|
"Don White" wrote in message ...
"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. I like the Red Green Show! |
|
"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 |
"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. :-) |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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. :-) Gotta be careful what you do in front of the kids. When mine were very young (5 and 3), I would take them to Sunday Mass and sit near the back so we could slip out early just after communion. I was always in a rush to get to the boat club and our Siren 17 sailboat. To this day, my older son (now 25) will throw that up at me if I bring up church. |
Don White wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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. :-) Gotta be careful what you do in front of the kids. When mine were very young (5 and 3), I would take them to Sunday Mass and sit near the back so we could slip out early just after communion. I was always in a rush to get to the boat club and our Siren 17 sailboat. To this day, my older son (now 25) will throw that up at me if I bring up church. Hey...at least the ex is taking the kid to a Unitarian church...he isn't going to pick up any of the fundie idiocy there. -- A passing thought: "The life which is unexamined is not worth living." -- Plato |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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. :-) Gotta be careful what you do in front of the kids. When mine were very young (5 and 3), I would take them to Sunday Mass and sit near the back so we could slip out early just after communion. I was always in a rush to get to the boat club and our Siren 17 sailboat. To this day, my older son (now 25) will throw that up at me if I bring up church. Good for him. There's more divinity in every sail full of wind than there is in the words of every so-called holy man that ever walked this earth. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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. :-) Gotta be careful what you do in front of the kids. When mine were very young (5 and 3), I would take them to Sunday Mass and sit near the back so we could slip out early just after communion. I was always in a rush to get to the boat club and our Siren 17 sailboat. To this day, my older son (now 25) will throw that up at me if I bring up church. Hey...at least the ex is taking the kid to a Unitarian church...he isn't going to pick up any of the fundie idiocy there. Oh no. That's one of her better qualities. One thing I'd love to see: George (aka "peckerhead) Bush in a locked room with my ex, her giving him The Look. He'd die within seconds. |
Harry Krause wrote:
Don White wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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. Lobsters at a bar-mitzvah? You must have attended a Reform temple. Most of my Jewish boyhood friends were Orthodox or Conservative. All the bar mitzvahs I attended were catered by Kosher caterers. -- A passing thought: "Almost all absurdity of conduct arises from the imitation of those whom we cannot resemble." -- Samuel Johnson |
Doug Kanter wrote:
...There's more divinity in every sail full of wind than there is in the words of every so-called holy man that ever walked this earth. Amen, brother. But it doesn't fill any collection plates, so this demonstration of true faith doesn't get any brownie points with any church. t'other Doug |
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. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
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 H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:16:22 GMT, "Don White"
wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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. :-) Gotta be careful what you do in front of the kids. When mine were very young (5 and 3), I would take them to Sunday Mass and sit near the back so we could slip out early just after communion. I was always in a rush to get to the boat club and our Siren 17 sailboat. To this day, my older son (now 25) will throw that up at me if I bring up church. Now *that* is shameful! Not to say I didn't do it several times myself. Of course, very often there was a nun who just 'happened' to be standing back there to make sure folks didn't 'accidentally' just keep walking after communion. Ah, those were the days! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"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 |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... 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 Don't forget the censors who arranged for Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore to sleep in separate beds on TV. Same censors who prevented us from hearing the word "pregnant" during the first 15 years or so of television's existence. |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:23:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "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. That's why the trick is to not let them know about it, so they don't "want it". What they don't know about, they won't crave. At least until they're old enough to be responsible. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... 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 OK....you'd better clarify that last paragraph, Dave. Are you intimately acquainted with Francis Ford Coppola and his political leanings? |
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. The first time I was in a church (since I was baptized) was when I was invited to attend a wedding sometime in my late teens. The first time I attended a bona-fide "service" was Christmas Eve when I was 19, and my then girlfriend though it would be "nice" to go to church. Dave |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:29:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: 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. That's mature. 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. :-) And you wonder why your father "rides" you so hard....... Dave |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:44:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Hey...at least the ex is taking the kid to a Unitarian church...he isn't going to pick up any of the fundie idiocy there. Oh no. That's one of her better qualities. One thing I'd love to see: George (aka "peckerhead) Bush in a locked room with my ex, her giving him The Look. He'd die within seconds. Is that what happened to you? Dave |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:12:30 -0500, JohnH
wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:16:22 GMT, "Don White" wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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. :-) Gotta be careful what you do in front of the kids. When mine were very young (5 and 3), I would take them to Sunday Mass and sit near the back so we could slip out early just after communion. I was always in a rush to get to the boat club and our Siren 17 sailboat. To this day, my older son (now 25) will throw that up at me if I bring up church. Now *that* is shameful! Not to say I didn't do it several times myself. Of course, very often there was a nun who just 'happened' to be standing back there to make sure folks didn't 'accidentally' just keep walking after communion. Ah, those were the days! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:16:22 GMT, "Don White"
wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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. :-) Gotta be careful what you do in front of the kids. When mine were very young (5 and 3), I would take them to Sunday Mass and sit near the back so we could slip out early just after communion. I was always in a rush to get to the boat club and our Siren 17 sailboat. To this day, my older son (now 25) will throw that up at me if I bring up church. One of the reason why my parents never went to church was that for the entire summer season, practically every weekend, he'd want to spend it down at our boat in Atlantic City. Hmmm... Boating vs. Church..... tough choice.... Dave |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:44:43 GMT, "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? No. But it is structured in such a way as to provide strong and convincing incentives to do so. Dave |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:44:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Hey...at least the ex is taking the kid to a Unitarian church...he isn't going to pick up any of the fundie idiocy there. Oh no. That's one of her better qualities. One thing I'd love to see: George (aka "peckerhead) Bush in a locked room with my ex, her giving him The Look. He'd die within seconds. Is that what happened to you? Dave No. My son and I found it funny. My son, in particular, found it hilarious. He knew he was a cute kid, which dissolved her powers completely. |
| 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