gdp's Comments

YourCT.com : The Wildlife of Norwalk

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:24:55 +0000

Cool! I'm hoping they're making a comeback. I haven't seen one since I was 20, up in Hyannis Mass. Haven't seen one in CT in decades. I've often thought of buying the cases and raising the eggs to release but the $30+ per case price stops me every time. Maybe someday.

YourCT.com : Sunny Day At Calf Pasture Beach

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:30:06 +0000

Measuring the amount of e.Coli in the water from all the goose poop.

YourCT.com : Labor Day Musings, America's Long Civil War Against Fun

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:17:28 +0000

Then maybe bicycles should not be sold in toy sections of department stores......

YourCT.com : Labor Day Musings, America's Long Civil War Against Fun

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:09:48 +0000

Yes, you certainly do seem to be confused. I have no idea why; my post is pretty much to the point, but I'll try to break it down for you. Think about when you were a kid. Think about how you and your friends rode bikes. Think about the kinds of injuries you and your friends got from bike accidents - broken arms, sprained or broken wrists, broken collarbones, maybe a cracked or knocked out tooth or two. That's about it. I know quite a few kids who broke bones or cracked a tooth from falling off a bike in motion. But I don't know a single kid who received a concussion from falling off a bike in motion. Now explain to me exactly how wearing a bike helmet will keep a kid from breaking an arm? a wrist? or losing a tooth? Now think about how you and your friends went sledding. Think about the areas where you went sledding - schoolyard hills, backyard hills, the woods, driveways, main roads. Remember that I'm talking about 40-some-odd years ago, NOT today. Think about how kids got hurt by sledding then - from running into parked cars, rocks, trees, sides of buildings. I know at least 3 kids who received concussions from sledding and slamming into the brick wall of Kendall School; a rock; and a tree behind my house. Yet there are no requirements for sledders to wear helmets. So what are my personal conclusions? Okay - first we are told our kids *have to* wear a helmet to ride a bike, yet in my entire lifetime (I'm 50+ ) I know of no child who did not wear a helmet who ever received a concussion from falling off a bicycle! Thus I conclude - from my own lifetime experience - that being forced to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle is ridiculous, unnecessary, and yes, an intrusion of government into private life. It's also not a lot of fun. I also conclude that - in my lifetime experience - since injuries from sledding resulted in concussion where injuries from bicycle riding did not, it would make more sense to require the wearing of helmets while sledding since skiers and snowboarders are ALSO required to wear them. I am not talking about seatbelts. I am not talking about motorcycle helmets (and remember, there is no law requiring the wearing of motorcycle helmets in the State of Connecticut to begin with, so bringing that into the discussion is a moot point at best). All we are talking about here are CHILDREN RIDING BICYCLES. There is no "danger" from riding a bicycle - which is a TOY - that necessitates the wearing of a helmet. Rather, if you want to take it to the next level, riding a bicycle SHOULD require the wearing of arm and wrist guards and maybe a face guard too, since kids falling off bikes have a tendency to fall face first with their arms outstretched, thus causing the broken arm and wrist bones, broken collarbones and knocked-out teeth. And i'll repeat again, no helmet is going to stop an arm or wrist or collarbone from being broken or a tooth from being knocked out.

YourCT.com : Labor Day Musings, America's Long Civil War Against Fun

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:42:42 +0000

Sanity, I'm not disagreeing with you - but we're talking about kids riding bicycles, not "cyclists" who ride alongside traffic on major roadways on a daily basis as adults. For one thing, there is a great deal of difference between an injury suffered at the age of 8 or 10, and the same injury suffered at 35 or 40. The injury itself is different and the healing is different. The riding is different also - faster bicycles, faster speeds on the roads, and constant interaction with traffic. Sure, we kids rode in the roads too, but there weren't as many cars on the roads back then, and we were mainly riding house to house, or to the local playground or the candy store - we weren't riding marathons around reservoirs or from one town to another on a regular or daily basis. In any case, as I stated earlier, with all the kids I knew growing up who had bicycles, back in the early 1960s to the mid-1970s (by that time we were old enough to drive), there were no helmets worn. Bicycle helmets didn't exist then. NOBODY wore them (and back then adults didn't ride bikes either, for the most part; not like they do today). And none of those kids I grew up with ever suffered an injury that put them in the hospital for more than a few hours at the most (while they had a bone set). I can't remember a single kid getting a concussion from riding a bike and falling off it. Yeah, I remember reading stories in the paper about the odd kid or two that was on a bike and hit by a car and killed, but that has nothing to do with wearing a helmet - kid on bike vs. automobile is almost always going to result in a death. However I DO know of several kids who got concussions from slamming into trees or rocks or cars or buildings while sledding. And there's no legislation requiring sledders to wear helmets. Although they have to wear them to ski or snowboard. It's an odd distinction.

YourCT.com : Labor Day Musings, America's Long Civil War Against Fun

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:01:03 +0000

But that's what I mean - a bike helmet only protects the top and sides of the head, it does NOTHING to protect the jaw and the face! And every kid I know (well, today they're middle-agers, LOL) who had a bike accident that resulted in an injury never had a problem with their head (as in "concussion"), but with their teeth, their collarbone, their arms or their wrists. Now please explain to me again how wearing a bicycle helmet is going to protect your teeth from being knocked out? Your collarbone, wrist, or arm from being broken?

YourCT.com : Labor Day Musings, America's Long Civil War Against Fun

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:44:28 +0000

ROTFLMAO!

YourCT.com : Labor Day Musings, America's Long Civil War Against Fun

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:28:20 +0000

NorwalkSpectator, I know you made a post that has something to do with a hairline fracture because part of it shows up in the gray sidebar to the right, but after 3 days it has yet to show up in this thread so we can read the full post....o.0 Oh well, maybe someday.

YourCT.com : http://www.yourct.com/new/?p=4625

Wed, 9 Sep 2009 23:59:22 +0000

What difference does this survey make? The state is already looking to sell the property, and Super 7 is never going to be built in this millenium. Thanks a lot, Wilton.:@

YourCT.com : Common Council Meeting of 9/8/2009

Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:49:10 +0000

Seems as if the BOE has been purchasing hundreds of computers every 2-3 years or so. I can't imagine why their IT people can't repair the ones they have to lessen the necessity of constant re-purchasing.

YourCT.com : Labor Day Musings, America's Long Civil War Against Fun

Wed, 9 Sep 2009 01:50:21 +0000

I still can't figure out why we need to wear a helmet to ride a bicycle. I can't think of a single kid I ever knew who hurt their head so badly a helmet was warranted. But I can sure think of plenty of kids who managed a few broken wrists, arms, and collarbones from bicycle accidents, not to mention getting teeth knocked out. None of which would have been prevented by wearing a helmet. I do recall a few concussions gotten through sledding accidents as kids crashed into rocks, trees, stone walls, parked cars, or the sides of buildings. However I have yet to see legislation ruling that helmets must be worn to slide down a hill on a toboggan.

YourCT.com : Health Care Reform, Because The System Is Broken

Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:57:01 +0000

The Senate is right now putting thru a bill that will require MANDATORY health care for all families without it. And people who do not get the mandatory health care will be fined up to $3800. Obama is also going to put a tax on soda so that I can pay for your health care. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_w...

YourCT.com : Books, Pixels and Libraries, Oh My

Tue, 8 Sep 2009 18:54:32 +0000

There is nothing that can compare to the feeling of holding a 100+ year-old book in your hands as you carefully turn the fragile pages.... except maybe holding a first edition, 100+ year-old book in your hands. Or holding an antique book which belonged once to some important historical personage. Or even just owning and reading an antique book, regardless of who owned it first.

YourCT.com : Health Care Reform, Because The System Is Broken

Mon, 7 Sep 2009 23:49:28 +0000

Oh, so what you're saying is that a battery of tests to rule out other diseases and illnesses with similar presenting symptoms is completely unnecessary? I didn't realize that you had a medical degree, excuse my temerity. :o Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that someone with your intelligence is claiming that people in this country have never brought a malpractice suit against a doctor that they felt did not order or give a test that could have ruled out an illness or a disease that went on to sicken, injure or kill that person, their spouse, or a family member. I just don't think you could possibly be that dumb.

YourCT.com : Health Care Reform, Because The System Is Broken

Sun, 6 Sep 2009 18:09:46 +0000

Unlike some people, I don't quote "talking points", I quote my own opinions. Uh, yeah, Turffie, go back and read what I said. Which was (paraphrased): "The tests are done *BECAUSE* patients and patients' families have sued in the past *BECAUSE* the patient has gotten worse or died *BECAUSE* they didn't have the "battery of tests" done IN THE FIRST PLACE." *I* never claimed doctors were sued over tests. *YOU* said that. (cough, cough) Reading comprehension helps.......

YourCT.com : BOE Claims It Can Find Next Superintendent

Sun, 6 Sep 2009 00:26:00 +0000

So you mean to tell me that the BOE is incapable of sending out solicitations for resumes through employment agencies, websites and newspapers? Gosh, that's really amusing. Museums manage to find executive directors, curators, and other staff simply by putting ads in NEMA publications - why shouldn't the BOE be able to publicise their search in educational publications and other print and online venues? Hiring a search firm, particularly during a recession when money is tight everywhere, is an irresponsible use of taxpayer funds. In fact, any BOE ought to be able to find a person to fill a superintendent position from the pool of education professionals within its own district. A national search shouldn't even be a necessity.

YourCT.com : Health Care Reform, Because The System Is Broken

Sun, 6 Sep 2009 00:20:04 +0000

What you don't seem to understand about the "battery of unnecessary tests" is that A) doctors have to rule out the dozens of illnesses that have comparable symptoms to the ones that the patient has presented with, and B) they have been forced to cover all the bases (or appear to have covered all the bases) of diagnoses so that the patient or the patient's family doesn't sue the doctor for malpractice if the patient should worsen after treatment, or even die. One of the major costs of health care in this country is due to the thousands upon thousands of malpractice suits being brought against doctors, insurance companies and health care facilities by patients and/or their families seeking compensation for every little thing.

YourCT.com : BOE Claims It Can Find Next Superintendent

Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:26:02 +0000

Turffie I can see that in the sidebar you have answered my comment above. But unfortunately it is only appearing in the sidebar, and NOT here where the comments should be. So not only am I unable to respond back to you, I am completely unable to read your response to MY comment in the first place! Can you PLEEEEEEZE *FIX* this problem!!!??? It's happening on threads all over this board, not just this one.

YourCT.com : BOE Claims It Can Find Next Superintendent

Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:56:17 +0000

I'm still asking the same question - if the BOE thinks it's "supremely qualified to pick the new superintendent" then WHY are they spending taxpayer dollars to hire a search firm to do the job for them? If they're so "qualified" they shouldn't need a search firm. If they need a search firm, then obviously they're not qualified to pick the next superintendent themselves. Doesn't anyone see through this charade?

YourCT.com : BOE Claims It Can Find Next Superintendent

Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:13:55 +0000

I find it hilarious that the BOE first says it can find its own superintendent, then in the next breath it says it's hiring a search firm to do the job for them. Of course, this is more taxpayer money being wasted for no good reason, but hey, standard operating procedures from the BOE at all times.