"JohnH" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 04:22:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:29:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:02:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:48:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
CCred68046 wrote:
Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy
movie
that
depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during
World
War
II?

Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV
before.
And
it
could
have been edited for television easily.


I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I
recall
seeing
it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for
television,
and
I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions.

What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral
to
the
movie.
The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on
television.

There's something else going on here.

Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch
of
"decency
advocates" bitching about language and family values.
Meanwhile,
they're
too
busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a
closet
with
their
bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away
from
ABC
for
one
evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you
arrange
for
things to be that way. Period.

I have an idea for some of these people. They should be
attached
to
the
ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of
a
target
shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and
avoid
being
hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the
bullets
are
flying.
"Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right.


Doug, you're not even close. But the above rant seems to be
going
off
the deep end somewhat.

Is there something wrong with being against foul language in
front
of
kids? If I had kids in the 10-14 year range, I'd like them to
be
able
to see the movie. I think they would get something out of it.
I
*don't* think the use of "****in" as a constant adjective is
necessary
to any movie. Hell, I get uncomfortable with nudity and "****"
every
other word when watching a movie with my daughter in the room,
and
she's 28 years old! (I guess that makes me *really* bad!)

What is wrong with having family values? What is wrong with
being
an
advocate for decency in family entertainment?

There's NOTHING wrong with "family values". In this case, it
doesn't
mean
you criticize a network for showing a movie that depicts the way
soldiers
actually behave. That's bull****. What it means is that you
don't
let
your
kids watch the movie. If you want them to see an accurate movie
about
war,
without certain kinds of language, there are plenty to choose
from.
Let
them
watch "Bridge Over the River Kwai", for example. Or, "Das Boot".


Who has criticized the networks? Besides jps, that is. You mean
to
say
that a decent movie about war can be made *without* foul
language?

Save those facetious questions for someone else, John. Movies
without
that
language were made at a point in history when the country was still
living a
fairy tale existence. But, they can still be historically accurate
in
their
own way.


Can they not be 'historically accurate' without foul language?

The language is irrelevant, John. It doesn't matter to the people who
claim
to object to it, even though they want you to think otherwise. It's a
show -
nothing else.

If the misuse of language matters to YOU, then you should focus on
your
president. He's a worse influence on kids than any movie. You can
teach
kids
that the bad language in movies might be appropriate under certain
circumstances. But, you cannot come up with ANY excuse for the
president
of
the country being unable to master his native language. The fact that
he
was
reelected sends the message that it's OK to be a bumbling fool.


We turned *that* corner, didn't we?

No, John. We're still going in the exact same direction. Your half chose
stupidity for some outrageous reason.


And then to name-calling.

OK, John. Rewrite my last response. But, base it on the fact that I'm
correct. You were presented with two candidates, both of whom left much to
be desired. One is illiterate and would never make the first cut in the
selection process for CEO of any corporation. Your comrades elected him.
Describe that mistake in YOUR words.