David Kane wrote:

So are you bitter because the kids are beating you or because
you just can't stand to watch normal people participate in
something hitherto reserved for the socially challenged?

Um, no, I have a very good record against kids, not that that matters.
They aren't fun to win against anyway.

Your second comment is simply a non-sequitor.

Even the normally combative Rob got my point - I was posting a devil's
advocate, opposite view. However my views are fairly libertarian; but I
am also a devotee of EF Schumacher, who advocated that smaller is
better.

Rob's proposal sounded like something straight out of the Handbook to
"It takes a Community to Raise a Child" - I doubt he intended it as
such.

This just seems to me something that can only spiral out-of-control,
like mandatory drug testing, and other "fraidy-cat" methods we use to
"protect" ourselves and our "poor children" in this oh-so-scary world.
You may as well say, "if we don't implement this, the terrorists win!"

There probably is an acceptable middle ground here, and for that reason
I posted my little statement, but I still will always agree with the
statement I made at the end - when push comes to shove, parents are
responsible for the safety of their children.

(And Liarry calls me an educationist!)

Thanks Rob for starting the dialogue. As you can tell, I don't agree
with it, but you do make some interesting points.