On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 07:27:41 -0300, lucretia
> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 15:42:20 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 00:13:13 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
says...
>>>>
>>>> Weren't you also against kids playing outside their homes in the
>>>> street? You thought that was too dangerous because of kidnapping,
>>>> pedophiles and all that.
>>>
>>> No, Bruce, that's just an example of your strawman lies to discredit
>>>other posters.
>>
>>Ah, there are those unproven lies again I could explain to you what
>>that discussion with Lucretia was about a year ago or so, but you're
>>not worth the effort.
>
>Maybe your memory is at fault - my granddaughter could tell you that
>when I asked why her daughter could not go out to play and she gave me
>the kidnapper/paedophile line I asked her to name one single instance
>of that happening here, it never has. So I am certain you cannot go
>back and produce a post by me condemning outdoor play for kids. BTW I
>am also against all the parents driving the kids to school all the
>time.

You said sending children to sports clubs was very expensive. I said
that, when I was a child, I didn't need a sports club. I just played
football on the street. You said my age was showing, because these
days it's way too dangerous for children to play on the street. They
always have to be under supervision.

It went something like that.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 22:22:36 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 07:27:41 -0300, lucretia
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 15:42:20 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 00:13:13 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
says...
>>>>>
>>>>> Weren't you also against kids playing outside their homes in the
>>>>> street? You thought that was too dangerous because of kidnapping,
>>>>> pedophiles and all that.
>>>>
>>>> No, Bruce, that's just an example of your strawman lies to discredit
>>>>other posters.
>>>
>>>Ah, there are those unproven lies again I could explain to you what
>>>that discussion with Lucretia was about a year ago or so, but you're
>>>not worth the effort.
>>
>>Maybe your memory is at fault - my granddaughter could tell you that
>>when I asked why her daughter could not go out to play and she gave me
>>the kidnapper/paedophile line I asked her to name one single instance
>>of that happening here, it never has. So I am certain you cannot go
>>back and produce a post by me condemning outdoor play for kids. BTW I
>>am also against all the parents driving the kids to school all the
>>time.
>
>You said sending children to sports clubs was very expensive. I said
>that, when I was a child, I didn't need a sports club. I just played
>football on the street. You said my age was showing, because these
>days it's way too dangerous for children to play on the street. They
>always have to be under supervision.
>
>It went something like that.

I know you cannot produce that post because it goes against everything
I believe. Yes, I would have said sports for kids are very expensive
these days, David introduced soccer for kids here in 1968 when we were
horrified that locally the sports group wanted to raise $3,000 to put
together a baseball team. David said 'send me your kids, I'll bring
a ball and I will send you home tired kids' - they played shirts and
skins and within two years over a thousand kids were playing.

Sadly I was recently horrified to see how expensive soccer for kids
is, not the original, inclusive idea.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 10:19:10 -0300, lucretia
> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 22:22:36 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>You said sending children to sports clubs was very expensive. I said
>>that, when I was a child, I didn't need a sports club. I just played
>>football on the street. You said my age was showing, because these
>>days it's way too dangerous for children to play on the street. They
>>always have to be under supervision.
>>
>>It went something like that.
>
>I know you cannot produce that post because it goes against everything
>I believe. Yes, I would have said sports for kids are very expensive
>these days, David introduced soccer for kids here in 1968 when we were
>horrified that locally the sports group wanted to raise $3,000 to put
>together a baseball team. David said 'send me your kids, I'll bring
>a ball and I will send you home tired kids' - they played shirts and
>skins and within two years over a thousand kids were playing.
>
>Sadly I was recently horrified to see how expensive soccer for kids
>is, not the original, inclusive idea.

I'll see if I can find it later. There are no unique keywords to
search for, which makes it hard. I already tried.

By the way, it's not that I want to dig up that discussion. I'm just
trying to make clear that I wasn't lying.

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 06:04:54 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 10:19:10 -0300, lucretia
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 22:22:36 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>You said sending children to sports clubs was very expensive. I said
>>>that, when I was a child, I didn't need a sports club. I just played
>>>football on the street. You said my age was showing, because these
>>>days it's way too dangerous for children to play on the street. They
>>>always have to be under supervision.
>>>
>>>It went something like that.
>>
>>I know you cannot produce that post because it goes against everything
>>I believe. Yes, I would have said sports for kids are very expensive
>>these days, David introduced soccer for kids here in 1968 when we were
>>horrified that locally the sports group wanted to raise $3,000 to put
>>together a baseball team. David said 'send me your kids, I'll bring
>>a ball and I will send you home tired kids' - they played shirts and
>>skins and within two years over a thousand kids were playing.
>>
>>Sadly I was recently horrified to see how expensive soccer for kids
>>is, not the original, inclusive idea.
>
>I'll see if I can find it later. There are no unique keywords to
>search for, which makes it hard. I already tried.
>
>By the way, it's not that I want to dig up that discussion. I'm just
>trying to make clear that I wasn't lying.

Knowing very well how I feel, I know I would never have said anything
of the sort. I am willing to bet if you can find it that it was
someone else in a thread, just goes completely against everything I
believe in very strongly on the raising of kids.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 19:22:58 -0300, lucretia
> wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 06:04:54 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 10:19:10 -0300, lucretia
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 22:22:36 +1000, Bruce >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>You said sending children to sports clubs was very expensive. I said
>>>>that, when I was a child, I didn't need a sports club. I just played
>>>>football on the street. You said my age was showing, because these
>>>>days it's way too dangerous for children to play on the street. They
>>>>always have to be under supervision.
>>>>
>>>>It went something like that.
>>>
>>>I know you cannot produce that post because it goes against everything
>>>I believe. Yes, I would have said sports for kids are very expensive
>>>these days, David introduced soccer for kids here in 1968 when we were
>>>horrified that locally the sports group wanted to raise $3,000 to put
>>>together a baseball team. David said 'send me your kids, I'll bring
>>>a ball and I will send you home tired kids' - they played shirts and
>>>skins and within two years over a thousand kids were playing.
>>>
>>>Sadly I was recently horrified to see how expensive soccer for kids
>>>is, not the original, inclusive idea.
>>
>>I'll see if I can find it later. There are no unique keywords to
>>search for, which makes it hard. I already tried.
>>
>>By the way, it's not that I want to dig up that discussion. I'm just
>>trying to make clear that I wasn't lying.
>
>Knowing very well how I feel, I know I would never have said anything
>of the sort. I am willing to bet if you can find it that it was
>someone else in a thread, just goes completely against everything I
>believe in very strongly on the raising of kids.

I'll try to find it later. I'm not sure if my posts were being
archived back then, but yours probably were.