"Clisby" wrote in message
link.net...



I'm.....speechless.

Think I'll go find a kid to drown.

Banty


No, no. Feed it to the hogs.

Clisby


3 kids feared dead -- thrown into S.F. bay
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG86FB9541.DTL

Harris' children were identified as Trayshaun Harris, 6, Travante Greely, 3, and Joshua Harris,
1.

A witness who had been walking near the pier with his two children called 911 about 5:30 p.m.
to report that he had seen the woman throw the children from the fishing pier into the bay
about 10 feet below, authorities said.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Ruth Baltopoulos says...

wrote:

Ruth Baltopoulos wrote:

It can also be counterproductive to throw a
hedgehog into the chickencoop

Just out of curiosity: What happens if you do? It eats all the eggs?

I have no idea! It just popped into my head as an attempt to convey
throwing a totally unrelated idea into the mix and I liked the turn of the
phrase; hedgehogs might be a chicken's best friend for all I know!

It's a good one, though - I actually pictured a porcupiney-thing being
thrown
into a chicken coop.

Sounds like one of those southern aphorsisms, like "deer caught in
headlights"
(which, BTW, has gotten widespread use) It puts such a picture in your
mind.

Banty



But deer really do get caught in headlights. Ever heard of the illegal
practice of jacking deer?

In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Ruth Baltopoulos says...

wrote:

Ruth Baltopoulos wrote:

It can also be counterproductive to throw a
hedgehog into the chickencoop

Just out of curiosity: What happens if you do? It eats all the eggs?

I have no idea! It just popped into my head as an attempt to convey
throwing a totally unrelated idea into the mix and I liked the turn of the
phrase; hedgehogs might be a chicken's best friend for all I know!

It's a good one, though - I actually pictured a porcupiney-thing being
thrown
into a chicken coop.

Sounds like one of those southern aphorsisms, like "deer caught in
headlights"
(which, BTW, has gotten widespread use) It puts such a picture in your
mind.

Banty



But deer really do get caught in headlights. Ever heard of the illegal
practice of jacking deer?



I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze -- makes
them easy to shoot.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Ruth Baltopoulos
says...

wrote:

Ruth Baltopoulos wrote:

It can also be counterproductive to throw a
hedgehog into the chickencoop

Just out of curiosity: What happens if you do? It eats all the eggs?

I have no idea! It just popped into my head as an attempt to convey
throwing a totally unrelated idea into the mix and I liked the turn of
the
phrase; hedgehogs might be a chicken's best friend for all I know!

It's a good one, though - I actually pictured a porcupiney-thing being
thrown
into a chicken coop.

Sounds like one of those southern aphorsisms, like "deer caught in
headlights"
(which, BTW, has gotten widespread use) It puts such a picture in your
mind.

Banty



But deer really do get caught in headlights. Ever heard of the illegal
practice of jacking deer?



I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze -- makes
them easy to shoot.)

Yes. Around here it is very illegal.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

Sounds like one of those southern aphorsisms, like "deer caught in
headlights"
(which, BTW, has gotten widespread use) It puts such a picture in your
mind.

Banty



But deer really do get caught in headlights. Ever heard of the illegal
practice of jacking deer?



I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze -- makes
them easy to shoot.)

Yes. Around here it is very illegal.

I suspect it's very illegal everywhere. Heck, you can't legally hunt
deer until daylight.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady wrote:

In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Ruth Baltopoulos says...

wrote:

Ruth Baltopoulos wrote:

It can also be counterproductive to throw a
hedgehog into the chickencoop

Just out of curiosity: What happens if you do? It eats all the eggs?

I have no idea! It just popped into my head as an attempt to convey
throwing a totally unrelated idea into the mix and I liked the turn of the
phrase; hedgehogs might be a chicken's best friend for all I know!

It's a good one, though - I actually pictured a porcupiney-thing being
thrown into a chicken coop.

Sounds like one of those southern aphorsisms, like "deer caught in
headlights" (which, BTW, has gotten widespread use) It puts such a picture in your
mind.

Banty

But deer really do get caught in headlights. Ever heard of the illegal
practice of jacking deer?

I've heard of jacklighting. Both 'jacking deer' and jacklighting are
in the American Heritage dictionary. I don't know the derivation of
jacklight but it is a light used at night in illegal hunting. No area
of use was given. Shining deer though seems to be north mid west (MN
WS area) and it looks to me like they often use automobile headlights

I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze -- makes
them easy to shoot.)

grandma Rosalie

In article ,
Rosalie B. wrote:


But deer really do get caught in headlights. Ever heard of the illegal
practice of jacking deer?

I've heard of jacklighting. Both 'jacking deer' and jacklighting are
in the American Heritage dictionary. I don't know the derivation of
jacklight but it is a light used at night in illegal hunting. No area
of use was given. Shining deer though seems to be north mid west (MN
WS area) and it looks to me like they often use automobile headlights

Since I grew up in Minnesota and Wisconsin, I can confirm that the term
is used there! (And, yes, auto headlights were often used.)

I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze -- makes
them easy to shoot.)

grandma Rosalie
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

Sounds like one of those southern aphorsisms, like "deer caught in
headlights"
(which, BTW, has gotten widespread use) It puts such a picture in
your
mind.

Banty



But deer really do get caught in headlights. Ever heard of the illegal
practice of jacking deer?



I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze -- makes
them easy to shoot.)

Yes. Around here it is very illegal.

I suspect it's very illegal everywhere. Heck, you can't legally hunt
deer until daylight.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


True enough. Rural poor people get some of their meager food supply this
way.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze -- makes
them easy to shoot.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care


No, that is called "spotlighting" when you kill deer by paralyzing their
senses with a bright light and then shooting them because you are too
sorry and too pitiful of a hunter to give them a fair chance.

That is about the same as taking a cat and throwing it out of the window
at a street sign while going about 60 miles an hour. Good for you
DragonLady, you are such a good sport.

Hey, are all of you proud of the throngs of people that stood around and
watched that crazy woman throw her three children off of the bridge in
California? I sure am glad they waited for the law to get there and not
try to stop her themselves.

One man with his children that was in close proximity to the scene as it
happened took off running like a lot of you would do dragging his kids
behind him because he was scared she was going to throw his kids off of
the bridge too. What a winner, hey, at least he saved the mothers life by
calling the police and they got there in time to keep her from jumping.
Thank goodness for that anyway. I bet that man's children are wondering
why their father didn't just leave them where they were at and not worry
about them and try to keep the sweet lady from killing her children.

One day he will tell them that those kind of things are for the police to
deal with, not wanting to admit that he is just a slimeball, weasely
coward.

Oh well,

Alt

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

Sounds like one of those southern aphorsisms, like "deer caught in
headlights"
(which, BTW, has gotten widespread use) It puts such a picture in
your
mind.

Banty



But deer really do get caught in headlights. Ever heard of the
illegal
practice of jacking deer?



I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with
bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze --
makes
them easy to shoot.)

Yes. Around here it is very illegal.

I suspect it's very illegal everywhere. Heck, you can't legally hunt
deer until daylight.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


Also called "spotlighting", when you kill deer by paralyzing their
senses with a bright light and then shooting them because you are too
sorry and too pitiful of a hunter to give them a fair chance.

That is about the same as taking a cat and throwing it out of the window
at a street sign while going about 60 miles an hour. Good for you
DragonLady, you are such a good sport.

Hey, are all of you proud of the throngs of people that stood around and
watched that crazy woman throw her three children off of the bridge in
California? I sure am glad they waited for the law to get there and not
try to stop her themselves.

One man with his children that was in close proximity to the scene as it
happened took off running like a lot of you would do dragging his kids
behind him because he was scared she was going to throw his kids off of
the bridge too. What a winner, hey, at least he saved the mothers life by
calling the police and they got there in time to keep her from jumping.
Thank goodness for that anyway. I bet that man's children are wondering
why their father didn't just leave them where they were at and not worry
about them and try to keep the sweet lady from killing her children.

One day he will tell them that those kind of things are for the police to
deal with, not wanting to admit that he is just a slimeball, weasely
coward.

Oh well,

Alt

In article . net,
"Alt-Ctrl-Del" AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿÞ wrote:

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

Sounds like one of those southern aphorsisms, like "deer caught in
headlights"
(which, BTW, has gotten widespread use) It puts such a picture in
your
mind.

Banty



But deer really do get caught in headlights. Ever heard of the
illegal
practice of jacking deer?



I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with
bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze --
makes
them easy to shoot.)

Yes. Around here it is very illegal.

I suspect it's very illegal everywhere. Heck, you can't legally hunt
deer until daylight.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


Also called "spotlighting", when you kill deer by paralyzing their
senses with a bright light and then shooting them because you are too
sorry and too pitiful of a hunter to give them a fair chance.

The people who do this have no pretense of this being a sport. It's a
way to put meat on the table. The deer, in this case, have a slightly
better chance than, say, a cow being raised for meat.

That is about the same as taking a cat and throwing it out of the window
at a street sign while going about 60 miles an hour. Good for you
DragonLady, you are such a good sport.

Alt, I know you're an idiot -- but at least read.

I never said I DID this, I just identified and named the practice.

You, of course, decided that since I know what it is, I must do it, too.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
dragonlady says...

In article . net,
"Alt-Ctrl-Del" AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿÞ wrote:

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

Sounds like one of those southern aphorsisms, like "deer caught in
headlights"
(which, BTW, has gotten widespread use) It puts such a picture in
your
mind.

Banty



But deer really do get caught in headlights. Ever heard of the
illegal
practice of jacking deer?



I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with
bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze --
makes
them easy to shoot.)

Yes. Around here it is very illegal.

I suspect it's very illegal everywhere. Heck, you can't legally hunt
deer until daylight.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


Also called "spotlighting", when you kill deer by paralyzing their
senses with a bright light and then shooting them because you are too
sorry and too pitiful of a hunter to give them a fair chance.

The people who do this have no pretense of this being a sport. It's a
way to put meat on the table. The deer, in this case, have a slightly
better chance than, say, a cow being raised for meat.

That is about the same as taking a cat and throwing it out of the window
at a street sign while going about 60 miles an hour. Good for you
DragonLady, you are such a good sport.

Alt, I know you're an idiot -- but at least read.

I never said I DID this, I just identified and named the practice.

You, of course, decided that since I know what it is, I must do it, too.

What do you know you're a loser who couldn't take Minnesota so moved away
anyways.

Banty

In article ,
Banty wrote:


I never said I DID this, I just identified and named the practice.

You, of course, decided that since I know what it is, I must do it, too.

What do you know you're a loser who couldn't take Minnesota so moved away
anyways.

Banty

Close, but for full credit you'd have to throw in a gratuitous insult
about either my child-rearing or my attitude towards animals.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"Alt-Ctrl-Del"

| One man with his children that was in close proximity to the scene as it
| happened took off running like a lot of you would do dragging his kids
| behind him because he was scared she was going to throw his kids off of
| the bridge too. What a winner, hey, at least he saved the mothers life by
| calling the police and they got there in time to keep her from jumping.
| Thank goodness for that anyway. I bet that man's children are wondering
| why their father didn't just leave them where they were at and not worry
| about them and try to keep the sweet lady from killing her children.

--

You're saying a man has an obligation to put his children at risk so he can
play hero?

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Alt-Ctrl-Del" AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿÞ wrote:

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stephanie" wrote:

Sounds like one of those southern aphorsisms, like "deer caught
in
headlights"
(which, BTW, has gotten widespread use) It puts such a picture
in
your
mind.

Banty



But deer really do get caught in headlights. Ever heard of the
illegal
practice of jacking deer?



I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with
bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze --
makes
them easy to shoot.)

Yes. Around here it is very illegal.

I suspect it's very illegal everywhere. Heck, you can't legally hunt
deer until daylight.

That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


Also called "spotlighting", when you kill deer by paralyzing their
senses with a bright light and then shooting them because you are too
sorry and too pitiful of a hunter to give them a fair chance.

The people who do this have no pretense of this being a sport. It's a
way to put meat on the table. The deer, in this case, have a slightly
better chance than, say, a cow being raised for meat.

That is about the same as taking a cat and throwing it out of the
window
at a street sign while going about 60 miles an hour. Good for you
DragonLady, you are such a good sport.

Alt, I know you're an idiot -- but at least read.

I never said I DID this, I just identified and named the practice.

You, of course, decided that since I know what it is, I must do it, too.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care


Dragon Lady, you are kind of a mean person. I don't know why you like to
call people names, but you hurt my feelings. All I was doing was talking
about the way I felt about things. You are not very tolerant of others
though are you? I bet you hate all kinds and types of people because they
are not like you.

Now here I was all excited about getting online and coming to the
newsgroup to read some posts and try to enjoy myself a little bit, and you
call me an idiot. That is just cruel. I am not happy anymore and I don't
feel good. I am not used to being personally insulted because I am always
nice to people and don't give them a reason to do that kind of thing.

And who would not think you are talking from personal experience when you
make a statement like this and use the word "WE":

I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze -- makes
them easy to shoot.)

It sure sounded like you were talking about yourself. And by the way, it
doesn't matter if the people who do this are doing it to eat or not, this
is not the way to do it. It is inhumane. Don't trick them and kill them.
Just like the Indians that ran buffalo off of cliffs in blind rushes to
survive was also wrong. If PETA had been around back in those days the
Indians would not have been allowed to employ this practice. They would
have had to kill their buffalo one by one and not be able to resort to any
tricks or bright lights either.

Alt

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:57:42 GMT, "Alt/Ctrl/Del"
Alt/Ctrl/Del@________------------{{{{ }}}}.net wrote:

Dragon Lady, you are kind of a mean person. I don't know why you like to
call people names, but you hurt my feelings. All I was doing was talking
about the way I felt about things. You are not very tolerant of others
though are you? I bet you hate all kinds and types of people because they
are not like you.

/laugh/ DL is one of the more tolerant posters in this group.

Now here I was all excited about getting online and coming to the
newsgroup to read some posts and try to enjoy myself a little bit, and you
call me an idiot. That is just cruel. I am not happy anymore and I don't
feel good. I am not used to being personally insulted because I am always
nice to people and don't give them a reason to do that kind of thing.

/looks at your other posts. Oookay, it's your story, hon.

Nan

In article k.net,
"Alt/Ctrl/Del" Alt/Ctrl/Del@________------------{{{{ }}}}.net wrote:



Dragon Lady, you are kind of a mean person. I don't know why you like to
call people names, but you hurt my feelings. All I was doing was talking
about the way I felt about things. You are not very tolerant of others
though are you? I bet you hate all kinds and types of people because they
are not like you.

Now here I was all excited about getting online and coming to the
newsgroup to read some posts and try to enjoy myself a little bit, and you
call me an idiot. That is just cruel. I am not happy anymore and I don't
feel good. I am not used to being personally insulted because I am always
nice to people and don't give them a reason to do that kind of thing.

Since it IS unlike me to even almost call someone names, I tried to go
back and read your previous posts, just in case I had you confused with
someone else. For some reason, my newsreader won't let me access posts
I've already marked as "read" today, so I can't.

Fortunately, Nan did this for me. (Thanks, Nan.)

Your statement that you are "always nice to people" is, at best, just
plain silly. Since you clearly enjoy insulting people, I didn't think
it would bother you so much to be insulted back.


And who would not think you are talking from personal experience when you
make a statement like this and use the word "WE":

I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze -- makes
them easy to shoot.)

The "we" referred to folks in Northern Wisconsin/Northern Minnesota --
that's what we called it. We didn't all DO it.

And even rereading what I wrote, I think it was a pretty amazing feat to
jump to the conclusion that, just because I grew up knowing what it was
called, I must have done it.


It sure sounded like you were talking about yourself. And by the way, it
doesn't matter if the people who do this are doing it to eat or not, this
is not the way to do it. It is inhumane. Don't trick them and kill them.

Think about it -- assuming you need the meat -- which is more inhumane:

Shoot at a deer on the run, risking merely injuring it, which will
result in sometimes several hours of tracking, where you follow the deer
(watching the blood trail) until you are able to get a second, clean
shot or until the deer bleeds to death; or

Mezmerize the deer in a bright light so it feezes and you can kill it
with one clean shot?

Unless you oppose eating meat all together, I can't see why a clean shot
to kill an animal is inhumane, compared to all of the OTHER ways in
which animals are killed for human consumption.

Just like the Indians that ran buffalo off of cliffs in blind rushes to
survive was also wrong. If PETA had been around back in those days the
Indians would not have been allowed to employ this practice. They would
have had to kill their buffalo one by one and not be able to resort to any
tricks or bright lights either.

Yet another myth about Native Americans . . .
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"Alt/Ctrl/Del" Alt/Ctrl/Del@________------------{{{{ }}}}.net wrote:



Dragon Lady, you are kind of a mean person. I don't know why you like to
call people names, but you hurt my feelings. All I was doing was talking
about the way I felt about things. You are not very tolerant of others
though are you? I bet you hate all kinds and types of people because
they
are not like you.

Now here I was all excited about getting online and coming to the
newsgroup to read some posts and try to enjoy myself a little bit, and
you
call me an idiot. That is just cruel. I am not happy anymore and I
don't
feel good. I am not used to being personally insulted because I am always
nice to people and don't give them a reason to do that kind of thing.

Since it IS unlike me to even almost call someone names, I tried to go
back and read your previous posts, just in case I had you confused with
someone else. For some reason, my newsreader won't let me access posts
I've already marked as "read" today, so I can't.

Fortunately, Nan did this for me. (Thanks, Nan.)

Your statement that you are "always nice to people" is, at best, just
plain silly. Since you clearly enjoy insulting people, I didn't think
it would bother you so much to be insulted back.


And who would not think you are talking from personal experience when you
make a statement like this and use the word "WE":

I suspect this is what we called shining deer? (Going out with bright
lights at night -- catch the deer in the lights so they freeze -- makes
them easy to shoot.)

The "we" referred to folks in Northern Wisconsin/Northern Minnesota --
that's what we called it. We didn't all DO it.

And even rereading what I wrote, I think it was a pretty amazing feat to
jump to the conclusion that, just because I grew up knowing what it was
called, I must have done it.


It sure sounded like you were talking about yourself. And by the way, it
doesn't matter if the people who do this are doing it to eat or not, this
is not the way to do it. It is inhumane. Don't trick them and kill
them.

Think about it -- assuming you need the meat -- which is more inhumane:

Shoot at a deer on the run, risking merely injuring it, which will
result in sometimes several hours of tracking, where you follow the deer
(watching the blood trail) until you are able to get a second, clean
shot or until the deer bleeds to death; or

Mezmerize the deer in a bright light so it feezes and you can kill it
with one clean shot?

Unless you oppose eating meat all together, I can't see why a clean shot
to kill an animal is inhumane, compared to all of the OTHER ways in
which animals are killed for human consumption.

Just like the Indians that ran buffalo off of cliffs in blind rushes to
survive was also wrong. If PETA had been around back in those days the
Indians would not have been allowed to employ this practice. They would
have had to kill their buffalo one by one and not be able to resort to
any
tricks or bright lights either.

Yet another myth about Native Americans . . .
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care


No DragonLady, I am not opposed to eating meat. I do find the theory that
you support about blinding a deer with a high powered light and then
shooting it is somehow more humane than a regular shot to be kind of shaky.
You know, many times, only the weaker and even sometimes sick deer are the
ones that get killed first. So in a way, this helps keep the deer herd
strong and will help it to thrive even more than it does now.

For a bunch of so called hunters to go out at night and blind an animal and
then shoot it is really more terrifying for the animal before it meets its
death. At least with a bullet in daylight, they are not freaked out and
scared when they die. It is just like, they are there eating some grass one
second, and the next they are dead if you get a good shot, they are not put
through some bizarre high powered light ritual that lets them know something
bad is about to happen to them.

And just as many deer are not shot cleanly and do not die quickly even when
they are lit up like a bulls-eye. It really just depends on the hunter. If
you are a good deer hunter, you do not need a light at night to kill a deer
with one shot and drop it on the spot. So all of that stuff about having a
light on a deer makes it easier to kill does not stand up in the "light" of
day.

And you state that buffalo being killed by Native Americans using a startle
and spread method or also called a blind rush is not a myth at all. Sure it
was on a lot of western's on TV but it was also true. Spots have been found
where thousands of buffalo remains have been found with Indian tools laying
around them where they came to get what they wanted and left the rest to
rot.

Alt

In article .net,
Alt/Ctrl/Del wrote:
snip for brevity

No DragonLady, I am not opposed to eating meat. I do find the theory that
you support about blinding a deer with a high powered light and then
shooting it is somehow more humane than a regular shot to be kind of shaky.
You know, many times, only the weaker and even sometimes sick deer are the
ones that get killed first. So in a way, this helps keep the deer herd
strong and will help it to thrive even more than it does now.

"Cliff: Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only
move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is
the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This
natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general
speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular
killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain
can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake
of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks
the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular
consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain
a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter
after a few beers. "

;-)

snip for brevity

And you state that buffalo being killed by Native Americans using a startle
and spread method or also called a blind rush is not a myth at all. Sure it
was on a lot of western's on TV but it was also true. Spots have been found
where thousands of buffalo remains have been found with Indian tools laying
around them where they came to get what they wanted and left the rest to
rot.

Hence "Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump", Alberta.
http://www.head-smashed-in.com/

HTH.

--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who

"NotMe" wrote in message
...
"Alt-Ctrl-Del"

| One man with his children that was in close proximity to the scene as it
| happened took off running like a lot of you would do dragging his kids
| behind him because he was scared she was going to throw his kids off of
| the bridge too. What a winner, hey, at least he saved the mothers life
by
| calling the police and they got there in time to keep her from jumping.
| Thank goodness for that anyway. I bet that man's children are wondering
| why their father didn't just leave them where they were at and not worry
| about them and try to keep the sweet lady from killing her children.

--

You're saying a man has an obligation to put his children at risk so he
can
play hero?

Not Me, how are you doing? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Put your
own children at risk to save the lives of 3 other innocent children. That
does not fly right with many people I know, but damn, to just see this woman
chunking each child off of the bridge and not try to stop her because he has
been brainwashed into believing that everyone except police officers have no
duty to help anyone is crazy.

She undressed each child one by one, now that took awhile to do that and she
could have been stopped by this particular man that states he saw what she
was doing and ran away to get help and he also said he was afraid for his
children. Afraid of what, that the woman would overpower him and throw him
over and then in a blind fury race a hundred feet away and get his kids
also? Come on, he was a coward that let little innocent children die
because he buys into the let the police do everything and I am not effectual
enough to ever do anything on my own theory.

A compassionate and caring man would have turned to his children and said, "
stay right here, I am going to help those little kids, don't try to follow
me, I mean it, stay here". And then he would have, if he wasn't paralyzed by
fear like this one was, gone and ripped those children away from her.
Knocked her down or knocked her out or incapacitated the sweet baby killer
in some way as to not offend her too badly and saved some little children.

Screw calling the police when you could do something and save a life, what a
prick this guy must have been. Call the police after you keep the 2nd and
3rd child from going over the edge and then they will just have one dead
baby to find instead of three, that way they will be happy for not having a
much work to do.

And it is not playing hero, it is being human. People like you are confused
that think if you don't call the police for freak and sudden occurrences
that happen like this and take just minutes to complete are playing a "hero"
if they try to stop it themselves. They are just playing " don't throw the
baby over the edge into the ocean you freaking nut". A person that did this
would not be out actively searching for something to do to be a "hero" as
you put it.

Alt

Alt

In article .net,
Alt/Ctrl/Del wrote:

Put your
own children at risk to save the lives of 3 other innocent children. That
does not fly right with many people I know, but damn, to just see this woman
chunking each child off of the bridge and not try to stop her because he has
been brainwashed into believing that everyone except police officers have no
duty to help anyone is crazy.

I've been in similar, though not as extreme situations as a
witness/bystander/first responder, and as a result know what I would
do. But UNTIL you are faced with a crisis situation you do NOT know
what you would do.

Some people collapse in the face of a crisis. I've learned over the
past 30 years (since I was in my mid teens and dealt with my first
serious injury situation) that I tend to react strongly to deal with
the crisis until I can see a resolution, and collapse (both physically
and emotionally) when the crisis is past.

That's me. Not anyone else.

I know and love people whose first response to a crisis is to panic.
There's no haranguing or berating I can do that will change that . It's
*JUST HOW THEY ARE*. In the cases under discussion in this thread, it's
very, very sad that the people who were on scene were not able to deal
with the situations in a way that saved the lives that were lost. But I
wasn't there. Judging people based on media reports is a mug's game,
and I strongly advise against it after working in newspapers for nearly
30 years.

As Aslan said: "You're not told anyone else's story, you're only told
your own."

My $0.02. YMMV. Park it and lock it, not responsible.

djb

--
------
My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is:
Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can. -- Frank Zappa

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
Alt/Ctrl/Del wrote:

Put your
own children at risk to save the lives of 3 other innocent children.
That
does not fly right with many people I know, but damn, to just see this
woman
chunking each child off of the bridge and not try to stop her because he
has
been brainwashed into believing that everyone except police officers have
no
duty to help anyone is crazy.

I've been in similar, though not as extreme situations as a
witness/bystander/first responder, and as a result know what I would
do. But UNTIL you are faced with a crisis situation you do NOT know
what you would do.

Some people collapse in the face of a crisis. I've learned over the
past 30 years (since I was in my mid teens and dealt with my first
serious injury situation) that I tend to react strongly to deal with
the crisis until I can see a resolution, and collapse (both physically
and emotionally) when the crisis is past.

That's me. Not anyone else.

I know and love people whose first response to a crisis is to panic.
There's no haranguing or berating I can do that will change that . It's
*JUST HOW THEY ARE*. In the cases under discussion in this thread, it's
very, very sad that the people who were on scene were not able to deal
with the situations in a way that saved the lives that were lost. But I
wasn't there. Judging people based on media reports is a mug's game,
and I strongly advise against it after working in newspapers for nearly
30 years.

I agree Dave, many people do collapse and are frozen mentally and physically
during emergency situations, but many also do not. The thing is, many
people that could do something and do not freeze up and lock up are taught
not to do anything, to not try to help, but to use a telephone to call for
help.

And others ridicule people that do try to help someone in harm's way by
calling them a want to be hero or an attention monger. I feel that many of
the people that insult individual's that try to help someone in danger learn
this behavior from a culture of "don't do anything, let the proper
authorities" deal with it. So, what I would like to know, and of course I
do not know this, but it would be interesting. And that is, did the man
that witnessed the killing of the children who was with his children simply
not act out of fear, true incapacitating fear, or a false sense that he
needed to contact the police?

Because if he was actually capable of physically making his body move
towards the scene of death and actually do something to thwart it but chose
not to just so he could call the police, that is pretty screwed up. But
that is exactly what the police would prefer that you do. I suppose that
they imagine that they truly are the only one's on earth that can help
someone in that kind of situation and that is why they demand that you do
nothing and just call them. But, unfortunately, and what I am sure this man
that let it continue realizes now is that the police were of no use, it was
him that should have acted. I bet he is saying now, I was there, the police
were not and they couldn't get there fast enough, why didn't I do something.

So this could be a case of the police and their policies the nation over
being responsible for these children's deaths. If the man felt that he was
not allowed to help, that would be something altogether different than just
being a cowardly person whose mind cripples itself and does not work
properly when faced with something like this.

Alt

In article . net,
Alt/Ctrl/Del wrote:

So this could be a case of the police and their policies the nation over
being responsible for these children's deaths. If the man felt that he was
not allowed to help, that would be something altogether different than just
being a cowardly person whose mind cripples itself and does not work
properly when faced with something like this.

I'll repeat: "You're not told anyone else's story, you're only told
your own."

djb

--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. "
-- Gene Spafford, 1992

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 05:48:28 GMT, "Alt-Ctrl-Del"
AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿÞ wrote:

I believe if I were in that situation, I would have sacrificed my life if
it had to be that way to save the child. If I did not know how to swim,
and I knew that I could perhaps jump in and throw the child up on the bank
even if I knew beforehand that I would die, I would have done it.

Then maybe the child would have been shocked enough to cry loudly and
attract attention or crawl and climb away. A childs life is worth so much
more than an adults. A lot of adults today are self-centered, vain, all
about myself type people that would watch the little baby drown and say; I
might die if I try to save the child, so I will just let the baby die.


Just to play the other side: A child's life is not more precious than
an adult's. The adult can have more children, the child cannot
produce more adults.

By your logic, the parent should die saving the child even if the
child then has no means of support and will soon die of neglect. Very
curious reasoning. Sometimes logic is cold and the logic of survival
is the coldest of all.

Which obligation is the greater? To die trying to save someone else
and leave your own children parentless or to summon help and be there
to keep your own kids alive? These are never easy decisions, the
universe is cold and cares not a whit who lives or dies.

On a less "getting me torched for my opinion" level, life-saving
experts will tell you that jumping in after someone is the absolute
last resort. If you youself cannot swim it's pretty much out of the
question and borders on criminally stupid since someone will now have
to rescue two of you. You won't be able to control your own bouyancy
enough to get over to the kid, grab a fighting, kicking and screming
and clawing frightened child who, if bigger than a very small toddler
will immediately attempt climb on top of you and thereby push you
under the water...you can't swim, remember? and toss him or her
anywhere with any sort of accuracy unless you are within about 3
inches of the bank.

You are floating, when you push the child up, you go down...you
wouldn't so much as throw the kid anywhere as shove your own head
under water to no great effect.

Try it in a swimming pool sometime with someone nearby who can pull
you out. Get into a relaxed float if you can, then try and pick up
something weighing twenty pounds that is also floating..as you hoist
it, you sink. There *is* a way to do it but you need to know how to
swim first. Youir body will betray you and your own panic reactions
will set in as your head goes under water and you yourself are faced
with drowning.

Better you shoudl find a rope, a pole, something to hook the kid with,
find a phone and call the professionals, hell try praying, there are
people who think that works. That current is both probably faster
than you know and the water is almost certainly muchcolder than you
expect.

There is a time when it is both honorable and even necesary to die
trying to rescue others, it is not the time when it is a foolish
effort and you yourself will need rescuing or die pointlessly.

Jim P.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:46:05 GMT, "Alt-Ctrl-Del"
AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿÞ wrote:


"Marcio" wrote in message
.. .
"Alt-Ctrl-Del" AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿÞ wrote:

But you see, for the other type of people, the question never arises in
the mind, they act instinctively without regard to their own life
because
they have not developed in the same way you have. Compassion rules our
lives and not cold decision making skills. We act on impulse not
reason.
Does that make your point for you, myself saying we act on impulse and
not
reason? It makes my point for me too. That is two different kinds of
minds functioning in different ways. Which one is more advanced? Of
course you will consider yourself to be because you think that way, I
don't think you hold a candle to us.

He/she would not be alone. It's a widely held view that what
separates humans from animals is the ability to rationalize and make
intelligent or dumb decisions instead of purely instictive ones.
Animals act on instinct alone. Humans do not. And even wild animals
would not sacrifice their own lives to save another animal's offspring
as that would go against their instinct.

But frankly, I don't think what you describe is acting on impulse and
instinct. According to your view, if you see a child climbing a
balcony of a 20th floor apartment, and the child loses his balance and
falls, you would jump out the building on impulse out of love,
forgetting that you don't know how to fly. That's just your stupid
mind overriding your natural instincts. Even animals would not do
something that dumb.

Marcio, you are talking degrees of difference here. Of course a person
would not try to fly out of a building to save a falling child. That
would be certain and undeniable death. Comparing a person that does not
know how to swim with one who does not know how to fly is just a
philosophical argument that you have proposed to attempt to make your
point.

One this planet, and in the real world, not just in the world of the mind
and little scenarios that you can cook up to try to validate your point of
view, many people that can't swim have saved individuals from drowning.
It has happened time and time over and again and again. I don't think you
could tell me of one person that has grew wings and flew to save someone
falling out of a building.


Actually, I will wager that damn few if any non-swimmers have rescued
someone from a "rain-swollen" river by jumping in. You are invited to
supply citations to the contrary.

Even military rescue swimmers don't just jump in unless there is no
other way to get someone out of the water.

Every, and I mean every life-saving course you will attend will tell
you that even for highly-trained swimmners, jumping in is the absolute
last resort.

Non-swimmers don't stand a chance. I used to hold an advanced swmming
and beginning water life-saving and intermediate first-aid
certificates, I have some reason to know whereof I speak.

And don't *ever* assume that just because someone is not a parent that
they might niot have risked their life to save a stranger..don't you
*ever* say that again. I have done so before and I will do so again
if the need is there but I will not throw my own life away if there is
no hope of my being able to effect the rescue.

I have an obligation to be alive to care for my wife and will not
throw it away on a fool's chance. To paraphrase Robert Heinlein
slightly: It is both my honor and my duty to die saving my wife and
family if need be. And I for one will not stop to count the cost to
myself in that extreme but one's moral duty to one's family is always
stronger than the duty owed a stranger, I don't even think there's a
religion that teaches otherwise.

I doubt very much I would risk my life to pull a drunk driver out of a
burning wreck in an accident they caused provided I knw for sure they
caused it. To give one possibility, not all lives are worth saving.


Jim P.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:45:07 -0700, Abe wrote:

Standing along the bank of a rain-swollen creek, Susan Newkirk
watched as the 2-year-old boy tumbled in and was swept away.
She couldn't swim. Instead of diving into the raging waters
after her friend's son, she yelled to his father for help.
The little boy died.
So, now that we've exhausted the arguing over the original situation,
let's try this.

What if the creek was a 5 foot deep swimming pool?


It just doesn't scan: "..standing along the bank of a rain-swollen
swimming pool...."

How do you stand "along:" something anyway...you stand "at" or "on"
somethign or even "alongside".

wrote in message ...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:45:07 -0700, Abe wrote:

Standing along the bank of a rain-swollen creek, Susan Newkirk
watched as the 2-year-old boy tumbled in and was swept away.
She couldn't swim. Instead of diving into the raging waters
after her friend's son, she yelled to his father for help.
The little boy died.
So, now that we've exhausted the arguing over the original situation,
let's try this.

What if the creek was a 5 foot deep swimming pool?


It just doesn't scan: "..standing along the bank of a rain-swollen
swimming pool...."

How do you stand "along:" something anyway...you stand "at" or "on"
somethign or even "alongside".

Indeed a "5 foot deep swimming pool" and a rain swollen, raging stream
are two entirely different realities, however, it seems to me that there is
something beyond this surface fact that is troubling everyone.
What is it? Why not discuss 'that'?

Btw, it is not a fact that an adult woman can have another child! So as
an argument in defense of tossing away the child, that doesn't wash. That may
or may not be the case, nonetheless, the loss of a child is usually traumatic.

What caused the interest in this case to begin with? I suggest to you that
it is the seeming injustice to an apparent innocent?

Helen

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:46:05 GMT, "Alt-Ctrl-Del"
AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿÞ wrote:


"Marcio" wrote in message
. ..
"Alt-Ctrl-Del" AltCtrlDel@äää.òÕÿÿÿÿÞ wrote:

But you see, for the other type of people, the question never arises
in
the mind, they act instinctively without regard to their own life
because
they have not developed in the same way you have. Compassion rules
our
lives and not cold decision making skills. We act on impulse not
reason.
Does that make your point for you, myself saying we act on impulse and
not
reason? It makes my point for me too. That is two different kinds of
minds functioning in different ways. Which one is more advanced? Of
course you will consider yourself to be because you think that way, I
don't think you hold a candle to us.

He/she would not be alone. It's a widely held view that what
separates humans from animals is the ability to rationalize and make
intelligent or dumb decisions instead of purely instictive ones.
Animals act on instinct alone. Humans do not. And even wild animals
would not sacrifice their own lives to save another animal's offspring
as that would go against their instinct.

But frankly, I don't think what you describe is acting on impulse and
instinct. According to your view, if you see a child climbing a
balcony of a 20th floor apartment, and the child loses his balance and
falls, you would jump out the building on impulse out of love,
forgetting that you don't know how to fly. That's just your stupid
mind overriding your natural instincts. Even animals would not do
something that dumb.

Marcio, you are talking degrees of difference here. Of course a person
would not try to fly out of a building to save a falling child. That
would be certain and undeniable death. Comparing a person that does not
know how to swim with one who does not know how to fly is just a
philosophical argument that you have proposed to attempt to make your
point.

One this planet, and in the real world, not just in the world of the
mind
and little scenarios that you can cook up to try to validate your point
of
view, many people that can't swim have saved individuals from drowning.
It has happened time and time over and again and again. I don't think
you
could tell me of one person that has grew wings and flew to save someone
falling out of a building.


Actually, I will wager that damn few if any non-swimmers have rescued
someone from a "rain-swollen" river by jumping in. You are invited to
supply citations to the contrary.

Even military rescue swimmers don't just jump in unless there is no
other way to get someone out of the water.

Every, and I mean every life-saving course you will attend will tell
you that even for highly-trained swimmners, jumping in is the absolute
last resort.

Non-swimmers don't stand a chance. I used to hold an advanced swmming
and beginning water life-saving and intermediate first-aid
certificates, I have some reason to know whereof I speak.

And don't *ever* assume that just because someone is not a parent that
they might niot have risked their life to save a stranger..don't you
*ever* say that again. I have done so before and I will do so again
if the need is there but I will not throw my own life away if there is
no hope of my being able to effect the rescue.

I have an obligation to be alive to care for my wife and will not
throw it away on a fool's chance. To paraphrase Robert Heinlein
slightly: It is both my honor and my duty to die saving my wife and
family if need be. And I for one will not stop to count the cost to
myself in that extreme but one's moral duty to one's family is always
stronger than the duty owed a stranger, I don't even think there's a
religion that teaches otherwise.

I doubt very much I would risk my life to pull a drunk driver out of a
burning wreck in an accident they caused provided I knw for sure they
caused it. To give one possibility, not all lives are worth saving.




Well Jim, what if that drunk driver had been forced at gun point to drink
a pint of whiskey in 25 minutes? Then what if that same drunk was forced
at the end of a gun barrel to drive that car Jim. Would his or her life
then be worth saving if that person were in a burning wreck Jim? Huh,
would it Jim?

Alt

wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:45:07 -0700, Abe wrote:

Standing along the bank of a rain-swollen creek, Susan Newkirk
watched as the 2-year-old boy tumbled in and was swept away.
She couldn't swim. Instead of diving into the raging waters
after her friend's son, she yelled to his father for help.
The little boy died.

So, now that we've exhausted the arguing over the original situation,
let's try this.

What if the creek was a 5 foot deep swimming pool?

It just doesn't scan: "..standing along the bank of a rain-swollen
swimming pool...."

How do you stand "along:" something anyway...you stand "at" or "on"
somethign or even "alongside".

Complaining about journalists' vocabulary or grammar is about as productive as
complaining about their spelling.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ====================
"Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft[0], recently referred to LINUX as a
cancer. Unsurprisingly, that's incorrect; LINUX was released on August
25th, 1991 and is therefore a virgo." -- Kevin L