"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:29:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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?

I made a typo. It was 13. To complete the story, I steadfastly refused to
focus on bar mitzvah preparation. A week beforehand, the rabbi said
"Look.
This is out of your control. Your parents want this, and they've already
paid for the party and the restaurant". So, in a week, I did the whole
thing. The party was actually pretty good. My friend Gary began flicking
lobster eyeballs at the girls. The whole thing turned into a circus.

I think my parents' mistake was that after Sunday school, they always
took
my sister and I antique shopping. That's ridiculous. If you want to get a
kid to do something they don't like, you don't reward them with something
worse, especially on the weekend. My ex-wife has figured this out. She
gets
my son to attend the Unitarian church because afterwards, she offers to
stick around downtown for a hour so he can take advantage of a park that
has
lots of cement structures that are as attractive to skateboarders as a
shipwreck is to a fisherman looking for bottom structure. :-)


Is all this to imply that your parents had no part in the
determination of your guiding principles, and therefore the guiding
principles you pass to your son?

John, you really have comprehension issues. That doesn't make you a bad
person. I'm just sayin'.....

It implies that religion played no part in my beliefs. The first time I saw
"fear" and "god" on the same page, I shut it all down. Anyone who falls for
that is a fool.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:47:16 GMT, "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.


So your parents passed on pretty much nothing in the way of "guiding
principles" to you? I said nothing about 'brainwashing' in the
synagogue.

I'll answer that with a question: Is religion the only way to learn how to
live a good life?

Doug Kanter wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:47:16 GMT, "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.


So your parents passed on pretty much nothing in the way of "guiding
principles" to you? I said nothing about 'brainwashing' in the
synagogue.

I'll answer that with a question: Is religion the only way to learn how to
live a good life?





Doug, face it...you're just not going to fit into Herring's neat little
shoebox.

--
A passing thought:

.... And That alone is.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:49:35 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.

In use in places which were not considered "public". Hence the term
"locker room talk". It was considered extremely rude and impolite to
use such expletives in the presence of a lady (Of course, nowadays's,
females can trash talk with the worst of the gutter set)

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.

If by "censors" you mean people who applied good manners, then I guess
you're right. If having respect and good manners is no longer
important, than I guess I can understand your desire to be able to
"let it all hang out" in public for all the world to see.....

This only underscores my point that class, respect, and desire for
civil discourse has eroded in this country.

Dave

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:27:36 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.


What's worse is a self absorbed pseudo-intellectual snob, who feels
that an appreciation of crude literature excuses the responsibility to
be socially respectful of other people and display the proper public
manners.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:49:35 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.

In use in places which were not considered "public". Hence the term
"locker room talk". It was considered extremely rude and impolite to
use such expletives in the presence of a lady (Of course, nowadays's,
females can trash talk with the worst of the gutter set)

Sorry, Dave, but you're wrong. Cussing precedes the establishment of
locker rooms. Your knowledge of language and how it is and has been
used simply is not based upon fact. The Romans cussed. I will admit,
however, that the first time I ever heard absolutely public utterances
of certain swear words in a political arena came about because of
Messrs. Dick Cheney and Dubya Bush.

Curse words have been with us for a long, long time, and have been in
common, public use for precisely that length of time. Cheney's favorite
cuss word is easily found in literature going back to the 15th Century,
and Chaucer, a 14th Century man, was quite ribald.

Oh...and women cussing? Probably as old as Eve.


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.

If by "censors" you mean people who applied good manners, then I guess
you're right. If having respect and good manners is no longer
important, than I guess I can understand your desire to be able to
"let it all hang out" in public for all the world to see.....

No, by censorship, I mean censorship. Censorship and good manners are
not the same thing.

This only underscores my point that class, respect, and desire for
civil discourse has eroded in this country.

Dave

Class is demonstrated by deeds, respect is earned, and civil discouse in
politics went out the window with the advent of reich-wing radio.




--
A passing thought:

"Among those whom I like or admire, I can find no common denominator,
but among those whom I love, I can: all of them make me laugh." -- W. H.
Auden

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:27:36 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.


What's worse is a self absorbed pseudo-intellectual snob, who feels
that an appreciation of crude literature excuses the responsibility to
be socially respectful of other people and display the proper public
manners.

Dave


Crude literature? Hehehe.

--
A passing thought:

"Omen: A sign that something will happen if nothing happens." - Amrose
Bierce

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:21:35 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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".

The point of those movies back then was not to be 100% factually
accurate in every minute detail. Those movies were not documentaries,
they were made to provide entertainment and to instill a positive
attitude with respect to our military.

Hollywood was an ESCAPE from reality. One need only watch the Wizard
of Oz to remember this.

That we seem to feel today, that we have to use the "shock values" of
blood, guts, gore, and racy language to make a point, says something
about the state of our population.

That Hollywood has become more and more political in their productions
(And decidedly left leaning) is also of concern. No one need look any
further than Michael Moore's propaganda films to see it. By using
"shock" tactics, it's easy to sway popular opinion against certain
operations or political ideals by showcasing it in a graphic,
negative setting.


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.

That's how everyone solved their problems back then. As a kid growing
up, if you were not the most popular and became the object of bullies,
you either learned to be tolerant of pain, or you fought back and
gained their respect.

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.

And why do you suppose that is? I'll give you a hint, it has much to
do with liberals and the anti-war element, who are attempting to sway
public opinion through the guise of "entertainment".

Dave

Crude literature? I'll tell you what - say that about James Joyce in any
real Irish bar, and I'll give you $100.00 if you leave the place in the same
manner and condition as when you went in.

Manner: This means you walk out without help, as opposed to being thrown or
carried out.
Condition: No injuries of any kind.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:14:07 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.

That may be true, but it doesn't excuse it.

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.

The language is the same. Why it was used is irrelevant. It sends a
message that it's ok to use that sort of language, which is not the
message I want my kids to hear.


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.

I do not want my kids to think it's ok to use that sort of language
PERIOD. Making excuses for it only complicates the situation. Kids,
especially young ones, do not understand complex situational nuances.
They think in more binary terms. Something is either good or bad. I do
not want to be in a situation where I have to explain to a 5 year old
why it's ok to say the work "F*ck" when you're about to die, but it's
not ok to say it casually on the street.

I'm a realist. I know that at some point in their lives, kids will be
exposed to foul language. My goal is to hold that point off for as
long as possible. If they learn early on not to use it, they will be
less inclined to adopt it later on.


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.

Not if they never knew it. They'd use a different word. The word is
only a conduit to their emotional state. That state could just as
effectively be communicated with different words.


Dave