Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #931 > unrolled thread

Fertility procedure risks "designer babies"

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" RS Wood  <rswood@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-25 20:30 +0000
    Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-25 23:19 +0200
      Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Rob <monst.oorzudo@ntlworld.com> - 2014-02-26 09:36 +0000
      Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" SlimmPickens <lachlanmoss@gmail.com> - 2014-02-26 02:50 -0800
        Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-02-26 15:03 +0200
          Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" "Andy K." <andy.k466@gmail.com> - 2014-03-02 23:42 +0100
      Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-02-26 11:24 -0300
    Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-02-26 12:51 +0000
      Re: Fertility procedure risks  designer babies "wjwlsn" <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-26 11:06 -0600
      Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-26 17:13 +0000
        Re: Fertility procedure risks "designer babies" Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-02-27 12:18 +0000
          non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-27 15:44 +0000
            Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-02-27 16:58 +0000
            Re: Fertility procedure risks  designer babies "wjwlsn" <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-27 11:05 -0600
              Re: Fertility procedure risks  designer babies "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-02-27 12:22 -0600
              Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-27 20:09 +0000
                Re: Fertility procedure risks  designer babies "wjwlsn" <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-27 14:39 -0600
                  Re: Fertility procedure risks  designer babies RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-27 20:50 +0000
                Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-03-01 04:59 -0400
                  Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-02 23:48 -0500
                Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-03-02 23:43 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#931 — Fertility procedure risks "designer babies"

From the "hoping my kids are awesome" department:
Title: Fear of ‘Designer Babies’ as F.D.A. Weighs Fertility Procedure
Author: By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:08:12 -0500
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/health/fda-meeting-considers-controversial-fertility-procedure.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

The Food and Drug Administration is considering a fertility technique that
combines the genetic material of three people to avoid certain defects.[image 1]
[image 3][2] [image 5][4] [image 7][6] [image 9][8] [image 11][10]
[image 13][12][image 15][14][image 17][16][image 19][18][image 20]

Links:
[1]: http://rss.nytimes.com/c/34625/f/640350/s/37862384/sc/7/mf.gif (image)
[2]: http://share.feedsportal.com/share/twitter/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2014%2F02%2F26%2Fhealth%2Ffda-meeting-considers-controversial-fertility-procedure.html%3Fpartner%3Drss%26emc%3Drsst=Fear+of+%E2%80%98Designer+Babies%E2%80%99+as+F.D.A.+Weighs+Fertility+Procedure (link)
[3]: http://res3.feedsportal.com/social/twitter.png (image)
[4]: http://share.feedsportal.com/share/facebook/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2014%2F02%2F26%2Fhealth%2Ffda-meeting-considers-controversial-fertility-procedure.html%3Fpartner%3Drss%26emc%3Drsst=Fear+of+%E2%80%98Designer+Babies%E2%80%99+as+F.D.A.+Weighs+Fertility+Procedure (link)
[5]: http://res3.feedsportal.com/social/facebook.png (image)
[6]: http://share.feedsportal.com/share/linkedin/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2014%2F02%2F26%2Fhealth%2Ffda-meeting-considers-controversial-fertility-procedure.html%3Fpartner%3Drss%26emc%3Drsst=Fear+of+%E2%80%98Designer+Babies%E2%80%99+as+F.D.A.+Weighs+Fertility+Procedure (link)
[7]: http://res3.feedsportal.com/social/linkedin.png (image)
[8]: http://share.feedsportal.com/share/gplus/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2014%2F02%2F26%2Fhealth%2Ffda-meeting-considers-controversial-fertility-procedure.html%3Fpartner%3Drss%26emc%3Drsst=Fear+of+%E2%80%98Designer+Babies%E2%80%99+as+F.D.A.+Weighs+Fertility+Procedure (link)
[9]: http://res3.feedsportal.com/social/googleplus.png (image)
[10]: http://share.feedsportal.com/share/email/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2014%2F02%2F26%2Fhealth%2Ffda-meeting-considers-controversial-fertility-procedure.html%3Fpartner%3Drss%26emc%3Drsst=Fear+of+%E2%80%98Designer+Babies%E2%80%99+as+F.D.A.+Weighs+Fertility+Procedure (link)
[11]: http://res3.feedsportal.com/social/email.png (image)
[12]: http://da.feedsportal.com/r/186530953829/u/0/f/640350/c/34625/s/37862384/sc/7/rc/1/rc.htm (link)
[13]: http://da.feedsportal.com/r/186530953829/u/0/f/640350/c/34625/s/37862384/sc/7/rc/1/rc.img (image)
[14]: http://da.feedsportal.com/r/186530953829/u/0/f/640350/c/34625/s/37862384/sc/7/rc/2/rc.htm (link)
[15]: http://da.feedsportal.com/r/186530953829/u/0/f/640350/c/34625/s/37862384/sc/7/rc/2/rc.img (image)
[16]: http://da.feedsportal.com/r/186530953829/u/0/f/640350/c/34625/s/37862384/sc/7/rc/3/rc.htm (link)
[17]: http://da.feedsportal.com/r/186530953829/u/0/f/640350/c/34625/s/37862384/sc/7/rc/3/rc.img (image)
[18]: http://da.feedsportal.com/r/186530953829/u/0/f/640350/c/34625/s/37862384/a2.htm (link)
[19]: http://da.feedsportal.com/r/186530953829/u/0/f/640350/c/34625/s/37862384/a2.img (image)
[20]: http://pi.feedsportal.com/r/186530953829/u/0/f/640350/c/34625/s/37862384/a2t.img (image)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#933

In the future, when you want a child, you go to a fertility center. You
can then choose between Microsoft Boy and Microsoft Girl. Then, they'll
clone an embryo for you. You'll know how your child will look (exactly
like their classmates), how good they will do in school and what
hereditary illnesses they are prone to.

Microsoft will release occasional upgrades and enhancements, so the
younger siblings tend to be slightly more beautiful/handsome, stronger,
smarter and healthier.

It will still be technically legal to fertilize the old-school way, but
you will be strongly advised against it. You child will be teased in
school, they will probably have learning difficulties, they will have a
hard time finding a mate, they might get weird sicknesses unknown to
doctors and uninteresting to the medical researchers and drug
manufacturers. Your child might not be entitled to a medical insurance
and may not even get a driver's license.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#952

On 25/02/14 21:19, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> Microsoft will release occasional upgrades and enhancements, so the
> younger siblings tend to be slightly more beautiful/handsome, stronger,
> smarter and healthier.
>
> It will still be technically legal to fertilize the old-school way, but
> you will be strongly advised against it. You child will be teased in
> school, they will probably have learning difficulties, they will have a
> hard time finding a mate, they might get weird sicknesses unknown to
> doctors and uninteresting to the medical researchers and drug
> manufacturers. Your child might not be entitled to a medical insurance
> and may not even get a driver's license.

They made a film about that!

-- 
Rob
"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational 
in order to prove that you care, or, indeed, why it should be necessary 
to prove it at all." - Avon, Blake's 7

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#955

> It will still be technically legal to fertilize the old-school way, but
> you will be strongly advised against it.

I don't think so. Your body is switching genes on and off all the time. We've already used a retrovirus to allow an adult rhesus monkey to see a third colour (normally just two) by using a retrovirus to insert DNA for the missing cone cells directly into the eye. The brain just takes the new input automatically, the monkey can actually see the new colour. 

The point is I think the modus operandi will be to "edit" whatever DNA you happen to have. The women are going to be HOT!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#959

SlimmPickens <lachlanmoss@gmail.com>:

>> It will still be technically legal to fertilize the old-school way,
>> but you will be strongly advised against it.
>
> I don't think so. Your body is switching genes on and off all the
> time. We've already used a retrovirus to allow an adult rhesus monkey
> to see a third colour (normally just two) by using a retrovirus to
> insert DNA for the missing cone cells directly into the eye. The brain
> just takes the new input automatically, the monkey can actually see
> the new colour.
>
> The point is I think the modus operandi will be to "edit" whatever DNA
> you happen to have. The women are going to be HOT!

It will be impossible to reliably predict if your hotfixes would be
beneficial or detrimental to the baby (the edits would have to be made
in vitro to have a chance at directing the development).

The women might well be hot, but each year's models will look identical.

We already have that situation with cars.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1168

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:03:16 +0200
Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:

> The women might well be hot, but each year's models will look identical.

Oh yeah baby, twins! :)

-- 
Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#962

On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:19:30 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net>
wrote:

>
>In the future, when you want a child, you go to a fertility center. You
>can then choose between Microsoft Boy and Microsoft Girl. Then, they'll
>clone an embryo for you. You'll know how your child will look (exactly
>like their classmates), how good they will do in school and what
>hereditary illnesses they are prone to.

	As long as the children could control their own backdoors. And
Micro$oft always builds in backdoors. Imagine if PedoHacker[TM]
managed to get the entry code ...
	Seriously, it would be marvelous if you could have an in-vitro
baby and obliterate serious hereditary faults. It would be the
husband/wife's embryo, of course, placed in the mothers's womb.The
people harboring Psoriasis, Diabetes and thousands of other presently
unpreventable diseases would be very thankful. And the positive
feedback would push research for the genetic cause to many diseases we
think "just happen", like leukemia and others.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#958

RS Wood wrote:
>  From the "hoping my kids are awesome" department:

What has this to do with comp.misc?


-- 
Madam Life's a piece in bloom,
Death goes dogging everywhere:
She's the tenant of the room,
He's the ruffian on the stair.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#966 — Re: Fertility procedure risks designer babies

Peter Percival wrote:
> What has this to do with comp.misc? 

The article is not completely relevant to comp.misc, by itself. You have to
look ahead to the upcoming opportunity for the development of a web-based
service catering to prospective parents that wish to conceive "optimized"
babies. After an initial explosion of differing methodologies, the market
will most likely converge on just a few major providers that differentiate
their service offerings thusly:

* Crowd-sourced design: Prospective parents post a description of their own
physical and mental characteristics, and then a Slashdot-style moderated
discussion ensues. The highest-rated replies are then used as the design
parameters.

* Mix-and-match design: Prospective parents rank photos and quotes from a
database of current celebrities and famous historical figures. The mix-and-
match engine then selects the final design using an "if you liked this,
you'll probably like this" algorithm originally obtained from Netflix.

* Expert design: Prospective parents describe the characteristics that they
wish their child to possess. An expert Parent Experience team then takes
those design inputs and designs the child's genetic makeup according to 
their own design principles. Microsoft will be a major player in this arena.

* Open source design: Prospective parents consult a database of past child
designs licensed under a recognized Open Source Genetic License. The budding
parents can then choose a design and install the packages they desire, or
they can fork an existing design and modify it as they see fit.

Get in on this market early!
-- 
View this thread at http://squte.com/node/4773#comment-11010

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#967

Peter Percival wrote:
> RS Wood wrote:
>> From the "hoping my kids are awesome" department:
> What has this to do with comp.misc?

Doesn't always have to be about software.  I don't notice many others 
posting articles around here.  If you disagree with my choices I'd 
invite you to post some things you think the group would be interested in.

I also agree with wjwlsn's response.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1031

RS Wood wrote:
> Peter Percival wrote:
>> RS Wood wrote:
>>> From the "hoping my kids are awesome" department:
>> What has this to do with comp.misc?
>
> Doesn't always have to be about software.

I agree, but I think posts should relate to computers or computing.  (Or 
perhaps "mechanized computers and computing" so as to exclude what 
happens when I add a few numbers up on a used envelope.)

> I don't notice many others
> posting articles around here.  If you disagree with my choices I'd
> invite you to post some things you think the group would be interested in.
>
> I also agree with wjwlsn's response.


-- 
Madam Life's a piece in bloom,
Death goes dogging everywhere:
She's the tenant of the room,
He's the ruffian on the stair.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1042 — non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...)

>> Doesn't always have to be about software.
>
>I agree, but I think posts should relate to computers or computing.  (Or 
>perhaps "mechanized computers and computing" so as to exclude what 
>happens when I add a few numbers up on a used envelope.)

I have thought abut this for a bit and decided I'll try to respect that and
 post this sort of stuff elsewhere.  But those of you who find this topic
 interesting, in which newsgroup shall we agree to send the non-IT articles
 you would equally expect to see on sites like Soy or pipedot?  No point in
 me going to the trouble of posting stuff no one will read. And comments are
 thin enough here as it is!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1045 — Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...)

RS Wood wrote:
>
>>> Doesn't always have to be about software.
>>
>> I agree, but I think posts should relate to computers or computing.  (Or
>> perhaps "mechanized computers and computing" so as to exclude what
>> happens when I add a few numbers up on a used envelope.)
>
> I have thought abut this for a bit and decided I'll try to respect that and
>   post this sort of stuff elsewhere.

That is very good of you.

May I say that the new life brought to comp.misc by ex Slashdot folk is 
a Good Thing.

> But those of you who find this topic
>   interesting, in which newsgroup shall we agree to send the non-IT articles
>   you would equally expect to see on sites like Soy or pipedot?  No point in
>   me going to the trouble of posting stuff no one will read. And comments are
>   thin enough here as it is!
>


-- 
Madam Life's a piece in bloom,
Death goes dogging everywhere:
She's the tenant of the room,
He's the ruffian on the stair.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1046 — Re: Fertility procedure risks designer babies

RS Wood wrote:
> I have thought abut this for a bit and decided I'll try to respect that
> and post this sort of stuff elsewhere. But those of you who find this
> topic interesting, in which newsgroup shall we agree to send the non-IT
> articles you would equally expect to see on sites like Soy or pipedot?

I just did a little searching around and found misc.news.internet.discuss,
which actually seems to have some fairly regular traffic that is similar to
this. It's worth a look. (In fact, if we ever did decide that we absolutely
had to move elsewhere in Usenet, it would be my new recommendation. Many of
our discussions would fit right in.)

If you do decide to start posting stuff there, I recommend posting an 
announcement here on comp.misc and letting tdk know (it could be a good
newsgroup to add to s'qute).

Regards,
Bill

-- 
Join an active tech-news-and-discussion community in comp.misc...
Saving Usenet since February 2014! :p

View this thread at http://squte.com/node/4773#comment-11255

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1049 — Re: Fertility procedure risks designer babies

> letting tdk know (it could be a good newsgroup to add to s'qute).
Thanks, I've just added alt.folklore.computers on a recommendation here. I'll 
add misc.news.internet.discuss if Mr. Wood makes an announcement.
Personally I'd be happy if we carry on just using this group, most of us are OK 
with non-computer based 'News for Nerds'.

Maybe we should have a vote on it?

-- 
regards
~tdk
View this thread at http://squte.com/node/4773#comment-11288

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1050 — Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...)

On 2014-02-27, wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just did a little searching around and found
> misc.news.internet.discuss, which actually seems to have some fairly
> regular traffic that is similar to this. It's worth a look. (In fact,
> if we ever did decide that we absolutely had to move elsewhere in
> Usenet, it would be my new recommendation. Many of our discussions
> would fit right in.)
>
> If you do decide to start posting stuff there, I recommend posting an
> announcement here on comp.misc and letting tdk know (it could be a
> good newsgroup to add to s'qute).
>
> Regards, Bill
>

I had a look at m.n.i.d. (too bad the acronym doesn't work out to
m.i.n.d.! - oh well).  It's not bad.  Two comments:

1. The stuff posted there is often more whimsical often has no tech
angle at all (Japanese tourists arrested because they didn't understand
traffic signals etc.) whereas I'm finding and hoping to share articles
that are technical in nature but not necessarily related to computers or
computing.  I'd like to look around a bit longer.

2. There's already a bit of a community there, though a thin one.  In
light of Michael Black's concerns - which I think are legitimate - I
posted a note there saying they might see some names and faces.  It's
one thing to start using comp.misc which had nothing but robo-spam and
another to drop in on a community already sort of doing its own thing.
(I also invited them to come join us here).

In sum, let's look around a bit longer.  There's still alt.geek and
alt.nerd.obsessive.  alt.hackers.discuss seems available but it's not
quite right.  There's also alt.misc and misc.misc, both of which seem to
receive regular robo-spam posts of total garbage and neither of which
seems like a great fit.

I was going to say, perhaps it's time to propose to the Big-8 Board an
alt.something but what would it be and how would it differ from this?
Then we're back to posting the Your Rights Online type stuff in
alt.privacy and the hacker stuff in alt.2600 and we're spread out again.

In the short term while we get organized, I'll post the technical- but
not-comp stuff on m.n.i.d and I guess we'll see how it goes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1053 — Re: Fertility procedure risks designer babies

RS Wood wrote:
> I had a look at m.n.i.d. (too bad the acronym doesn't work out to 
> m.i.n.d.! - oh well).  It's not bad.  Two comments: 
> 1. The stuff posted there is often more whimsical often has no tech 
> angle at all (Japanese tourists arrested because they didn't understand 
> traffic signals etc.) whereas I'm finding and hoping to share articles 
> that are technical in nature but not necessarily related to computers or 
> computing.  I'd like to look around a bit longer. 

Agreed. I took a look at the history and it seems m.n.i.d changed quite
a bit from 2010 to 2011. These days, most topics are being posted by a
single person and replies seem relatively rare. The topics themselves seem
to cover (mostly non-IT) sci/tech, rights and politics, and unusual news
that might not get wide coverage else where. The amount of traffic is not
high, but seems fairly consistent.

> 2. There's already a bit of a community there, though a thin one.  In 
> light of Michael Black's concerns - which I think are legitimate - I 
> posted a note there saying they might see some names and faces.  It's 
> one thing to start using comp.misc which had nothing but robo-spam and 
> another to drop in on a community already sort of doing its own thing. 
> (I also invited them to come join us here). 

I saw your post. Good thinking. I agree that there does seem to be a
little community there, with some people having been there for years.
I didn't get the sense that they would be averse to more people joining
in, but your "Incoming!" post should tell us if it will be a problem or
not.

> In sum, let's look around a bit longer.  There's still alt.geek and 
> alt.nerd.obsessive.  alt.hackers.discuss seems available but it's not 
> quite right.  There's also alt.misc and misc.misc, both of which seem to 
> receive regular robo-spam posts of total garbage and neither of which 
> seems like a great fit. 

I've been looking around for a while myself. I've kind of convinced myself
that I'd rather we stayed in the Big-8 somewhere (i.e., not alt, despite
what I may have suggested in the past).

> I was going to say, perhaps it's time to propose to the Big-8 Board an 
> alt.something but what would it be and how would it differ from this? 
> Then we're back to posting the Your Rights Online type stuff in 
> alt.privacy and the hacker stuff in alt.2600 and we're spread out again. 

Would we even go to the Big-8 board for an alt group? Anyway, I've already
stated my preference for a non-alt group, but I'm not dead-set on it.
If we did propose a group, I'd currently be inclined to go for something
like misc.news.scitech or talk.nerd.

> In the short term while we get organized, I'll post the technical- but 
> not-comp stuff on m.n.i.d and I guess we'll see how it goes. 

See you there.

Regards,
Bill
-- 
Join an active tech-news-and-discussion community in comp.misc...
Saving Usenet since February 2014! :p

View this thread at http://squte.com/node/4773#comment-11333

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1054 — Re: Fertility procedure risks designer babies

> If we did propose a group, I'd currently be inclined to go for something
> like misc.news.scitech or talk.nerd.

I like misc.news.scitech quite a bit!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1118 — Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...)

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:

[ Very reasonable discussion omitted. ]

>> ...misc.news.internet.discuss...
>
> In the short term while we get organized, I'll post the technical- but
> not-comp stuff on m.n.i.d and I guess we'll see how it goes.

Don't overlook that the early hackers/geeks of the 50s and 60s were
not only telecom techs but variously mathematicians, chemists,
engineers, physicists, musicians, neuroscientists and anthropologists
inter alia who were drawn, to one degree or another, to IT.

I agree that under the Usenet rubric, comp.misc mandates some
connection to comp(puters).  But 70 or so years on from the Macy
Conferences, (q.g.) [1] not all techno-geeks are narrowly into IT per
se and cross fertilization is good for many, perhaps most of us.

Good luck with agreeing on a suitably more general venue. I'll start
looking at mnid myself.


[1] q.g. Quod google. More neutral than gify. Like q.v., quod vide. :-)

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1178 — Re: non-comp tech articles (was fertility ...)

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014, Mike Spencer wrote:

>
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:
>
> [ Very reasonable discussion omitted. ]
>
>>> ...misc.news.internet.discuss...
>>
>> In the short term while we get organized, I'll post the technical- but
>> not-comp stuff on m.n.i.d and I guess we'll see how it goes.
>
> Don't overlook that the early hackers/geeks of the 50s and 60s were
> not only telecom techs but variously mathematicians, chemists,
> engineers, physicists, musicians, neuroscientists and anthropologists
> inter alia who were drawn, to one degree or another, to IT.
>
That's a big point.  "Hacker" becomes an identity to take on, it sounds 
cool.  I would argue "hacking" is experience based learning, so does 
Seymour Papert.  Small children hack, they dont' have language skills to 
learn except through experience.  Adults can hack those samll children, 
watching them and learning from them rather than rushing to books and 
learning before the child is there to learn from.

One might as well use "explorer" or "map maker", the experience teaching.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web