On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:17:16 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from Kathleen > contains these words:
>
>> I know full well that things would have gone quite differently if my
>> husband had been there instead of me.
>
> There's a difference between teaching how to stay safe, and teaching
>a far uglier lesson of fear and irrationality.
>
> The girl was in a clearing where there were other people around, the
>vendors selling stuff, the pirate, and her mother. You were close
>enough to hear their conversation.
>
> He recognised your girl from riding lessons, as a connection of his
>own daughter. There are other family connections and your daughter's
>photo in their living room , which suggests either you or she have been
>to his home.. So, he wasn't accosting an unknown girl in a lonely place;
>he was making a casual friendly greeting to someone he recognised and
>knows of, in public with plenty of other people around. Normal social
>interaction.
>
> There was nothing idiotic in his behaviour; nothing to warrant talk
>of violence against him or any talk about your husband exacting
>revenge for a completely innocent harmless non-event. You're doing your
>daughter no favours if she acquires a fearful mindset which constantly
>harbours irrational imaginings of physical retribution and violence,
>portraying even her own father in that light.
>
>It's just as important for future safety and good health, to learn to
>keep matters in proportion rather than dwell on dark fantasies.
>
> Janet
>

this was my reaction, too. a quasi-acquaintence trying to be friendly
and he's 'lucky' he wasn't assaulted or worse?

my o my, white folks sure is crazy.

your pal,
blake