responsibility, and what kind of example is that showing your
kids?"

Is asking a simple question an attack? Perhaps you feel attacked by the
question I just asked you?

"And more than likely, your kids are now or will soon be much more
computer literate than you are, and they'll get around whatever you try
to do to stop them."

At that is the end of my original reply to the OP. I see no attack at
all. The last sentence is probably true of all kids and there parents.
Eventually the little brats find ways around their parents rules.

in my opinion, implicit in the wording of the
post is even more reason to believe that your point would be taken
more seriously were it enunciated with a little more grace and
elegance. Paul

The affectation of grace and elegance is just sugar-coating. To me, it
would be a lie. But then again. I don't see a damned thing in my
original reply in this thread that was an attack at all. That you see
some attack in what I wrote, says a lot more about you, quite frankly,
but I doubt you have the capacity to see it.

Good day, sir!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[PaulFXH]

kurttrail escreveu:

kurttrail escreveu:


Don't you think that, in general, it is more appropriate for the
parents to decide what is needed for their children's upbringing
rather than you who knows nothing of their circumstances.

Um, am I deciding anything other than just giving my opinion? The
premise of your question is flawed.

Indeed, I both welcome and enjoy listening to other peoples opinions.
However, I do not at all feel obliged to agree with them.

Did I say you needed to?

I trust you
are not pouting because I didn't agree with yours.

ROFL! Like I care what a stick in the mud like you thinks about my
opinion.

Actually I do. I wouldn't want a stick in the mud like you to agree
with my opinion.

Actually, it was less what you said than how you said it that I found
objectionable.

Ah, the style over substance, judge the book by its cover kinda bloke,
are you?! I wouldn't have guessed that!!! [Heavy sarcasm]

If you truly want to get a point across such that
appropriate action is taken in respect of it, it is always much more
fruitful to couch your view in considerate, empathic and diplomatic
tones.

No. That is what you'd want. But it is not what you derserve.

The "in your face" approach that you appear to favor is more likely to
lead to your views being flushed with your other outpourings and duly
forgotten about.

Again you are speaking about yourself. Personally, I distrust people
that don't speak their mind, and put on the affectation of being
considerate, empathetic, and diplomatic.

If the objective is to "speak your mind" and benefit from the
alleviation of inner tension and feelings of inadequacy that may be
consequent upon this, then go right ahead and speak your mind.
If, on the other hand, your objective is to encourage some improvement
through the activities of others, I think you may find that speaking
your mind is likely to be considerably less productive than an evident
display of consideration, empathy and diplomacy however repulsive and
out-of-character this may be for you.
Surely this cannot be a surprise to you?

I am empathic, so I tend to give people what they need over what the
want. To me, that is more honest, than being a vapid little suckup.


See, that's where you are wrong. My original post in answer to the OP
was not an attack.

"Parent Guidance is more than suggested. It is required."

Is that an attack to you? Merely a statement of my opinion.

Yes, I believe it is an attack. It implies that the OP is, or intends
to become, negligent in their parenting and is incapable of making the
deductions that you have about the upbringing of their children.
Given that the OP is almost certainly a real human being with real
human feelings I believe that your suggestion (which is not invalid)
could have been more profitably delivered had it a more empathic
intonation.

"All you do by putting technological controls on them is to abdicate
your
parental responsibility, and what kind of example is that showing your
kids?"

Is asking a simple question an attack? Perhaps you feel attacked by the
question I just asked you?

"And more than likely, your kids are now or will soon be much more
computer literate than you are, and they'll get around whatever you try
to do to stop them."

At that is the end of my original reply to the OP. I see no attack at
all.

You don't see or you don't want to see?

The last sentence is probably true of all kids and there parents.
Eventually the little brats find ways around their parents rules.


The affectation of grace and elegance is just sugar-coating. To me, it
would be a lie.

Do you really believe that the vituperative assaults with which you
punctuate your perorations are more likely to encourage people to take
them seriously than a little refinement and decorum irrespective of how
contrary this may be to your more primitive instincts?

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

kurttrail escreveu:

Yes, I believe it is an attack. It implies that the OP is, or intends
to become, negligent in their parenting and is incapable of making the
deductions that you have about the upbringing of their children.
Given that the OP is almost certainly a real human being with real
human feelings I believe that your suggestion (which is not invalid)
could have been more profitably delivered had it a more empathic
intonation.

So what you're saying is that the message needs to be sugarcoated to
make it go down easier?

Is that kinda like being politically correct? Or engaging in
doublespeak? Or equivocating?

Two rules for good writing (and speaking):

Never to use two words where one will do.

Never use a "big" word where a "little" word will adequately convey your
meaning.

Violation of those rules makes you look like you're full of $hit.

rl

 

[kurttrail]

kurttrail escreveu:

kurttrail escreveu:

PaulFXH wrote:

I'm absolutely amazed that this thread which began with a very
simple one-line request for assistance has gravitated into a
sucession of self-righteous, moralistic pontifications conducted,
at times, with only a little more dignity than a bar-room brawl.
I think it is arrogant in the extreme for anybody to reply to this
request as if they alone know what's really behind this entreaty
and to then proceed to address themselves solely to this "hidden"
feature. As I have noted before in this thread, the OP said
absolutely nothing about throwing in the towel as far as parenting
is concerned.
To second-guess a parents motivations in this manner is, I
believe, unhelpful, irresponsible and insulting.
While the majority of the "extra-curricular" points raised are
valid and moralistically praiseworthy, they are not directly
relevant (except perhaps as a footnote) to the OP's request.
By the same token, I disagree with canabalism and child-slavery
but I don't launch into an attack on these matters everytime I
post to an NG. Of the 23 posts in this thread up to now, only two
have in any way addressed themselves to the OP's concern. That's
less than 10%.
No wonder the OP hasn't posted back.
Paul

Um, you can't always get what you want. Sometimes you get what you
need.

Don't you think that, in general, it is more appropriate for the
parents to decide what is needed for their children's upbringing
rather than you who knows nothing of their circumstances.

Um, am I deciding anything other than just giving my opinion? The
premise of your question is flawed.

This is a newsgroup. If you don't want to get a wide range of
peoples' opinions, then bugger off.

Indeed, I both welcome and enjoy listening to other peoples
opinions. However, I do not at all feel obliged to agree with them.

Did I say you needed to?

I trust you
are not pouting because I didn't agree with yours.

ROFL! Like I care what a stick in the mud like you thinks about my
opinion.

Actually I do. I wouldn't want a stick in the mud like you to agree
with my opinion.

Actually, it was less what you said than how you said it that I
found objectionable.

Ah, the style over substance, judge the book by its cover kinda
bloke, are you?! I wouldn't have guessed that!!! [Heavy sarcasm]

If you truly want to get a point across such that
appropriate action is taken in respect of it, it is always much more
fruitful to couch your view in considerate, empathic and diplomatic
tones.

No. That is what you'd want. But it is not what you derserve.

The "in your face" approach that you appear to favor is more likely
to lead to your views being flushed with your other outpourings and
duly forgotten about.

Again you are speaking about yourself. Personally, I distrust people
that don't speak their mind, and put on the affectation of being
considerate, empathetic, and diplomatic.

If the objective is to "speak your mind" and benefit from the
alleviation of inner tension and feelings of inadequacy that may be
consequent upon this, then go right ahead and speak your mind.
If, on the other hand, your objective is to encourage some improvement
through the activities of others, I think you may find that speaking
your mind is likely to be considerably less productive than an evident
display of consideration, empathy and diplomacy however repulsive and
out-of-character this may be for you.

I haven't found that at all. Some people need/deserve a verbal brick
upside their head.

You need a literal brick upside yours.

Surely this cannot be a surprise to you?

I'm rarely surprised by anything. Especially from the PC crowd, that
wants everybody to act them. A world full of weenies!

Yes, I believe it is an attack.

LOL! I guess that says a lot about what you believe. Afraid of your
own shadow, are ya'?

It implies that the OP is, or intends
to become, negligent in their parenting and is incapable of making the
deductions that you have about the upbringing of their children.

Not saying you are correct about what I meant to imply. But even
assuming that you are, that is still not an attack. Telling them that
they are a blithering idiot, and that they should have engaged in anal
sex, instead of bringing little brats into this world, now that would
have been an attack.

By the way, your parents were blither idiots, and should have engaged in
anal sex, instead of bringing a c-sucker like you into this world, and
if they are still breathing, should consider a post-birth abortion!

Given that the OP is almost certainly a real human being with real
human feelings I believe that your suggestion (which is not invalid)
could have been more profitably delivered had it a more empathic
intonation.

Blah, Blah, Blah! Really! I conveyed my opinion in three sentences.
Short and succinct. Your touchy-feely bullsh*t would have take all day
to read.

You don't see or you don't want to see?

I don't see how stating the obvious, that kids will eventually get
around their parents rules, is an attack of any kind.

Just wait until your kids grow up and tell you all the things they did
behind your back!

Do you really believe that the vituperative assaults with which you
punctuate your perorations are more likely to encourage people to take
them seriously than a little refinement and decorum irrespective of
how contrary this may be to your more primitive instincts?

I didn't assault the OP either virtually, literally, or vituperatively.
So the premise of your question is flawed.

Do I believe you deserve to be ridiculed? Most definitely!

You don't even see what a pompous ass you sound like. Do you really
think people are going to choose to listen to your condescending
pansy-assed flowery writings, or my more common way style of writing?

Oh, and by the way, you misused the word "perorations," as that refers
to actual speech, not to writings. Bleedin' wanker!

And if you don't think my style of writing affective, it sure has
affected you! ;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[kurttrail]

So what you're saying is that the message needs to be sugarcoated to
make it go down easier?

That bleedin' Mary Poppins!

Is that kinda like being politically correct? Or engaging in
doublespeak? Or equivocating?

The white man speaks with forked tongue.

Two rules for good writing (and speaking):

Never to use two words where one will do.

Never use a "big" word where a "little" word will adequately convey
your meaning.

Three. If you are a pompous ass that needs to use a big word, make sure
you know what the f*&k it means!

Violation of those rules makes you look like you're full of $hit.

And smell like it too!

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[Plato]

I grew up in a household with shotguns and rifles--lots of them--because
my father was both a hunter and collector. They were kept in the "gun
room," which was not locked.

My Father kept his shotguns and ammo in the downstairs hallway closet.
He hunted rabbits and ducks. I am one of 6 kids, and none of us ever
considered touching them. I suppose, thinking way back, it was because
they were his "property". So we respected that.

Interestingly, years later while in college, while walking on a trail in
the woods with some southern buddies, there was a wallet on the trail
that prolly fell out of some guys pocket. I simply went to pick it up,
and one guy said "hey, it aint yours, leave it be".

Nonetheless, both my sister and I knew--without question--that we were
not to touch the guns unless we were supervised by an adult (my father).

There were no accidents and no close calls.

None at my house either. But still, I think my Father should have locked
up the guns. On the other hand, if he'd locked them up, perhaps us
"kids" would have seen that as a "challenge" to get into. I dont think
there is a "one fix for all" for this.

If children are taught from an early age by adult human beings, the
lessons will be ingrained. If you allow TV (and other technologies) to
rear your children, you're asking for trouble. Involvement from birth is
the key. In the absence of that, your kids are going to find the keys to
the gun safe (or how to disable all the precautions you've taken with
the computer), and when you're not watching, all hell will break loose.

I seem to agree..............

HOWEVER. Several years ago I went the the Forth Of July Fireworks with
my daughter. My wife said she was feeling sick and wanted to stay home.
When we returned, there was an odd car on the steet and a guy in my
house with my wife. It was just one of her friends who I knew, a gay
man, but still, it infuriated me, and if I had my .22 Marlin loaded at
the time I really may have shot him. eg for safety, I keep the bullets
and gun in different places.

When you are "hot headed" you may do things you'd not normally do. Makes
you wonder if guns should be kept in the house at all.

But, you want the gun there for "protection". IT's not a simple
solution, is it?

 

[mamamia]

kurttrail wrote:

I'm rarely surprised by anything. Especially from the PC crowd, that
wants everybody to act them. A world full of weenies!

Welcome, fellow weenie! ;-)

Not saying you are correct about what I meant to imply. But even
assuming that you are, that is still not an attack. Telling them that
they are a blithering idiot, and that they should have engaged in anal
sex, instead of bringing little brats into this world, now that would
have been an attack.

By the way, your parents were blither idiots, and should have engaged in
anal sex, instead of bringing a c-sucker like you into this world, and
if they are still breathing, should consider a post-birth abortion!

PMSL!!!

Just wait until your kids grow up and tell you all the things they did
behind your back!

That may or may not happen. I did things as a kid noone knew about and
I'm still not interested in sharing with my parents!