Where were you when The Great Forum Outage of 2017 happened?

[Max Rockatansky]

I walked in on my parents getting wasted in the closet and filmed it on my iPad.

Considering how many people were either dropping a deuce or watching porn in interim I'd say this might have been a more accurate summary of the events that transpired. 

Wow, I know it's been a few decades and times have changed, but my summer vacation days were normally spent by leaving the house after breakfast, playing with neighborhood friends, home for lunch, then back outside until dinner time, then out again especially early summer when it stays light late.  I'm sure we took some breaks from outside for some afternoon cartoons or board games or something, but I really did spend hours on end playing outside for most of the summer.  I'm sure we got bored sometimes, but I feel like we always had things to do.  I guess I was lucky to grow up in a neighborhood with a good number of kids close enough to my age to have common interests, and with enough neighborhood parents and grandparents around that we could come and go at each others' houses and all the adults knew that they could trust the others with their kids.

See, I don't know if it's all a tech thing like people believe.  Back in the 1970s/1980s was when people just started to talk about things like crime & safety.  The story I just described with me was from Detroit.  There was no way that Detroit was a safer place in the era I grew up in compared to how bad it is even now.  It was like everyone was oblivious something bad could happen to their kids or for that matter themselves.  I kind of point the shift in society to the era of mass media where people started to become more aware of some of the really bad things out there.   The oddity is that crime levels today are much lower but people feel less safe, so by consequence they seem to do less stuff...especially when it comes to kids outside.  So really it comes down to would you prefer growing up thinking everything around you was and really not be?   Or would you prefer to stay inside and afraid even though you might be statistically pretty safe.  I'd say that shift in mentality is the real root why kids stay inside more these days then really any technological influence. 

I'll buy that. My brother and I were allowed to roam pretty freely the only proviso was that we had to be close enough to the house after 5pm to be able to hear our dad whistle for us to come home. The rest of the day I could have ridden to Mexico and back as long as I had a vehicle fast enough to get me close enough to the house to hear my dad on time.

Our biggest "fear" back then was of the wierdo that might show up and offer us candy to go off with them. We were told in school these kind of things may happen, I never encountered them though.

My wife and I gave our kids the freedom to do the things that we got to do, but they never really took us up on it-because they didn't have friends that could/would do the same things. The internet and games became the be all and end all to them.

Man I think of todays kids, some even in high school, getting dropped off at school by their parents. I commuted 2.5 hrs each way to high school on various busses and trains, I was mixed in with the adults who were going to work. Most of today's parents would have a stroke just thinking about letting their kids do that today.

Funny how people look back at those days in the 20th century as more "simple" when really that was far from the truth.  I'd say a more accurate statement would have been that it was a more "naive" time.  Crime rates were often higher in those times and really you had some truly awful things going on that were mostly swept under the rug from public scrutiny.  Maybe its just me having been exposed to a lifetime of military and law enforcement influence but really I can't buy into the tendency to over dramatize every single bad thing that happens as some sort of mass crime wave.

I spent my time wondering which one of the children on the forum finally broke it.

Maybe dzlsabe getting his revenge for us not liking the hypotenuse and his getting kicked out of here lol!

Are you for sure he's been kicked out?

I think he was temporarily banned and is back?

"Permanent hiatus"

How'd I miss that little nugget of news? 

[jakeroot]

Not going outside and eating a lot of food. Going on other websites. I haven't ever got anything to do.

Summer break, eh? I remember my summers being full of video games, and that was basically it. I can't imagine how horrible my summer would have been if one of the consoles broke.

Because we all know that prolonged exposure to the outdoors is bad for our health.

Fuck the sun.

I find it kind of odd how many of you are all into roads and transportation but never really want to spend a ton of time outside.  No saying that anything is wrong with that, to each their own but I would have assumed otherwise before being on this forum.  Granted I know that this could be a northern climate thing given that Washington and Minnesota are represented here. 

Come to think of it the entire time the forum was down I actually didn't go anywhere or do anything....that's an oddity for me.   I actually went to the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge closure on CA 1 the morning the forum came back.

Well, I was being facetious with that last comment. But Seattle is not know for its outdoor-friendly climate. It rains 8 months of the year, and the other four months, my bike tires were flat, my friends were at summer camp, I was on a vacation, or something else. I also grew up in the internet-age ... I don't need to be with my friends to communicate/hang with them. My best summer memories, honestly, were taking my laptop to my friends house for a "LAN party" (though it was via wifi). Video games were my way of socialising.

Now that I live on my own, and I can drive, I get out constantly. I'm still inside a lot (the climate hasn't improved, though by most measures, the rain is what makes this area great), but I get out more than I used to. Especially to see road-related things. I didn't really get into roads majorly until I was in grade 9 or 10.

What?...  It seems like everyone I've ever met from Washington was a huge outdoors person.   It seemed to as though there was always a ton of people who hiked and did distance biking especially.  It always seemed like more of a constant drizzle with the rain as opposed to the torrential downpours that I used to get in Florida.  I guess that I'm just surprised to hear that perspective from someone who is a local, I assumed something totally different.  But then again I'm usually the guy who stands out like a sore thumb in Washington with jeans,  a tee shirt, no jacket, and a baseball hat.  I can't get into the hoodie, beanie, and fleece look which seems to the local trend.

Most PNW residents are into outdoor activities. It's the younger children who aren't as into it. I greatly enjoy long-distance cycling, hiking, amongst other things now, but when I was younger, I was perfectly happy being sat indoors, playing games or browsing the web. I was rambunctious enough at school that I didn't need much, if any physical activity at home to stay in shape or feel like I was getting enough Vitamin D.

We never went camping or hiking much when I was younger. My father was gone with the Air Force much of my youth, and my mother hates the outdoors for whatever reason. Even if I liked "outdoorsy" things, the opportunity to exploit that interest hardly, if ever presented itself.

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^

Gotcha, yeah I'd say that is pretty much a thing everywhere these days.  For most regions in the country I'd say it would include almost all the adults older than 30 as well.  I hardly ever really see anyone below that age even in any of my travels in general.  I ran into a group of four kids roughly your age heading up to Yosemite by themselves over Memorial Day in an SUV, I was surprised to actually see something like that.  The funny thing is that it doesn't seem to be something extending to people from out of county, there was plenty of younger folks at Big Sur but very few were Americans.

[Roadgeekteen]

I walked in on my parents getting wasted in the closet and filmed it on my iPad.

just stop ne2. Actually do something real on this forum.

[jakeroot]

^^^^^^

Gotcha, yeah I'd say that is pretty much a thing everywhere these days.  For most regions in the country I'd say it would include almost all the adults older than 30 as well.  I hardly ever really see anyone below that age even in any of my travels in general.  I ran into a group of four kids roughly your age heading up to Yosemite by themselves over Memorial Day in an SUV, I was surprised to actually see something like that.  The funny thing is that it doesn't seem to be something extending to people from out of county, there was plenty of younger folks at Big Sur but very few were Americans.

As I've gotten older, I can tell that a lot of my friends have gotten more and more into outdoor activities. A local attraction for youth is to climb Mount Si near North Bend (famously featured in the Twin Peaks intro card). Even people that I considered to be "indoors" people have climbed it (though I haven't -- yet). That stretch from like 12-17 seems to be the worst, "I hate the bloody outdoors" age group.

[kkt]

Mt. Si was sort of boring, I thought.  Lots of the hike is through same-age forest, so no really big trees and few really little ones.  Few breaks in the tree cover to see the view until you get to the top, although the view from the top is very nice on a clear day.

I like to follow the Snoqualmie Point trail to Rattlesnake Mountain.

[Roadgeekteen]

^^^^^^

Gotcha, yeah I'd say that is pretty much a thing everywhere these days.  For most regions in the country I'd say it would include almost all the adults older than 30 as well.  I hardly ever really see anyone below that age even in any of my travels in general.  I ran into a group of four kids roughly your age heading up to Yosemite by themselves over Memorial Day in an SUV, I was surprised to actually see something like that.  The funny thing is that it doesn't seem to be something extending to people from out of county, there was plenty of younger folks at Big Sur but very few were Americans.

As I've gotten older, I can tell that a lot of my friends have gotten more and more into outdoor activities. A local attraction for youth is to climb Mount Si near North Bend (famously featured in the Twin Peaks intro card). Even people that I considered to be "indoors" people have climbed it (though I haven't -- yet). That stretch from like 12-17 seems to be the worst, "I hate the bloody outdoors" age group.

How tall it is?

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^

Gotcha, yeah I'd say that is pretty much a thing everywhere these days.  For most regions in the country I'd say it would include almost all the adults older than 30 as well.  I hardly ever really see anyone below that age even in any of my travels in general.  I ran into a group of four kids roughly your age heading up to Yosemite by themselves over Memorial Day in an SUV, I was surprised to actually see something like that.  The funny thing is that it doesn't seem to be something extending to people from out of county, there was plenty of younger folks at Big Sur but very few were Americans.

As I've gotten older, I can tell that a lot of my friends have gotten more and more into outdoor activities. A local attraction for youth is to climb Mount Si near North Bend (famously featured in the Twin Peaks intro card). Even people that I considered to be "indoors" people have climbed it (though I haven't -- yet). That stretch from like 12-17 seems to be the worst, "I hate the bloody outdoors" age group.

How tall it is?

4,167 feet, the trail is 4 miles and requires a Class 3 climb near the end.  Basically that's not the most difficult hike/climb but it ain't easy either.  For comparisons sake I want to say that Piestewa Peak in Phoenix was class 1 and Camelback was class 1 on Echo Canyon but class 3 through the Cholla Trail.  Most moderately healthy people could handle the class 1 climbs with considerable difficulty but you had to be pretty healthy to do the class 3 Cholla Trail.

[triplemultiplex]

Well I did some roadgeeking out there while we were down.  I clinched a gap in I-90 I had between here and Chicago, reclinched the highway that now bears an added I-41 designation between Milwaukee and Illinois and scoped out progress on the Zoo Interchange.  Oh and I suppose I was also checking in on the I-39/90 expansion project in Southern WI.

It was a productive weekend trip to Chicago and back.
The road geek stuff was all ancillary, I should add.  The main point in going to Chicago was to attend a wedding.

[froggie]

It's the younger children who aren't as into it.

And yet people wonder why we have obesity and diabetes epidemics in this country...

[english si]

And yet people wonder why we have obesity and diabetes epidemics in this country...

Ah, but you see the problem is sugar HFCS, and not that there's a lack of exercise as taxing unhealthy food is easier and generates more revenue than spending money on getting kids to exercise.

[Max Rockatansky]

And yet people wonder why we have obesity and diabetes epidemics in this country...

Ah, but you see the problem is sugar HFCS, and not that there's a lack of exercise as taxing unhealthy food is easier and generates more revenue than spending money on getting kids to exercise.

I'm kind of spit balling this but wasn't the whole move to HFCS from Sugar Cane instigated by the gradual shuttering of US Sugar which if I recall correctly is in progress?  If I'm to remember correctly there was/is huge water quality issues associated with the Everglades watershed and Biscayne Aquaifer that started the shift from Sugar Cane?   

Edit:  The full back story of HFCS becoming the go-to cheap sugar actually dates back to the 1970s and 1980s.  I'm more or less recalling why the backstory of what led to a company town called "Bryant" northeast of Belle Glade being abandoned. 

[jakeroot]

It's the younger children who aren't as into it.

And yet people wonder why we have obesity and diabetes epidemics in this country...

Today's helicopter parents don't help much. They don't allow kids out of their sight, much less the neighbourhood. It's no wonder all my friends were sat inside playing games and chowing down on snacks. It was the only way to stay entertained!

[Roadgeekteen]

It's the younger children who aren't as into it.

And yet people wonder why we have obesity and diabetes epidemics in this country...

Today's helicopter parents don't help much. They don't allow kids out of their site, much less the neighbourhood. It's no wonder all my friends were sat inside playing games and chowing down on snacks. It was the only way to stay entertained!

My parents let me go around outside the house, I just don't like it.

[JJBers]

It's the younger children who aren't as into it.

And yet people wonder why we have obesity and diabetes epidemics in this country...

Today's helicopter parents don't help much. They don't allow kids out of their site, much less the neighbourhood. It's no wonder all my friends were sat inside playing games and chowing down on snacks. It was the only way to stay entertained!

I enjoy going out, luckily the property I own is mostly forest, 60 acres of it. Unluckily, I live on CT 14, which people go upwards of 60 mph on, so I'm trapped to one side of the road. Also about quarter of a mile down the road from where I live, there is a pedophile reconditioning house.

[renegade]

My parents let me go around outside the house, I just don't like it.

When I was that age, I could go anywhere I wanted, as long as I stayed within the city limits.  In 1972, Toledo was a lot different from today.

[briantroutman]

Today's helicopter parents don't help much. They don't allow kids out of their site, much less the neighbourhood. It's no wonder all my friends were sat inside playing games and chowing down on snacks. It was the only way to stay entertained!

I think you'd have a tough time connecting helicopter parenting with a lack of physical activity and therefore childhood obesity.

First of all, those over-involved parents tend to be the ones who perpetually fret about all aspects of their child's health and development–including weight and physical fitness. So while it's true that helicopter parents might not turn their children loose to run wild in the streets (thereby cutting off one avenue of physical activity), they're also the ones giving their children free-range organic kale/soy/chia snacks and shuttling them around to toddler yoga classes and soccer leagues for 18-month olds (these actually exist in my area).

To the contrary, my experience tells me that it's the lazy, under-involved parent–laying on the across couch in sweats with a bag of chips watching Maury–whose kids sit on their ever-widening butts playing Xbox.

And also in my experience, it's not as if kids are begging to get out of the house and their overprotective parents keep them inside. In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: Kids are glued to video games, phones, and tablets, and parents have to force them into going outside or doing any kind of physical activity. The difference is that involved parents (helicopter or otherwise) actually do force their kids to get active–lazy, uninvolved parents don't.

[Roadgeekteen]

Today's helicopter parents don't help much. They don't allow kids out of their site, much less the neighbourhood. It's no wonder all my friends were sat inside playing games and chowing down on snacks. It was the only way to stay entertained!

I think you'd have a tough time connecting helicopter parenting with a lack of physical activity and therefore childhood obesity.

First of all, those over-involved parents tend to be the ones who perpetually fret about all aspects of their child's health and development–including weight and physical fitness. So while it's true that helicopter parents might not turn their children loose to run wild in the streets (thereby cutting off one avenue of physical activity), they're also the ones giving their children free-range organic kale/soy/chia snacks and shuttling them around to toddler yoga classes and soccer leagues for 18-month olds (these actually exist in my area).

To the contrary, my experience tells me that it's the lazy, under-involved parent–laying on the across couch in sweats with a bag of chips watching Maury–whose kids sit on their ever-widening butts playing Xbox.

And also in my experience, it's not as if kids are begging to get out of the house and their overprotective parents keep them inside. In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: Kids are glued to video games, phones, and tablets, and parents have to force them into going outside or doing any kind of physical activity. The difference is that involved parents (helicopter or otherwise) actually do force their kids to get active–lazy, uninvolved parents don't.

I would love to watch 18 month olds play soccer.

[jakeroot]

Today's helicopter parents don't help much. They don't allow kids out of their site, much less the neighbourhood. It's no wonder all my friends were sat inside playing games and chowing down on snacks. It was the only way to stay entertained!

I think you'd have a tough time connecting helicopter parenting with a lack of physical activity and therefore childhood obesity.

First of all, those over-involved parents tend to be the ones who perpetually fret about all aspects of their child's health and development–including weight and physical fitness. So while it's true that helicopter parents might not turn their children loose to run wild in the streets (thereby cutting off one avenue of physical activity), they're also the ones giving their children free-range organic kale/soy/chia snacks and shuttling them around to toddler yoga classes and soccer leagues for 18-month olds (these actually exist in my area).

..... it's not as if kids are begging to get out of the house and their overprotective parents keep them inside. In fact, I've only ever seen the opposite: Kids are glued to video games, phones, and tablets, and parents have to force them into going outside or doing any kind of physical activity. The difference is that involved parents (helicopter or otherwise) actually do force their kids to get active–lazy, uninvolved parents don't.

Kids tend to avoid going outdoors because they never learned to enjoy the outdoors to begin with. You don't learn to enjoy the outdoors the week after you get an iPhone for Christmas, or a laptop for your birthday. These are things that come after you learn to enjoy the basics (i.e. the outdoors). Kids need to go outside and explore well before even 10 years old. My person rule would be, if my kid can speak well enough to ask for help, he should be allowed to wander as he sees fit.

I had several friends growing up, who's parents were reasonably uninvolved in their child's life (other than feeding, clothing, and housing them). Most of them were the ones who spent the most time outside, because their parents never provided much entertainment. They instead had to seek it on their own. In fact, it was these kids who had the least amount of rules. They were allowed to wander for hours on end, having only to be home for dinner. Their parents were usually the opposite of helicopter parents -- they didn't give a shit!

[english si]

First of all, those over-involved parents tend to be the ones who perpetually fret about all aspects of their child's health and development–including weight and physical fitness. So while it's true that helicopter parents might not turn their children loose to run wild in the streets (thereby cutting off one avenue of physical activity), they're also the ones giving their children free-range organic kale/soy/chia snacks and shuttling them around to toddler yoga classes and soccer leagues for 18-month olds (these actually exist in my area).

True, but I find the kids of helicopter parents are unable to run around with the others when they run around. They get the organised exercise, but little outside that.

Also leagues for toddlers? Really? Certainly around here, there's "Little Kickers" for toddlers and younger children, but the 18-27 month group isn't competitive (except, perhaps, between parents who have to take part), the 2-3.5 years group doesn't have parental participation, but doesn't have matches - which is 'gradually introduced' at the 3.5-5 year-old age bracket. (there's also similar for Rugby, only without the bottom group as adults playing Rugby with kids is problematic) I'd imagine that the thing near you is similar. Soccer with 18-24 month-olds is a bit Puppy Bowl esque: they like the fact there's a ball, they don't really know what to do with it.

The difference is that involved parents (helicopter or otherwise) actually do force their kids to get active–lazy, uninvolved parents don't.

Although less involved parents won't drive their kids around everywhere or buy them a car and so they have to be active to travel.

My parents let me go around outside the house, I just don't like it.

This is a problem, but by "won't let them out of their site (sic)", I think jakeroot was referring to children younger than 13.

My person rule would be, if my kid can speak well enough to ask for help, he should be allowed to wander as he sees fit.

That seems a little OTT - I'd be generous in radius, sure, but perhaps because I know it would be fairly easy for them to get from where I live to Central London if they had carte blanche on roaming - and with my genes, they'd be off exploring the big smoke.

I wouldn't have that much of a problem with my hypothetical child going to Central London without adult supervision from the age of about 11 (it would depend on which friends are going, etc) on a trip with a mission like "I'm going to go into London to go to this place and do that"*, but the same reasons that would reassure me (they wouldn't be taking stuff that would be worth stealing) would also mean I'd worry about their ability to get food and drink, etc if they decide to go exploring - they'd be armed with a child Oyster card and perhaps a small amount of money and a mobile (which, if they did have, I'd be texting to check in every now and again to check in with them).

*and, while not that active an activity - as, at best, it's going to be walking around for a few hours, I'd want them at least able to do this sort of thing by the time they are 14. Ditto hiking in rural areas.

[jakeroot]

My parents let me go around outside the house, I just don't like it.

This is a problem, but by "won't let them out of their site (sic)", I think jakeroot was referring to children younger than 13.

Yep. And thanks for the pointer, there. I fixed my first post. It's one thing to screw up grammar. But spelling? No way.

My person rule would be, if my kid can speak well enough to ask for help, he should be allowed to wander as he sees fit.

That seems a little OTT - I'd be generous in radius, sure, but perhaps because I know it would be fairly easy for them to get from where I live to Central London if they had carte blanche on roaming - and with my genes, they'd be off exploring the big smoke.

I wouldn't have that much of a problem with my hypothetical child going to Central London without adult supervision from the age of about 11 (it would depend on which friends are going, etc) on a trip with a mission like "I'm going to go into London to go to this place and do that"*, but the same reasons that would reassure me (they wouldn't be taking stuff that would be worth stealing) would also mean I'd worry about their ability to get food and drink, etc if they decide to go exploring - they'd be armed with a child Oyster card and perhaps a small amount of money and a mobile (which, if they did have, I'd be texting to check in every now and again to check in with them).

*and, while not that active an activity - as, at best, it's going to be walking around for a few hours, I'd want them at least able to do this sort of thing by the time they are 14. Ditto hiking in rural areas.

"As he sees fit" might be the wrong set of words. Perhaps "as I see fit" would be better. Long distance travel would be okay with me, as long as there was some sort of plan. Just out screwing around? Keep it in town. Still better than so many parent's "keep it in the cul-de-sac" rule.

[NE2]

I would love to watch 18 month olds play soccer.

Pedo.

[Roadgeekteen]

I would love to watch 18 month olds play soccer.

Pedo.

just shut up ne2!

[jakeroot]

I would love to watch 18 month olds play soccer.

Pedo.

just shut up ne2!

Don't let him get to you. He'll never stop.

[MNHighwayMan]

He's gotta learn about trolls somehow.