dead Kir5Ty Howard

[Boudicca 702]

This being said the 'world's strongest man' thread was, I thought, very entertaining. This thread, is not.

That was a great thread. The search button is much maligned, but it worked for me

[Lady Grendel 139]

Perhaps this poem sums up Kir5ty, and may provide some solace to anyone else that has lost a child.

 

God's Lent Child

 

I'll lend you for a little while a child of mine, God said,

For you to love her while she lives, and mourn for when she's dead.

It may be six or seven years,

or forty-two or three;

But will you, till I call her back, take care of her for me?

 

She'll bring her charms to gladden you, and should her stay be brief,

You'll always have her memories as a solace in your grief.

I cannot promise she will stay, since all from earth return;

But there are lessons taught below I want this child to learn.

 

I've searched the whole world over, in my search for teachers true;

And from the throngs that crowd life's lane I have chosen you...

Now will you give her all your love? Nor think the labor pain?

Nor hate me when I call, to take this child back again?

 

To which the parents did reply...

Dear Lord, Thy will be done.

For all the joys this child will bring, the risk of grief we'll run.

We'll shelter her with tenderness,

We'll love her while we may...

for all the love this child will bring,

we'll ever grateful stay.

But should the Angels call for her,

much sooner than we planned,

We'll brave the bitter grief that comes,

and try to understand.

[Gunjaman5000 32]

Perhaps this poem sums up Kir5ty, and may provide some solace to anyone else that has lost a child.

 

God's Lent Child

Soppy, corny, terrible. I'm ashamed to have enjoyed it.

[Captain Oates 21]

Kirsty is famous not because she is terminally ill, but because her family has agreed to exploit that fact, together with Kirsty's obviously quite remarkable personality, in order to to raise money for the Francis House children's hospice.

 

They want publicity. They want your money.

 

As I see it, the real argument is about whether carers should use any child's life in this way. ( I notice that Francis House is 'non-denominational' - implying a religious connection. So presumably God approves!)

 

Kirsty's carers have made their decision and have deliberately created a celebrity out of their terminally ill child.

 

On the face of it therefore, she is prime Deathlist material.

 

On the other hand, there are laws out there to protect children from abuse by adults. If we believe or suspect that Kirsty's carers are abusing her by their exploitation, then we should have nothing more to do with this. (Has anyone sought legal advice on our position?)

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Interesting thread this.

 

First of all the point about free speech is bollocks. There is no free speech on this forum as it clearly states when you register. You're bound in agreement to abide by the rules. 'Failure to do so can result in account termination... etc etc.'

 

Second point. Taste. This is a forum for discussing those about to die. Taste doesn't come into it. We're gambling on the famous soon to be dead... nuff said. Anyone that plays the Taste Card (Internet equivalent of the Race Card) is on the wrong forum.

 

Third point. K1r5ty H0ward. 'Sick kid meets the Beckham legend' and she is instantly lifted to stardom. Yep it doesn't comply [famous after sickness] with DL rules to but delete threads that discuss impending death, because it pisses of a few surfers, goes against the whole point of the forum. If that's the road then you need to think of changing the forum name to something more sanitary... like Tampax. That way anyone who wants to discuss death can find another place to do it. If that's the way DL is going then I hope Trading Standards get in on it, and bollock the guilty parties. Banning them from ever opening forums ever again!

 

Fourth point. Inclusion of K1r5ty H0ward in the 2006 DL. It won't happen. It won't happen because despite the DL technicality of being famous after developing a terminal illness, we all have our own personal morals based on who should be included. K1r5ty H0ward is a child and despite the forum content she makes us feel all gooey... bless her. She won't be included because we don't want to see her there, even though she is a likely candidate for 2006 or 7.

 

Fifth point. Regular contributors can use this particular topic matter to demonstrate how DL works when these difficult subjects arise. Upto now I've not read anything derogatory about K1r5ty H0ward, infact most of it is pretty sympathetic. Sure you get the occasional drive by ranter that posts simply because they've read the topic title but so what? It's been demonstrated that K1r5ty H0ward is reasonably out of bounds with regular DL banter so why start deleting awkward threads? DL has a mandate that needs to be kept so stop being f*****g soft.

 

As Oatsey's just said... it's the parents exploitation of her condition that warrants the scrutiny...

 

 

 

<end message>

[Gunjaman5000 32]

I've made my view clear before (nail up the parents, don't crucify the child). The argument seems to me a chicken-egg senario. Why not put our money where our mouths are and change the thread name to include Kir5sty's correct spelling?

 

Ranters? We wouldn't know shite.

[Deadornot 12]

I just landed on your site after Googling my name & I am very shocked & upset.

I am a terminally sick child & find this kind of website sick & depraved.

Can you tell us if you want your name on next years list?

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Why not put our money where our mouths are and change the thread name to include Kir5sty's correct spelling?

Aye!

 

Ranters? We wouldn't know shite.

I love that word.

[Paul Bearer 6,130]

I just landed on your site after Googling my name & I am very shocked & upset.

I am a terminally sick child & find this kind of website sick & depraved.

Care to comment LD?

[football_fan 42]

I've made my view clear before (nail up the parents, don't crucify the child). The argument seems to me a chicken-egg senario. Why not put our money where our mouths are and change the thread name to include Kir5sty's correct spelling?

 

Ranters? We wouldn't know shite.

The thread would probably end up being locked like the Pete Doherty thread was last month.

[Paul Bearer 6,130]

I've made my view clear before (nail up the parents, don't crucify the child). The argument seems to me a chicken-egg senario. Why not put our money where our mouths are and change the thread name to include Kir5sty's correct spelling?

 

Ranters? We wouldn't know shite.

The thread would probably end up being locked like the Pete Doherty thread was last month.

FYI.

 

It was re-opened a couple of weeks ago

[maryportfuncity 10,684]

Kirsty herself has been re-opened on a couple of occasions in the interests of prolonging life.

 

I'll get me coat.

[Lady Die 63]

Kirsty herself has been re-opened on a couple of occasions in the interests of prolonging life.

 

I'll get me coat.

No, please stay. That was really funny.

[maryportfuncity 10,684]

Okay, just for you like, I'll stick around.

 

Coat's a bit moth eaten anyway. I was planning on leaving it behind.

[Guest Guest]

She's dead http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-34620913

 

 

[themaninblack 2,112]

An update on the thread after two days short of 10 years. Must be a record...

[YoungWillz 21,208]

An update on the thread after two days short of 10 years. Must be a record...

 

Nah, Paul Prudhomme thread was opened 28 January 2005, updated with his death on 8 October 2015.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

An update on the thread after two days short of 10 years. Must be a record...

The DL Ethics Commission obviously took notice.

[Sir Creep 7,071]

 

An update on the thread after two days short of 10 years. Must be a record...

 

Nah, Paul Prudhomme thread was opened 28 January 2005, updated with his death on 8 October 2015.

 

Oh that's just great.....now every Tom Dick and Harry will be opening threads about people who aren't the least bit ready to drop over and are B-listers, hoping that the thread will be forgotten forever and a day (read: 1 more day than Prudhomme's). I guess the only redeeming fact is that the site teams with greater popularity and posters than in 2005, and the likelihood that 10 years will elapse, sans update, with a thread created in 2015 is remote, if not downright impossible. One can hope.

SC

[The Mad Hatter 1,093]

 

 

An update on the thread after two days short of 10 years. Must be a record...

 

Nah, Paul Prudhomme thread was opened 28 January 2005, updated with his death on 8 October 2015.

Oh that's just great.....now every Tom Dick and Harry will be opening threads about people who aren't the least bit ready to drop over and are B-listers, hoping that the thread will be forgotten forever and a day (read: 1 more day than Prudhomme's). I guess the only redeeming fact is that the site teams with greater popularity and posters than in 2005, and the likelihood that 10 years will elapse, sans update, with a thread created in 2015 is remote, if not downright impossible. One can hope.

SC

don't you have kids to take care of or friends or a wife, anything?

[charon 4,943]

I'm available at short notice for such things

[John Kettley 49]

 

 

An update on the thread after two days short of 10 years. Must be a record...

 

Nah, Paul Prudhomme thread was opened 28 January 2005, updated with his death on 8 October 2015.

 

Oh that's just great.....now every Tom Dick and Harry will be opening threads about people who aren't the least bit ready to drop over and are B-listers, hoping that the thread will be forgotten forever and a day (read: 1 more day than Prudhomme's). I guess the only redeeming fact is that the site teams with greater popularity and posters than in 2005, and the likelihood that 10 years will elapse, sans update, with a thread created in 2015 is remote, if not downright impossible. One can hope.

SC

 

This was a moral discussion useful/important thread back in the day. But that would mean little to a moron like you.

[The Mad Hatter 1,093]

 

 

 

An update on the thread after two days short of 10 years. Must be a record...

 

Nah, Paul Prudhomme thread was opened 28 January 2005, updated with his death on 8 October 2015.

Oh that's just great.....now every Tom Dick and Harry will be opening threads about people who aren't the least bit ready to drop over and are B-listers, hoping that the thread will be forgotten forever and a day (read: 1 more day than Prudhomme's). I guess the only redeeming fact is that the site teams with greater popularity and posters than in 2005, and the likelihood that 10 years will elapse, sans update, with a thread created in 2015 is remote, if not downright impossible. One can hope.

SC

This was a moral discussion useful/important thread back in the day. But that would mean little to a moron like you.

its not American so when an American who is used to having every TV show,movie and website focusing exclusively on their culture they are mind blown to find out that other countries exist too.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

As I understand it, the wisdom learned in this topic lives in Unwritten Rule 42 section 69: "No kids." Otherwise it is testament to the fact that media attention can fade almost as fast as it arrives.

[Deathray 2,942]

I really respect the fact our predecessors just let this thread die. The las didn't chose to be in the public eye