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?

John H

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

"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".

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?


John H

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

"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.

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?

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 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 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

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