On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:46:27 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

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


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?


Family values? Cursing and nudity are minor annoyances in this world.
Better to teach family values by getting the entire family involved in
activities working to directly help the homeless, the sick, the needy,
the victims, and help with your money and your time. Directly. When you
build compassion and empathy into your children, you have instilled
family values worth having.

Well, you're the self-proclaimed expert, Harry, so I suppose you
should know all about family values. Is integrity something we should
try to teach our kids. I notice you didn't mention that.

What about personal responsibility? Is that something we should teach
our kids? I notice you left that out too.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Jim wrote:
"We were not far from a point where naked people and graphic violence
would have been flashed on prime time TV, where children and other
people would be subject to it."

Now are the restraint devices in front of your tv leather or chains? I
was just wondering the comfort level of the children and people in your
household while they are "Forced" to watch these shows.

Come to think of it I don't like spinich. So be a dear and go throw
yours out.

Bottom line if ya don't like it don't watch it. The tv execs would not
put anything on the does not make a profit. They only put shows on that
the majority wants to see. If a show offends you CHANGE THE CHANNEL that
is your right but don't try to come into my house and steal my remote.



I am curious. It's been a long, long time since Mrs. E and I spent a
couple of years living in Europe (Italy, but we traveled around a bit).
Have the generally accepted rules of morality, acceptance of what is
decent what is not and viewpoints on issues like gay marriages changed
much in Europe in the past 30 years or so? Are countries in Europe
arresting an increasing number of pedophile priests? Or is the US
atypical in having debates and problems with these issues?

I know what it was like there 30 years ago. I just wonder if the rest of
the world is going through all this BS.

Eisboch

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?


John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Short Wave Sportfishing" 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.

You are partly right of course.

But.....

It really has to do with a chicken **** gutless FCC who reacts to
complaints from advocate groups about strong language and nekkid
bodies. If Michael Powell and his merry band of Republican and
Democrat sycophants had any guts, this would never reach the light of
day. That's where the TV culture war is being waged. Unfortunately,
nobody but me seems to see it that way.

The FCC is led by a gutless mensch who got his job through political
connections and it shows.

I think Powell plays golf with the same gutless sacks of **** who
emasculated the National Endowment for the Arts.

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:24:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" 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.

You are partly right of course.

But.....

It really has to do with a chicken **** gutless FCC who reacts to
complaints from advocate groups about strong language and nekkid
bodies. If Michael Powell and his merry band of Republican and
Democrat sycophants had any guts, this would never reach the light of
day. That's where the TV culture war is being waged. Unfortunately,
nobody but me seems to see it that way.

The FCC is led by a gutless mensch who got his job through political
connections and it shows.

I think Powell plays golf with the same gutless sacks of **** who
emasculated the National Endowment for the Arts.

I wouldn't know not being an artsy fartsy type, but Powell is a
complete and total buffoon. In the next ten years, when one or two
companies own all media outlets, thank him for his foresight.

And complete lack of integrity.

Did I mention he was a Clinton appointee? :)

Later,

Tom

"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.

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:38:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:24:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" 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.

You are partly right of course.

But.....

It really has to do with a chicken **** gutless FCC who reacts to
complaints from advocate groups about strong language and nekkid
bodies. If Michael Powell and his merry band of Republican and
Democrat sycophants had any guts, this would never reach the light of
day. That's where the TV culture war is being waged. Unfortunately,
nobody but me seems to see it that way.

The FCC is led by a gutless mensch who got his job through political
connections and it shows.

I think Powell plays golf with the same gutless sacks of **** who
emasculated the National Endowment for the Arts.

I wouldn't know not being an artsy fartsy type, but Powell is a
complete and total buffoon. In the next ten years, when one or two
companies own all media outlets, thank him for his foresight.

And complete lack of integrity.

Did I mention he was a Clinton appointee? :)

Later,

Tom


Ssshhh!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:38:11 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Did I mention he was a Clinton appointee? :)

To the commission, Bush appointed him as Chairman.

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:13:34 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:38:11 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Did I mention he was a Clinton appointee? :)

To the commission, Bush appointed him as Chairman.

It's still Clinton's fault. :)

Later,

Tom

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?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!