On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:50:47 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
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!


If the language or nudity in a movie upsets your personal
responsibility, I suggest you don't watch it...or let your kids watch it.

You *quickly* bypassed those questions, didn't you?

John H

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

"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.

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?

John H

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

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:35:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:50:47 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
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!


If the language or nudity in a movie upsets your personal
responsibility, I suggest you don't watch it...or let your kids watch it.

You *quickly* bypassed those questions, didn't you?

John H

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


Not at all. I told you, if you want to exert personal responsibility,
don't watch movies that might offend you.

And no offense, but I don't see how anyone with a mind as closed as
yours should be discussing the teaching of the soundness of moral
principle, the character of uncorrupted virtue, in relation to truth and
fair dealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity. I find most of you
righties morally bankrupt.

You do have the verbiage down pat. I've got to give you that.

John H

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

On 11/11/2004 7:24 PM, 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.

It could have been edited easily... if ABC wasn't under a contractual
agreement with Spielberg to air it unedited.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4165613

--
~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat"
"There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing about in boats."
-Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows

Harry Krause wrote:

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.

Sorry, I don't have the time right now, but as soon as I'm done having
my house renovated, my lobsta boat built, my dr. dr. wife getting her
third dr., buying my new pickup truck, and developing my real estate
holdings, and outfitting my parker boat, I'll be sure to instill the
family values you tout in my children.

-- Charlie

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:59:11 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Garth Almgren wrote:
On 11/11/2004 7:24 PM, 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.

It could have been edited easily... if ABC wasn't under a contractual
agreement with Spielberg to air it unedited.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4165613



A good movie is a work of art...editing it down destroys it.

A good newsgroup is a work of art...having you killfiled improved it!

John H

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

"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.

In article , PocoLoco415
@hotmail.com says...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:51:22 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
A tight-wing
organization, the Family Research Council, said its members were
prepared to send in thousands of complaints.

Those damn tight-wingers!



You knew that is where this was headed from the first post.

Isn't it just so coincidental that the ABC affiliates owned by the scum
sucking right winger who wanted to air the anti-Kerry propaganda will
not be showing the film.

They don't want to do anything to hasten people's realization that Bush
got us in a stupid war and the result is a lot of kids and men dying for
little if any reason.

I like Molly Ivin's analogy. She said that to get a dog to stop
killin' chickens you hang the dead chicken around the dog's neck until
it putrefies down to the last morsel. The dog doesn't kill chickens
anymore.

Bush is going to putrefy around our necks until we can't stand the
smell.

jps

Cry a river, build a bridge, and get over it.

No thanks.

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.

John H

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