The Fragile Generation

One day last year, a citizen on a prairie path in the Chicago suburb of Elmhurst came upon a teen boy chopping wood. Not a body. Just some already-fallen branches. Nonetheless, the onlooker called the cops.

Officers interrogated the boy, who said he was trying to build a fort for himself and his friends. A local news site reports the police then "took the tools for safekeeping to be returned to the boy's parents."

Elsewhere in America, preschoolers at the Learning Collaborative in Charlotte, North Carolina, were thrilled to receive a set of gently used playground equipment. But the kids soon found out they would not be allowed to use it, because it was resting on grass, not wood chips. "It's a safety issue," explained a day care spokeswoman. Playing on grass is against local regulations.

And then there was the query that ran in Parents magazine a few years back: "Your child's old enough to stay home briefly, and often does. But is it okay to leave her and her playmate home while you dash to the dry cleaner?" Absolutely not, the magazine averred: "Take the kids with you, or save your errand for another time." After all, "you want to make sure that no one's feelings get too hurt if there's a squabble."

The principle here is simple: This generation of kids must be protected like none other. They can't use tools, they can't play on grass, and they certainly can't be expected to work through a spat with a friend.

And this, it could be argued, is why we have "safe spaces" on college campuses and millennials missing adult milestones today. We told a generation of kids that they can never be too safe—and they believed us.

Safety First

We've had the best of intentions, of course. But efforts to protect our children may be backfiring. When we raise kids unaccustomed to facing anything on their own, including risk, failure, and hurt feelings, our society and even our economy are threatened. Yet modern child-rearing practices and laws seem all but designed to cultivate this lack of preparedness. There's the fear that everything children see, do, eat, hear, and lick could hurt them. And there's a newer belief that has been spreading through higher education that words and ideas themselves can be traumatizing.

How did we come to think a generation of kids can't handle the basic challenges of growing up?

Beginning in the 1980s, American childhood changed. For a variety of reasons—including shifts in parenting norms, new academic expectations, increased regulation, technological advances, and especially a heightened fear of abduction (missing kids on milk cartons made it feel as if this exceedingly rare crime was rampant)—children largely lost the experience of having large swaths of unsupervised time to play, explore, and resolve conflicts on their own. This has left them more fragile, more easily offended, and more reliant on others. They have been taught to seek authority figures to solve their problems and shield them from discomfort, a condition sociologists call "moral dependency."

https://reason.com/archives/2017/10/26/the-fragile-generation

There's a video that goes along with this, if anyone is interested. I have alluded to this on a different thread. Not all young people have issues with life, but I believe that we have expanded the number that do, and we are seeing the results of those well intentioned, but bad decisions in terms of creating adults that can handle life.

well, at least when the zombie nation rises up these snowflakes will be the first to go.

i dont have to outrun the zombies, i only have to outrun outfight, and outgun the snowflakes.

an easy tasking

It's not a fragile generation.  It's a compensation culture.

HoratioTarr wrote:It's not a fragile generation.  It's a compensation culture.

You think? Compensation as in money?

I think that would be my generation.

Maddog wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:It's not a fragile generation.  It's a compensation culture.

You think? Compensation as in money?

I think that would be my generation.

I think most authorities/companies etc are terrified of being sued.  Hence all the banning of this and that and health and safety.   Kids can't even play conkers anymore.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You think? Compensation as in money?

I think that would be my generation.

I think most authorities/companies etc are terrified of being sued.  Hence all the banning of this and that and health and safety.   Kids can't even play conkers anymore.

Gotcha.

But that doesn't explain helicopter parenting and society that lives in a constant state of far in regards to their children and protecting them from every possible negative situation.

Maddog wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:


I think most authorities/companies etc are terrified of being sued.  Hence all the banning of this and that and health and safety.   Kids can't even play conkers anymore.

Gotcha.

But that doesn't explain helicopter parenting and society that lives in a constant state of far in regards to their children and protecting them from every possible negative situation.  

yes, that too.

There's so much fear around.

Kids turn into adults and are still in full time education, many have never held a job till they leave university and are still supported by grants and family handouts.
A couple of generations ago it was the norm for the average kid to leave school at 15 or 16 and work full time, that makes a big difference to the way people can cope with life.

Profound, Syl...

Tommy Monk wrote:Profound, Syl...

Its basic really, couple that with the fact that after school many kids make themselves prisoners in their own rooms interacting with machines instead of people....and its not surprising they cant cope the same with actual LIFE like their predecessors could.

Syl wrote:Kids turn into adults and are still in full time education, many have never held a job till they leave university and are still supported by grants and family handouts.
A couple of generations ago it was the norm for the average kid to leave school at 15 or 16 and work full time, that makes a big difference to the way people can cope with life.

It's not just that. A generation or so ago, little Timmy only got a trophy for winning. Now, participation is all that's needed for a trophy.

Kids are so sheltered, that they turn into adults that can't cope.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Kids turn into adults and are still in full time education, many have never held a job till they leave university and are still supported by grants and family handouts.
A couple of generations ago it was the norm for the average kid to leave school at 15 or 16 and work full time, that makes a big difference to the way people can cope with life.

It's not just that. A generation or so ago, little Timmy only got a trophy for winning. Now, participation is all that's needed for a trophy.

Kids are so sheltered, that they turn into adults that can't cope.

Some schools dont even have sports day anymore, because obviosly not everyone can win, and losing is too traumatic....the local one does, but this year it was cancelled because it was raining.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not just that. A generation or so ago, little Timmy only got a trophy for winning. Now, participation is all that's needed for a trophy.

Kids are so sheltered, that they turn into adults that can't cope.

Some schools dont even have sports day anymore, because obviosly not everyone can win, and losing is too traumatic....the local one does, but this year it was cancelled because it was raining.

Which is why, we have young men (for the most part), who go off the rails once every few months in a final fit of rage against the world that they can't cope with.

Whether it's a Middle Eastern Muslim in a gay club in Florida, a white Christian in a black church in S. Carolina, or a white Atheist in a white church in Texas, they all have a similar affliction.

I suppose every generation have their own problems with youngsters.
Last century 2WW then national service sorted the men from the boys....thank God they dont have to go through that now to toughen up.

Its gone full circle...all that testosterone and nowhere to vent it now.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Kids turn into adults and are still in full time education, many have never held a job till they leave university and are still supported by grants and family handouts.
A couple of generations ago it was the norm for the average kid to leave school at 15 or 16 and work full time, that makes a big difference to the way people can cope with life.

It's not just that. A generation or so ago, little Timmy only got a trophy for winning. Now, participation is all that's needed for a trophy.

Kids are so sheltered, that they turn into adults that can't cope.

So, you've lost faith in the here and now, as well. Only for you, it's the generation. For me its the location. But we're both the same. We no longer believe...

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not just that. A generation or so ago, little Timmy only got a trophy for winning. Now, participation is all that's needed for a trophy.

Kids are so sheltered, that they turn into adults that can't cope.

So, you've lost faith in the here and now, as well.  Only for you, it's the generation.  For me its the location.  But we're both the same.  We no longer believe...

I haven't lost faith, because I think the problem only affects a small number of people, even though it's a larger number than it was in the past. It will correct itself as these kids get older and have their own kids.

I'm an optimist by nature, even while I'm pointing out stupid trends in society.

it the parents not the children that are the ones with risk aversion.

Even the example in the OP the Kids wanted to, they weren't scared or worried about it.

It is the oldies that through litigation and 'towards zero' policy nonsense that gets voted for that cause the situation.

And the trophy thing Again is Entirely the ADULTS that demand their kid is special and whinge and threaten to sue when little tommy doesn't get a trophy, little tommy probably doesn't give two fucks about a trophy.

smelly-bandit wrote:well, at least when the zombie nation rises up these snowflakes will be the first to go.

i dont have to outrun the zombies, i only have to outrun outfight, and outgun the snowflakes.

an easy tasking

LOL

by your posts you're one of the biggest chicken shits out
Fucking Terrified of a women in a sheet, or a man with an accent

Your pulling your self, if you think a coward ass like you will out last anyone

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, you've lost faith in the here and now, as well.  Only for you, it's the generation.  For me its the location.  But we're both the same.  We no longer believe...

I haven't lost faith, because I think the problem only affects a small number of people, even though it's a larger number than it was in the past. It will correct itself as these kids get older and have their own kids.

I'm an optimist by nature, even while I'm pointing out stupid trends in society.

That "small" number of people is now running the country.

Either you are concerned about a generation, or not. What is it?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I haven't lost faith, because I think the problem only affects a small number of people, even though it's a larger number than it was in the past. It will correct itself as these kids get older and have their own kids.

I'm an optimist by nature, even while I'm pointing out stupid trends in society.

That "small" number of people is now running the country.

Either you are concerned about a generation, or not.  What is it?

The kids referred to in the OP are not running the country yet. People under 30 or so, are having more problems coping. It's not all of them, or even a majority. It's just a higher percentage than in the past. That's not good, but it's not a disaster either.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That "small" number of people is now running the country.

Either you are concerned about a generation, or not.  What is it?

The kids referred to in the OP are not running the country yet. People under 30 or so, are having more problems coping. It's not all of them, or even a majority. It's just a higher percentage than in the past. That's not good, but it's not a disaster either.

Age is just a number; it's the mindset that counts. You will find that they are one and the same as the Trumpanzees.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The kids referred to in the OP are not running the country yet. People under 30 or so, are having more problems coping. It's not all of them, or even a majority. It's just a higher percentage than in the past. That's not good, but it's not a disaster either.

Age is just a number; it's the mindset that counts.  You will find that they are one and the same as the Trumpanzees.

Age is just a number, but people of different ages have different experiences to deal with. Those experiences have shaped their lives. People that lived during the depression will have a different outlook than you and I who grew up in far better times.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Age is just a number; it's the mindset that counts.  You will find that they are one and the same as the Trumpanzees.

Age is just a number, but people of different ages have different experiences to deal with. Those experiences have shaped their lives. People that lived during the depression will have a different outlook than you and I who grew up in far better times.

You started out by saying that this generation is different. I agree that experiences change; that's called history.

But you haven't make a case that this generation is behind all these mass killings. Least of all have you made the case that is the males, and not the females. Nor have you made the case that it's the education that kids receive that fooks them up. These are all claims that you started out with.

Maddog wrote:One day last year, a citizen on a prairie path in the Chicago suburb of Elmhurst came upon a teen boy chopping wood. Not a body. Just some already-fallen branches. Nonetheless, the onlooker called the cops.

Officers interrogated the boy, who said he was trying to build a fort for himself and his friends. A local news site reports the police then "took the tools for safekeeping to be returned to the boy's parents."

Elsewhere in America, preschoolers at the Learning Collaborative in Charlotte, North Carolina, were thrilled to receive a set of gently used playground equipment. But the kids soon found out they would not be allowed to use it, because it was resting on grass, not wood chips. "It's a safety issue," explained a day care spokeswoman. Playing on grass is against local regulations.

And then there was the query that ran in Parents magazine a few years back: "Your child's old enough to stay home briefly, and often does. But is it okay to leave her and her playmate home while you dash to the dry cleaner?" Absolutely not, the magazine averred: "Take the kids with you, or save your errand for another time." After all, "you want to make sure that no one's feelings get too hurt if there's a squabble."

The principle here is simple: This generation of kids must be protected like none other. They can't use tools, they can't play on grass, and they certainly can't be expected to work through a spat with a friend.

And this, it could be argued, is why we have "safe spaces" on college campuses and millennials missing adult milestones today. We told a generation of kids that they can never be too safe—and they believed us.

Safety First

We've had the best of intentions, of course. But efforts to protect our children may be backfiring. When we raise kids unaccustomed to facing anything on their own, including risk, failure, and hurt feelings, our society and even our economy are threatened. Yet modern child-rearing practices and laws seem all but designed to cultivate this lack of preparedness. There's the fear that everything children see, do, eat, hear, and lick could hurt them. And there's a newer belief that has been spreading through higher education that words and ideas themselves can be traumatizing.

How did we come to think a generation of kids can't handle the basic challenges of growing up?

Beginning in the 1980s, American childhood changed. For a variety of reasons—including shifts in parenting norms, new academic expectations, increased regulation, technological advances, and especially a heightened fear of abduction (missing kids on milk cartons made it feel as if this exceedingly rare crime was rampant)—children largely lost the experience of having large swaths of unsupervised time to play, explore, and resolve conflicts on their own. This has left them more fragile, more easily offended, and more reliant on others. They have been taught to seek authority figures to solve their problems and shield them from discomfort, a condition sociologists call "moral dependency."

https://reason.com/archives/2017/10/26/the-fragile-generation

There's a video that goes along with this, if anyone is interested. I have alluded to this on a different thread. Not all young people have issues with life, but I believe that we have expanded the number that do, and we are seeing the results of those well intentioned, but bad decisions in terms of creating adults that can handle life.    

The image on right is a young boy called Albert Edward French who was killed aged only 16 his 'future was stolen'

the image on the left is of a whiny little snowflake who thinks the world owes him a living

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Maddog wrote:One day last year, a citizen on a prairie path in the Chicago suburb of Elmhurst came upon a teen boy chopping wood. Not a body. Just some already-fallen branches. Nonetheless, the onlooker called the cops.

Officers interrogated the boy, who said he was trying to build a fort for himself and his friends. A local news site reports the police then "took the tools for safekeeping to be returned to the boy's parents."

Elsewhere in America, preschoolers at the Learning Collaborative in Charlotte, North Carolina, were thrilled to receive a set of gently used playground equipment. But the kids soon found out they would not be allowed to use it, because it was resting on grass, not wood chips. "It's a safety issue," explained a day care spokeswoman. Playing on grass is against local regulations.

And then there was the query that ran in Parents magazine a few years back: "Your child's old enough to stay home briefly, and often does. But is it okay to leave her and her playmate home while you dash to the dry cleaner?" Absolutely not, the magazine averred: "Take the kids with you, or save your errand for another time." After all, "you want to make sure that no one's feelings get too hurt if there's a squabble."

The principle here is simple: This generation of kids must be protected like none other. They can't use tools, they can't play on grass, and they certainly can't be expected to work through a spat with a friend.

And this, it could be argued, is why we have "safe spaces" on college campuses and millennials missing adult milestones today. We told a generation of kids that they can never be too safe—and they believed us.

Safety First

We've had the best of intentions, of course. But efforts to protect our children may be backfiring. When we raise kids unaccustomed to facing anything on their own, including risk, failure, and hurt feelings, our society and even our economy are threatened. Yet modern child-rearing practices and laws seem all but designed to cultivate this lack of preparedness. There's the fear that everything children see, do, eat, hear, and lick could hurt them. And there's a newer belief that has been spreading through higher education that words and ideas themselves can be traumatizing.

How did we come to think a generation of kids can't handle the basic challenges of growing up?

Beginning in the 1980s, American childhood changed. For a variety of reasons—including shifts in parenting norms, new academic expectations, increased regulation, technological advances, and especially a heightened fear of abduction (missing kids on milk cartons made it feel as if this exceedingly rare crime was rampant)—children largely lost the experience of having large swaths of unsupervised time to play, explore, and resolve conflicts on their own. This has left them more fragile, more easily offended, and more reliant on others. They have been taught to seek authority figures to solve their problems and shield them from discomfort, a condition sociologists call "moral dependency."

https://reason.com/archives/2017/10/26/the-fragile-generation

There's a video that goes along with this, if anyone is interested. I have alluded to this on a different thread. Not all young people have issues with life, but I believe that we have expanded the number that do, and we are seeing the results of those well intentioned, but bad decisions in terms of creating adults that can handle life.    

The image on right is a young boy called Albert Edward French who was killed aged only 16 his 'future was stolen'

the image on the left is of a whiny little snowflake who thinks the world owes him a living

A relevant post on the eve of Remembrance Day.

No doubt at 11am tomorrow when I deliver The Exhortation at the local war memorial, some pimply-faced, snotty-nosed little prat sporting a white poppy will try to interrupt.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
The image on right is a young boy called Albert Edward French who was killed aged only 16 his 'future was stolen'

the image on the left is of a whiny little snowflake who thinks the world owes him a living

A relevant post on the eve of Remembrance Day.

No doubt at 11am tomorrow when I deliver The Exhortation at the local war memorial, some pimply-faced, snotty-nosed little prat sporting a white poppy will try to interrupt.

With that, I doubt your exhortation will be sincere.

SmellyBumski, Fred the Mole', Devil's Breath...

Founding members of NewsFix's very own "snowflakes" club..

It is little wonder they post here?. Who in their right mind would want to post on a vile site infected with sickos and racist?

Angry Andy wrote:It is little wonder they post here?. Who in their right mind would want to post on a vile site infected with sickos and racist?

Considering who you used to post with, I don't think you have much room to talk.

At least I never post on a forum where the murderer of Jo Cox and Anders Breivik were celebrated and applauded.

Angry Andy wrote:At least I never post on a forum where the murderer of Jo Cox and Anders Breivik were celebrated and applauded.

You post on a forum where someone said that they can understand why some people hate Jews.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

A relevant post on the eve of Remembrance Day.

No doubt at 11am tomorrow when I deliver The Exhortation at the local war memorial, some pimply-faced, snotty-nosed little prat sporting a white poppy will try to interrupt.

With that, I doubt your exhortation will be sincere.

Ah, but it will. Being insulted at the war memorial by some little shit who owes his existence to the brave generation that it is my privilege to help commemorate merely strengthened my resolve and my belief in the modest work that I do for ex-servicemen and women.

That happened three years ago, and for some reason the cowardly little sod, who legged it after shouting the usual insults, hasn't been back. Yet.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

SmellyBumski,  Fred the Mole',  Devil's Breath...

Founding members of NewsFix's very own "snowflakes" club..

Spoken like a true coward who whines endlessly and hypocritically about "diversions" and "being attacked."

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

SmellyBumski,  Fred the Mole',  Devil's Breath...

Founding members of NewsFix's very own "snowflakes" club..

Spoken like a true coward who whines endlessly about diversions and "being attacked."

Have a green for that post.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

With that, I doubt your exhortation will be sincere.

Ah, but it will. Being insulted at the war memorial by some little shit who owes his existence to the brave generation that it is my privilege to help commemorate merely strengthened my resolve and  my belief in the modest work that I do for ex-servicemen and women.

That happened three years ago, and for some reason the cowardly little sod, who legged it after shouting the usual insults, hasn't been back. Yet.

Strawman argument

Do the Polish people owe their existance, due to the betrayal by Churchill and Roosevelt, when they handed Poland on a plate to Stalin, when the 303 Squadran was the most highly decorated in the Battle of Britain.

Your view is so utterly idicotic, that it bases the view that people alive today only exist, based on some people who fought in WW2.

No it does not

Yes we should be thankful that people did take up that fight, but to claim some crap they would not exist, based off some bullshit that your generation was brave, when actually in combat only about 10% were brave and did most of the fighting who were soldiers. Shows you do not know your history.

Check out the percentage that did actually fight and of those who were in fact brave on the British side

You might be in for a shock

"They also serve, are those that stand and wait"

Angry Andy wrote:It is little wonder they post here?. Who in their right mind would want to post on a vile site infected with sickos and racist?

yet you seem entirely obsessed with it as you havent shut up about it for the last 5 years. even joining up as a woman in its first days until you were finally booted out a few years back.

Angry Andy wrote:At least I never post on a forum where the murderer of Jo Cox and Anders Breivik were celebrated and applauded.

no but you have posted about dancing on thatchers grave and support a party who's shadow chancellor has said he would assassinate her.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:At least I never post on a forum where the murderer of Jo Cox and Anders Breivik were celebrated and applauded.

no but you have posted about dancing on thatchers grave and support a party who's shadow chancellor has said he would assassinate her.

I don't approve of that sort of thing. Mrs Thatcher never did much for me, but I wouldn't have celebrated her death - disgraceful behaviour.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

With that, I doubt your exhortation will be sincere.

Ah, but it will. Being insulted at the war memorial by some little shit who owes his existence to the brave generation that it is my privilege to help commemorate merely strengthened my resolve and  my belief in the modest work that I do for ex-servicemen and women.

That happened three years ago, and for some reason the cowardly little sod, who legged it after shouting the usual insults, hasn't been back. Yet.

Is it a "brave generation", or just the killers of that generation you laud? If it's a whole generation, then there are a lot of "pimply-faced, snotty-nosed little prats" among them.

I think your argument is not age-related, but politically related. You don't care a wit about "pimply-faced, snotty-nosed little prats", but you love those who shoulder weapons and go to other countries to kill babies.

I believe in calling it what it is.

A true example of this current fragile sub-set can be found on the thread about a Lynx escaping from a zoo, and subsequently being shot by the big brave local spineless yellow-livered cowards masquerading as police officers...

A "marksman" was hired by the police to kill it, it was hiding under a shed [frightened to death] when this person killed it. It could easily have been darted at that range. Bastards, fucking bastards.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Ah, but it will. Being insulted at the war memorial by some little shit who owes his existence to the brave generation that it is my privilege to help commemorate merely strengthened my resolve and  my belief in the modest work that I do for ex-servicemen and women.

That happened three years ago, and for some reason the cowardly little sod, who legged it after shouting the usual insults, hasn't been back. Yet.

Is it a "brave generation", or just the killers of that generation you laud?  If it's a whole generation, then there are a lot of "pimply-faced, snotty-nosed little prats"  among them.  

I think your argument is not age-related, but politically related.  You don't care a wit about "pimply-faced, snotty-nosed little prats", but you love those who shoulder weapons and go to other countries to kill babies.

I believe in calling it what it is.

you don't seem to understand the point of it at al, and I am not surprised as you live in your own ivory tower. The poppy symbolises the sacrifice of all those who died and fought in all wars. Without their sacrifice people like you would not have the ability to denigrate their memory.
It does not glorify war.

Deano wrote:you don't seem to understand the point of it at al, and I am not surprised as you live in your own ivory tower. The poppy symbolises the sacrifice of all those who died and fought in all wars. Without their sacrifice people like you would not have the ability to denigrate their memory.
It does not glorify war.

Bullshit.  Hitler would have said the same thing today.  The point is, we don't need any wars unless and until someone crosses our borders.  Most of the shit since WWII has been us trying to impose our will on other countries, in their countries.

It's an insult to say they are doing it for me.  If they still think it's for me, I say: STOP.  Knock it off.  I gain nothing from it.  FGS, spend the money on healthcare, not on toys for generals.

nicko wrote:A "marksman" was hired by the police to kill it,    it was hiding under a shed [frightened to death]   when this person killed it.    It could easily have been darted at that range.    Bastards, fucking bastards.

Yes, I couldn't understand why that beautiful animal could not have been darted.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Ah, but it will. Being insulted at the war memorial by some little shit who owes his existence to the brave generation that it is my privilege to help commemorate merely strengthened my resolve and  my belief in the modest work that I do for ex-servicemen and women.

That happened three years ago, and for some reason the cowardly little sod, who legged it after shouting the usual insults, hasn't been back. Yet.

Is it a "brave generation", or just the killers of that generation you laud?  If it's a whole generation, then there are a lot of "pimply-faced, snotty-nosed little prats"  among them.  

I think your argument is not age-related, but politically related.  You don't care a wit about "pimply-faced, snotty-nosed little prats", but you love those who shoulder weapons and go to other countries to kill babies.

I believe in calling it what it is.

No, you are entirely wrong, Quill; neither I nor the RBL as an organisation "love", "celebrate" or "glorify" war in any shape or form.

Although it began in the years immediately after WW1 to support the thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen maimed in the conflict as well as honouring the dead, its modern principal role is in raising money (a hell of a lot, actually) through its poppy brand in order to provide employment, housing, welfare, rehabilitation centres, physical and psychiatric support, etc., not only for the dwindling number of WW2 and Korean war veterans but those cruelly maimed and mentally scarred in every conflict since - and any of their families who are in need.

If you can find any fault with those objectives or in the commitment that people like myself show towards them, then that is your right. But do please recognise that your own veterans won that right for you.

Politics have absolutely nothing to do with my strictures about that particular "pimply-faced, snotty-nosed prat" who disrupted our local ceremony three years ago as I was reciting The Exhortation by screaming that I was "...a fucking warmongering bastard."

Perhaps you hail that as an expression of free speech and that he had a perfect right to do it, so let me set it up as another scenario.

Suppose that you were in court, making your final submission to the judge, when some American snotty-nosed, pimply-faced "protestor" screamed at you "fucking shyster lawyer."?

Would your reaction be "political"? Would the judge dismiss it simply as "an expression of free speech"?

Frankly, I find your opinion on my own reasons to be offensive.

Fred, you're raising money, rewarding people who kill people.  That can only be justified if they were defending our borders.  

If they were anywhere overseas, they were the transgresses, geographically and morally.

Original Quill wrote:Fred, you're raising money, rewarding people who kill people.  That can only be justified if they were defending our borders.  

If they were anywhere overseas, they were the transgresses, geographically and morally.

No, Quill, we are not rewarding anyone: We are are raising money actively to mentor, support and alleviate so far as is possible the tragic consequences of war on the people who serve in our armed forces.

The government does not adequately provide for them, so do you think that people, including former servicemen like me, should stand idly by while they become destitute or suffer greater hardship?

Theydo not cause wars, declare wars or decide where, when and how wars are fought. Politicians do that.

Do you hold your own veterans' support organisations in such contempt and with such disdain?>