"Don White" wrote in message ...
"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.

I like the Red Green Show!

On 15 Nov 2004 05:45:47 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"Don White" wrote in message ...
"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!

'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.

I like the Red Green Show!

Damn Straight!!!

First thing you've said in two weeks that I've agreed with. :)

Later,

Tom

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



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

The language is irrelevant, John.

It is VERY much relevant. It's the whole point of this issue.

For the simple-minded, the issue is "Does the movie contain bad language?"
Yes, it does. For high-functioning individuals, the question is "Is the bad
language in the movie probably an accurate representation of how guys talked
during that war, especially when in life threatening situations?" Again, the
answer is yes. We can now conclude that unlike other movies, where the bad
langage was written into the script just to sell tickets, this movie had a
powerful story line and the language was purely incidental. If you think the
bad language stood out in "Saving Private Ryan" in the same way it did in a
trash movie like "Bad Boys II", you're wrong. You're just looking for a
reason to whine.

Finally, the question is, are you, as a parent, able to watch such a movie
with your kids and explain the reason why the language exists under certain
circumstances. If you are not, then the movie is not the problem. YOU are
the problem.



It doesn't matter to the people who claim
to object to it, even though they want you to think otherwise.

And you know this how? Did the animals tell you?

It's a show -nothing else.

A show which kids then use as a gauge to "normal" human behavior.
I would rather my kids think it's cool to be responsible, and have
some decent manners and consideration.

I guarantee that if your kids are ever being shot at, they will be using
language that would curl your hair, Dave.

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


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.


So you feel that when we lived in a time of greater respect, and
consideration for other people, and had better manners, that was
living a "fairy tale" existence?

There is no need to be crude, rude, and abusive. If you can't get your
point across without having to resort to the lowest common
denominator, then I would suggest that you are what you watch.

Dave

It's not nothing to do with "greater respect". In the 1950s and earlier,
most war movies presented a squeaky clean image of what war and the armed
forces were like. Even the most brutal of them are not as explicit as newer
ones like "Deer Hunter" or "Full Metal Jacket".

My dad flew a TBF Avenger (torpedo bomber) in the pacific. After a
successful mission and returning to his carrier, he'd get a handshake from
his CO. Afterward, he had to deal with a half dozen guys who thought it was
a kick to beat up the Jew-boys. He'd been a pretty decent boxer in high
school. His CO suggested that he might not notice if some of the half dozen
ended up too black & blue to walk straight for a few days. That's how the
problem got straightened out.

You don't see details like that in old movies. You *do* see it in movies
about Vietnam - major friction within groups who are supposed to be on the
same side. So yeah - this country saw fairy-tale war movies at a certain
point in history.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:02:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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.


So you feel that when we lived in a time of greater respect, and
consideration for other people, and had better manners, that was
living a "fairy tale" existence?

You obviously are not well-read. The language to which you are objecting
has always been in use. All that really has happened is that much of
what is called "censorship" has been eliminated. In days of old, "cuss
words" were kept out of movies because of the censors, not because such
words were not being used in ordinary discourse.


There is no need to be crude, rude, and abusive. If you can't get your
point across without having to resort to the lowest common
denominator, then I would suggest that you are what you watch.

Dave

You are what you watch? Dang. Last night, I watched a DVD of one of my
favorite literary heroes, fellow by the name of Stephen, wander through
the streets of Dublin, and, as I watched, I was reminded of all the
lovely anglo-saxon language in that work of art. Since, according to
you, I am what I watch, from now on, you can call me James...James Joyce.

You dirty, dirty man!

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:02:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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.


So you feel that when we lived in a time of greater respect, and
consideration for other people, and had better manners, that was
living a "fairy tale" existence?

You obviously are not well-read. The language to which you are objecting
has always been in use. All that really has happened is that much of
what is called "censorship" has been eliminated. In days of old, "cuss
words" were kept out of movies because of the censors, not because such
words were not being used in ordinary discourse.


There is no need to be crude, rude, and abusive. If you can't get your
point across without having to resort to the lowest common
denominator, then I would suggest that you are what you watch.

Dave

You are what you watch? Dang. Last night, I watched a DVD of one of my
favorite literary heroes, fellow by the name of Stephen, wander through
the streets of Dublin, and, as I watched, I was reminded of all the
lovely anglo-saxon language in that work of art. Since, according to
you, I am what I watch, from now on, you can call me James...James Joyce.

You dirty, dirty man!




There's nothing worse, intellectually, than a simple-minded,
self-satisfied, fundie.

--
A passing thought:

.... Did you really understand that message?

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:22:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:02:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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.


So you feel that when we lived in a time of greater respect, and
consideration for other people, and had better manners, that was
living a "fairy tale" existence?

You obviously are not well-read. The language to which you are objecting
has always been in use. All that really has happened is that much of
what is called "censorship" has been eliminated. In days of old, "cuss
words" were kept out of movies because of the censors, not because such
words were not being used in ordinary discourse.


There is no need to be crude, rude, and abusive. If you can't get your
point across without having to resort to the lowest common
denominator, then I would suggest that you are what you watch.

Dave

You are what you watch? Dang. Last night, I watched a DVD of one of my
favorite literary heroes, fellow by the name of Stephen, wander through
the streets of Dublin, and, as I watched, I was reminded of all the
lovely anglo-saxon language in that work of art. Since, according to
you, I am what I watch, from now on, you can call me James...James Joyce.

You dirty, dirty man!

Heh - anybody with a girls last name is a pansy.....um........

Hmmmm - never mind. :)

Later,

Tom

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:22:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:44:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


And your son was in his late 20's?

If he was an adolescent, and he wasn't interested in the boobs, then
he was either too embarrassed to let you know, or he's just not very
interested in females (IMHO).

He wasn't raised by a television like so many other kids.

AH! Now you know the point of this whole issue.

He prefers reality.

And that's good for you as a parent, and him as a person who will
likely become a responsible adult. Some people mature early on, and
can handle the reality of the adult world, and make decisions based on
the big picture. Many other kids, though, are empty of guiding
principles, and will lock on to whatever is handy, and too often that
is the TV. You say that the chaperoning the TV is the parent's job.
But the parents are often not responsible themselves, or cannot be
there at every point, or when they are at their friend's homes.

Isn't this interesting? I have a kid with "guiding principles", and it
somehow happened without religion. Remarkable.


Could it be that your son received his "guiding principles" from
parents who had received "guiding principles" from their parents?

Or has your entire life been devoid of anything religious?

John H

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:22:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:44:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


And your son was in his late 20's?

If he was an adolescent, and he wasn't interested in the boobs, then
he was either too embarrassed to let you know, or he's just not very
interested in females (IMHO).

He wasn't raised by a television like so many other kids.

AH! Now you know the point of this whole issue.

He prefers reality.

And that's good for you as a parent, and him as a person who will
likely become a responsible adult. Some people mature early on, and
can handle the reality of the adult world, and make decisions based on
the big picture. Many other kids, though, are empty of guiding
principles, and will lock on to whatever is handy, and too often that
is the TV. You say that the chaperoning the TV is the parent's job.
But the parents are often not responsible themselves, or cannot be
there at every point, or when they are at their friend's homes.

Isn't this interesting? I have a kid with "guiding principles", and it
somehow happened without religion. Remarkable.


Could it be that your son received his "guiding principles" from
parents who had received "guiding principles" from their parents?

Or has your entire life been devoid of anything religious?

Pretty much. My parents waited till I was 7 or 8 to start attending
synagogue. You can't wait that long to start brainwashing kids. You have to
start when they're small so they have no choice. Otherwise, they have to
find it themselves later in life if they choose to do so. So, by the time
they got me there, I was skilled at shutting it off. They gave up by the
time I was 12.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:22:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:44:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


And your son was in his late 20's?

If he was an adolescent, and he wasn't interested in the boobs, then
he was either too embarrassed to let you know, or he's just not very
interested in females (IMHO).

He wasn't raised by a television like so many other kids.

AH! Now you know the point of this whole issue.

He prefers reality.

And that's good for you as a parent, and him as a person who will
likely become a responsible adult. Some people mature early on, and
can handle the reality of the adult world, and make decisions based on
the big picture. Many other kids, though, are empty of guiding
principles, and will lock on to whatever is handy, and too often that
is the TV. You say that the chaperoning the TV is the parent's job.
But the parents are often not responsible themselves, or cannot be
there at every point, or when they are at their friend's homes.

Isn't this interesting? I have a kid with "guiding principles", and it
somehow happened without religion. Remarkable.


Could it be that your son received his "guiding principles" from
parents who had received "guiding principles" from their parents?

Or has your entire life been devoid of anything religious?

Pretty much. My parents waited till I was 7 or 8 to start attending
synagogue. You can't wait that long to start brainwashing kids. You have to
start when they're small so they have no choice. Otherwise, they have to
find it themselves later in life if they choose to do so. So, by the time
they got me there, I was skilled at shutting it off. They gave up by the
time I was 12.




What? No fountain pens at age 13?

--
A passing thought:

SENATE, n. A body of elderly gentlemen charged with high duties and
misdemeanors. -- Ambrose Bierce