Strange Days and Evil Nipples

[Marc Phillips]

I think it's pretty apparent that the reason why RAO has become mostly about
politics these days is because of the very strange things that are happening in
our country, not to mention the rest of the world. This really hit home this
morning when I was listening to Howard Stern on the radio. No one's really
brought up what he's going through this week because I don't think there are a
lot of his listeners posting regularly on RAO, but basically about one-tenth of
his audience weren't allowed to listen to his show today because of FCC-imposed
suspensions. The funny thing is, Infinty Broadcasting has been scrambling to
find out what they did wrong, and they can't get an answer.

Basically, broadcasters have been under siege ever since Janet Jackson showed
off her floppy, almost forty-year-old tit at the Super Bowl. In the last few
days, shock jocks like Stern have been getting fired left and right for doing
things they've been doing for years. Now, Stern himself is trying to resign
because he can't do the show he's been doing for more than twenty years. His
plan is to switch over to an uncensored satellite radio program, and since he
has about 12 million loyal listeners, this will probably be a major coup for
the new satellite radio industry. (I have XM, and I love it. It's far
superior to regular radio in every conceivable way.) Major chunks of Stern's
show have been getting censored over the last few days.

Is it a coincidence that Stern has been openly calling for the ousting of Bush?
Is it a coincidence that Stern has been making fun of that hysterical
Congresswoman from New Mexico whose son was needlessly traumatized by that lone
nipple and has been screaming melodramatically at any network executive
unfortunate enough to show up to her hearings?

At the same time, "The Passion of the Christ" is breaking opening day box
office records. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the actual content of this
movie, it is basically two solid hours of a man being tortured to death. Roger
Ebert made the very interesting observation that if that man was anyone other
than Jesus Christ, the film would have been rated NC-17...he calls it the most
violent movie he has ever seen. Other critics have gone on to say that sitting
through this film is tantamount to being punished for our sins, it's that
unendurable. One woman in Wichita actually had a heart attack and died while
watching it, a relatively healthy woman in her fiftied who was actually a local
broadcaster. And yet we Americans are seeing this in droves...why?

Tell me again how this country is headed in the right direction.

Boon

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> I think it's pretty apparent that the reason why RAO has become mostly
about
> politics these days is because of the very strange things that are
happening in
> our country, not to mention the rest of the world. This really hit home
this
> morning when I was listening to Howard Stern on the radio. No one's
really
> brought up what he's going through this week because I don't think there
are a
> lot of his listeners posting regularly on RAO, but basically about
one-tenth of
> his audience weren't allowed to listen to his show today because of
FCC-imposed
> suspensions. The funny thing is, Infinty Broadcasting has been scrambling
to
> find out what they did wrong, and they can't get an answer.
>
> Basically, broadcasters have been under siege ever since Janet Jackson
showed
> off her floppy, almost forty-year-old tit at the Super Bowl. In the last
few
> days, shock jocks like Stern have been getting fired left and right for
doing
> things they've been doing for years. Now, Stern himself is trying to
resign
> because he can't do the show he's been doing for more than twenty years.
His
> plan is to switch over to an uncensored satellite radio program, and since
he
> has about 12 million loyal listeners, this will probably be a major coup
for
> the new satellite radio industry. (I have XM, and I love it. It's far
> superior to regular radio in every conceivable way.) Major chunks of
Stern's
> show have been getting censored over the last few days.
>
> Is it a coincidence that Stern has been openly calling for the ousting of
Bush?
> Is it a coincidence that Stern has been making fun of that hysterical
> Congresswoman from New Mexico whose son was needlessly traumatized by that
lone
> nipple and has been screaming melodramatically at any network executive
> unfortunate enough to show up to her hearings?
>
> At the same time, "The Passion of the Christ" is breaking opening day box
> office records. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the actual content of
this
> movie, it is basically two solid hours of a man being tortured to death.
Roger
> Ebert made the very interesting observation that if that man was anyone
other
> than Jesus Christ, the film would have been rated NC-17...he calls it the
most
> violent movie he has ever seen. Other critics have gone on to say that
sitting
> through this film is tantamount to being punished for our sins, it's that
> unendurable. One woman in Wichita actually had a heart attack and died
while
> watching it, a relatively healthy woman in her fiftied who was actually a
local
> broadcaster. And yet we Americans are seeing this in droves...why?
>
> Tell me again how this country is headed in the right direction.
>
> Boon

I guess the movie is kind of like "Resevoir Dogs" for Christians. Could you
imagine a Tarantino development of this project? Would it be any more
violent?

As for Stern, if you don't want to listen to him, you don't
have to tune in. People listening to Stern
have a good idea of what to expect. I used to listen to him
a lot, when he was still a local guy in DC at the start of his career.
He was a lot funnier and a lot more politically oriented than he has
been for the previous ten years or so. Later on I got turned off
when he would spend hours doing nothing
but gossiping about his own litle circle of insiders. He offended me
by being so boring!

As for the Superbowl, in ways, it was worse, even though a pastie
covered nipple on a bare tit hasn't been a big deal since 1955.
People watching the Superbowl aren't expecting that kind of stuff,
and it it was really ****ty for Jackson and Timberlake to pull off
that stunt in the venue of a Superbowl halftime. But it is no concern
for any government action.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[ScottW]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> I think it's pretty apparent that the reason why RAO has become mostly
about
> politics these days is because of the very strange things that are
happening in
> our country, not to mention the rest of the world. This really hit home
this
> morning when I was listening to Howard Stern on the radio. No one's
really
> brought up what he's going through this week because I don't think there
are a
> lot of his listeners posting regularly on RAO, but basically about
one-tenth of
> his audience weren't allowed to listen to his show today because of
FCC-imposed
> suspensions. The funny thing is, Infinty Broadcasting has been
scrambling to
> find out what they did wrong, and they can't get an answer.

Infinity is Stern's home. It was the Clear Channel affiliates that pulled
Stern
(a whopping 6 channels)and it was Clear Channel that punched out
Sponge Bob (or whatever his name was). Stern is just pitching a hissy
fit in a typical Stern publicity stunt.
Clear Channel was gonna drop Stern anyway, why promote a major
competitors guy?
>
> Basically, broadcasters have been under siege ever since Janet Jackson
showed
> off her floppy, almost forty-year-old tit at the Super Bowl. In the last
few
> days, shock jocks like Stern have been getting fired left and right for
doing
> things they've been doing for years. Now, Stern himself is trying to
resign
> because he can't do the show he's been doing for more than twenty years.
His
> plan is to switch over to an uncensored satellite radio program, and
since he
> has about 12 million loyal listeners, this will probably be a major coup
for
> the new satellite radio industry. (I have XM, and I love it. It's far
> superior to regular radio in every conceivable way.) Major chunks of
Stern's
> show have been getting censored over the last few days.

Did you hear all the right wing radio guys complain that government
censorship is a slippery slope? Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly,
John & Ken etc. They all came out against government imposed
controls.
>
> Is it a coincidence that Stern has been openly calling for the ousting of
Bush?
> Is it a coincidence that Stern has been making fun of that hysterical
> Congresswoman from New Mexico whose son was needlessly traumatized by
that lone
> nipple and has been screaming melodramatically at any network executive
> unfortunate enough to show up to her hearings?
>
> At the same time, "The Passion of the Christ" is breaking opening day box
> office records. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the actual content of
this
> movie, it is basically two solid hours of a man being tortured to death.
Roger
> Ebert made the very interesting observation that if that man was anyone
other
> than Jesus Christ, the film would have been rated NC-17...he calls it the
most
> violent movie he has ever seen. Other critics have gone on to say that
sitting
> through this film is tantamount to being punished for our sins, it's that
> unendurable. One woman in Wichita actually had a heart attack and died
while
> watching it, a relatively healthy woman in her fiftied who was actually a
local
> broadcaster. And yet we Americans are seeing this in droves...why?
>
> Tell me again how this country is headed in the right direction.

Explain to me why we should judge the direction of the country
on box office returns? If we judge the direction of America
based on anything Hollywood does, I think we would be sadly
mistaken. 3 Months ago we were lining up for Return of the King.
What direction were we headed then?

ScottW

[Glenn Zelniker]

Marc Phillips wrote:

[snip]

> Basically, broadcasters have been under siege ever since Janet Jackson showed
> off her floppy, almost forty-year-old tit at the Super Bowl.

I think the tit is only five years old.


GZ

[Sandman]

"Glenn Zelniker" > wrote in message
news:4YA%b.2043$fD2.722@lakeread02...
> Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Basically, broadcasters have been under siege ever since Janet Jackson
showed
> > off her floppy, almost forty-year-old tit at the Super Bowl.
>
> I think the tit is only five years old.

I don't even think it's a tit. It's a surgically implanted sponge (it was
sagging because she was sweating and it absorbed the water) with a plastic
nipple sewed on.

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> I think it's pretty apparent that the reason why RAO has become
> mostly about politics these days is because of the very strange
> things that are happening in our country, not to mention the rest of
> the world.

Nahh. RAO has become what it is, because it has been taken over by a bunch
of people who could care less about audio, such as yourself Marc Phillips.

[Marc Phillips]

Yustabe said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> I think it's pretty apparent that the reason why RAO has become mostly
>about
>> politics these days is because of the very strange things that are
>happening in
>> our country, not to mention the rest of the world. This really hit home
>this
>> morning when I was listening to Howard Stern on the radio. No one's
>really
>> brought up what he's going through this week because I don't think there
>are a
>> lot of his listeners posting regularly on RAO, but basically about
>one-tenth of
>> his audience weren't allowed to listen to his show today because of
>FCC-imposed
>> suspensions. The funny thing is, Infinty Broadcasting has been scrambling
>to
>> find out what they did wrong, and they can't get an answer.
>>
>> Basically, broadcasters have been under siege ever since Janet Jackson
>showed
>> off her floppy, almost forty-year-old tit at the Super Bowl. In the last
>few
>> days, shock jocks like Stern have been getting fired left and right for
>doing
>> things they've been doing for years. Now, Stern himself is trying to
>resign
>> because he can't do the show he's been doing for more than twenty years.
>His
>> plan is to switch over to an uncensored satellite radio program, and since
>he
>> has about 12 million loyal listeners, this will probably be a major coup
>for
>> the new satellite radio industry. (I have XM, and I love it. It's far
>> superior to regular radio in every conceivable way.) Major chunks of
>Stern's
>> show have been getting censored over the last few days.
>>
>> Is it a coincidence that Stern has been openly calling for the ousting of
>Bush?
>> Is it a coincidence that Stern has been making fun of that hysterical
>> Congresswoman from New Mexico whose son was needlessly traumatized by that
>lone
>> nipple and has been screaming melodramatically at any network executive
>> unfortunate enough to show up to her hearings?
>>
>> At the same time, "The Passion of the Christ" is breaking opening day box
>> office records. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the actual content of
>this
>> movie, it is basically two solid hours of a man being tortured to death.
>Roger
>> Ebert made the very interesting observation that if that man was anyone
>other
>> than Jesus Christ, the film would have been rated NC-17...he calls it the
>most
>> violent movie he has ever seen. Other critics have gone on to say that
>sitting
>> through this film is tantamount to being punished for our sins, it's that
>> unendurable. One woman in Wichita actually had a heart attack and died
>while
>> watching it, a relatively healthy woman in her fiftied who was actually a
>local
>> broadcaster. And yet we Americans are seeing this in droves...why?
>>
>> Tell me again how this country is headed in the right direction.
>>
>> Boon
>
>I guess the movie is kind of like "Resevoir Dogs" for Christians. Could you
>imagine a Tarantino development of this project? Would it be any more
>violent?

It would probably be a hell of a lot more entertaining. Tarantino knows that
movies are entertainment, not punishment. Besides, despite its violence,
"Reservoir Dogs" is one of the funniest movies ever made.

>
>As for Stern, if you don't want to listen to him, you don't
>have to tune in. People listening to Stern
>have a good idea of what to expect. I used to listen to him
>a lot, when he was still a local guy in DC at the start of his career.
>He was a lot funnier and a lot more politically oriented than he has
>been for the previous ten years or so. Later on I got turned off
>when he would spend hours doing nothing
>but gossiping about his own litle circle of insiders. He offended me
>by being so boring!

That's what is so suspect about all of this. Howard Stern is nowhere near as
controversial as he used to be, even though the fines the FCC levied against
his company were for his use of the words "penis" and "vagina." Incidentally,
both of those words have been used on "Friends," which broadcasts on a major
network at 8pm. Can Infinity Broadcasting get a refund?

>
>As for the Superbowl, in ways, it was worse, even though a pastie
>covered nipple on a bare tit hasn't been a big deal since 1955.

Well, it wasn't quite a pastie, but yes.

>People watching the Superbowl aren't expecting that kind of stuff,
>and it it was really ****ty for Jackson and Timberlake to pull off
>that stunt in the venue of a Superbowl halftime. But it is no concern
>for any government action.

Exactly.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

ScottW said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> I think it's pretty apparent that the reason why RAO has become mostly
>about
>> politics these days is because of the very strange things that are
>happening in
>> our country, not to mention the rest of the world. This really hit home
>this
>> morning when I was listening to Howard Stern on the radio. No one's
>really
>> brought up what he's going through this week because I don't think there
>are a
>> lot of his listeners posting regularly on RAO, but basically about
>one-tenth of
>> his audience weren't allowed to listen to his show today because of
>FCC-imposed
>> suspensions. The funny thing is, Infinty Broadcasting has been
>scrambling to
>> find out what they did wrong, and they can't get an answer.
>
> Infinity is Stern's home. It was the Clear Channel affiliates that pulled
>Stern
>(a whopping 6 channels)and it was Clear Channel that punched out
>Sponge Bob (or whatever his name was). Stern is just pitching a hissy
>fit in a typical Stern publicity stunt.
>Clear Channel was gonna drop Stern anyway, why promote a major
>competitors guy?

That may be a premature conclusion. Trust me, this is just the beginning. You
have to realize that this is all the result of one exposed breast on TV. Our
Puritan roots are once again revealed. And you wonder why the rest of the
world laughs at us?

You know, once in a while I feel like we're going to far, constantly pushing
the envelope of good taste, pushing vulgarity for vulgarity's sake. Nowhere is
this more evident than on Stern's show...during the commercials, which
advertisers design to appeal to what they think is Stern's core audience.
They're offensive because they're shallow and crude. But Yustabe is right when
he says that Stern's show has become mild, even boring over the years.

This is not about what Howard says or does on his show. This is an attempt at
a clean sweep. This is the return of the Moral Majority type of wrongful
thinking.

>>
>> Basically, broadcasters have been under siege ever since Janet Jackson
>showed
>> off her floppy, almost forty-year-old tit at the Super Bowl. In the last
>few
>> days, shock jocks like Stern have been getting fired left and right for
>doing
>> things they've been doing for years. Now, Stern himself is trying to
>resign
>> because he can't do the show he's been doing for more than twenty years.
>His
>> plan is to switch over to an uncensored satellite radio program, and
>since he
>> has about 12 million loyal listeners, this will probably be a major coup
>for
>> the new satellite radio industry. (I have XM, and I love it. It's far
>> superior to regular radio in every conceivable way.) Major chunks of
>Stern's
>> show have been getting censored over the last few days.
>
> Did you hear all the right wing radio guys complain that government
>censorship is a slippery slope? Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly,
>John & Ken etc. They all came out against government imposed
>controls.

That's because this is not a liberal/conservative thing.

>>
>> Is it a coincidence that Stern has been openly calling for the ousting of
>Bush?
>> Is it a coincidence that Stern has been making fun of that hysterical
>> Congresswoman from New Mexico whose son was needlessly traumatized by
>that lone
>> nipple and has been screaming melodramatically at any network executive
>> unfortunate enough to show up to her hearings?
>>
>> At the same time, "The Passion of the Christ" is breaking opening day box
>> office records. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the actual content of
>this
>> movie, it is basically two solid hours of a man being tortured to death.
>Roger
>> Ebert made the very interesting observation that if that man was anyone
>other
>> than Jesus Christ, the film would have been rated NC-17...he calls it the
>most
>> violent movie he has ever seen. Other critics have gone on to say that
>sitting
>> through this film is tantamount to being punished for our sins, it's that
>> unendurable. One woman in Wichita actually had a heart attack and died
>while
>> watching it, a relatively healthy woman in her fiftied who was actually a
>local
>> broadcaster. And yet we Americans are seeing this in droves...why?
>>
>> Tell me again how this country is headed in the right direction.
>
> Explain to me why we should judge the direction of the country
>on box office returns?

This film has earned $50 million in its first two days. It will go down
probably as one of the biggest box-office hits of all time. And it's little
more than a snuff film, with Jesus as the victim. You don't think that's a
reflection of our society?


If we judge the direction of America
>based on anything Hollywood does, I think we would be sadly
>mistaken. 3 Months ago we were lining up for Return of the King.
>What direction were we headed then?

We wanted to be entertained. Now we want to be punished.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Dr. Z said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Basically, broadcasters have been under siege ever since Janet Jackson
>showed
>> off her floppy, almost forty-year-old tit at the Super Bowl.
>
>I think the tit is only five years old.

LOL!

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>Nahh. RAO has become what it is,

Nahh...you're not invited to this discussion. You're not smart enough.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Arny said:
>
>> Nahh. RAO has become what it is,
>
> Nahh...you're not invited to this discussion. You're not smart enough.

The bar is set so low that even you can pass, Phillips. Look up, that's my
foot.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>
> > Arny said:
> >
> >> Nahh. RAO has become what it is,
> >
> > Nahh...you're not invited to this discussion. You're not smart enough.
>
> The bar is set so low that even you can pass, Phillips. Look up, that's my
> foot.
>

I can smell it from here.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message


> This film has earned $50 million in its first two days.

Wrong.

http://www.boxofficereport.com/wbon/passion.shtml

$38.3 million

But Phillips why should you start getting your facts right at this late
date?

BTW, the $38.3 is known to be bogus as a 2-day number, because it includes
receipts from "sneak previews" on Monday and Tuesday. Those receipts are
estimated at around $5 million. So, the two day number is a mere $33 million
or so.

> It will go down probably as one of the biggest box-office hits of all
time.

Seems unlikely. Mel will get his investment back, but...

> And it's little more than a snuff film, with Jesus as the victim.

How many movies have been made where the main character dies in the end? So
now they're all snuff movies?

> You don't think that's a reflection of our society?

It's a reflection of a fairly ancient story.

> We wanted to be entertained. Now we want to be punished.

Given how completely bent and atypical you are Phillips, you've got to tell
us who else is in there with you with this "we".

[ScottW]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW said:
>
> >"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I think it's pretty apparent that the reason why RAO has become mostly
> >about
> >> politics these days is because of the very strange things that are
> >happening in
> >> our country, not to mention the rest of the world. This really hit
home
> >this
> >> morning when I was listening to Howard Stern on the radio. No one's
> >really
> >> brought up what he's going through this week because I don't think
there
> >are a
> >> lot of his listeners posting regularly on RAO, but basically about
> >one-tenth of
> >> his audience weren't allowed to listen to his show today because of
> >FCC-imposed
> >> suspensions. The funny thing is, Infinty Broadcasting has been
> >scrambling to
> >> find out what they did wrong, and they can't get an answer.
> >
> > Infinity is Stern's home. It was the Clear Channel affiliates that
pulled
> >Stern
> >(a whopping 6 channels)and it was Clear Channel that punched out
> >Sponge Bob (or whatever his name was). Stern is just pitching a hissy
> >fit in a typical Stern publicity stunt.
> >Clear Channel was gonna drop Stern anyway, why promote a major
> >competitors guy?
>
> That may be a premature conclusion. Trust me, this is just the
beginning. You
> have to realize that this is all the result of one exposed breast on TV.
Our
> Puritan roots are once again revealed. And you wonder why the rest of
the
> world laughs at us?
>
> You know, once in a while I feel like we're going to far, constantly
pushing
> the envelope of good taste, pushing vulgarity for vulgarity's sake.
Nowhere is
> this more evident than on Stern's show...during the commercials, which
> advertisers design to appeal to what they think is Stern's core audience.
> They're offensive because they're shallow and crude. But Yustabe is
right when
> he says that Stern's show has become mild, even boring over the years.
>
> This is not about what Howard says or does on his show. This is an
attempt at
> a clean sweep. This is the return of the Moral Majority type of wrongful
> thinking.

You should hear the Mexican based stations making fun of the FCC.
One is running a curse word of the day contest.
It's pretty funny. One has commercial that flat says
"**** the FCC".
But I don't think 6 channels less of Howie is any big deal.
The SD channel is FM and normally has a music format.
I'm all for dumping Howie in favor of music.

(snip)
> >>
> >> At the same time, "The Passion of the Christ" is breaking opening day
box
> >> office records. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the actual content
of
> >this
> >> movie, it is basically two solid hours of a man being tortured to
death.
> >Roger
> >> Ebert made the very interesting observation that if that man was
anyone
> >other
> >> than Jesus Christ, the film would have been rated NC-17...he calls it
the
> >most
> >> violent movie he has ever seen. Other critics have gone on to say
that
> >sitting
> >> through this film is tantamount to being punished for our sins, it's
that
> >> unendurable. One woman in Wichita actually had a heart attack and
died
> >while
> >> watching it, a relatively healthy woman in her fiftied who was
actually a
> >local
> >> broadcaster. And yet we Americans are seeing this in droves...why?
> >>
> >> Tell me again how this country is headed in the right direction.
> >
> > Explain to me why we should judge the direction of the country
> >on box office returns?
>
> This film has earned $50 million in its first two days. It will go down
> probably as one of the biggest box-office hits of all time.

A marketing coup.
But even if it does. Big deal. What movie is it gonna displace?
LotRs? Star Wars? or Sound of Music?

I found it. Titanic. Kind of surprising.
http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/alltime.php

What was the message then? I see 2 Star Wars
in the top 4 and 2 LotR's moving up in the top ten.

> And it's little
> more than a snuff film, with Jesus as the victim. You don't think that's
a
> reflection of our society?

Only in how gullible people are for a controversy and
slick marketing.

>
>
> If we judge the direction of America
> >based on anything Hollywood does, I think we would be sadly
> >mistaken. 3 Months ago we were lining up for Return of the King.
> >What direction were we headed then?
>
> We wanted to be entertained. Now we want to be punished.

Maybe this weekend. Next weekend it will be
a horror flick on top of the charts. The pendulum always swings.

ScottW

[Bruce J. Richman]

Mr. Phillips wrote:


>Yustabe said:
>
>>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>>> I think it's pretty apparent that the reason why RAO has become mostly
>>about
>>> politics these days is because of the very strange things that are
>>happening in
>>> our country, not to mention the rest of the world. This really hit home
>>this
>>> morning when I was listening to Howard Stern on the radio. No one's
>>really
>>> brought up what he's going through this week because I don't think there
>>are a
>>> lot of his listeners posting regularly on RAO, but basically about
>>one-tenth of
>>> his audience weren't allowed to listen to his show today because of
>>FCC-imposed
>>> suspensions. The funny thing is, Infinty Broadcasting has been scrambling
>>to
>>> find out what they did wrong, and they can't get an answer.
>>>
>>> Basically, broadcasters have been under siege ever since Janet Jackson
>>showed
>>> off her floppy, almost forty-year-old tit at the Super Bowl. In the last
>>few
>>> days, shock jocks like Stern have been getting fired left and right for
>>doing
>>> things they've been doing for years. Now, Stern himself is trying to
>>resign
>>> because he can't do the show he's been doing for more than twenty years.
>>His
>>> plan is to switch over to an uncensored satellite radio program, and since
>>he
>>> has about 12 million loyal listeners, this will probably be a major coup
>>for
>>> the new satellite radio industry. (I have XM, and I love it. It's far
>>> superior to regular radio in every conceivable way.) Major chunks of
>>Stern's
>>> show have been getting censored over the last few days.
>>>
>>> Is it a coincidence that Stern has been openly calling for the ousting of
>>Bush?
>>> Is it a coincidence that Stern has been making fun of that hysterical
>>> Congresswoman from New Mexico whose son was needlessly traumatized by that
>>lone
>>> nipple and has been screaming melodramatically at any network executive
>>> unfortunate enough to show up to her hearings?
>>>
>>> At the same time, "The Passion of the Christ" is breaking opening day box
>>> office records. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the actual content of
>>this
>>> movie, it is basically two solid hours of a man being tortured to death.
>>Roger
>>> Ebert made the very interesting observation that if that man was anyone
>>other
>>> than Jesus Christ, the film would have been rated NC-17...he calls it the
>>most
>>> violent movie he has ever seen. Other critics have gone on to say that
>>sitting
>>> through this film is tantamount to being punished for our sins, it's that
>>> unendurable. One woman in Wichita actually had a heart attack and died
>>while
>>> watching it, a relatively healthy woman in her fiftied who was actually a
>>local
>>> broadcaster. And yet we Americans are seeing this in droves...why?
>>>
>>> Tell me again how this country is headed in the right direction.
>>>
>>> Boon
>>
>>I guess the movie is kind of like "Resevoir Dogs" for Christians. Could you
>>imagine a Tarantino development of this project? Would it be any more
>>violent?
>
>It would probably be a hell of a lot more entertaining. Tarantino knows that
>movies are entertainment, not punishment. Besides, despite its violence,
>"Reservoir Dogs" is one of the funniest movies ever made.
>
>>
>>As for Stern, if you don't want to listen to him, you don't
>>have to tune in. People listening to Stern
>>have a good idea of what to expect. I used to listen to him
>>a lot, when he was still a local guy in DC at the start of his career.
>>He was a lot funnier and a lot more politically oriented than he has
>>been for the previous ten years or so. Later on I got turned off
>>when he would spend hours doing nothing
>>but gossiping about his own litle circle of insiders. He offended me
>>by being so boring!
>
>That's what is so suspect about all of this. Howard Stern is nowhere near as
>controversial as he used to be, even though the fines the FCC levied against
>his company were for his use of the words "penis" and "vagina."
>Incidentally,
>both of those words have been used on "Friends," which broadcasts on a major
>network at 8pm. Can Infinity Broadcasting get a refund?
>

Unbelievable! If the holier-than-thou FCC is going to start fineing people
for using anatomical terms that offend their blue-nosed sensibilities, then Dr.
Ruth may be in a lot of trouble :)


>>
>>As for the Superbowl, in ways, it was worse, even though a pastie
>>covered nipple on a bare tit hasn't been a big deal since 1955.
>
>Well, it wasn't quite a pastie, but yes.
>
>>People watching the Superbowl aren't expecting that kind of stuff,
>>and it it was really ****ty for Jackson and Timberlake to pull off
>>that stunt in the venue of a Superbowl halftime. But it is no concern
>>for any government action.
>
>Exactly.
>
>Boon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:47:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> Arny said:
>>
>>> Nahh. RAO has become what it is,
>>
>> Nahh...you're not invited to this discussion. You're not smart enough.
>
>The bar is set so low that even you can pass, Phillips. Look up, that's my
>foot.

You should remove it from your mouth.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:25:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> This film has earned $50 million in its first two days.
>
>Wrong.
>
>http://www.boxofficereport.com/wbon/passion.shtml
>
>$38.3 million

Wrong.

[S888Wheel]

>
>The bar is set so low that even you can pass, Phillips. Look up, that's my
>foot.

Did you manage to get it out of your mouth? Want to talk more about that band
Fold es Eg?

[S888Wheel]

>
>How many movies have been made where the main character dies in the end? So
>now they're all snuff movies?

So you are an idiot when it comes to movies too.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:IiT%b.21855$aZ3.3046@fed1read04

> Maybe this weekend. Next weekend it will be
> a horror flick on top of the charts. The pendulum always swings.

Does Scotty think that The Passion of Chirst is a Romantic Comedy?

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> Arny said:
>>
>>> Nahh. RAO has become what it is,
>>
>> Nahh...you're not invited to this discussion. You're not smart enough.
>
>The bar is set so low that even you can pass, Phillips. Look up, that's my
>foot.

An IKYABWAI? See, I was right.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>> This film has earned $50 million in its first two days.
>
>Wrong.
>

Oh, Jesus H. Christ, get the hint already. You're not smart enough to discuss
this. You're quibbling over numbers and missing the point. I don't understand
why you don't run the other way when you see one of my posts. Really.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

ScottW said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> ScottW said:
>>
>> >"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> I think it's pretty apparent that the reason why RAO has become mostly
>> >about
>> >> politics these days is because of the very strange things that are
>> >happening in
>> >> our country, not to mention the rest of the world. This really hit
>home
>> >this
>> >> morning when I was listening to Howard Stern on the radio. No one's
>> >really
>> >> brought up what he's going through this week because I don't think
>there
>> >are a
>> >> lot of his listeners posting regularly on RAO, but basically about
>> >one-tenth of
>> >> his audience weren't allowed to listen to his show today because of
>> >FCC-imposed
>> >> suspensions. The funny thing is, Infinty Broadcasting has been
>> >scrambling to
>> >> find out what they did wrong, and they can't get an answer.
>> >
>> > Infinity is Stern's home. It was the Clear Channel affiliates that
>pulled
>> >Stern
>> >(a whopping 6 channels)and it was Clear Channel that punched out
>> >Sponge Bob (or whatever his name was). Stern is just pitching a hissy
>> >fit in a typical Stern publicity stunt.
>> >Clear Channel was gonna drop Stern anyway, why promote a major
>> >competitors guy?
>>
>> That may be a premature conclusion. Trust me, this is just the
>beginning. You
>> have to realize that this is all the result of one exposed breast on TV.
>Our
>> Puritan roots are once again revealed. And you wonder why the rest of
>the
>> world laughs at us?
>>
>> You know, once in a while I feel like we're going to far, constantly
>pushing
>> the envelope of good taste, pushing vulgarity for vulgarity's sake.
>Nowhere is
>> this more evident than on Stern's show...during the commercials, which
>> advertisers design to appeal to what they think is Stern's core audience.
>> They're offensive because they're shallow and crude. But Yustabe is
>right when
>> he says that Stern's show has become mild, even boring over the years.
>>
>> This is not about what Howard says or does on his show. This is an
>attempt at
>> a clean sweep. This is the return of the Moral Majority type of wrongful
>> thinking.
>
> You should hear the Mexican based stations making fun of the FCC.
>One is running a curse word of the day contest.
>It's pretty funny. One has commercial that flat says
>"**** the FCC".
>But I don't think 6 channels less of Howie is any big deal.
>The SD channel is FM and normally has a music format.
>I'm all for dumping Howie in favor of music.

Well, we shouldn't feel sorry for Stern, who has been threatening to leave the
radio for years now. He made news last week by actually resigning, but not
everyone took it seriously. I think his plan to head to satellite radio is a
great one, because the FCC has hamstrung his creativity for years. I think an
uncensored program would not only make him funny again, but it would really
establish satellite radio in the mainstream for good.


>(snip)
>> >>
>> >> At the same time, "The Passion of the Christ" is breaking opening day
>box
>> >> office records. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the actual content
>of
>> >this
>> >> movie, it is basically two solid hours of a man being tortured to
>death.
>> >Roger
>> >> Ebert made the very interesting observation that if that man was
>anyone
>> >other
>> >> than Jesus Christ, the film would have been rated NC-17...he calls it
>the
>> >most
>> >> violent movie he has ever seen. Other critics have gone on to say
>that
>> >sitting
>> >> through this film is tantamount to being punished for our sins, it's
>that
>> >> unendurable. One woman in Wichita actually had a heart attack and
>died
>> >while
>> >> watching it, a relatively healthy woman in her fiftied who was
>actually a
>> >local
>> >> broadcaster. And yet we Americans are seeing this in droves...why?
>> >>
>> >> Tell me again how this country is headed in the right direction.
>> >
>> > Explain to me why we should judge the direction of the country
>> >on box office returns?
>>
>> This film has earned $50 million in its first two days. It will go down
>> probably as one of the biggest box-office hits of all time.
>
>A marketing coup.
>But even if it does. Big deal. What movie is it gonna displace?
>LotRs? Star Wars? or Sound of Music?

I'm not sure of the relevance of your argument. Let's face it, "The Passion of
the Christ" is a very unique film, perhaps the most unique film of our
generation. Its sole purpose is to make people feel awful about what happened
to Jesus, and how much he suffered for us. Bringing up other movies is
comparing apples and oranges. People who are seeing this are not just going to
the movies. There are people who are seeing this who haven't been to a movie
theatre in years. Churches are organizing field trips for their entire
congregations. There is a concerted effort to REQUIRE Christians to see this
movie as an act of faith. Can you say the same about the Lord of the Rings?

>
>I found it. Titanic. Kind of surprising.
>http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/alltime.php
>
>What was the message then? I see 2 Star Wars
>in the top 4 and 2 LotR's moving up in the top ten.
>
>> And it's little
>> more than a snuff film, with Jesus as the victim. You don't think that's
>a
>> reflection of our society?
>
> Only in how gullible people are for a controversy and
>slick marketing.

Scott, have you seen it? I have, and it's an oppressive experience. You might
have a different viewpoint if you did.

>
>>
>>
>> If we judge the direction of America
>> >based on anything Hollywood does, I think we would be sadly
>> >mistaken. 3 Months ago we were lining up for Return of the King.
>> >What direction were we headed then?
>>
>> We wanted to be entertained. Now we want to be punished.
>
> Maybe this weekend. Next weekend it will be
>a horror flick on top of the charts. The pendulum always swings.

Actually, people are seeing this over and over again. They're watching it,
walking out, and walking back in for the very next showing. That's generally
how a movie gets to the $200 million mark, or the $300 million mark. Or more.
Let's see where it goes.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>Does Scotty think that The Passion of Chirst is a Romantic Comedy?

You're a Christian, and you can't even spell Christ right. I told you that
you're too ****ing stupid to participate here. Get the hint already.

Boon

[S888Wheel]

>
>Does Scotty think that The Passion of Chirst is a Romantic Comedy?
>

Do you still think Fold es Eg is a recording artist?

[Bruce J. Richman]

Mr. Phillips wrote:


>Arny said:
>
>>Does Scotty think that The Passion of Chirst is a Romantic Comedy?
>
>You're a Christian, and you can't even spell Christ right. I told you that
>you're too ****ing stupid to participate here. Get the hint already.
>
>Boon
>
>
>
>
>
>

He's quite a "characture".



Bruce J. Richman

[Acne Krooker]

(S888Wheel) wrote
>>
>>Does Scotty think that The Passion of Chirst is a Romantic Comedy?
>>
>
>Do you still think Fold es Eg is a recording artist?
>
Thanks sockpuppet wheel for demonstrating you're apoplectic disability
to bash Bush and Chirst at every opportunity, just as Phillips nothing
but another snake oil peddler with tubes and vinyl sockpuppet wheel.

MucH ;-(

[Acne Krooker]

(S888Wheel) wrote
>>
>>Does Scotty think that The Passion of Chirst is a Romantic Comedy?
>>
>
>Do you still think Fold es Eg is a recording artist?
>
Goggle results came back empty with this milleninum sockpuppet wheel
but thanks for playing sockpuppet Weil.

LOL ;-(

[S888Wheel]

>
>>>
>>>Does Scotty think that The Passion of Chirst is a Romantic Comedy?
>>>
>>
>>Do you still think Fold es Eg is a recording artist?
>>
>Thanks sockpuppet wheel for demonstrating you're apoplectic disability
>to bash Bush and Chirst at every opportunity, just as Phillips nothing
>but another snake oil peddler with tubes and vinyl sockpuppet wheel.
>
>MucH ;-(
>
>
>
>
>
>

One has to wonder if Arny thinks you are making fun of him or agreeing with
him. Thanks for raising the entertainment level.

[ScottW]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW said:
>
> >> >> Tell me again how this country is headed in the right direction.
> >> >
> >> > Explain to me why we should judge the direction of the country
> >> >on box office returns?
> >>
> >> This film has earned $50 million in its first two days. It will go
down
> >> probably as one of the biggest box-office hits of all time.
> >
> >A marketing coup.
> >But even if it does. Big deal. What movie is it gonna displace?
> >LotRs? Star Wars? or Sound of Music?
>
> I'm not sure of the relevance of your argument. Let's face it, "The
Passion of
> the Christ" is a very unique film, perhaps the most unique film of our
> generation.

I just don't put much relevance into what's currently hot in the
entertainment
world to bear any real significance on the direction of society.
The Passion may be a record box office draw but porn was still the first
real money maker on the internet. Which one is more significant on the
direction of our society?

> Its sole purpose is to make people feel awful about what happened
> to Jesus, and how much he suffered for us. Bringing up other movies is
> comparing apples and oranges. People who are seeing this are not just
going to
> the movies. There are people who are seeing this who haven't been to a
movie
> theatre in years. Churches are organizing field trips for their entire
> congregations. There is a concerted effort to REQUIRE Christians to see
this
> movie as an act of faith. Can you say the same about the Lord of the
Rings?

I've only read some of the media hype but I haven't experienced any such
thing.
No one has called or knocked on my door.
>
> >
> >I found it. Titanic. Kind of surprising.
> >http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/alltime.php
> >
> >What was the message then? I see 2 Star Wars
> >in the top 4 and 2 LotR's moving up in the top ten.
> >
> >> And it's little
> >> more than a snuff film, with Jesus as the victim. You don't think
that's
> >a
> >> reflection of our society?
> >
> > Only in how gullible people are for a controversy and
> >slick marketing.
>
> Scott, have you seen it? I have, and it's an oppressive experience. You
might
> have a different viewpoint if you did.

Wouldn't I then be just another one of the masses
leading America in the wrong direction?

How many people are seeing the film just to understand
what the controversy is all about? I assume that is why
you went.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> If we judge the direction of America
> >> >based on anything Hollywood does, I think we would be sadly
> >> >mistaken. 3 Months ago we were lining up for Return of the King.
> >> >What direction were we headed then?
> >>
> >> We wanted to be entertained. Now we want to be punished.
> >
> > Maybe this weekend. Next weekend it will be
> >a horror flick on top of the charts. The pendulum always swings.
>
> Actually, people are seeing this over and over again. They're watching
it,
> walking out, and walking back in for the very next showing.

Not at our local theatre. All prime time shows are sold out
hours in advance so repeat viewing isn't an option unless you
plan for it. Even so, repeat viewing would mean a significant
overestimate on the number of people who are actually
going to see it.

> That's generally
> how a movie gets to the $200 million mark, or the $300 million mark. Or
more.
> Let's see where it goes.

Beyond the "box office" smash headlines I'm not hearing unanimous
positive reviews. Lots of people finding the violence over the top,
theologians complaining about departure from scripture and glossing
over the resurrection which was the real event that made Christianity.
I heard one guy complaining, without resurrection, Christ is just
another great man who died a horrible death. The movie treated the
resurrection as an afterthought in his mind.
My gut feel is this thing won't sustain it's run like RotK. But we shall
see.

ScottW

[Marc Phillips]

ScottW said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> ScottW said:
>>
>> >> >> Tell me again how this country is headed in the right direction.
>> >> >
>> >> > Explain to me why we should judge the direction of the country
>> >> >on box office returns?
>> >>
>> >> This film has earned $50 million in its first two days. It will go
>down
>> >> probably as one of the biggest box-office hits of all time.
>> >
>> >A marketing coup.
>> >But even if it does. Big deal. What movie is it gonna displace?
>> >LotRs? Star Wars? or Sound of Music?
>>
>> I'm not sure of the relevance of your argument. Let's face it, "The
>Passion of
>> the Christ" is a very unique film, perhaps the most unique film of our
>> generation.
>
> I just don't put much relevance into what's currently hot in the
>entertainment
> world to bear any real significance on the direction of society.

As I've said before, this doesn't qualify as entertainment.

That's kind of my point.

> The Passion may be a record box office draw but porn was still the first
> real money maker on the internet. Which one is more significant on the
> direction of our society?

The better question is, do the two things feed off of each other?

>
>> Its sole purpose is to make people feel awful about what happened
>> to Jesus, and how much he suffered for us. Bringing up other movies is
>> comparing apples and oranges. People who are seeing this are not just
>going to
>> the movies. There are people who are seeing this who haven't been to a
>movie
>> theatre in years. Churches are organizing field trips for their entire
>> congregations. There is a concerted effort to REQUIRE Christians to see
>this
>> movie as an act of faith. Can you say the same about the Lord of the
>Rings?
>
> I've only read some of the media hype but I haven't experienced any such
>thing.
> No one has called or knocked on my door.
>>
>> >
>> >I found it. Titanic. Kind of surprising.
>> >http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/alltime.php
>> >
>> >What was the message then? I see 2 Star Wars
>> >in the top 4 and 2 LotR's moving up in the top ten.
>> >
>> >> And it's little
>> >> more than a snuff film, with Jesus as the victim. You don't think
>that's
>> >a
>> >> reflection of our society?
>> >
>> > Only in how gullible people are for a controversy and
>> >slick marketing.
>>
>> Scott, have you seen it? I have, and it's an oppressive experience. You
>might
>> have a different viewpoint if you did.
>
> Wouldn't I then be just another one of the masses
> leading America in the wrong direction?

Only if you felt compelled to see it over and over as an act of contrition.
I'm not talking about those who see this out of curiosity, as I did. Actually,
I was able to see it in a sneak preview, and I had very little idea of how
horrible it was going to be. I actually like(d) Mel Gibson, and judging from
"Braveheart," he is a gifted filmmaker. I felt it was going to be worthwhile
from a film standpoint, and in a way it is.

Personally, however, I feel that you are handicapped in this discussion by not
having seen it.

>
> How many people are seeing the film just to understand
> what the controversy is all about? I assume that is why
> you went.

And how many people should have been turned off from wanting to go after they
found out what a horrific experience it would be?

>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If we judge the direction of America
>> >> >based on anything Hollywood does, I think we would be sadly
>> >> >mistaken. 3 Months ago we were lining up for Return of the King.
>> >> >What direction were we headed then?
>> >>
>> >> We wanted to be entertained. Now we want to be punished.
>> >
>> > Maybe this weekend. Next weekend it will be
>> >a horror flick on top of the charts. The pendulum always swings.
>>
>> Actually, people are seeing this over and over again. They're watching
>it,
>> walking out, and walking back in for the very next showing.
>
> Not at our local theatre. All prime time shows are sold out
> hours in advance so repeat viewing isn't an option unless you
>plan for it. Even so, repeat viewing would mean a significant
>overestimate on the number of people who are actually
>going to see it.

Well, that's in San Diego. Filmgoing in LA is a tad different. I watched
people on the news being interviewed and saying that they were going back in.

>
>> That's generally
>> how a movie gets to the $200 million mark, or the $300 million mark. Or
>more.
>> Let's see where it goes.
>
> Beyond the "box office" smash headlines I'm not hearing unanimous
> positive reviews.

That's because it's getting very mixed reviews. Film critics tend to be
independent thinkers, not sheep like your average Christian. The film is being
criticized for the very things I've mentioned. And even those with a pretense
of faith in Christianity are saying the same thing, that there is precious
little of Jesus' teachings in the movie. If you weren't a Christian, or had a
good working knowledge of the tenets of Christianity, you'd be lost as to the
theme of this movie. This film was designed to make Christians ( and Jews,
arguably) feel guilty and penitent.

Lots of people finding the violence over the top,
> theologians complaining about departure from scripture and glossing
>over the resurrection which was the real event that made Christianity.
>I heard one guy complaining, without resurrection, Christ is just
>another great man who died a horrible death. The movie treated the
>resurrection as an afterthought in his mind.
>My gut feel is this thing won't sustain it's run like RotK. But we shall
>see.
>

Even if its box office run fades quickly, I bet you it will be a huge hit when
it gets to home video. This is the kind of film religious nuts will try to
show to everyone over and over.

Boon

[ScottW]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW said:
> >
> > Wouldn't I then be just another one of the masses
> > leading America in the wrong direction?
>
> Only if you felt compelled to see it over and over as an act of
contrition.
> I'm not talking about those who see this out of curiosity, as I did.
Actually,
> I was able to see it in a sneak preview, and I had very little idea of
how
> horrible it was going to be. I actually like(d) Mel Gibson, and judging
from
> "Braveheart," he is a gifted filmmaker. I felt it was going to be
worthwhile
> from a film standpoint, and in a way it is.
>
> Personally, however, I feel that you are handicapped in this discussion
by not
> having seen it.

Perhaps, I'm still not gonna see it. If I am gonna be saved it's
gonna be
from mass hysteria.

>
> >
> > How many people are seeing the film just to understand
> > what the controversy is all about? I assume that is why
> > you went.
>
> And how many people should have been turned off from wanting to go after
they
> found out what a horrific experience it would be?
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> If we judge the direction of America
> >> >> >based on anything Hollywood does, I think we would be sadly
> >> >> >mistaken. 3 Months ago we were lining up for Return of the King.
> >> >> >What direction were we headed then?
> >> >>
> >> >> We wanted to be entertained. Now we want to be punished.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe this weekend. Next weekend it will be
> >> >a horror flick on top of the charts. The pendulum always swings.
> >>
> >> Actually, people are seeing this over and over again. They're
watching
> >it,
> >> walking out, and walking back in for the very next showing.
> >
> > Not at our local theatre. All prime time shows are sold out
> > hours in advance so repeat viewing isn't an option unless you
> >plan for it. Even so, repeat viewing would mean a significant
> >overestimate on the number of people who are actually
> >going to see it.
>
> Well, that's in San Diego. Filmgoing in LA is a tad different. I
watched
> people on the news being interviewed and saying that they were going back
in.

That's the media and it's twisted way of getting involved in the marketing
hype.
They get all gaga over the pre sales and the hype just builds.
I went to a movie when LotR's had been out a week, still had
it's own line.
There was a media guy out front wanting to interview anyone
who had seen the movie more than 5 times.
He found some Tolkien disciple and got the story he wanted.
I think it had some kind of opening week box office record.
>
> >
> >> That's generally
> >> how a movie gets to the $200 million mark, or the $300 million mark.
Or
> >more.
> >> Let's see where it goes.
> >
> > Beyond the "box office" smash headlines I'm not hearing unanimous
> > positive reviews.
>
> That's because it's getting very mixed reviews. Film critics tend to be
> independent thinkers, not sheep like your average Christian. The film is
being
> criticized for the very things I've mentioned. And even those with a
pretense
> of faith in Christianity are saying the same thing, that there is
precious
> little of Jesus' teachings in the movie. If you weren't a Christian, or
had a
> good working knowledge of the tenets of Christianity, you'd be lost as to
the
> theme of this movie. This film was designed to make Christians ( and
Jews,
> arguably) feel guilty and penitent.

Exactly why I waited and now have decided not to bother.

>
> Lots of people finding the violence over the top,
> > theologians complaining about departure from scripture and glossing
> >over the resurrection which was the real event that made Christianity.
> >I heard one guy complaining, without resurrection, Christ is just
> >another great man who died a horrible death. The movie treated the
> >resurrection as an afterthought in his mind.
> >My gut feel is this thing won't sustain it's run like RotK. But we shall
> >see.
> >
>
> Even if its box office run fades quickly, I bet you it will be a huge hit
when
> it gets to home video. This is the kind of film religious nuts will try
to
> show to everyone over and over.

You think the Jehovas will start leaving DVDs instead of those
Watchtower
booklets?

ScottW

[Mikermckelvy]

>Date: 2/26/04 6:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

>I think it's pretty apparent that the reason why RAO has become mostly about
>politics these days is because of the very strange things that are happening
>in
>our country, not to mention the rest of the world. This really hit home this
>morning when I was listening to Howard Stern on the radio. No one's really
>brought up what he's going through this week because I don't think there are
>a
>lot of his listeners posting regularly on RAO, but basically about one-tenth
>of
>his audience weren't allowed to listen to his show today because of
>FCC-imposed
>suspensions. The funny thing is, Infinty Broadcasting has been scrambling to
>find out what they did wrong, and they can't get an answer.
>
If you have more details I'd love to hear them. The only info I heard was that
Clear Channel was dropping him from their stations that carried him, 6 total.


>Basically, broadcasters have been under siege ever since Janet Jackson showed
>off her floppy, almost forty-year-old tit at the Super Bowl. In the last few
>days, shock jocks like Stern have been getting fired left and right for doing
>things they've been doing for years. Now, Stern himself is trying to resign
>because he can't do the show he's been doing for more than twenty years. His
>plan is to switch over to an uncensored satellite radio program, and since he
>has about 12 million loyal listeners, this will probably be a major coup for
>the new satellite radio industry. (I have XM, and I love it. It's far
>superior to regular radio in every conceivable way.) Major chunks of Stern's
>show have been getting censored over the last few days.
>
>Is it a coincidence that Stern has been openly calling for the ousting of
>Bush?

Probably.

> Is it a coincidence that Stern has been making fun of that hysterical
>Congresswoman from New Mexico whose son was needlessly traumatized by that
>lone
>nipple and has been screaming melodramatically at any network executive
>unfortunate enough to show up to her hearings?
>
Probably.

>At the same time, "The Passion of the Christ" is breaking opening day box
>office records. For anyone who is unfamiliar with the actual content of this
>movie, it is basically two solid hours of a man being tortured to death.

Yet it is not as violent as the real event, from what I've heard.

>Roger
>Ebert made the very interesting observation that if that man was anyone other
>than Jesus Christ, the film would have been rated NC-17...he calls it the
>most
>violent movie he has ever seen. Other critics have gone on to say that
>sitting
>through this film is tantamount to being punished for our sins, it's that
>unendurable. One woman in Wichita actually had a heart attack and died while
>watching it, a relatively healthy woman in her fiftied who was actually a
>local
>broadcaster. And yet we Americans are seeing this in droves...why?
>
Because of the pre-release hype of course.

>Tell me again how this country is headed in the right direction.
>
>Boon

Is it wrong for Christians to feel strongly about their faith? For me all
religion is nonsense, but for them it is the revealed truth of the almighty.

The test will be, if the movie has legs. How will it do 2-3 weeks after
release.

The essential moral position of the Christian faith aren't all that wierd ya
know.
They form the basis for most of Western law.

It's the idea that they have to share the news with everybody, that makes me
ill.

As Dave Barry said: Those who want to share their religious views with you,
never seem to want you to share yours with them.

He also said it's not a good idea to take a slleping pill and a laxative at the
same time.

Now that should have been in the Bible, too!
>
>
>
>

[Marc Phillips]

ScottW said:

>My gut feel is this thing won't sustain it's run like RotK. But we shall
>> >see.

$117 million in the first five days. That's just a bit behind "Spiderman,"
which has the record for the first week.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> ScottW said:
>
>> My gut feel is this thing won't sustain it's run like RotK. But we
>> shall
>>>> see.
>
> $117 million in the first five days. That's just a bit behind
> "Spiderman," which has the record for the first week.

So Phillips you think that 5 days is a week when it's a religious movie, or
what?

[ScottW]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW said:
>
> >My gut feel is this thing won't sustain it's run like RotK. But we shall
> >> >see.
>
> $117 million in the first five days. That's just a bit behind
"Spiderman,"
> which has the record for the first week.

Yes, it raking in the dough.
I notice the theatre count is well below that of
RotK during its opening week.
Why might that be?

ScottW

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:TkS0c.24638$aZ3.6730@fed1read04...
>
> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ScottW said:
> >
> > >My gut feel is this thing won't sustain it's run like RotK. But we
shall
> > >> >see.
> >
> > $117 million in the first five days. That's just a bit behind
> "Spiderman,"
> > which has the record for the first week.
>
> Yes, it raking in the dough.
> I notice the theatre count is well below that of
> RotK during its opening week.
> Why might that be?
>

The book wasn't as good?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[S888Wheel]

>
>>> My gut feel is this thing won't sustain it's run like RotK. But we
>>> shall
>>>>> see.
>>
>> $117 million in the first five days. That's just a bit behind
>> "Spiderman," which has the record for the first week.
>
>So Phillips you think that 5 days is a week when it's a religious movie, or
>what?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
LOL.

[S888Wheel]

>
> Yes, it raking in the dough.
> I notice the theatre count is well below that of
> RotK during its opening week.
> Why might that be?
>

Return of the King had a release date determined well ahead of time. No one
wanted to compete with it so the screens were made available. No one knew what
would happen with Passion or even if it would ever be released.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> Yes, it raking in the dough.
>> I notice the theatre count is well below that of
>> RotK during its opening week.
>> Why might that be?
>>
>
> Return of the King had a release date determined well ahead of time.
> No one wanted to compete with it so the screens were made available.
> No one knew what would happen with Passion or even if it would ever
> be released.

LOL!

Note that the passion-movie web site was registered last July. They
obviously did this because they did not know if the movie was going to be
released. People have been downloading the trailer since last July by the
100,000's which gave nobody any clue about what would happen with Passion
when it was released. The release date of the film was known back in early
December, when the pope previewed it. I guess > 60 days notice isn't enough
for sockpuppet wheel.

[S888Wheel]

>
>>
>> Return of the King had a release date determined well ahead of time.
>> No one wanted to compete with it so the screens were made available.
>> No one knew what would happen with Passion or even if it would ever
>> be released.
>
>LOL!
>
>Note that the passion-movie web site was registered last July. They
>obviously did this because they did not know if the movie was going to be
>released. People have been downloading the trailer since last July by the
>100,000's which gave nobody any clue about what would happen with Passion
>when it was released. The release date of the film was known back in early
>December, when the pope previewed it. I guess > 60 days notice isn't enough
>for sockpuppet wheel.
>

You are amazingly stupid. By the way Arny, 60 days notice is not enough notice
to get as many screens as a sure fire box office hit like Return of the King
will have on its opening. Such movies often give advance notice of about a year
to assure as many screens as possible. DUH!

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> Return of the King had a release date determined well ahead of time.
>>> No one wanted to compete with it so the screens were made
>>> available. No one knew what would happen with Passion or even if it
>>> would ever be released.
>>
>> LOL!

>> Note that the passion-movie web site was registered last July. They
>> obviously did this because they did not know if the movie was going
>> to be released. People have been downloading the trailer since last
>> July by the 100,000's which gave nobody any clue about what would
>> happen with Passion when it was released. The release date of the
>> film was known back in early December, when the pope previewed it. I
>> guess > 60 days notice isn't enough for sockpuppet wheel.

> You are amazingly stupid.

What an original way to try to start an adult conversation! Tell you what
sockpuppet wheel. I know that you are highly immature and unable to properly
express yourself, particularly in conversations with normal mature adults.
Therefore I will overlook your lack of tact and proper respect for others
that you wish to converse with.

> By the way Arny, 60 days notice is not
> enough notice to get as many screens as a sure fire box office hit
> like Return of the King will have on its opening.

As usual, the facts don't support your claims.

for example, this CNN article specifically denies the validity of your
claim:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/14/leisure.passion.reut/

"A release on 2,000 screens is similar to what a major studio release would
receive."
In fact, the Passion opened on more like 3,000 screens.

http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/wbotitle.php?t=2010

Shows that it opened on 3043 screens and is currently playing on 3006
screens.

now let's look at the top movie of 2003, "Return of the King"

http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/wbotitle.php?t=2057

It opened on 3703 screens, but grossed slightly less than Passion did in its
first 5 days. There are only 5 days of actual stats for Passion, so this is
the broadest analysis that is reasonable at this time.

The stats for box-office receipts are entirely believable given that number
of screens is not the same as number of seats, and that number of seats
available is not the same as number of seats with paying customers in them.
Sockpuppet wheel, your simplistic and incorrect analysis would attempt to
deceptively conflate all of these issues into one irrelevant number - of
screens. Typical of the kind of shallow analysis which is all that your
feeble mind can muster.

> Such movies often
> give advance notice of about a year to assure as many screens as
> possible. DUH!

Fact is that according to CNN, "A release on 2,000 screens is similar to
what a major studio release would receive."

Fact is that Passion opened on and is continuing to show on more than 3,000
screens. This would be 50% more than what a normal major studio release
would receive. There was not a problem with the number of screens that
Passion was booked on given the sizes of the rooms and the degree with which
viewers were willing to fill them.

Passion has grossed $125.195 million to ROK's $123.775 million. Since ROK
was the largest-grossing movie in 2003, it is a highly relevant benchmark.
It has been narrowly beaten out by Passion. Fact is that Passion is
outgrossing ROK on a day-for-day basis, for the first 5 days (the only days
for which actual stats are available for both movies)

As usual sockpuppet wheel, your bogus claims were painfully easy to
deconstruct.

[S888Wheel]

>>>> Return of the King had a release date determined well ahead of time.
>>>> No one wanted to compete with it so the screens were made
>>>> available. No one knew what would happen with Passion or even if it
>>>> would ever be released.
>>>
>>> LOL!
>
>>> Note that the passion-movie web site was registered last July. They
>>> obviously did this because they did not know if the movie was going
>>> to be released. People have been downloading the trailer since last
>>> July by the 100,000's which gave nobody any clue about what would
>>> happen with Passion when it was released. The release date of the
>>> film was known back in early December, when the pope previewed it. I
>>> guess > 60 days notice isn't enough for sockpuppet wheel.
>
>> You are amazingly stupid.
>
>What an original way to try to start an adult conversation! Tell you what
>sockpuppet wheel. I know that you are highly immature and unable to properly
>express yourself, particularly in conversations with normal mature adults.
>Therefore I will overlook your lack of tact and proper respect for others
>that you wish to converse with.
>

I feel it is best to try to communicate with you on a level you might
understand. So much else keeps going over your head.


>> By the way Arny, 60 days notice is not
>> enough notice to get as many screens as a sure fire box office hit
>> like Return of the King will have on its opening.
>
>As usual, the facts don't support your claims.
>
>for example, this CNN article specifically denies the validity of your
>claim:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/14/leisure.passion.reut/
>
>"A release on 2,000 screens is similar to what a major studio release would
>receive."
>In fact, the Passion opened on more like 3,000 screens.
>
>http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/wbotitle.php?t=2010
>
>Shows that it opened on 3043 screens and is currently playing on 3006
>screens.
>
>now let's look at the top movie of 2003, "Return of the King"
>
>http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/wbotitle.php?t=2057
>
>It opened on 3703 screens, but grossed slightly less than Passion did in its
>first 5 days. There are only 5 days of actual stats for Passion, so this is
>the broadest analysis that is reasonable at this time.
>
>The stats for box-office receipts are entirely believable given that number
>of screens is not the same as number of seats, and that number of seats
>available is not the same as number of seats with paying customers in them.
>Sockpuppet wheel, your simplistic and incorrect analysis would attempt to
>deceptively conflate all of these issues into one irrelevant number - of
>screens. Typical of the kind of shallow analysis which is all that your
>feeble mind can muster.
>
>> Such movies often
>> give advance notice of about a year to assure as many screens as
>> possible. DUH!
>
>Fact is that according to CNN, "A release on 2,000 screens is similar to
>what a major studio release would receive."
>
>Fact is that Passion opened on and is continuing to show on more than 3,000
>screens. This would be 50% more than what a normal major studio release
>would receive. There was not a problem with the number of screens that
>Passion was booked on given the sizes of the rooms and the degree with which
>viewers were willing to fill them.
>
>Passion has grossed $125.195 million to ROK's $123.775 million. Since ROK
>was the largest-grossing movie in 2003, it is a highly relevant benchmark.
>It has been narrowly beaten out by Passion. Fact is that Passion is
>outgrossing ROK on a day-for-day basis, for the first 5 days (the only days
>for which actual stats are available for both movies)
>
>As usual sockpuppet wheel, your bogus claims were painfully easy to
>deconstruct.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wow. You spent all that time and wasted it. You tried to prove me wrong and you
proved me right. You are amazingly stupid. Did you not notice that Passion had
fewer screens than Return of the King which supports my claim that more
advanced notice is needed for an opening comparable to Return of the King?
Passion had the good fortune of opening in the off season when it is easier to
get more screens. This whole issue is over your head isn't it? You can waste a
lot of time looking up numbers on the internet ( I guess people with nothing
else in their life will do such things) but you still can't grasp the meaning
of those numbers and relate it to what I said in the first place. Sad. Where do
you find the time to listen to artists like Fold es Eg? LOL

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:17:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Therefore I will overlook your lack of tact and proper respect for others
>that you wish to converse with.


For someone who doesn't bother the the proper honorifics, this is a
hoot!

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 12:37:48 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:17:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>Therefore I will overlook your lack of tact and proper respect for others
>>that you wish to converse with.
>
>
>For someone who doesn't bother the the proper honorifics, this is a
>hoot!

"with the proper honorifics", of course.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:17:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Therefore I will overlook your lack of tact and proper respect for
>> others that you wish to converse with.
>
>
> For someone who doesn't bother the the proper honorifics, this is a
> hoot!

In your case Weil, the "proper honorifics" are the null set.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:52:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 13:17:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Therefore I will overlook your lack of tact and proper respect for
>>> others that you wish to converse with.
>>
>>
>> For someone who doesn't bother the the proper honorifics, this is a
>> hoot!
>
>In your case Weil, the "proper honorifics" are the null set.

Coming from the King of Null Set, this is a great compliment. Thank
you, Arnold.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> ScottW said:
>>
>>> My gut feel is this thing won't sustain it's run like RotK. But we
>>> shall
>>>>> see.
>>
>> $117 million in the first five days. That's just a bit behind
>> "Spiderman," which has the record for the first week.
>
>So Phillips you think that 5 days is a week when it's a religious movie, or
>what?

You know, I almost thought that you were smart enough to get the hint and stay
away. Now you pop in here and say something else that's unbelievably stupid.

Now, knowing your poor reading comprehension is once again your undoing, please
try to explain where I have equated five days and a week. The two facts I gave
were in no way meant to be presented as identical. They were meant to be
independent...one movie made $117 in its first five day, and the other movie
holds the box-office record for the first week. Can you understand that? My
statement presupposes that one is smart enough to compare the two figures.
Knowing your understanding of statistics is abysmal at best, your gaffe here is
not surprising at all.

Arny...YOU ARE TOO ****ING STUPID TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ME. How long is
it going to take for you to understand this? I mean, it's already been six
years.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

ScottW said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> ScottW said:
>>
>> >My gut feel is this thing won't sustain it's run like RotK. But we shall
>> >> >see.
>>
>> $117 million in the first five days. That's just a bit behind
>"Spiderman,"
>> which has the record for the first week.
>
> Yes, it raking in the dough.
> I notice the theatre count is well below that of
> RotK during its opening week.
> Why might that be?

Because the are more fantasy fans than Christians? Actually, I think ROTK may
have opened in more theatres.

But then again, we really should stop comparing the two.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

dave said:

>>For someone who doesn't bother the the proper honorifics, this is a
>>hoot!
>
>"with the proper honorifics", of course.
>

Actually, I read this too fast and only saw "horrorifics." But then again, you
were talking to Arny, and it made sense.

Boon

[ScottW]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW said:
>
> >"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> ScottW said:
> >>
> >> >My gut feel is this thing won't sustain it's run like RotK. But we
shall
> >> >> >see.
> >>
> >> $117 million in the first five days. That's just a bit behind
> >"Spiderman,"
> >> which has the record for the first week.
> >
> > Yes, it raking in the dough.
> > I notice the theatre count is well below that of
> > RotK during its opening week.
> > Why might that be?
>
> Because the are more fantasy fans than Christians?

Actually Mr. Wheeler pointed out the short notice on
the release date impacting the number of screens.
This makes the box office numbers even more impressive.


> Actually, I think ROTK may
> have opened in more theatres.
>
> But then again, we really should stop comparing the two.

My wife saw the Passion. She didn't like it.
She also hates LotR.
She has to be in a pretty small minority.

ScottW

[S888Wheel]

>
> My wife saw the Passion. She didn't like it.
> She also hates LotR.
> She has to be in a pretty small minority.

What does she like?

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message


> Arny...YOU ARE TOO ****ING STUPID TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ME.
> How long is it going to take for you to understand this? I mean,
> it's already been six years.

Ecept of course Phillips,that each and every time you reply to me, you
disprove your thesis.

Fact of the matter is I shouldn't bother with your pathetic trolls.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:x_d1c.12603$id3.876@fed1read01
>
> My wife saw the Passion. She didn't like it.
> She also hates LotR.
> She has to be in a pretty small minority.

In the circles you prodly hang Scotty, she's in the minority because she's a
"wife" and she's female.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>
>> Arny...YOU ARE TOO ****ING STUPID TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ME.
>> How long is it going to take for you to understand this? I mean,
>> it's already been six years.
>
>Ecept

Wow. You couldn't even make it past the first word without ****ing it all up.


Amazing.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Arny said:
>
>> Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Arny...YOU ARE TOO ****ING STUPID TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ME.
>>> How long is it going to take for you to understand this? I mean,
>>> it's already been six years.
>>
>> Ecept
>
> Wow. You couldn't even make it past the first word without ****ing
> it all up.

Pretty effective, eh?

It stopped you before you could say anything relevant to the topic at hand.

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message


correction:

> In the circles you proudly hang Scotty, she's in the minority because
> she's a "wife" and she's female.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>
> > Arny said:
> >
> >> Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> Arny...YOU ARE TOO ****ING STUPID TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ME.
> >>> How long is it going to take for you to understand this? I mean,
> >>> it's already been six years.
> >>
> >> Ecept
> >
> > Wow. You couldn't even make it past the first word without ****ing
> > it all up.
>
> Pretty effective, eh?
>
> It stopped you before you could say anything relevant to the topic at
hand.
>
>

Good move Arny, just absolutely positively ****ing brilliant.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny said:
>>>
>>>> Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Arny...YOU ARE TOO ****ING STUPID TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ME.
>>>>> How long is it going to take for you to understand this? I mean,
>>>>> it's already been six years.
>>>>
>>>> Ecept
>>>
>>> Wow. You couldn't even make it past the first word without ****ing
>>> it all up.
>>
>> Pretty effective, eh?
>>
>> It stopped you before you could say anything relevant to the topic at
> hand.

> Good move Arny, just absolutely positively ****ing brilliant.

I'll consider the source, Mr. fractional carrot-brain.

[S888Wheel]

>
>Pretty effective, eh?
>
>It stopped you before you could say anything relevant to the topic at hand.
>

It seems to always work on you. Hypocrite

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> Pretty effective, eh?
>>
>> It stopped you before you could say anything relevant to the topic
>> at hand.
>>
>
> It seems to always work on you. Hypocrite

Since you've deleted so much relevant content in a vain effort to conceal
your stupid remarks, there's nothing for me to comment on.

[ScottW]

(S888Wheel) wrote in message >...
> >
> > My wife saw the Passion. She didn't like it.
> > She also hates LotR.
> > She has to be in a pretty small minority.
>
> What does she like?

Chickflicks. She didn't like Monster either
but she did think Charlize was good.


ScottW

[S888Wheel]

>>> Pretty effective, eh?
>>>
>>> It stopped you before you could say anything relevant to the topic
>>> at hand.
>>>
>>
>> It seems to always work on you. Hypocrite
>
>Since you've deleted so much relevant content in a vain effort to conceal
>your stupid remarks, there's nothing for me to comment on.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

IOW you concede your hypocrisy but couldn't find any typos.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>>> Pretty effective, eh?
>>>>
>>>> It stopped you before you could say anything relevant to the topic
>>>> at hand.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems to always work on you. Hypocrite
>>
>> Since you've deleted so much relevant content in a vain effort to
>> conceal your stupid remarks, there's nothing for me to comment on.

> IOW you concede your hypocrisy but couldn't find any typos.

Say what?

[S888Wheel]

>
>> > My wife saw the Passion. She didn't like it.
>> > She also hates LotR.
>> > She has to be in a pretty small minority.
>>
>> What does she like?
>
> Chickflicks. She didn't like Monster either
>but she did think Charlize was good.
>

Bummer. Sounds like the play list is pretty limmited.

[S888Wheel]

>
>Say what?

Finally an honest response. More popcorn please.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> Say what?
>
> Finally an honest response. More popcorn please.

No doubt the healtiest meal that you can afford given that you are so
ashamed of your occupation.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>>> My wife saw the Passion. She didn't like it.
>>>> She also hates LotR.
>>>> She has to be in a pretty small minority.
>>>
>>> What does she like?
>>
>> Chickflicks. She didn't like Monster either
>> but she did think Charlize was good.
>>
>
> Bummer. Sounds like the play list is pretty limmited.

Unhuh, limmited.

This is the guy who whines when others misspell words.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>
> >> Say what?
> >
> > Finally an honest response. More popcorn please.
>
> No doubt the healtiest meal that you can afford given that you are so
> ashamed of your occupation.
>
>

Arny you are an idiot.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> Say what?
>>>
>>> Finally an honest response. More popcorn please.
>>
>> No doubt the healtiest meal that you can afford given that you are so
>> ashamed of your occupation.
>>
>>
>
> Arny you are an idiot.

Total meltdown.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>>> Say what?
> >>>
> >>> Finally an honest response. More popcorn please.
> >>
> >> No doubt the healtiest meal that you can afford given that you are so
> >> ashamed of your occupation.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Arny you are an idiot.
>
> Total meltdown.
>
>

Sorry, I forgot to captalize IDIOT and I left out a comma.
Arny, you are an IDIOT.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[S888Wheel]

>
>> Finally an honest response. More popcorn please.
>
>No doubt the healtiest meal that you can afford given that you are so
>ashamed of your occupation.

Babbling again I see. Try to make some sense next time. Try to make some
logical connections.

[S888Wheel]

>>>>> Say what?
>>>>
>>>> Finally an honest response. More popcorn please.
>>>
>>> No doubt the healtiest meal that you can afford given that you are so
>>> ashamed of your occupation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Arny you are an idiot.
>
>Total meltdown.
>

Polly want a cracker?

[S888Wheel]

>>>>> My wife saw the Passion. She didn't like it.
>>>>> She also hates LotR.
>>>>> She has to be in a pretty small minority.
>>>>
>>>> What does she like?
>>>
>>> Chickflicks. She didn't like Monster either
>>> but she did think Charlize was good.
>>>
>>
>> Bummer. Sounds like the play list is pretty limmited.
>
>Unhuh, limmited.
>
>This is the guy who whines when others misspell words.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You really are confused.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> Arny said:
>>
>>> Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Arny...YOU ARE TOO ****ING STUPID TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ME.
>>>> How long is it going to take for you to understand this? I mean,
>>>> it's already been six years.
>>>
>>> Ecept
>>
>> Wow. You couldn't even make it past the first word without ****ing
>> it all up.
>
>Pretty effective, eh?
>
>It stopped you before you could say anything relevant to the topic at hand.

Thanks Krueger for admitting how irrelevant you are to the topic at hand.

Boon