More details about this story can be found here: http://www.telegram.com/article/20070814/NEWS/708140455/1116
The boy's cousin did the dirty deed. Here's how to contact the boy's mom to advise her on parenting skills: LAURA JANCURA 176 BARRE PAXTON RD RUTLAND, MA 01543 (508) 886-2994 Richard > On 8/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Except the one *you* made: > <SNIP> >> You want to drag in references to things not mentioned in the article, >> expect >> to be asked where they came from... > > I was being facetious, silly. I believe the mother SHOULD have > received a ticket since SHE was the one that screwed up. I didn't > think I would need to explain that. And is there a ticket you can get > for being a bad parent? I wasn't aware of one but, hey, who knows. If > there are they're used far too sparingly. > >> > I have two children who are not allowed to "run off". How many >> > children do you have and how often do they "run off"? >> >> The question isn't how well behaved *my* kids are, but what people who >> have >> to deal with *other* people's kids should accept as reality. Yes, >> *your* >> kids may be "stand at military attention and speak only when directy >> addressed". > > Right. Because it takes a village to raise a child. !!!!! Holy crap > dude, I'm the only one responsible for my children and their actions, > NO ONE ELSE. If your kid breaks my windows playing baseball, for > instance, I'm not going to take my issue to him, I'm going to take it > to YOU - the Parent. My job is not to be responsible for the world's > kids, only my own. > > >> >> But the store manager has to allow for the fact that there are *many* >> different >> parenting styles and not all of the kids that come into the store will >> be >> perfectly behaved. > > This is why black children often do so poorly in school. You keep > playing to the lowest common denominator - I'll maintain my hope for > the human race. > > Let me ask you, is that manager supposed to allow for a certain amount > of damage done to his store by maladjusted teens? I mean, is the > manager/store supposed to pay for product that some kid breaks? Is he > suppose to "allow for" that kind of incident and budget accordingly? I > think not. If one of my kids breaks something in a store I fully > expect to be responsible for paying for it. I suppose you'd whine that > the store was irresponsible for leaving products within 6 feet of any > child's reach? > > >> > And this is the problem with the legal system these days. People like >> > you gave us the warning signs on everything from folding ladders to >> > McDonald's coffee. Excuse me if I find my intelligence insulted by >> > such things - and feel sorry for the company, not the idiot who won a >> > lawsuit for being stupid. >> >> Given the number of people who look at that McDonald's suit and ask >> "Geez, >> how much damage can a cup of coffee do that she's entitled to all that >> money?" >> a lot of people *don't* realize the severe burn hazard associated with >> water >> at that temperature. >> >> The average person will say "Well, yeah, it's *hot*". They realize that >> it >> can probably cause a first degree burn. Most people don't realize it >> can even >> cause 3rd degree burns. > > I had no doubt you would defend such warnings. > >> >> > As for harm, I have no doubt this boy is now scarred for life >> emotionally. >> >> So what? He learned his lesson, and won't do it again. By your >> standpoint, >> that's OK, because we didn't make anybody have to look out for that kid >> except the parents. > > Uhgg... 1) What's my "standpoint"? 2) I'm NOT going to spell this out > for you. I would suggest you re-read my comments in the context of > what they're a response to. Then try reading it with the idea that I > might be injecting some amount of levity into the discussion. > > >> >> > Yeah, no brainer. Just what I want on my safe - any safe - the ability >> > to simply pull on the handle and have it open. What a boon to thieves >> > that would be. >> >> Yeah. That thief locked *inside* your gun cabinet finds that *inside* >> handle >> really convenient. Of course, if the thief is *outside* the locked >> cabinet, >> and the guns are *inside*, unloaded, and the cabinet securely locked, >> that >> inside handle isn't going to help much. > > Oh, a HANDLE INSIDE the safe, which would somehow over-ride the lock > on the outside of the safe allowing it to turn and open. I suppose its > doable, maybe, that's not my field of expertise. I would bet that it > adds a lot to the expense of the cabinet however, and since they're > already pricey it may also prevent some poor slob from being able to > afford one and thereby saving his stupid kid from shooting himself or > shooting his friend and winding up in prison his whole life, unable to > repopulate.... wait a minute. I'm a convert! Lets do it!! > > >> >> Not that it matters to you, your guns are all sitting around the house >> loaded, >> where the thief doesn't have to worry about a locked cabinet. > > "Beware of attack cats" sign is prominently affixed to my front door. > _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
