|
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. |
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! |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... 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 .. . 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 ... 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. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... It's the price we pay for living in uptightsville. I think the US should ship the slogan 'Land of the Free' north for a few years for safekeeping. We'll send it back when the sun rises again...and it will. |
Don White wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... It's the price we pay for living in uptightsville. I think the US should ship the slogan 'Land of the Free' north for a few years for safekeeping. We'll send it back when the sun rises again...and it will. Land of the Sheeple would seem a good substitute. Hey...it's okay to kill here, but don't cuss about it, eh? |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:46:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "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?" Follow along Doug. The discussion had to do with a movie and the language therein. (Period) It had nothing to do with your President. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:46:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "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?" Follow along Doug. The discussion had to do with a movie and the language therein. (Period) It had nothing to do with your President. It's shocking that a guy who works in the schools would have such low esteem for education. |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:22:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:46:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "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?" Follow along Doug. The discussion had to do with a movie and the language therein. (Period) It had nothing to do with your President. It's shocking that a guy who works in the schools would have such low esteem for education. The discussion had to do with a movie, Doug. Not education. If you want to start a thread on education, I'd be happy to participate in discussing better ways to educate your kids. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:22:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:46:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "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?" Follow along Doug. The discussion had to do with a movie and the language therein. (Period) It had nothing to do with your President. It's shocking that a guy who works in the schools would have such low esteem for education. The discussion had to do with a movie, Doug. Not education. If you want to start a thread on education, I'd be happy to participate in discussing better ways to educate your kids. Nice dodge. Education is not limited to the school environment. We're discussing what kids MAY learn from a movie that's inappropriate at a certain age. I compared that to what awful habits they will learn from watching a man whose appearances are not normally censored in most households. There *IS* a common thread here, John. |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:17:58 +0000, Don White wrote:
"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message ... 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. They were on a radio show here last week. One comment from Julian: "Campbell says he's trying to make Vancouver a more "fun" place. Then he says he's cracking down on drugs and prostitution. Wish he's make up his mind..." :) Lloyd |
Lloyd Sumpter wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:17:58 +0000, Don White wrote: "Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message ... 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. They were on a radio show here last week. One comment from Julian: "Campbell says he's trying to make Vancouver a more "fun" place. Then he says he's cracking down on drugs and prostitution. Wish he's make up his mind..." :) Lloyd Most native-born U.S. citizens haven never been outside of the U.S., and, if they have, never long enough to appreciate the freedoms enjoyed by citizens in modern countries less uptight than this one. -- A passing thought: "He's simply got the instinct for being unhappy highly developed." -- H.H. Munro |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:47:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:22:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:46:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "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?" Follow along Doug. The discussion had to do with a movie and the language therein. (Period) It had nothing to do with your President. It's shocking that a guy who works in the schools would have such low esteem for education. The discussion had to do with a movie, Doug. Not education. If you want to start a thread on education, I'd be happy to participate in discussing better ways to educate your kids. Nice dodge. Education is not limited to the school environment. We're discussing what kids MAY learn from a movie that's inappropriate at a certain age. I compared that to what awful habits they will learn from watching a man whose appearances are not normally censored in most households. There *IS* a common thread here, John. No Doug, *you* are having a discussion with yourself about some topics of your choosing. That's your right. Once you went off on a Bush-bashing tangent, the discussion became a solo act. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:29:35 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall 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? This is nothing more than a case of paranoia. Many TV execs are nervous following the backlash from the FCC in the wake of that stupid Janet Jackson stunt. The FCC made no comments about what it would do for the "Ryan" movie specifically. It's just that the companies are now more conscious of the consequences of going over the line. I find it comforting that the gradual erosion of the limits of what we consider to be material "not meant for TV" has been halted to some degree. 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. Oh my gosh! Naked bodies! Breasts, butts, vaginas and penises, just as God gave them to us. So tell me, Dave, let's say you have a kid, and the kid takes a bath and sees that she has a vagina and breasts, just like other girls. Will this be an experience so bizaree she'll need to see a child psychotherapist? It's not what they have, it's what they do with it. Dave |
Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:29:35 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall 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? This is nothing more than a case of paranoia. Many TV execs are nervous following the backlash from the FCC in the wake of that stupid Janet Jackson stunt. The FCC made no comments about what it would do for the "Ryan" movie specifically. It's just that the companies are now more conscious of the consequences of going over the line. I find it comforting that the gradual erosion of the limits of what we consider to be material "not meant for TV" has been halted to some degree. 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. Oh my gosh! Naked bodies! Breasts, butts, vaginas and penises, just as God gave them to us. So tell me, Dave, let's say you have a kid, and the kid takes a bath and sees that she has a vagina and breasts, just like other girls. Will this be an experience so bizaree she'll need to see a child psychotherapist? It's not what they have, it's what they do with it. Dave What they do with it? What do they do with it in your household, Dave? -- A passing thought: .... File not found "LIFE.DRV", life halted. |
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 |
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. 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. Dave |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:24:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: 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 knew I liked Powell for some reason...... Dave |
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. -- A passing thought: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." -- Thomas Jefferson |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:51:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Wanna hear something interesting? I can't assume my son's behavior (or wisdom) is indicative of other kids, but I'll bet he's not that unusual. A couple of years back, I had the flu. My excellent friend Mike stopped by and handed me boxed sets of the first 3 years' of the Sopranos series. Then, he ran away so he wouldn't get sick. A week later, I thanked him and said I'd return them, but he said to pass them on to someone else who's nailed to the couch with a fever. So, they're still here. Recently, I decided my son was old enough to follow the series, so every so often, we pop in a tape. If you've watched the show, you know there's an occasional scene in the strip club, and actual, real genuine boobs are shown. So, the first time, my son was somewhat riveted. The second time, we were talking about fishing and he didn't skip a beat. At that point, I'm sure he knew that any time we saw the front of the club, it was likely we'd see tits. The third time, just as the girls were shown dancing, he got up and says "I'm gettin' an apple. Ya want one?", and spent a minute washing them. Didn't rush back in to make sure he wouldn't miss the tits. After that episode, I said "If your mom finds out I let you watch this, I'm in deep ****". He said "Watch what?" I said "This show". He said "What show?" Then, he paused a moment and said "Besides, I don't know what the big deal is. The nudity's not the point of the show. It's just where those guys hang out." Later: "Tony's mother's really the center of the show so far. Reminds me of grandma!*" Kids should run the world. Your kid is probably an exception. In my experience, many kids become like Bevis and Butthead, when it comes to nudity....... Dave |
Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:51:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Wanna hear something interesting? I can't assume my son's behavior (or wisdom) is indicative of other kids, but I'll bet he's not that unusual. A couple of years back, I had the flu. My excellent friend Mike stopped by and handed me boxed sets of the first 3 years' of the Sopranos series. Then, he ran away so he wouldn't get sick. A week later, I thanked him and said I'd return them, but he said to pass them on to someone else who's nailed to the couch with a fever. So, they're still here. Recently, I decided my son was old enough to follow the series, so every so often, we pop in a tape. If you've watched the show, you know there's an occasional scene in the strip club, and actual, real genuine boobs are shown. So, the first time, my son was somewhat riveted. The second time, we were talking about fishing and he didn't skip a beat. At that point, I'm sure he knew that any time we saw the front of the club, it was likely we'd see tits. The third time, just as the girls were shown dancing, he got up and says "I'm gettin' an apple. Ya want one?", and spent a minute washing them. Didn't rush back in to make sure he wouldn't miss the tits. After that episode, I said "If your mom finds out I let you watch this, I'm in deep ****". He said "Watch what?" I said "This show". He said "What show?" Then, he paused a moment and said "Besides, I don't know what the big deal is. The nudity's not the point of the show. It's just where those guys hang out." Later: "Tony's mother's really the center of the show so far. Reminds me of grandma!*" Kids should run the world. Your kid is probably an exception. In my experience, many kids become like Bevis and Butthead, when it comes to nudity....... Dave Your experience, I would guess, is limited to your household. -- A passing thought: .... Fear is no great respecter of reason. |
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. I won't take THAT thought any further at the moment, but you know what I mean. We used to have a saying when I was growing up. "those who say the most, get the least....." Dave |
"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. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:51:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Wanna hear something interesting? I can't assume my son's behavior (or wisdom) is indicative of other kids, but I'll bet he's not that unusual. A couple of years back, I had the flu. My excellent friend Mike stopped by and handed me boxed sets of the first 3 years' of the Sopranos series. Then, he ran away so he wouldn't get sick. A week later, I thanked him and said I'd return them, but he said to pass them on to someone else who's nailed to the couch with a fever. So, they're still here. Recently, I decided my son was old enough to follow the series, so every so often, we pop in a tape. If you've watched the show, you know there's an occasional scene in the strip club, and actual, real genuine boobs are shown. So, the first time, my son was somewhat riveted. The second time, we were talking about fishing and he didn't skip a beat. At that point, I'm sure he knew that any time we saw the front of the club, it was likely we'd see tits. The third time, just as the girls were shown dancing, he got up and says "I'm gettin' an apple. Ya want one?", and spent a minute washing them. Didn't rush back in to make sure he wouldn't miss the tits. After that episode, I said "If your mom finds out I let you watch this, I'm in deep ****". He said "Watch what?" I said "This show". He said "What show?" Then, he paused a moment and said "Besides, I don't know what the big deal is. The nudity's not the point of the show. It's just where those guys hang out." Later: "Tony's mother's really the center of the show so far. Reminds me of grandma!*" Kids should run the world. Your kid is probably an exception. In my experience, many kids become like Bevis and Butthead, when it comes to nudity....... Kids always want what you tell them they cannot have. This is why bad parents and religion turn out so many twisted kids. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com