Nice People 12: Nice in Nice

silvercar

PasturesNew wrote: »

My parents had 3 children. 0 grandchildren.

My aunt was like that, until one of her boys had a late spurt and produced 3 in quick succession. Between the age of 75 and 80 She went from zero grandchildren to 3.

My parents have/ had 2 children and 4 (2+2) grandchildren. In-laws have 3 children and 7 (2+2+3) grandchildren.

Going back to my and OH's grandparents: 8 (3+3+2) from 3, 4 (2+2) from 2, 6 (2+1+3) from 3 and 5 (3+2) from 2. All very standard.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

Doctor/parents I have known have tended towards the neurotic. I put it down to the fact that they know what can go wrong. Combine that with the human inability to judge risk and you have a combination that will tend towards being over protective.

One of my best friends was the child of a doctor and wren) Her family were not in the least neurotic and in fact, believed a few broken bones made a person.

I do think however, they were a little surprised when SS became involved once. My friend, youngest of four, trying to keep up with three very robust big brothers just kept falling out of trees, diving for balls in the path of an almost adult brother twice her weight. I think she broke an arm four times or something.

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

One of my best friends was the child of a doctor and wren) Her family were not in the least neurotic and in fact, believed a few broken bones made a person.

I do think however, they were a little surprised when SS became involved once. My friend, youngest of four, trying to keep up with three very robust big brothers just kept falling out of trees, diving for balls in the path of an almost adult brother twice her weight. I think she broke an arm four times or something.

All stereotyping is essentially untrue. We all love to do it though.

hjd

silvercar wrote: »

Has brother 1 been on one of the recent TV programmes? How does he transport his brood?

Not that I know about. Some of his inlaws could have been - they all have very large broods. What programme was it?
He has a van type VW, not with enough seats for all though.

GDB2222

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Thinking about that now, it was a bit of a stupid question to ask.

Word has it (here, anyway, I don't know about in UK) that the actual target was a Rossiya plane, that's the only reason I asked.

The Kiev version of this is that their intelligence service was monitoring mobile phone traffic. They tracked the rocket launcher this way. It entered East Ukraine from Russia in the morning, was moved about a bit, and was set up by 4pm. Its radar saw a large plane, that was thought to be a Kiev military transport plane, and they reported this to a rebel officer. He authorised the plane's destruction. There were various congratulatory telephone calls between the rebels, and the rebel leader posted on his social media page that they had shot down a military plane. That message has since been taken down.

That version implies a Russian crew on the rocket launcher, which is hardly surprising given the complexity of the Buk system. What is surprising is that Russia deployed a Cold War era rocket system that does not have the ability to distinguish civilian aircraft from military ones in an area with much more civilian traffic than military traffic. It also proves Russia is secretly at war with the Ukraine.

This all fits in with Putin's image as a strong man, robustly defending Russian interests, hence the aptness of the cartoon.

silvercar

hjd wrote: »

Not that I know about. Some of his inlaws could have been - they all have very large broods. What programme was it?
He has a van type VW, not with enough seats for all though.

ch 4 did a serious of programmes about large families. Cute photos of a long row of wellingtons in assorted colours and sizes. Similar for lunch boxes. One Dad was a baker, up at dawn for work then home for an hour to help get the kids for school. Another family lived on benefits....

Series guide with family names, anyone you know?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/16-kids-and-counting/episode-guide

zagubov

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I remember watching a programme a while ago about risk and our perception of it. Essentially, we overestimate some risks and are unduly optimistic about risks accumulating from things we do ourselves, could change, and don't want to change. Is that about right?



Because taller people need more calories, on average? Is that the reason, do you think?

Yep. That's the gist of it. you can keep a smaller body alive on limited calories than a larger body. The Japanese food rations weren't enough to feed captives from larger-bodied countries.

Risks a funny thing. I had to teach about it and it's interesting finding what people think is dangerous compared with what actually is.

There's a now-disappeared article about it (found a stored copy here) and a snappy little video here.

lostinrates

zagubov wrote: »

Yep. That's the gist of it. you can keep a smaller body alive on limited calories than a larger body. The Japanese food rations weren't enough to feed captives from larger-bodied countries.

Risks a funny thing. I had to teach about it and it's interesting finding what people think is dangerous compared with what actually is.

There's a now-disappeared article about it (found a stored copy here) and a snappy little video here.

In dh's family there is a story about a female relative who in the camp she was in was for some time/ the whole time believed to be receiving food for 'favours' or something. She was of course not in any kind of good state, but took much longer to get that way. Turns out in more modern times, a very strong prevalence of pcos in that family line. Something not useful in times of plenty is a 'bonus' for the body in times of desperation.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

Yep. That's the gist of it. you can keep a smaller body alive on limited calories than a larger body. The Japanese food rations weren't enough to feed captives from larger-bodied countries.

Risks a funny thing. I had to teach about it and it's interesting finding what people think is dangerous compared with what actually is.

There's a now-disappeared article about it (found a stored copy here) and a snappy little video here.

Interestingly, people suffering from depression seem to be much better able to judge risks accurately than those who do not suffer from depression. Unfortunately I can't find a link to the study at the moment.

hjd

silvercar wrote: »

ch 4 did a serious of programmes about large families. Cute photos of a long row of wellingtons in assorted colours and sizes. Similar for lunch boxes. One Dad was a baker, up at dawn for work then home for an hour to help get the kids for school. Another family lived on benefits....

Series guide with family names, anyone you know?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/16-kids-and-counting/episode-guide

No, none of them.
SIL has been on a C4 (I think) broadcast, I know it was on youtube. Her sister was in a magazine spread about the family. A lot of them live in the same area as michaels.