"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.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:30:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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.


The discussion had to do with foul language in movies, not the
election. You tried to change the direction of the discussion, and
when that didn't work, started calling names.

Also, you forgot to add, "...and the other is a lying scumbag who
called tens of thousands of Vietnam Veterans rapists and
ear-collectors after nominating himself for various awards, receiving
a discharge which he won't make public, promising the world to the
gullible, and on and on ...."

Now, ask me again who I'd chose.

Like I've suggested to others, "Cry a river, build a bridge, and get
over it!"

John H

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

JohnH wrote:

called tens of thousands of Vietnam Veterans rapists and
ear-collectors

Poor John. Outed.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

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.


The discussion had to do with foul language in movies, not the
election. You tried to change the direction of the discussion, and
when that didn't work, started calling names.

Also, you forgot to add, "...and the other is a lying scumbag who
called tens of thousands of Vietnam Veterans rapists and
ear-collectors after nominating himself for various awards, receiving
a discharge which he won't make public, promising the world to the
gullible, and on and on ...."

Now, ask me again who I'd chose.

Try to follow along, John. The discussion involves language. I pointed out
that we can control what movies kids watch. But, we should be OK with kids
watching the president speak. I then pointed out that your president is more
of a risk to our kids than a movie they cannot see (in a household with
responsible parents).

"Mom...how come President Bush gets away with saying stuff that would earn
me a few afternoons with a tutor?"

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


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.

Spielberg does not permit editing of his movies "for content." To get a
license from him to broadcast his films you must not do that.

The "F word" is used some 40ish times in the film. It is not legal to use
the "F word" on broadcast television during prime-time viewing hours.

That it has been done before and gotten away with doesn't change a thing.

People get away with smoking crack and selling drugs every single day. This
does not make it ok to smoke crack or sell drugs. It just means that it was
done that time the person(s) who did it didn't get caught.

PS: I own it on DVD. Its an excellent film, but IMHO, not suitable for
prime-time broadcast on television.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

In article ,
Eisboch wrote:


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

Pedophilia in the pristhood has been going on for a LOT longer than 30
years, and it is just as bad (if not worse) in Europe than it is/was here.

The difference is that far fewer people go to prison and get sued out of
existence for that behavior in Europe, and it is more often buried "under
the rug" where nobody talks about it - but its still going on.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


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.

Spielberg does not permit editing of his movies "for content." To get a
license from him to broadcast his films you must not do that.

The "F word" is used some 40ish times in the film.

Did you count them, Karl?

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:04:45 -0500, Harry Krause 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?


Wow, am I ever glad I live in Canada! If you want cuss-words, try
"Trailer-Park Boys". Gore? "CSI". Sex? "Kink". And iirc, "Saving Private
Ryan" as been on, uncut, many times.

And we wondered what all the fuss was about at the Superbowl - it's a
boob. Live with it!

Lloyd Sumpter
Canadian.

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:04:45 -0500, Harry Krause 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?


Wow, am I ever glad I live in Canada! If you want cuss-words, try
"Trailer-Park Boys". Gore? "CSI". Sex? "Kink". And iirc, "Saving Private
Ryan" as been on, uncut, many times.

And we wondered what all the fuss was about at the Superbowl - it's a
boob. Live with it!

Lloyd Sumpter
Canadian.


It's the price we pay for living in uptightsville.

"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message
news


Wow, am I ever glad I live in Canada! If you want cuss-words, try
"Trailer-Park Boys". Gore? "CSI". Sex? "Kink". And iirc, "Saving Private
Ryan" as been on, uncut, many times.

And we wondered what all the fuss was about at the Superbowl - it's a
boob. Live with it!

Lloyd Sumpter
Canadian.

'Trailer Park Boys'?...................Don't throw that 'family' show,
created by my former co-workers and shot in Halifax, in with 'Kink' from the
West Coast. Mike Clattenburg, Jonathan Torrens etc are just gool 'ole boys
havin' a bit of fun.