blake murphy wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:00:08 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
> > "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >>
> >>> So why did the parents not stop the child from approaching the dog?
The
> >>> dog was obviously leashed and back in the owner's control. I see
children
> >>> running amuck in these stores all the time. Regardless of the signs
> >>> posted parents allow their offspring to pound on the glass of animal
> >>> cages etc. I see people in those stores that think the place is a
> >>> petting zoo.
> >>
> >> From what I have seen in stores, it is probably the kids who should be
> >> leashed.
> >
> > Perhaps these days... it wouldn't have occurred to me to pitch a fit or
> > wander away from my mother when she took me to the store, no matter how
> > fascinating the display or how enticing the sweets or whatever. Back
when I
> > was a kid it was a privilege, not a right, to go to the store. (I do
> > realize not everyone can find someone to sit with their children when
they
> > shop.)
> >
> > I remember when I worked in a shopping mall in the late 1970s and
especially
> > early 1980s (after the Adam Walsh abduction/murder) seeing parents with
> > "leashes" on their young children. Mostly toddlers. Given the very
real
> > fear about children being snatched by unscrupulous people from large
> > department stores, I thought it a quite sensible idea rather than some
form
> > of cruel and unusual punishment.
> >
> > Jill
>
> that's like wearing a raincoat, galoshes, and carrying an umbrella 24/7
> because it rained once or twice last year. the fear might have been real,
> but it was in no way sensible.


Jill's still wearing her leash, lol...


--
Best
Greg