under 18 epidemic

I believe she said "once in a while". As did I, multiple times. I'll thank you to stop attributing things to me which I didn't say.

The only person screaming "CONSTANTLY", is you, and it's a red herring. I think you know this, and that you just want to "win" the debate.

Well, I guess my son got the bad luck of the draw because I AM techno savvy, and I know what he's up to on the computer. I'm the one all my friends call to help them with their computer.

So you totally disregard common psycological research and blame the parents if they don't teach their kid right from wrong and the kid chooses wrong? You know, I can say the same for you about the head shaking. Are you seriously naive enough to think that if a parent teaches a child and ingrains in them the right thing to do, that they will do it REGARDLESS and if the kid succumbs to peer pressures or other aspects, then the parents are bad parents? PLEASE tell me you don't have children, because you seriously misunderstand parenting if you do. A parent's job is to raise the children to know the difference between good and bad, right and wrong, but it's also the responsibility of the kid to take those lessons out to everyday world and make the right choices.

I'm guessing you are at least 35 years old and seriously out of touch with today's kids. This isn't the 50's TV shows where all kids tell the truth all the time. A kid tests boundaries. That's an inherent human nature to test things, the limits. A parent can say it's wrong all the want, but ultimately, parents ARE NOT the only influence in a kid's life. You know, I'm really sorry to see that the narrow minded thinking of out of control children prevails. My aunt had a hell of a time with her 6 year old daughter biting her, kicking her, cussing at her, etc. She did everything in her power and everything the pediatrician told her. It still went on. She was out of control. Then she was asked to take her to a therapist who could properly medicate her, because she admitted, in her mind, that she thought her mom was trying to hurt her, so in her defense, she'd try to hurt her mother first. This doesn't make my aunt a bad parent, this means something was going on with the child.



I highly doubt that you were a teen a few short years ago. Really and truly. Why? Because you are taking a stance that means NOTHING. All the arguments here are saying they need to be watching over their children's shoulders when they are on the net. If you are not, as you want to exclaim, once my argument STILL asks the question of when children are alone, then you ADMIT that a kid is not watched 24/7. You are STILL taking off the responsibility of a kid to do what he is taught. You have no grasp on the situation. Unless you lived in the twilight zone, it's been a standard of time that kids naturally rebel. Sure, there are some 'perfect' kids out there, who never do anything wrong ever, right? Do you know that for sure? No, you don't. Every kid has done something, on some scale that their parents didn't know about.

Wow, seriously, are you naive enough to think that the 75 million's majority is in people over say 35? I'd be interested in seeing just how many of those numbers are broken down even into decades or specific age groups. So you found a link that says over 18. That's an infinite age! BTW, you do realize that the census bureau on non populous studies use a medium then deem an average right?

And BTW, just because LL says their median age, doesn't mean it's the truth. I could register 50 accounts with the age of 70 and it skews the figures. And if you are using SL as a mean to determine that all of the US's computer usage is for people around their mid-thirties, I'd suggest a few sessions in realistic thinking. You are using, as a basis for your argument, a study that doesn't sample all, but samples a group and then estimates based on national statistics and another mode that can easily be skewed by anyone who wants to lie about their age and it's considered a statistic.

Again, as I've said to you before (as you are still putting words in my mouth), I will try to pound this out in as simple words as possible.

I think that bad parents shoulder responsibility in the raising of their children. I also believe that a parent can do everything in their power to do the right thing and the child will still do something wrong. It's the child's fault. I also believe that good children can come from bad parents, so who takes the credit there? I give the child credit for raising themself.

I also believe that common sense tells me, that the majority of US families have the single parent or both parents working.

Well, then why does someone (several someone's actually) keep saying all they have to do is look over thier kid's shoulder to know what they are up to? This means that there are times that they aren't looking over thier kid's shoulder which leaves the potential to do something wrong. But then they say again, that they won't do anything wrong if they are watching?

So which is it? It's can't be both keeping an eye out at all times to see if they are doing something wrong, or once in a while, leaving the kid an option to do something wrong, because, if I go by that argument, a kid wouldn't have the chance!

Please, I ask of you to answer this. If you are checking only once in a while, then does it or does it not leave a window for a child to do something wrong?

lol, and that's awesome. I never claimed ALL parents are ignorant about the computer and if you do know your way around, to be able to see through the screens the computer embeds, more power to ya!

But you do make one point: You are the one your friends call, which I generally assume are around the same age, and some probably have kids of their own, which helps to illustrate that some people just aren't educated in computers as much as thier kid may be.

I am 20, thanks, and you are 22, according to your profile, so don't come off to me like some experienced parent. Don't admonish me about not having teens of my own when you don't either. It's really quite hypocritical.

I've never stated that the teens bore no responsibility. I've not once said parents must watch their kids 24/7, nor has April or anyone else who disagrees with you. So pot, are you calling the kettle black here when you rant about people putting words in your mouth? I think so. The ultimate responsibilty for children's behaviour lies with the parents. Sorry... "Buzzer" or what ever silly game show sound you'd like to insert there. When a kid lofts a brick through his neighbour's window, who pays for that window repair? I think we know the answer. The ultimate responsiblity lies with the parent, especially in terms of legality. And that is my point, despite all your logical fallacies. And you accuse me of being illogical.

You tried to paint the majority of parents as internet and computer dummies, all the backtracking in the world isn't going to erase that now. I never said that you said "ALL". So we are back to that hypocrisy thing again, aren't we? You know, where you accuse me of putting words in your mouth while putting words in mine.

You set the sarcastic tone. Deal with some sarcastic replies as a result, or get out of the kitchen that you decided to heat up in the first place.

Your family does not fit the norm, and your using your familial experience as representative of the rest of the world is insulting, and myopic at best. Millions of baby boomers have computers and are on the net, and their children and grandchildren are too. All you have are excuses for trying to force responsiblity that lies mostly on the parent's shoulders onto others.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf
Pay special attention to the charts (Tables A and C specifically) which give the numbers for what age brackets have computers and internet access. The vast majority fall into the ranges of 25-44, and 45-64 on "A", and on "C," it's even further broken down and more to the contrary of what you suggest, with the 35-44 age range dominating, which shoots large holes into your personal theories. In fact, nearly HALF of the households with computers and internet are headed by persons 45 years old or older. You can go on all day with this non-speak mumbo jumbo about sampling procedures and so on, it only smacks of desperation, and I will take the census bureau's numbers over your personal beliefs any day.

Personal computers have been in many schools since the mid 80's. My older brothers (MUCH older btw, I was a late "accident" pregnancy) had them, and so did many other people. The modern computer age was really born in the 70s, when people like my GRANDFATHER were working for Contol Data, Motorola, ATT, and so forth. Get real. The generations you are discounting and writing off are the ones that made it possible for you to sit there and pontificate endlessly and anonymously on your computer about "facts" that you think you know.

You know, I said I was done here, but I re-read this post, and there are so many straw men, fallacies and implied personal attacks, that I am going to go back on what I said and point-counter-point it.
Uh yeah, links to this "common psycological research" (sic) please. Are you just pulling "facts" out of thin air again? Uh huh. And more straw man tactics, tsk tsk.

I have never once indicated that I think kids won't sometimes succumb to peer pressure, and it's neither here nor there, since I wasn't even debating that. What I said was that kids going against their parent’s wishes is a behavioural problem, and that parents play a role in that. I did not say that automatically makes them a bad parent. As long as we're here though - I think that good parenting can help them be more successful to that end. I didn't succumb (to smoking, to having sex at the school dance, to use your examples, although I did succumb to some lesser pressures - all kids do to some degree), most of my friends also didn't, and it wasn't all about me. My parents had a lot to do with it. It was also about choosing friends who cared enough about me to not badger me into doing things I was told not to do, or that I simply didn't want to do. That is a vital part of the parent's role, teaching their kids how to choose their friends wisely - and taking the time to investigate who their children are associating with, acting as counsel to that end, and, if necessary, forbidding certain friends.

You'll probably respond with some excuse about there not being enough time.

Where did I disagree with that? And thanks for the back-handed ad hominem attack. Par for the course at this point I suppose.

You're guessing wrong. You're well off the mark.

Yes, kids test boundaries, and how parents react to that testing plays a large part in the outcome(s). They can throw their hands in the air and say, “Well, he's going to do it anyway, and that's life!", and then get on the internet and beat people over the head with that earth-shattering revelation. Or, they can be diligent, and continuously reinforce - stick to their guns. I have a feeling it's easier to just cave in for many parents, hence all the bad behaviour in kids, and hence the astronomical rise in the number behavioural medication prescriptions over the course of the last 20 years. Dope 'em up, I can't control them, let's shovel some drugs at them. Don't get me wrong, meds help and are certainly necessary in some cases, but there is no good reason to have so many kids on drugs. None. It's a sad narrative on the breakdown of the family.

I know this isn't the 50's and that's rather ironic for you to say, when you're trying to portray a lot of people who are over 35 as non-tech savvy, Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver types. What do you think they use at the places where they work? Manual typewriters and mechanical cash registers? Slide Rules? Pocket calculators? You can't go anywhere, or work anywhere, without being exposed to computers.

In some cases, yes, as I said above there are major issues that must be dealt with. But that's not what (myself at least) is being addressed here, we are addressing the majority, or so I thought. The fact that you keep harking back to your personal experiences and using them as standard examples tells me quite a lot, including that you are actually the narrow-minded one here.

Again, you are wrong, and yet another insult.

Of course they have, and that is not what we are debating, or at least I wasn't. At no point did I say to take all responsibility off of kids. It is a shared responsibility. Again, you are setting up arguments that I am not a part of, and then assuming my stance on them. Good grief, most of these revelations of yours are such obvious truths that they don't even merit discussion, so please stop setting them up and then implying I disagree with them, when that are such prevalent, common sense ideals.

Both. There is a fine line, just as there are with many things in life. Finding that line is the responsibility of a good parent. What is it you're saying? Give up because they will do it anyway? Is that what you're saying? Because honestly, I am not at all sure what it is you're trying to say through all this bluster. We were discussing some adults wanting to hold other adults responsible for kids in an adult, online community. What are your feelings about that? You are railing about people taking the onus of responsibility off of kids, and I am mystified, because no one is arguing counter to that. We have been arguing that other adults are not responsible for kids getting into stuff on the net that they shouldn’t be. That has nothing to do with the responsibility teens bear unto themselves, although I agree, kids need to be responsible for themselves, to a point.

Maybe I am just tired, but the above makes no sense to me, so I could hardly have insinuated it, and if that's what you think I think, let me tell you that you think wrong.

I can see that. I know it. I have seen it first hand. Where are you coming up with these arguments that I haven't brought to bear? Are you getting me confused with someone else?

No, I am blaming a segment of society for placing that holy grail of keeping up with the status quo ahead of being there for their kids like countless generations prior have. We are witnessing the breakdown of that, all so that we can have all the good material stuff.

You said something to the effect of "do you know how many don't know about.." That is referring to some vague, nebulous quantity that apparently only you are privy to. That is the meaning of my use of "number". I hope that is cleared up now.

I didn’t say everyone reads the paper, but, let's see, I would think that many of the people we were discussing, those over 35 (since you picked that as the "infinite" cut off), do read the paper, at least occasionally. But my comment wasn't just limited to the paper. You cannot go through life without knowing of Google unless you're living in a cave. It's all over TV, magazines, the net, and in day to day conversation. Me thinks someone is being a bit disingenuous, intentionally obtuse, or both.

Look, if your family is cut off from most media outlets, so much so that they have never heard of Google, then they're in the minority, and should not at all be used as a representative of the average family in a western country. One can simply not know about Google if they regularly follow the news at all, in any format.

As an aside, a parent who doesn't follow currents events enough to be aware of Google just might have a few problems raising a child. But then, I watch Jay Leno interview adults on the street, and see how ignorant some really are when it comes to current events, geography, politics, and so forth, and the clouds begin to part...

I disagree. See above.

OH! So I am setting the standards now? That's funny! Because you are the one who keeps dragging their family and their personal experiences into this as if those examples represent the average family. And by your own logic, who is to say your standards are the right ones? Yet here you are, attempting to shout everyone else down, even though yours is the minority voice here. igh:

Pot meet kettle... again.

As I said above there is a fine line. At least I have some line of logic beyond "Well they're going to be bad sometimes, regardless of what the parents do." I think we are all very aware of that Seola, so your harping and banging on it are really for naught. And you tell me my sentiments here mean nothing.

So could I, big deal. What does it prove? Knowing that right is better than wrong keeps most people from doing bad things. hrug:

No you didn't say "every", but you implied most, and I take issue with that. Marginalising millions of people so you can make yourself feel "right" on a message board is lame.

Now, I mean it this time. I have said my piece (as far as you go, that is. If others want to debate without the circular logic and ad hominem you present, I am open to that, but you have gone well past the novelty stage with me). You go on and get your last words in. Be sure to riddle it with caps, ad hominems, red herrings, straw men, and non sequiturs. And please, if you don't mind - actually tell us what you think about adults being held responsible for other adult's children getting into places online where their not supposed to be. Because that is what we were talking about before you came in here throwing around "facts" and derision. I would think you might have an opinion on that, looking at the groups you belong to and the job you do in SL.

You're seriously responding to this inane trolling?

SL and LL can ____ my ____ their policy on ____ is ____ _____ please for the ____ stop before you cause the world to ____

I'd take this One step Farther, and say by Joining a Game That is CLEARLY advertised as Being ADULTS Only, We have a Reasonable expectation that All those we are dealing with Are indeed adults, and if there IS a Failure involved it rests in two places;

#1; the Parents who do NOT monitor their Childrens activities, or worse, the ones who are aware that their child is in the SL adult Grid and Condone their childs activities.

and

#2;Linden Labs for Setting the Rules, and Advertising SL an adults Only Environment WITHOUT taking the adaquet necesary steps to Ensure it Remains so.

We the general Players are Last in this little Blame Chain, However this does NOT absolve us of a Duty to Promptly report ALL under age players we run across REGARDLESS of whatever steps LL takes next, Or our Opinion regarding the teens ability to generate Alt accounts. The fact that there are a Few ahead of us doesn't mean we bear no responsibility at all. The old saying, "If the ship sinks, the LAST person to inspect the Hull was the negligent one" applies here too.

Angel.

Now this is a ship I can climb onto. Well said.

can you please provide a reference?

Word to that, mon ami.

I'd love to see where this was found, as well as the other unverified statistics quoted here.

I think it was quoted on a radio interview, dont remeber any more than that, sorry.

I am 23 now, with a 3 year old. So that does give me some experience as a parent. I know what it's like to tell your kid not to do something and they continue to do it anyways. I've had that screaming kid in Wal-Mart a few times (hardly by any means everytime) and heard people without children so easily say 'If they were a better parent, that kid wouldn't behave like that'. I've seen and heard the bad talk and gossip about my aunt and her daughter, the bad parent, and the get her in control talk, when it turned out to be psycological as opposed to bad parenting. It's not hypocritical to say that if you aren't a parent, you can't know what it's like to be a parent. It's common sense.

I've taught my son to read, to play solitaire, to count, to tell time, to say please and thank you ma'am, yes Mommy, no thank you, etc., I've taught him not to hit, spit, tantrum, yell, jump on the couch, etc. Does this mean he doesn't do it occasionally? No. He's thrown a tantrum, even though he knows it's wrong and will be punished.



But you have stated that teens with good parenting wouldn't do bad things. And those that do bad things are a direct result of bad parenting. That's simply not the case. You've also said that if a parent checks up on the kid , they won't be doing anything wrong. You've not once addressed the point I made, about all the time once a parent leaves the check up, or isn't available to be there to constantly check up, the open window of time to do things wrong, is still there. You just simply keep saying if a kid does something wrong, it's the parents fault. That's not the case.



I didn't try to paint it, I stated it with full conviction, by your own admission, you said your dad was not savvy, and several others here have said their parents are not. But you wants stats? I'll give them to you, not a problem. As an argument of knowing the internet and saying if one reads the paper, or watches the news they would know, these studies are far more broadcast daily, then Google, yet you seem not to have seen them! *gasp* How could that be???

http://www.netsmartz.org/safety/statistics.htm



This alone suggests that teens are bypassing the safety nets. It's logical thinking.

More stats you say?



This despite the increase in sales and use of protection software. Hmmm....

More?



So despite all the conversation about it... it's still increasing... hmmm...

More?



This suggests a majority, wouldn't you say?



Another majority, wouldn't you say?



Another majority, wouldn't you say? More you ask?



This is a majority towards the good side, however, there are ways to get around this. Most messengers do not keep conversations, or can be selected not to save, and therefore, the time you aren't checking on your teen, you can easily chat all you want, and when a parent comes, X out of it, and the convo is lost forever. This is commonplace

for most teens who are chatting about something. All you do is keep a page up, that is favorable, say the white house, then close out of the program, closing all windows and chats and pull up the page. More stats you say?

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/news/press-releases.php?id=24
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/5332.asp

Which actually reports this:



Suggesting that parents, who think that using these protection programs, and educating themselves in using it, it's not even working but 20% of the time!

Reporting this as well:



Hmm... interesting? That's been my point all along, hasn't it? That teens can and do find ways around all this stuff? And if I use your theory, since teens that do bad things are a result of parenting, you'd be calling the majority of parents, bad parents...

More?

http://www.enough.org/inside.php?id=KXQN5947I
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7668788/



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7666313/
This pertains to London, but in a small sample study showed:



Yet more?

http://www.youthandreligion.org/news/2003-1112.html
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050302_teen_sex.html
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2006/local/02/07/ipod_porn.html

Specifically interesting from the last source:



http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=76341&p=irol-newsArticle&t=Regular&id=713625

This one, is a continuation story of one of the studies cited, but it surely reports majority of parents just don't know.

There are hundreds more in studies, investigations, etc. and I can quote them all day to back up what I've been saying. Where is your backup?




I was pointing out subtley that you can so easily question how I know, without ever taking to point that what you are saying is wrong, you want proof proof proof, for my side, but offered none of your own.



Actually, my family DOES fit the norm. Broken family, upper lower, to lower middle class, with 2 or more children, with limited means. Statistically, I AM the norm. Would you like hundreds of sites showing that as well? In fact, you are quoting stats AGAIN, without proof. Yet, here you are, still defying me to show mine. Well, there it is.

Seola, with fear of a 5 page reply *grin*, I ask:

Who, in your opinion, is responsible for keeping kids out of SL?
What more could Linden Labs do to curb this supposed flood of teenagers from accessing adult material on an adult platform?
Please don't spout the invariable "Get rid of unverifieds" line, as there were kids coming to SL before that was put in place. I'm not saying you do that, just asking you not to. You seem pretty heated on this topic and I'm interested in hearing what your suggestions would be to put a stop to this.
Do you think that raising kids right (and, from what you have said, you're on your way to doing so with your own), while not necessarily stopping them from doing the wrong thing from time to time, will, at least, protect them from the negative influences of, say, seeing a prim willy? What I mean is: would you agree that a well-adjusted kid who's messing around and acting out a little rebellion by getting on SL and looking at the naughty stuff is probaby less likely to be scarred for life (as some posters seem to think seeing altsex will do to the little ones) than someone who wasn't raised right?

I think this is where most of the "Parents have a responsibility" stuff is coming from.
The rest of it is just semantics and arguing.

You are so easily looking over a very important figure in that to make your argument. Look at the internet at HOME. Fact is, most businesses use the internet in everyday social interactions from Memo's to scheduling Lunch. If you look at home access, The younger age group is quite larger comparitively. Also, this doesn't track actual USAGE. It tracks actual access. This may easily be interpreted as those adults having it in the home for their children, when you compare it to househould with more than 2 people. Don't just look at numbers to make a statement, you must interpret them against the rest of the data offered. 77% of the internet accessable homes, are in a 2 or + household. This data also does not provide living arrangements offered by 18 year olds into a say 45 year old's home, therefore being doubly counted.

Table A is essentially useless since it is tracking households and not individual statistics, which is the basis for your argument. As the census stats for 2004 offer, more households under 25 are unmarried than any other age group, so you are essentially skewing an argument without merit.

Also, I ask you to read the last page on their methods of garnering this study, whereas they admit themselves that ratio estimation is used for this particular study. While all studies use a control to gain a mean, ratio statistics are often quite skewed, because it's a sampler questionaire, where they do not follow the subjects nor verify the information. Many of the sources I quoted either followed families or did face to face interaction to have a complete knowledge of if the subject is who they claim to be.



Actually, computer labs were offered in their crudest form (Oregon Trail anyone?), but actual classes on them did not start springing up in public schools til the late 90's. Having a lab with 30 computers is certainly a lot different than having classes, which is what I said. While you proclaim your grandfather was knowledgeagle, you claim your father is not. So if we go by studies, one discounts the other and therefore make the argument null. And quite frankly, if you can so easily discount my family because you say we are not the norm, then why can you use your family as the norm and the basis. If my family matters don't count, yours don't either. Don't be a hypocrite.

In fact though,

Here's a nice lil study for you:

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/163/report_display.asp



This logically concludes that since there are 11 million in 2000, the accessability and ability to teach in schools is quite different than what you proclaim.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/1999017/
Shows that only 35% of schools has access in 1994. Certainly can't teach if you don't have the means, right? Over 4 years, it increased to 89%. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_7/1_2/4_3.asp

By fall of 2003, you can see the charts, yourself, 93% had access.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006327.pdf

In a study of sophomores, while the data wasn't asked specifically in 1980, many had no plans of computer courses. But in 1990, 82% had NOT taken a course with computers at all. Interesting information wouldn't you say? From page 41, it states that 88% never or rarely used the internet in writing up reports. In 2002, the report indicates, that 98% had internet access at school. This would lead to logical conclusion that internet nor courses were available to public schools in the 80's.

You're doing it again, and this time multiple, multiple times. Do you even know what a straw man is?

I never, ever said that "teens with good parenting wouldn't do bad things." Never. Read, really read what it is I have said. Do we really have to continually state the obvious to have a conversation? What I said was that it is a parent's responsibilty to look over their kid's shoulder once in a while (which you falsely painted as me saying "constantly" to see what they are doing. I would appreciate it if you based your replies on actual statements I made, rather than the twisted words you are attributing to me. I really would, but at this point I dont think you're capable of that because you are hell bent on apprearing as "right".

Either you have a reading comprehension problem, or you are deliberately misrepresenting the things I've said to create an adversary, so that you can posture on a web forum.

95% of what you're posting are common sense things that I take no issue with. I would have to be a fool to.

What is wrong with you? Do you do this often? Look for an enemy and then attribute all sorts of arguments to them that they aren't even making? You've taken it to an artform in this last post by posting a plethora stats that I haven't taken issue with. I took issue with your claim about this nebulous and supposedly large number of adults who have never heard of google. None of the stats you've given back that claim up. I am not talking about "LOL" here - I am talking about the fact that there are over 20 million homes in America with computers and internet access that are headed up by people over 45, according to the 2000 census. Certainly that number has since increased, because it's 6 years later and millions of baby boomers are retiring.

As far as my dad goes - the point was that he didn't need to be net savvy to catch me on my PC after bedtime - he just had to look. It wouldn't have mattered if I was in bed with a flashlight reading magazines - the point is - he checked in on me, and eventually he caught me. Can you grasp that? It was a counterpoint to all your hand wringing about the supposed masses of adults who are clueless about the internet. Furthermore, I said that it is irresponsible to allow your kid to have unfettered access to the net if you don't know the first thing about it yourself. I stand by that, and there's nothing you can say to change my mind about it, and it doesn't just apply to the net, it applies to any activities you allow your child to engage in. A parent should familiarise themselves with the subject matter at hand. It's really just common sense.

I'm not going to bother to go through and point out the myriad of fallacious argumentation you're attributing to me.

Good day,eh?

lol, I'm only replying that long to give proof and a solid informed opinion.



Of course the first line of defense is parents. Yes, some parents give free control to their kids and they are to blame. However, some kids who are even under watch, lock and key can find ways around it, and then when the issue arises for open registration, then the kids are at fault for lying, sneaking around, etc.



While I know that verification isn't a guarantee of it, this would put the responsibility solely on the parents for giving and trusting their kids with the means used to verify. I've seen many options discussed, and frankly, those options are not as secure as verification. It has it's flaws, absolutely. But nothing has come even close to being better. This way, if a kid comes on the grid and something stupid happens in USA lawsuit happy land, the parent is 100% accountable.

I know you don't want me to say that, but as I said, there's nothing that comes close to the security it offers. All other means that have been discussed, and even a few of my own ideas have been shot down due to lack of anything better. Ideas such as sending a copy of ID and bills, well, that's not an option for most of our overseas friends, and a copy of an ID is easily photoshopped to a parents name and the kids can take the bills. Sending in social security card numbers is rather moot. If illegal immigrants can so easily get their hands on one, others will too. Not to mention that discounts our international friends who may not have one. Phone calls upon verification aren't an option either, since sometimes a parent may sound like they are 12 and a kid can sound like they are 35.



If I read your statement right, I agree that a well raised kid would be less affected by the oogly's of SL than one who isn't. I mean, my son's seen a willy before... he has one of his own. I personally could care less if he's seeing mature content when he's 16 or 17. Sex is a human nature thing and if he sees it and knows that I am here, he's more likely to come to me with issues about sex. When things are forbidden and hush hush, it's shown kids are more likely to rebel against whatever they aren't speaking about.



I totally agree that parents have a responsibility. But that can only go so far unless your kid is living in Fort Knox, in the Dark Ages, or a parent attached at the hip. It's up to the kid to make the right choices from there. A parent can punish for ill actions, but that's only after the fact. And while I don't like teens on the grid, it isn't because I'm scared of them seeing sex, I'm more scared of the lawsuits that could ensue against content creators. While it sounds absurd, thanks to our legal system, Tipper Gore, etc. it's currently totally possible.

P.S. Thanks for actually asking questions to get a real in depth opinion rather than just arguing to argue.

It stands to reason if a home has access, the users of said access are going to know what Google is. That was my point, and it's hysterical that you go to the lengths you do, without actually proving me wrong. Yes, bring up all sorts of non sequiturs, post links to stats that I haven't challenged, it's all good.

So hey, now that you're on a roll, keep on posting links to stats that have nothing to do with the argument at hand - which is knowledge of Google by those over 35 - you're good at it, and who am I to deny you your moment in the spotlight?

Oh, I asked you at least 2 times to enlighten us as to your stance on the actual topic. You just simply chose to attack my character because of my opinions (which you twisted to suit your argument) instead. You know, insinuating what a bad parent I would be, smart assed remarks about the twilight zone, and so forth.

The person you're responding to you called you a troll on the last page - did you catch that?

First off i'd like to point out to the parent of a three year old. Your kid is a toddler for starters they are bound to not listen as they are not completely comprehensive as to what is going on around them. By the age of 12 or 13 im sure someone knows better. Irregardless if a child is here they lied to get here. LL asks their age and people keep screaming to get rid of unverified account you know what im not english but Bollocks to that.

In the U.S how many kids under 18 have a Cell Phone? How many kids have access to credit cards? How easy is it to go sneak in mommy's purse while she is in the shower and write down her credit card number? How easy is it to go on the net and get a stolen credit card number? Seriously a kid could of gotten here just as easily without unverified accounts.

Seriously Im not a parent but look after your kids. Do you honestly expect the corporations or the government and the schools to continue raising the children for you? I mean seriously if i have my little cousins over at my house and my younger teen cousin at my house i come and check what they are doing on my computer you dont even need to be a parent to know how to do that kind of thing. If i caught them doing or looking at something innappropriate i would tell their parents and let the parents punish them accordingly.

Im only 21 and i know this stuff its common sense really parent or not. To say LL needs to do more is moot really if a person under 18 really wants to get here there are a number of ways to do it. Im sure there are teens here but Age doesnt teach maturity. I know folks that act like total idiots that are over 30 and you would think they are like 8 talking to them. Regardless the issue falls on the parents LL can only do so much and kids can get here either way if they really want to. Watch what your kids do. Simple command lets you view a log of pc activity you can find out what they were doing dont need to be a computer major either and that log exists if they reboot or whatever.

You can look over and see what they are doing. Dont let them have a computer in their room or in a solo room. Partition their online use time and make sure they are off. My computer case has a lock on the front door. Most kids dont know how to pick a lock. Not hard to keep the computer out of reach of someone when you dont want them on it. Its on the parents to check what their kids are doing its plain and simple and to the point.

lol, so you discredit everything because you refuse to see the proof? Nice idea, isn't it? Too bad that doesn't work for reality.

Did you or did you NOT say this?



BTW, despite my parents constant urgings, talking over, death effects, health issues, etc. I still smoke. So does that mean my parents are at fault for my making the decision to pick up a cigarette?

Or this?



Which by the way, I WAS taught not to break into things. I choose to ignore it.

Or this?



Or...



All these are words YOU said previously. You have blamed parents for everything that goes wrong, you've made it that if a kid doesn't do what *you* deem they should, or *you* deem they shouldn't, that it's fact that the parents are the problem.



So you never said the above? You've argued that if a parent checks in, a kid does nothing wrong. If a parent isn't around and the kid does something wrong, that a parent is to blame. But that a kid won't do anything wrong if the parent is there. I simply asked which is it? A parent who is constantly there, not allowing a window to do anything wrong, or a parent who checks in once in a while, leaving the door open for a kid to do something wrong.

You can't answer that, even though I've asked it repeatedly.



Oh are you really serious? You asked for stats YOURSELF about the claims that majority of adults are not techo savvy.

You did say this right?



Common sense and logical thinking would obviously point that if adults are not savvy, there's a chance that they won't know what Google is. Is it really that hard to connect for you?

You also said this right?



And I gave you proof to show my argument. Do you have memory problems?



And I pointed out that just because you weren't smart enough at the time to hide your tracks, doesn't mean that other teens out there don't. Can *you* grasp that? I knew how to cover mine by basic common knowledge of the computer, and many other teens today know more than I did then.



So you totally ignore all the facts I gave you, which you so vehemently wanted and pursue to attack me since you

have been proven wrong? I love it! Thanks for the laugh.

But if you want the direct connection to Google and adults, cross referencing your own link:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/12/06/HNgoogleuserstudy_1.html

Which concludes that a large majority of internet users are below the 60,000 mark, and this study shows that the majority of Google users are over that mark, employ some logical thinking. Also, logically, if an adult has a routine that started with say... Yahoo search, unless they are directly told about Google, they won't know who they are. Google, as I've said is still relatively new to the scene. In fact, I'm the biggest fan of Google I know. But that doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that it takes time to become a household name, and as of this time, while it is used in a majority of searches, doesn't mean the majority is adults.

Anyways, yes it's a good day, and a well day wished to you!