ForumGarden

spot;1359182 wrote: So the pool was a disaster waiting to happen then, green scum or not.

I gave the best answer some posts ago. Fill the damn things in if there's any chance an unskilled child might ever get to it. If you want to keep the pool, invest in an electric fence and some Alsatians to patrol the grounds. Nobody can possibly keep a toddler under continual guard, year in year out.


so your saying parents cannot watch a 2 year old while in a pool?

you need to be a parent to understand just how simple it is spot.

Each year, thousands of children drown in backyard swimming pools and in small kiddie pools.



Safety Tips

* Check with your town or city to find out the rules for putting up a fence around your pool.

* Build a fence and a gate that will keep children away from your pool.

* Keep the gate locked at all times.

* ALWAYS have an adult watching children in and around the pool.

* Children under the age of 3 and children who cannot swim must wear a life jacket or PFD (personal floatation device).

* Send children to swimming and water safety lessons.

* Make sure lifesaving equipment and a first aid kit are handy.

* Take a course on pool safety, first aid and lifesaving skills (such as CPR).

* Have emergency phone numbers listed at the telephone closest to the pool.

* Make sure toys, garden furniture and tools are not near the pool fence. Children can climb up on these things to get into the pool.

______________________________________________________________________

- ALWAYS have an adult watching children in and around the pool.

- Children under the age of 3 and children who cannot swim must wear a life

jacket or PFD (personal flotation device)



well what do you know.....I was right:rolleyes:

Odie;1359189 wrote: well what do you know.....I was right:rolleyes:Actually, if you check the thread and engage your brain you'll find that list says what I said.

* Build a fence and a gate that will keep children away from your pool.

* Keep the gate locked at all times.

Life jackets do very little for toddlers who wander off and get to places they're not meant to reach.

Many pool owners have a fenced in pool. Dosen't stop a curious child - they climb.

Many drown because the child climbed over into the pool - the gate was left open/ unlocked or the pool isn't fenced in at all.

It all comes down to the parent watching the child.

Today the child was missing for @ 1/2 hour !!! Many times the home owner did not maintain the pool & the water is tooooooo dark to see what's in there.

How ugly is that..

Pure lazy.

I don't care if the child is sewed into a life jacket or put on a leash - this has to stop.

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1359191 wrote: Many pool owners have a fenced in pool. Dosen't stop a curious child - they climb.

Many drown because the child climbed over into the pool - the gate was left open/ unlocked or the pool isn't fenced in at all.

It all comes down to the parent watching the child.

Today the child was missing for @ 1/2 hour !!! Many times the home owner did not maintain the pool & the water is tooooooo dark to see what's in there.

How ugly is that..

Pure lazy.

I don't care if the child is sewed into a life jacket or put on a leash - this has to stop.

Patsy


well said!

It's all very unhealthy, this never let a child out of your sight tosh. The answer is to provide a safe environment for it, not prevent it from exploring independently to the limit of its capacity.

If a fence doesn't stop a toddler then it's an inadequate fence.

If a gate's left unlocked then it's a dangerous environment.

If either's possible - and I reckon it's inevitable, personally - then backfill the pool rather than attempt to mollycoddle the child. You'll only end up with a rubbish child if you start down that cotton-wool route.

spot;1359193 wrote: It's all very unhealthy, this never let a child out of your sight tosh. The answer is to provide a safe environment for it, not prevent it from exploring independently to the limit of its capacity.

If a fence doesn't stop a toddler then it's an inadequate fence.

If a gate's left unlocked then it's a dangerous environment.

If either's possible - and I reckon it's inevitable, personally - then backfill the pool rather than attempt to mollycoddle the child. You'll only end up a rubbish child if you start down that cotton-wool route.


what gets me is fences only have to be 4 feet high....any kid can climb over that.

we made ours 5 feet and the gate was locked at all times.

Odie - interesting you'd mention the 4 ft. requirement

but if the pool is open to public - meaning on a corner lot or Golf Course the fence has to be 6 ft. tall.

If a home owner has a pool - law requirements are 4 ft. which is nothing for a toddler locked gate or not.

your smart to make your 5 ft. - our yard is completely fenced in - 6 ft. and half cement block & rod iron top.

It's already been 100 degrees here - I think the drowning count will be a sad sad year.

Odie thanks for the cocktail.. until next time.

Patsy

Night news came on and announced 16 drownings so far this year.

This toddler drowning today - the grandparents were there and the mother thought they were watching the toddler..!!

so glad there some one to blame.

16 and counting - and summer hasn't begun. that's one drowning a week..!!!!

16 that's alarming to me - and still the attitude is - it won't happen to me continues.

I will post the drownings - if I can tolerate the news the count - it sickens me.

Patsy

The idea that you're both more bothered by this than by the higher number of children in every age-group who die in car crashes appals me, frankly. To focus on the one regardless of the actual cost in lives is plain obsessive.

In children before their first birthday two die in the US each year in vehicle smashes compared to drownings. That, by the way, includes 63 drownings - how on earth does anyone manage to drown a child less than a year old? They didn't get over a 4 ft fence, that's for sure.

Between 1 and 4 years old it's 20% more likely to be in a vehicle smash, from 5 to 9 it's four times more likely to be on the road than in water, from 10 to 14 it goes up to five times more likely.

And because your Shock-TV concentrates on drownings and ignores driver error, you're more bothered by drownings? It's like watching a flock of sheep sometimes, talking to North Americans online, regardless of the topic. I'd venture to suggest that every one of the vehicle-related deaths is more avoidable than the drownings, more the result of carelessness than the drownings, more blameworthy than the drownings, but hey, who cares. We have to drive, the dead children are just part of the cost and a price worth paying.

So why do your TV networks concentrate on the drownings instead? Maybe pool franchises provide a smaller proportion of advertising revenue than car manufacturers, eh? It's only a guess.

Every single death on the road is avoidable. If you can't avoid killing someone with your car, stay home. The likelihood is you're a crash waiting to happen anyway, most people are lousy drivers. I wouldn't trust the average citizen to fill in my tax return, why would I trust him to control two tons of metal at forty miles an hour?

spot;1359201 wrote: The idea that you're both more bothered by this than by the higher number of children in every age-group who die in car crashes appals me, frankly. To focus on the one regardless of the actual cost in lives is plain obsessive.

In children before their first birthday two die in the US each year in vehicle smashes compared to drownings. That, by the way, includes 63 drownings - how on earth does anyone manage to drown a child less than a year old? They didn't get over a 4 ft fence, that's for sure.

Between 1 and 4 years old it's 20% more likely to be in a vehicle smash, from 5 to 9 it's four times more likely to be on the road than in water, from 10 to 14 it goes up to five times more likely.

And because your Shock-TV concentrates on drownings and ignores driver error, you're more bothered by drownings? It's like watching a flock of sheep sometimes, talking to North Americans online, regardless of the topic. I'd venture to suggest that every one of the vehicle-related deaths is more avoidable than the drownings, more the result of carelessness than the drownings, more blameworthy than the drownings, but hey, who cares. We have to drive, the dead children are just part of the cost and a price worth paying.

So why do your TV networks concentrate on the drownings instead? Maybe pool franchises provide a smaller proportion of advertising revenue than car manufacturers, eh? It's only a guess.

Every single death on the road is avoidable. If you can't avoid killing someone with your car, stay home. The likelihood is you're a crash waiting to happen anyway, most people are lousy drivers. I wouldn't trust the average citizen to fill in my tax return, why would I trust him to control two tons of metal at forty miles an hour?


So why is YOUR topic here about children falling from railings rather than car deaths? Rather than comparing drownings to car deaths, wouldn't a better/ fairer comparison for ill placed focus have been to compare drownings to falling from railings deaths?

flopstock;1359204 wrote: So why is YOUR topic here about children falling from railings rather than car deaths? Rather than comparing drownings to car deaths, wouldn't a better/ fairer comparison for ill placed focus have been to compare drownings to falling from railings deaths?


My topic was congratulating some Brit tourist for the catch of a lifetime. I'm not one to criticize topic drift but if someone drags that off to backyard drownings I reserve the option of raising an eyebrow and calling bullshit in my own particular way. Anyone owning a private pool is begging for a catastrophe.

spot;1359205 wrote: My topic was congratulating some Brit tourist for the catch of a lifetime. I'm not one to criticize topic drift but if someone drags that off to backyard drownings I reserve the option of raising an eyebrow and calling bullshit in my own particular way. Anyone owning a private pool is begging for a catastrophe.


Yet another child caught falling from a balcony

From the fourth floor, this time. Whoever designs railings round apartment balconies really ought to measure a one-year-old toddler sometime.


Well, so long as we are calling bullshit...........:yh_rotfl

flopstock;1359207 wrote: Well, so long as we are calling bullshit...........:yh_rotfl
I must be dense this morning. What point is that making?

You don't think the one-year-old toddler was caught? I do.

You don't think the one-year-old toddler got under the railing? I do. Look at the photo I provided and consider the gap between the railing and the balcony floor. It's a design problem.

Honest, I'm baffled - what part of my OP is bullshit, floppy? That was, I think, the third child-catch I'd commented on in the last year. One in a Paris street, one in a Mall off an escalator in, if I remember right, Istanbul, and then this one.

Patsy Warnick;1359196 wrote: Odie - interesting you'd mention the 4 ft. requirement

but if the pool is open to public - meaning on a corner lot or Golf Course the fence has to be 6 ft. tall.

If a home owner has a pool - law requirements are 4 ft. which is nothing for a toddler locked gate or not.

your smart to make your 5 ft. - our yard is completely fenced in - 6 ft. and half cement block & rod iron top.

It's already been 100 degrees here - I think the drowning count will be a sad sad year.

Odie thanks for the cocktail.. until next time.

Patsy


and the balloons!:yh_rotfl

Your lucky your yard is fenced it, it really helps for privacy.

hope you can cool off somewhere.

Patsy Warnick;1359199 wrote: Night news came on and announced 16 drownings so far this year.

This toddler drowning today - the grandparents were there and the mother thought they were watching the toddler..!!

so glad there some one to blame.

16 and counting - and summer hasn't begun. that's one drowning a week..!!!!

16 that's alarming to me - and still the attitude is - it won't happen to me continues.

I will post the drownings - if I can tolerate the news the count - it sickens me.

Patsy


imagine how the grandparents feel and where were they?

I have grand-kids and never would I leave their site.

how sad.

spot;1359201 wrote: The idea that you're both more bothered by this than by the higher number of children in every age-group who die in car crashes appals me, frankly. To focus on the one regardless of the actual cost in lives is plain obsessive.

In children before their first birthday two die in the US each year in vehicle smashes compared to drownings. That, by the way, includes 63 drownings - how on earth does anyone manage to drown a child less than a year old? They didn't get over a 4 ft fence, that's for sure.

Between 1 and 4 years old it's 20% more likely to be in a vehicle smash, from 5 to 9 it's four times more likely to be on the road than in water, from 10 to 14 it goes up to five times more likely.

And because your Shock-TV concentrates on drownings and ignores driver error, you're more bothered by drownings? It's like watching a flock of sheep sometimes, talking to North Americans online, regardless of the topic. I'd venture to suggest that every one of the vehicle-related deaths is more avoidable than the drownings, more the result of carelessness than the drownings, more blameworthy than the drownings, but hey, who cares. We have to drive, the dead children are just part of the cost and a price worth paying.

So why do your TV networks concentrate on the drownings instead? Maybe pool franchises provide a smaller proportion of advertising revenue than car manufacturers, eh? It's only a guess.

Every single death on the road is avoidable. If you can't avoid killing someone with your car, stay home. The likelihood is you're a crash waiting to happen anyway, most people are lousy drivers. I wouldn't trust the average citizen to fill in my tax return, why would I trust him to control two tons of metal at forty miles an hour?


I find this amusing, you now include Canadians in your American rants. Are you including Mexico also?

spot;1359201 wrote: The idea that you're both more bothered by this than by the higher number of children in every age-group who die in car crashes appals me, frankly. To focus on the one regardless of the actual cost in lives is plain obsessive.

In children before their first birthday two die in the US each year in vehicle smashes compared to drownings. That, by the way, includes 63 drownings - how on earth does anyone manage to drown a child less than a year old? They didn't get over a 4 ft fence, that's for sure.

Between 1 and 4 years old it's 20% more likely to be in a vehicle smash, from 5 to 9 it's four times more likely to be on the road than in water, from 10 to 14 it goes up to five times more likely.

And because your Shock-TV concentrates on drownings and ignores driver error, you're more bothered by drownings? It's like watching a flock of sheep sometimes, talking to North Americans online, regardless of the topic. I'd venture to suggest that every one of the vehicle-related deaths is more avoidable than the drownings, more the result of carelessness than the drownings, more blameworthy than the drownings, but hey, who cares. We have to drive, the dead children are just part of the cost and a price worth paying.

So why do your TV networks concentrate on the drownings instead? Maybe pool franchises provide a smaller proportion of advertising revenue than car manufacturers, eh? It's only a guess.

Every single death on the road is avoidable. If you can't avoid killing someone with your car, stay home. The likelihood is you're a crash waiting to happen anyway, most people are lousy drivers. I wouldn't trust the average citizen to fill in my tax return, why would I trust him to control two tons of metal at forty miles an hour?


why were bothered with drownings? I think if you look back, this has been the topic.

Odie;1359234 wrote: why were bothered with drownings? I think if you look back, this has been the topic.


And what does the thread title have to do with backyard drownings, out of interest? Or does the thread title have no bearing on the thread's topic.

YZGI;1359229 wrote: I find this amusing, you now include Canadians in your American rants. Are you including Mexico also?


Me?

Rant?

spot;1359238 wrote: Me?

Rant?


Mindyou, they are very well written rants. Written rants, say that 10 times quickly.

YZGI;1359239 wrote: Mindyou, they are very well written rants.I write in the idiom I was exposed to as a child with, I presume, that moiety of vernacular accretions which has since crept unwittingly into my speech. You find me, Sir, as Samuel Johnson wrought and nature intended, an Englishman not without occasional prejudice but at bottom an honest observer of this sorry world we both inhabit, solicitous for your well-being and prepared (or even, should the topic have significance, willing) to correct any blackguard who presumes to infect this humble corner of the Interweb with his (or, as in this case, her) heinous error or pitiable dross.

spot;1359240 wrote: I write in the idiom I was exposed to as a child with, I presume, that moiety of vernacular accretions which has since crept unwittingly into my speech. You find me, Sir, as Samuel Johnson wrought and nature intended, an Englishman not without occasional prejudice but at bottom an honest observer of this sorry world we both inhabit, solicitous for your well-being and prepared (or even, should the topic have significance, willing) to correct any blackguard who presumes to infect this humble corner of the Interweb with his (or, as in this case, her) heinous error or pitiable dross.


Too put this in an American vernacular."I reckon so."

Spot

Are you stating the railings are installed wrong - incorrect height? And the parents in this scenario were where?

What's the point to this thread?

I'm sorry I interferred with the nature of this thread. I related a child falling to my daily news of a child drowning not the stats of deaths.

If a child is at home - a home should be the safe place.

I was under the impression all opinions were welcome & not criticized - real encouraging.

Thank You for your input Spot and I find your comment appalling & rude.

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1359244 wrote: Spot

Are you stating the railings are installed wrong - incorrect height? And the parents in this scenario were where?

What's the point to this thread?

I'm sorry I interferred with the nature of this thread. I related a child falling to my daily news of a child drowning not the stats of deaths.

If a child is at home - a home should be the safe place.

I was under the impression all opinions were welcome & not criticized - real encouraging.

Thank You for your input Spot and I find your comment appalling & rude.

Patsy


indeed it was Patsy.

I agree, since when were opinions not welcome?

I know all of mine were rudely criticized.

Patsy Warnick;1359244 wrote:

I was under the impression all opinions were welcome & not criticized - real encouraging.

Thank You for your input Spot and I find your comment appalling & rude.

Patsy


That, surely, is an indication of your lack of recall rather than any rudeness on my part. I welcomed your thread hijack. Floppy mocked me earlier today for taking a thread on backyard drownings toward children being caught from unsafe balconies, describing (as far as I can tell) my description of the particular balcony as "bullshit". I would not otherwise have brought her attention to the original thread topic, heroically catching children from balconies.

I do wish you'd have the balls to address my criticism of your complete and oblivious lack of concern at children dying at the hands of drivers, in far larger numbers. Your TV points you at who to vilify and sure enough, there you are vilifying. It is, as I'm sure I've suggested previously, Orwellian on their part and mindless on yours.

spot;1359210 wrote: I must be dense this morning. What point is that making?

You don't think the one-year-old toddler was caught? I do.

You don't think the one-year-old toddler got under the railing? I do. Look at the photo I provided and consider the gap between the railing and the balcony floor. It's a design problem.

Honest, I'm baffled - what part of my OP is bullshit, floppy? That was, I think, the third child-catch I'd commented on in the last year. One in a Paris street, one in a Mall off an escalator in, if I remember right, Istanbul, and then this one.


Here's the bullshit spot. Your topic WAS NOT congratulating someone for catching a child. As you point out here, it was the third catch in the last year that you've commented on. And yet you attempt to take other members to task for being concerned about drownings? As compared to auto deaths? What is the comparison to death by fall from railing to auto deaths?

And to be quite honest, i find the whole premise of your rant to be a concoction of your own imagination. The IDEA that you find so appalling, is your own, so far as I can tell. But I could be wrong. Perhaps someone made a statement and deleted it espousing this IDEA you find so appalling?

BTW, I am outraged at the idea that you secretly supported the bush administration.

flopstock;1359259 wrote: Here's the bullshit spot. Your topic WAS NOT congratulating someone for catching a child.But it was, you dozy bugger, that's exactly why I started the thread, I'm full of admiration for the woman and astonished that what she did was even possible.

Spot

you did not indicate admiration for any woman on this thread.

and you criticize me and indicate lack of respect for my concerns of the multiple drownings.

There's no time to back step now...

Thanks

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1359263 wrote: Spot

you did not indicate admiration for any woman on this thread.

and you criticize me and indicate lack of respect for my concerns of the multiple drownings.

There's no time to back step now...

Thanks

Patsy


You're full of wind, Patsy. Nothing new there, then.

From my opening post: "Well held, Ms Beard of Worksop. That's a startling circumstance to suddenly have to get things exactly right with no practice. ".

Wow Spot what a statement. I'm so surprised with your intelligence how LOW you bend to prove your right.

"Nothing New There" what's meant by that?

Your full of wind - as Flop stated your full of Bullshit too.

Are you proud of yourself now?

Patsy

I think I have you summed up in my mind as someone utterly incapable of discussing facts, coherently or otherwise. or even recognizing them when they're presented. Did I, or did I not, compliment the person in the first post? If I did then my claim to have started the thread in order to congratulate her at least has plausibility. The fact that I say it's so ought to add weight to the notion. Will you listen? Will you hell as like. Hence the full of wind.

What's meant by "Nothing new there then"? What it says. I can't recall you ever behaving differently. My lack of respect extends to a lot more than your concerns over multiple drownings.

Spot

How can you not read the comments here in this thread and state I'm ignorant...!

How is it possible for you to open your mouth and not receive a punishment. Make yourself superior - Hitler did and we know what happened to him.

You do not know me - I never interfere with much here in FG. How dare you attack me.

Your nothing but a lonely ugly sole - I will speak - you & no one will stifle me. How dare you throw slander.

You have ran off too many FG members - are you so proud of yourself now.?

Patsy

Everything in that post is a prime example of the behavior I described. If you think I stated you're ignorant then that's one more example of your unwillingness to read what's actually written. Nothing I've written in this thread constitutes slander. You and Odie think you can team up and tag-bully anyone who disagrees with either of you, it seems to me. I'd much rather discuss the points raised in the thread. Sadly you plain outright refuse to even acknowledge anything you don't want to set your mind to. The problem's yours, it's certainly not mine. I, fortunately, don't have to live with it.

Of course the problem is mine and of course it's not you..! you don't have to live with anything but silence.

Sole - not mispelled - it's all the crap I have to scrape off.



What are the points in this thread? How you admire women? not. other opinions? not - read your comments.

Stay away from me Spot I was warned about you and your mouth with your Hitler authority.

Do you have a swimming pool - jump

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1359271 wrote: Do you have a swimming pool - jump

Patsy


Had I a swimming pool it would have a hard cover and a padlock, the key to which would either be in the pocket of the Responsible Adult on pool-watching duty or on my key-ring. I would not be in the business of unintentionally drowning children.

Had I a car, I would dispose of it. I would not be in the business of unintentionally dismembering children.

The pool is subject to my control, a car isn't. The one is only dangerous if misused, the other is dangerous.

spot;1359293 wrote: Had I a swimming pool it would have a hard cover and a padlock, the key to which would either be in the pocket of the Responsible Adult on pool-watching duty or on my key-ring. I would not be in the business of unintentionally drowning children.

Had I a car, I would dispose of it. I would not be in the business of unintentionally dismembering children.

The pool is subject to my control, a car isn't. The one is only dangerous if misused, the other is dangerous.


Someone hand the man a screw driver.

Patsy Warnick;1359263 wrote: Spot

you did not indicate admiration for any woman on this thread.

and you criticize me and indicate lack of respect for my concerns of the multiple drownings.

There's no time to back step now...

Thanks

Patsy


he has no admiration for certain women.....meaning you and I.

and when he is wrong? he will never admit it, he will just come up with more bullshit.:yh_wink

- he criticized and bullied me through all of my posts as well.:yh_shame



there is no stopping him...never has been....he's the only one here who has ever been aloud to say what he wants.:rolleyes:

Odie;1359337 wrote: there is no stopping him...never has been....he's the only one here who has ever been aloud to say what he wants.:rolleyes:I'm delighted you post on FG, Odie, and believe me it took me quite some effort to arrange things so you could come back after your last meltdown with Oscar.

I note that no member has been banned or infracted this year, too. Not any.

If you regard what I've written in this thread as bullshit that's your prerogative, of course. From my perspective it merely indicates your lack of perception. Were I asked, I'd say you've been contrary in a feeble and hopeless attempt to invalidate the facts I've offered.

I'm often wrong. I certainly have no fixed opinion on these matters. I'm far more interested in uncovering possible solutions.

Saying I'm the only one here who's ever been allowed to say what he wants will raise a smile on quite a few faces, I think.

And while I'm at it, "How can you not read the comments here in this thread and state I'm ignorant...!" belongs in someone's .sig as a constant reminder to proof-read before posting.

SPOT - Just stop - can't you just stop.

Should we all bow down to the great rightous one.

done - pull this thread - enough insulting - I've had & read enough..

Patsy

spot;1359340 wrote: I'm delighted you post on FG, Odie, and believe me it took me quite some effort to arrange things so you could come back after your last meltdown with Oscar.

I note that no member has been banned or infracted this year, too. Not any.

If you regard what I've written in this thread as bullshit that's your prerogative, of course. From my perspective it merely indicates your lack of perception. Were I asked, I'd say you've been contrary in a feeble and hopeless attempt to invalidate the facts I've offered.

I'm often wrong. I certainly have no fixed opinion on these matters. I'm far more interested in uncovering possible solutions.

Saying I'm the only one here who's ever been allowed to say what he wants will raise a smile on quite a few faces, I think.


what did it take to get me back compared to all the rest that were banned including oscar?

-everyone who was ever banned.....was aloud to come back.

I'm no different and I don't want to hear that I was.

you continually tear my posts apart, I just don't believe a member is not aloud to share what they feel or say what they like without being called names like a 4 year old.

I'm still waiting for spot to explain what post in this thread his rant about driving deaths was based on. It still appears to have been concocted from ideas only to be found in his own head and then attributed to other members who don't appear to have written anything of the sort.

Were posts deleted? I'm not seeing them.

flopstock;1359357 wrote: Were posts deleted? I'm not seeing them.You know, the only way a mod could fail to see deletions is if they were hard deletes, and the only person in this thread with sufficient access to hard delete posts is me. That's a pretty underhand suggestion of yours, given that the one overriding moderation rule on FG is never to hard delete anything and it's based on trust.

Go into a comparison of the statistics between death by drowning and by vehicle, which for every age group in the US is greater on the roads, and noting that US shock-TV screams about the minority but is silent about the other unless a shocking crime's involved, and wondering why people are so curiously subdued and unbothered by vehicle death, seemed natural given the oh-me oh-my lookit another dead kiddie poor mite trend the thread took. I've nothing against thread drift, if dead children is what people want to discuss instead of children miraculously snatched from the jaws of certain death then hell yes, let's talk about dead children instead. But at least talk about them with a degree of rationality and fewer backyard life jackets.

spot;1359360 wrote: You know, the only way a mod could fail to see deletions is if they were hard deletes, and the only person in this thread with sufficient access to hard delete posts is me. That's a pretty underhand suggestion of yours, given that the one overriding moderation rule on FG is never to hard delete anything and it's based on trust.

Go into a comparison of the statistics between death by drowning and by vehicle, which for every age group in the US is greater on the roads, and noting that US shock-TV screams about the minority but is silent about the other unless a shocking crime's involved, and wondering why people are so curiously subdued and unbothered by vehicle death, seemed natural given the oh-me oh-my lookit another dead kiddie poor mite trend the thread took. I've nothing against thread drift, if dead children is what people want to discuss instead of children miraculously snatched from the jaws of certain death then hell yes, let's talk about dead children instead. But at least talk about them with a degree of rationality and fewer backyard life jackets.


What makes you think we are curiously subdued about vehicular death of children? I think the point is that the drowning deaths can be more easily avoided than vehicular child deaths. We have a bigger country and travel more miles than most countries per capita which barring outlawing cars will have our child death rates higher than most. We are just as much outraged when a child dies in a car wreck and wasn't properly strapped in to help avoid injury. At least I am.

spot;1359360 wrote: You know, the only way a mod could fail to see deletions is if they were hard deletes, and the only person in this thread with sufficient access to hard delete posts is me. That's a pretty underhand suggestion of yours, given that the one overriding moderation rule on FG is never to hard delete anything and it's based on trust.






so why is it alright when you delete a post and not me

something is just not right here.:yh_mean

Odie;1359343 wrote: what did it take to get me back compared to all the rest that were banned including oscar?

-everyone who was ever banned.....was aloud to come back.

I'm no different and I don't want to hear that I was.

you continually tear my posts apart, I just don't believe a member is not aloud to share what they feel or say what they like without being called names like a 4 year old.


still waiting for an answer

Odie;1359363 wrote: still waiting for an answer


Why would I answer anything so full of error?

"what did it take to get me back compared to all the rest that were banned including oscar?" - that's an internal matter among the moderating team, you can't seriously be asking.

"-everyone who was ever banned.....was aloud to come back" - twaddle. It's all in your head, it's not reality, what's invariably been announced on FG has been entirely different to that. You just don't notice.

"I'm no different and I don't want to hear that I was" - I'm meant to comment on that? Good Lord.

"you continually tear my posts apart, I just don't believe a member is not aloud to share what they feel or say what they like without being called names like a 4 year old" - I frequently dismiss your half-baked notions as fatuous but nobody's ever stopped you posting them or deleted them, where's this allowed coming from? I don't believe a member is not allowed to share what they feel or say what they like either. It's not an issue. Saying your notions are half-baked is simple reasoned judgement on my part, it's not name-calling. I neither behave like a 4 year old, nor would I be so disrespectful toward a 4 year old. A 4 year old has a fair excuse for ignorance and fatuity.

The flopster's "still waiting for spot to explain what post in this thread his rant about driving deaths was based on", let's take a shot at it. The conversational essence of the thread has been:

1. Cor missis, great catch, glad that wern't me or I'd have fluffed it. You're a gem.

2. Balconies aren't the only danger, my TV keeps pushing backyard drownings into my breakfast room, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that it makes me miserable.

3. Your TV is luring you to switch on by feeding you shock stories. What a pity they can't do it where it would make more of a difference, and discuss traffic deaths. They need the advertising revenue I guess - it's a lesson in how to bribe a capitalist enterprise into collusion.

With, as you'll have gathered, a lot of irrelevance, which I for one consider unbelievable, around nobody under 18 ever goes into my backyard without a lifejacket strapped to them.

Odie;1359362 wrote: so why is it alright when you delete a post and not me

something is just not right here.:yh_mean


You're authorised to delete posts, by all means delete them.

I'm authorised to delete rather more posts than you are on the understanding that I stick to spam and absolutely nothing else. Flopstock's taken to mud-slinging in the hope some sticks, for some unfathomable reason of her own. I delete spam - which is by definition from non-members who register in order to post spam - and absolutely nothing else.

So, what's just not right here?

you always used to get so upset at me if I deleted a post, you would say sarcastic remarks to me.....and now its okay if you do.



oops there's oscar reading again.:yh_rotfl