On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:01:36 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

A 16 year old's knowledge of the potential dangers is not as developed as
one with longer life experiences.

True, but knowledge doesn't necessarily mean the older person will
know WTF to do when something strange happens. A crafty young person
might well do better than a sedate old fart.


She should at least be old enough to have a decent understanding of how
her
life would change should any harm come to her.

Tell ya what: You do that with your kid and let these fine folks raise
their own the way they (and she) see fit. Deal? Good.

Noooo problem, I was simply agreeing that I thought the parents were nuts
for letting a youngster go and do something that few with far more
experienced and knowledgeable have done. Then every one wanted to defend
the childs maturity and knowledge. The child will probably do fine. But if
something happened to my child I would blame myself forever for not being
responsible as a parent. It is only common sense, which seems to be lacking
here, to try to protet your children.
Yeah your child stands a much greater chance of being hurt on land because
they are going to spend 99% of their lives on land but on land help can be
given and you do have to live some where. You have to pick your battles.
Picking one where a child is alone for months on end performing a balancing
act with mother nature would not be a wise one IMHO.



The Sunderlands firmly believe that all they need is prayer to solve
all their problems.