"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