On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:39:38 -0700, Frank Mayhar 
wrote:

>"Feeling bad."  Okay, I'm going to tell you:  I _have_, unlike you, 
>witnessed death, up close and personal.  You don't just "feel bad" 
>afterwards.  People can be debilitated for years by the consequences of 
>such things.

I can verify that.  It took me about 24 years before I got a complete
night's sleep.  Mind you, it probably depends on the circumstances.  I
had seen some messy dead *bodies* without much problem.  It was seeing
the act itself that did it.  And possibly the age of the child who
died.

It may not affect everyone that way however.  I even met people who
apparently enjoyed it.

-- 
Cynic

In news:tvq194hqvipata6tut5i2dj36gkp6mh147@4ax.com Cynic
 wrote: 

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:39:38 -0700, Frank Mayhar 
> wrote:
> 
>>"Feeling bad."  Okay, I'm going to tell you:  I _have_, unlike you, 
>>witnessed death, up close and personal.  You don't just "feel bad" 
>>afterwards.  People can be debilitated for years by the consequences
>>of such things.
> 
> I can verify that.  It took me about 24 years before I got a complete
> night's sleep.  Mind you, it probably depends on the circumstances.  I
> had seen some messy dead *bodies* without much problem.  It was seeing
> the act itself that did it.  And possibly the age of the child who
> died.

So, what other potentially dangerous activities would you two like to
ban so that you and others like you can avoid such vicarious trauma? 

-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

On 30 Jul 2008 22:49:37 GMT, Bert Hyman  wrote:

>>>"Feeling bad."  Okay, I'm going to tell you:  I _have_, unlike you, 
>>>witnessed death, up close and personal.  You don't just "feel bad" 
>>>afterwards.  People can be debilitated for years by the consequences
>>>of such things.
>> 
>> I can verify that.  It took me about 24 years before I got a complete
>> night's sleep.  Mind you, it probably depends on the circumstances.  I
>> had seen some messy dead *bodies* without much problem.  It was seeing
>> the act itself that did it.  And possibly the age of the child who
>> died.
>
>So, what other potentially dangerous activities would you two like to
>ban so that you and others like you can avoid such vicarious trauma? 

The only dangerous activity that I would *really* like to ban is war.

-- 
Cynic

cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote in
news:k19394lp61m60tqnbml2m6ogi7k8kulkv8@4ax.com: 

> On 30 Jul 2008 22:49:37 GMT, Bert Hyman  wrote:
>
>>So, what other potentially dangerous activities would you two like
>>to ban so that you and others like you can avoid such vicarious
>>trauma? 
> 
> The only dangerous activity that I would *really* like to ban is
> war. 

I thought the UN took care of that, decades ago. 

-- 
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

On 31 Jul 2008 13:02:19 GMT, Bert Hyman  wrote:

>>>So, what other potentially dangerous activities would you two like
>>>to ban so that you and others like you can avoid such vicarious
>>>trauma? 
>> 
>> The only dangerous activity that I would *really* like to ban is
>> war. 
>
>I thought the UN took care of that, decades ago. 

Sadly not.  Ask Bush or Blair.

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:48:27 -0700 (PDT), Kel Varnsen
 wrote:

>> The only dangerous activity that I would *really* like to ban is war.

>That's funny.  Yep lets get everyone to sit down and smoke em peace
>pipe and sign a blood brother pact.  NO more WAR.  Zombie!

It would be nice.  Totally impossible to achieve, of course.

The next best would be to make it mandatory for the people who
declared the war to lead their troops into battle as used to be the
case long ago.  I suspect that there would be a lot more effort put
into finding a diplomatic solution if that were to happen.

-- 
Cynic

<due to server restrictions, removed the following groups from the
followup headers: talk.politics.guns,uk.politics.guns - it's only due
to server restrictions, so feel free to re-add these groups to the
follow-up header in any responses to this post if you so desire>

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:23:06 +0100, Cynic 
wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:48:27 -0700 (PDT), Kel Varnsen
>  wrote:
> 
> >> The only dangerous activity that I would *really* like to ban is war.
> 
> >That's funny.  Yep lets get everyone to sit down and smoke em peace
> >pipe and sign a blood brother pact.  NO more WAR.  Zombie!
> 
> It would be nice.  Totally impossible to achieve, of course.
> 
> The next best would be to make it mandatory for the people who
> declared the war to lead their troops into battle as used to be the
> case long ago.  I suspect that there would be a lot more effort put
> into finding a diplomatic solution if that were to happen.

Can you imagine if our political leaders could only ever go to war for
causes they, themselves were willing to lay down their lives for?

Pfeh... with cowards at the head of the line like we have today, the
peace would be deafening.