Hamilton Saint

I just want to know what he means. "Worldy"?

I spoke to some guys doing a hog roast in Frome, Somerset in early July. You could talk to them. Hinton HogRoasts: www.hogroasts.webs.com. They're based in Edington, Wilts.

"worldy" goal?

Man, this is boring. Have we scored yet?

Each to his own, I suppose. I reckon wit requires an element of intelligence and self-deprecation.

Exactly - tiresomely predictable.

The thread title is a statement. Then you post something in the form of a question. Or is it actually an either/or question? Or is it really two questions. It helps to be a bit more precise.

What exactly do you mean - that's a bit ambiguous.

I think you'll find that for any bird to fly successfully, the right wing and the left wing need to coordinate perfectly. Hmmmmm ...

That's classic! Once in a while, I'll come across this notice posted on a door: "Caution, this door is alarmed".

I've been fretting on here about people who take a word that exists as one part of speech (e.g., medal - a noun) and then turn it into another (to medal - a verb). Here's another gruesome example of this from earlier today. A poster on here used the word 'navalise' in a thread about the military. And then a little later he used the word 'navalisation'.

Forget "Ignore" - can we have an "Exterminate" function, please!

Kids snacking kids! Now you're talking!

Yes, I know. Just wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt!

You're wrong there. You're just not able (or willing) to follow the nuances and subtleties of the debate. Never mind.

I've gone back and re-read most of them, I think. I still don't understand your comment about me staying awake. Are you insulting me, or insulting him? I found his posts to be interesting and wise - and in the middle of one he mentions briefly a child "responding in fear" to a form of discipline based on smacking and hitting. He doesn't talk about the child "quaking in fear". Maybe, he uses those words elsewhere. But you seem to prefer to put words in other people's mouths. and mis-characterise their true attitude by setting up a straw man you can attack.

The debate has moved about because people have responded to each other's comments - which invariably start to take a few tangents. For example, one poster said: "the State has absolutely no role to play in how I bring my children up. You bring your chidren up how you want and I will bring mine up how I think is best." To which I replied: "Yes, granted, but the state does have a duty - a legal obligation - to intervene when children are being abused." It's a nuanced debate, but you seem to want to simplify it and reduce it to a simple black-and-white situation. And label other people to suit your own bias.

Why the phrase there in parentheses?

Again, you mis-characterise the debate. Noone is saying that a smacked child is "quaking in fear".

That's your characterisation - and an unfair one. It's not an obsession. We're not talking about "a slight tap". And noone is suggesting that that will lead in one small step to violent abuse.

No, I wasn't arguing for that. The essence of the points I've made: - smacking is not "wrong", but it is unnecessary - and it can be counter-productive and lead to other problems; - parents do not have the unfettered right "to bring up their kids in whatever manner they deem fit", if that includes physical and mental abuse and neglect; - society (at several levels) has a moral and legal requirement to intervene, in order to protect children from abuse. And I'll leave it at that!

Oh, I don't know if they use saline solutions in pools used for competitive swimming. Your question is an interesting one. Probaly not, for the reason you suggest.

Well, if these sensible parents you speak of are not crossing the line - are not smacking the child hard enough to leave a mark - then they are not breaking the law, right? In which case the law is not "criminalising the majority" - which sounds so dramatic - it's actually attempting to protect the small minority of abused children.

A lot of people here, who have outdoor pools in their back garden, have switched from chlorine to a saline solution. When I swim in a pool that has been too-heavily chlorinated, I break out in hives.

So, therefore, we do nothing about the problem? Or do we establish legal sanctions that allow us to intervene? That's what this debate is about, as far as I see it. Because a few on here have expressed the view that parental rights are sacrosanct, without acknowledging the need, occasionally, to protect children from outright abuse. I'm not pretending that the intervention of the State is not a tricky and disturbing situation - as I explained earlier.