Well, just to change the subject a bit, the generation I feel for is the ones that grew up during the Great Depression. That sounds like a really crappy time to have been growing up. I don't think too many of them look back on the good 'ol days.

That was my parents generation and despite some personal losses the depression also brought out the best in people... similar to the reaction of the Brits to the bombing of London.

I grew up poor, but it didn't seem to bother us, and probably made us much stronger. I see the good and the bad in every generation I've gone through.

It may have brought out the best in us, or it may have gotten rid of the worst in us. At any rate, it was a pretty unhappy time for most people. I remember my mother not liking to talk about that time, but when she did, the stories were brief but powerful. My grandmother was even less willing to talk about it. Kids then really didn't have a childhood. It was pretty much try to survive.

Our generation was one the first and it may be one of the last to have any kind of an extended childhood. Children nowadays really don't seem to get much of a childhood, just a restricted version of adulthood--high expectations, not much chance to explore the world around them and way too much adult reality thrust in their general direction.

It may have brought out the best in us, or it may have gotten rid of the worst in us. At any rate, it was a pretty unhappy time for most people. I remember my mother not liking to talk about that time, but when she did, the stories were brief but powerful. My grandmother was even less willing to talk about it. Kids then really didn't have a childhood. It was pretty much try to survive.

Our generation was one the first and it may be one of the last to have any kind of an extended childhood. Children nowadays really don't seem to get much of a childhood, just a restricted version of adulthood--high expectations, not much chance to explore the world around them and way too much adult reality thrust in their general direction.

That is one of the things I like about Thailand. I have the freedom to do stupid shit and then try to bail myself out ot the crap I got myself in. Today, North Americans, and especially Canadians, are molly coddled from cradle to grave. You seldom see kids today taking off right after breakfast and disappearing until night fall when they return dirty, hungry and tired. We did that every weekend and our folks never knew where we were. My folks had a few clues, but that was about all. I'd either be in the woods somewhere, down at the docks fishing, or wandering around the huge sandy bluffs off Point Grey in Vancouver. It would have taken about 25 separate search parties just to find me.

Some of the very things that people complain about Thailand are the very things that make it so endearing.

Since you chose to take this public, you know what my bias is? People who interpret my posts as if their interpretation were fact. Frankly, I have no bias against you whatsoever. Whatever grudge you may think I have is totally in your head. And to throw in the moderator card when it had not been played just goes to show that the grudge is clearly all yours. Its the internet, I hardly waste my time and energy harboring grudges over a moderation action. If you find me so offensive I suggest that you don't bother replying to my posts.

If you have no bias, then why did you swear (<deleted> IS swearing) at my post when all I was doing was agreeing with you?

If you have no bias, then why when I agree in essence, do you wag the dog to disagree?

It's the mods that insist on civility......"<deleted>" is not civil when directed at another member.

Never mind....I don't care.

I am asking for the discussion on who is biased/disagreeing/misinterpreting to stop. I think the exchange is not really suitable to the topic, which is an interesting one. If you want to continue a discourse, you can do so by PM. If you have a problem, please send me a PM.

Thanks.

Scott,

Moderator

I was subjected to a management course one time which was titled "I'm right, He is right" It was designed to help the older/younger generation effectively manage the youngsters (baby boomers). The first requirement was we filled out an extensive questionnaire, which was designed to determine management style, our attitude toward youth etc (we were told) Next we were put into work groups with the ages of the members seemly haphazardly chosen. (age varied from35 up to 60)

After 40 hours of class time and various evening projects, it was amazing to see the older manager's attitude toward the younger generation of the work force as well as fellow managers, their actions, language, desires etc become more tolerant. It also worked in the opposite direction as far as the younger becoming more tolerant of the older folks attitude.

I was probably more impressed with the fact that the original determination of group mix was based on Chronological age, not physical, as determined by the profiles we supplied. Although at the time I was junior to several managers by 20 years I was put in a younger group as the older generation dust bowl era example. The professor explained that the new generation attitude varies by a multitude of factors and we should not make the mistake of lumping them all together for good or bad and most definitely not by age. As has been mentioned several times the new generation haws been condemned throughout the history of the printed word, but there are some real gems out there also.

It may have brought out the best in us, or it may have gotten rid of the worst in us. At any rate, it was a pretty unhappy time for most people. I remember my mother not liking to talk about that time, but when she did, the stories were brief but powerful. My grandmother was even less willing to talk about it. Kids then really didn't have a childhood. It was pretty much try to survive.

Our generation was one the first and it may be one of the last to have any kind of an extended childhood. Children nowadays really don't seem to get much of a childhood, just a restricted version of adulthood--high expectations, not much chance to explore the world around them and way too much adult reality thrust in their general direction.

That is one of the things I like about Thailand. I have the freedom to do stupid shit and then try to bail myself out ot the crap I got myself in. Today, North Americans, and especially Canadians, are molly coddled from cradle to grave. You seldom see kids today taking off right after breakfast and disappearing until night fall when they return dirty, hungry and tired. We did that every weekend and our folks never knew where we were. My folks had a few clues, but that was about all. I'd either be in the woods somewhere, down at the docks fishing, or wandering around the huge sandy bluffs off Point Grey in Vancouver. It would have taken about 25 separate search parties just to find me.

Some of the very things that people complain about Thailand are the very things that make it so endearing.

We lived in a time when there was a lot less danger, or at least the illusion of less danger. The dangers were largely natural, falling out of trees, falling off a horse or a bicycle. There were fewer kidnappings and we ran in groups, so the perverts had to try and isolate us. The physical world that children have to roam around in now is quite small. The dangers are many.

It may have brought out the best in us, or it may have gotten rid of the worst in us. At any rate, it was a pretty unhappy time for most people. I remember my mother not liking to talk about that time, but when she did, the stories were brief but powerful. My grandmother was even less willing to talk about it. Kids then really didn't have a childhood. It was pretty much try to survive.

Our generation was one the first and it may be one of the last to have any kind of an extended childhood. Children nowadays really don't seem to get much of a childhood, just a restricted version of adulthood--high expectations, not much chance to explore the world around them and way too much adult reality thrust in their general direction.

That is one of the things I like about Thailand. I have the freedom to do stupid shit and then try to bail myself out ot the crap I got myself in. Today, North Americans, and especially Canadians, are molly coddled from cradle to grave. You seldom see kids today taking off right after breakfast and disappearing until night fall when they return dirty, hungry and tired. We did that every weekend and our folks never knew where we were. My folks had a few clues, but that was about all. I'd either be in the woods somewhere, down at the docks fishing, or wandering around the huge sandy bluffs off Point Grey in Vancouver. It would have taken about 25 separate search parties just to find me.

Some of the very things that people complain about Thailand are the very things that make it so endearing.

We lived in a time when there was a lot less danger, or at least the illusion of less danger. The dangers were largely natural, falling out of trees, falling off a horse or a bicycle. There were fewer kidnappings and we ran in groups, so the perverts had to try and isolate us. The physical world that children have to roam around in now is quite small. The dangers are many.

I think you have that wrong; I think "less illusion of danger" would have been more correct.

The media have greatly enhanced their ability to spread fear and alarm, and because it is so much repeated, people believe it to be the case; and yet, because it is also so immemorable and routine, people cannot remember it from the past, and therefore the constant barrage of distressing stories makes us think that things are worse now than they ever were.

Speaking from my own experience, none of my reasonably close acquaintances has been murdered since the 1970s - though to be fair, I have not maintained rigorous and objective statistics on the subject.

SC

To be fair, I think you may have noticed if a close personal friend was murdered ? (rigorously, objectively or not )

To be fair, I think you may have noticed if a close personal friend was murdered ? (rigorously, objectively or not )

True, but I have lost touch with many of my reasonably close acquaintances, and while I would expect to hear rumour or gossip should they be murdered, I cannot be sure.

And I have not been keeping an estimate of the size of my circle of friends, in order to maintain an estimate of the actual indivdual risk that might be calculated.

So I don't think that the risk is any higher than it was 30+ years ago, but others may have more objective measures or estimates of risk. However, I would not count personal recollection of media hysterical reporting as an accurate measure of risk or of changes in risk.

SC

I had a number of friends and classmates who died between grade 7 and 12 and a few in University. None were murdered and least not premeditated murder. There was a drowning or two, because of unsupervised swimming in local water holes (not watering holes!). We didn't have a municipal swimming pool.

There was an out break of encephalitis that caused two young children to die (I don't know if this is still a problem).

Several died in car accidents (there were no seat belts). And a couple were accidentally shot while playing with guns.

I don't know of anyone who was kidnapped.

Many of the accidents at that time were considered accidents and there was very little thought about changing laws or doing things differently. Kids 'shouldn't' play with guns, but few people kept them locked up and there wasn't much discussion of that. Now it's a law, I think.

I would believe the dangers are different, but it would take a close look at statistics to know how they have changed. News reports were pretty local, so what was happening in the rest of the world (or country) wasn't well known. You certainly didn't buy a milk carton with the picture of a missing child on it. No amber alerts etc.

By the late 60's-70's young people were starting to drop off from overdoses. Quite a few runaways, some of whom never seemed to surface again. I think this was the advent of the more modern problems. Even in the mid-60's hitch-hiking was seen as relatively safe. Then the perverts took to the roads. Then suddenly it wasn't only the driver that was dangerous, but the people they picked up were likely to bump them off.

Auto theft was called 'joy riding'. Now the vehicle is sold, stripped down and never seen again.