🚀 go-pugleaf

On 8 Oct 1999 04:36:39 GMT, lraszewski@loyola.edu (L. Ross Raszewski)
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 21:04:38 GMT, Keith A. Glass <salgak@erols.com> wrote:
>>Fine.  As a parent, you watch your kids, and I'll watch mine.  But I'm
>>really getting tired of the Government, be it Federal, State, or
>>Local, trying to play parent for me.  ** My Wife and I** will decide
>>what my children are exposed to, not some Congresscritter, or worse,
>>some faceless bureaucrat from the Department of Redundancy Department.
>>. . . 

>You are a rare and vigilent parent, who should well be praised.  

No, I am a **RESPONSIBLE** parent, who knows what his responsibilities
are. . . 

>Legal protection becomes nessecary only because parents of your sort are
>rare; 

That is not my problem: that's theirs.  And it's NOT the Government's
problem to solve. . . 

>most have neither the time nor the resources to fill the parental role well 

Which really means, they shouldn't have bothered to become parents in
the first place, but then I've always been in favor of the basic
policy of "Stupid People Shouldn't Breed". . . where by "Stupid", I
mean that they aren't up to the responsibilities of the job . . 

>While I don't support the specifics of any "government nannying"
>laws that have been put forward, I do support at the least the spirit that
>the children should not be disadvantaged because their parents are not
>doing their duty.

And why are such children disadvantaged by unsupervised Net access ??

--
Keith A. Glass, Techno-JOAT at Large
SysAdmin / Network Engineer / Systems Engineer /
Assimilated by the Borg
Saved by the code of the Penguin