The first rule of foxholes is when you are in over you head quit digging . Your comments beyond the initial snarky one, reminded me of high school debates when a team knows they have been whipped and just started throwing out “the kitchen sink”, hoping something would stick. But it seldom do. Just about every assertion you have put forth is incorrect or based on faulty logic. But then statistics from the Department of Rectal Extractions usually are suspect.

I ran a TPA that specialized in youth group accident insurance for 38 years. During that period we insured thousands of preschools and day care centers through out the Sunbelt. In our records there were only two deaths from these two groups, one was an adult staff member who sacrificed his life to save two kids from a runaway trailer while they were on a field trip and the other at a former client’s daycare when a child pulled a bookcase over and it hit a sleeping child in the head. The latter could have been avoided if the teacher had stayed in the room, or the bookcase had been fastened to the wall.

In the community just to the east of where we live in the last month two small children were killed from errant gunfire while sitting in their own homes. But by your standards we should be outlawing trailers and books.

Don’t believe that the high tech fixes are a solution, the fancy ground padding is much more abrasive and skin rending than Mother Earth. And did you know that recent studies have found that kids who play outside and even eat a little dirt now and then are healthier because it helps build up their immune system.

To fill out the resume my wife has taught pre-school for over two and a half decades, with a variety of playground equipment that sometimes even I questioned and no child under her care (or at the entire preschool) has never had an accident that required any more than a bandaid and they go out on the playground every day the weather permits.

The two problems I see here are first the event took place in California, instigated by a state employee and anybody who has been reading here for even a few months has to be aware of the inanity and insanity that trickles down from Sacramento. While I have no knowledge of it, I suspect that the facility had been inspected prior to this event and must have previously passed muster. But a bureaucrat with an attitude, what a concept. But if there was a real problem the underwriter would have brought it to their attention, re: “cut down that tree and haul off that log or you are cancelled” or an outraged parent would have sued them. No mention of such events.

So we are left with that old liberal last gasp, “Think of the children.” Your children, my wife and I have already raised ours, and they are doing quite well, thank you.

Look ma, it’s an Argument From Authority!

****

Saying “the world is full of danger” is an abdication of your responsibility as a parent.

****

Oh, and: Per the article, the inspector said that the treehouse should come down or be surrounded by padding, and the log should be sanded and painted. The playground owner decided instead to ragequit and tear everything down. It’s not like some little Hitler came in and was all “ZEES IS UNAUSORIZED! TEAR IT ALL DOWN, NOW! SCHNELL!”

For someone who keeps admonishing people to “read what was written,” may I kindly suggest you take your own advice?

The log and the tree house are two separate issues. Let’s deal with the log. First you claimed the inspector knew more about wood than li’l ol’ anonymous me. Now that has been beaten back on both facts and actions, you have to go elsewhere without addressing that point, so you head to the tree house. (No pun intended.)

You are saying the inspector looked at the tree house and said “that isn’t safe.” The fact of the matter is that the safety record of the tree house puts that claim to rest. (Remember, there were no reports of incidents with the tree house. And to beat back your point even further, day care centers must keep records of kids when they get hurt and the treatment they received (if any.)) The tree house was and is safe. No matter how you want to try and spin it, you cannot.

Secondly, you seem to think that a new tree house will be safer. Once again, you simply choose not to address the issue which is “how can a tree house with no incidents be made safer?”

My point of my original mock headline – which I called possible

Once again, please read before commenting. Is it your contention that “Watching it go, some of the children cried out, “Tell those bad men to bring our log back.” is “more fun?”

Are kids crying your idea of fun? Is removing play things from kids your idea of fun?

Clearly, there is no reasonable person who would say this is not possible based on the evidence we have here.

This thread is full of people who would disagree with you. Either you are saying we are not “reasonable,” you have not read the comments, or you are simply posturing with rhetoric.

(HINT: When the world is against you, bet on the world.)

Then why did you talk about killing, Ron? I notice that you didn’t address that in your response.

Gitcarver, you know wood. Super. Let’s say you know more than the inspector. But he is the one who actually LOOKED at the treehouse. Am I wrong on this? Have you looked at it? Would you really substitute your judgment for someone who looked at it? Really?

Finally, if you don’t understand how 30 years of NO REPORT THAT THE WRITER WAS AWARE OF serious injury – really who knows? – is dispositive on this issue of whether there is a risk, there is assuredly nothing else I can stay to you at this point.

My point of my original mock headline – which I called possible – is that maybe kids are safer and surviving without a particular treehouse. Clearly, there is no reasonable person who would say this is not possible based on the evidence we have here. The most hard core – “we focus too much on safety” proponent would agree with this.

Wow was this another cheap shot from you or what?

Let’s review what has happened here, Ron. You decided to postulate a headline not based on facts and then simply can’t say “sorry – I am mistaken.”

Secondly, you continue to fail to address how a ladder and tree house that has not had an accident or injury in thirty years is somehow less safe than a new ladder or tree house. Despite repeatedly being asked to explain how “less than zero” accidents is a real world number, you continue to run away.

Thirdly, I deal in wood Ron. It is one of my life’s passions. I have lots of experience in dealing with finishing, carving, manipulating, building and anything to do with wood. I have taught wood finishing and wood carving to real people in real settings. I guarantee you that I know more about wood than this inspector.

In fact, you make a false comparison when you claim the inspector is somehow more of an “expert” when all he is doing is following a set of rules – rules which he chose to ignore over the years. So when did this inspector gain his “expertise,” Ron? After last year’s inspection when he ignored the rule he is now enforcing? Before last year when he didn’t say anything about the log?

Tell me Ron, as you are one who always wants to claim anything not in the article doesn’t exist, how you know the inspector has more “expertise” with wood than anyone reading this?

But since you can’t do that, let me let you in on a little secret. The log was smooth because over the years, kids walking on it compressed the fibers. It it the only thing that can account for the smoothness in a natural log exposed to the air. If the inspector wanted the school to sand and paint the log, removing the layers of compressed fibers and introducing a sealer paint makes the log more susceptible to splintering – not less. Let me repeat that for you. What the inspector wanted made the situation more dangerous – not less.

Given what we know, it is clear that you and the inspector have no idea how to treat or deal with real wood in real world situations. You are agreeing with the inspector because he has a rulebook – not because of any “expertise” he has in the area.

Such a belief is fatally flawed, as is the rest of your “less than zero” argument.

Bob