Some kwestions for the Krooborg

[George M. Middius]

Arnii, do you deny being a Luddite?

You've tossed out that accusation more than 50 times on RAO. Luddite
this, Luddite that, "tube bigot", "vinyl bigot" -- all of your paranoid
ranting is on the record in Goggle™.

But when we look at the facts, it turns out *you* are the Luddite.
You're anti-science, according to your stated opinions. You've told us
of your fears of stem-cell research. You've expressed your terror of the
demise of the client-server model in computers. You've preached against
widespread use of broadband connectivity. You've yammered about the
pitfalls of alternative and renewable energy sources.

You, Arnii Krooborg, are the biggest Luddite on RAO, and almost
certainly on all of the Usenet audio and technology groups.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Arnii, do you deny being a Luddite?...................
>
> You've preached against widespread use of broadband connectivity.

He did ?

Pray tell what was his reasoning regarding this.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Eeyore said:

> > Arnii, do you deny being a Luddite?...................

> > You've preached against widespread use of broadband connectivity.

> He did ?
> Pray tell what was his reasoning regarding this.

Are you seriously asking me to translate Kroologic into its human
progenitor? I'm not proficient in that skill. I can certainly mock
Kroologic, and laugh at it, and deride it. But I can't comprehend it,
any more than you can.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>> Arnii, do you deny being a Luddite?...................
>>
>> You've preached against widespread use of broadband connectivity.
>
> He did ?

Graham, have you completely lost your mind? The Middiot is speaking,
therefore he's lying. Everything he said in that post is a lie. You know,
lie as in intentional untruth.

> Pray tell what was his reasoning regarding this.

Check the traceback of one of my posts to see the proof of the Middiot's
latest pack of lies about me. The posting host belongs to Comcast. Comcast
= one of the largest broadband networks in the US.

[Fella]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Eeyore said:
>
>
>>>Arnii, do you deny being a Luddite?...................
>
>
>>>You've preached against widespread use of broadband connectivity.
>
>
>>He did ?
>>Pray tell what was his reasoning regarding this.
>
>
> Are you seriously asking me to translate Kroologic into its human
> progenitor? I'm not proficient in that skill. I can certainly mock
> Kroologic, and laugh at it, and deride it. But I can't comprehend it,
> any more than you can.
>
>

I thought it was so that you came close to comprehending it and that's
what tipped you off the far end. I think you said something similar to
that effect once, or twice, IMHO.


>
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> > "George M. Middius" wrote:
> >
> >> Arnii, do you deny being a Luddite?...................
> >>
> >> You've preached against widespread use of broadband connectivity.
> >
> > He did ?
>
> Graham, have you completely lost your mind? The Middiot is speaking,
> therefore he's lying. Everything he said in that post is a lie. You know,
> lie as in intentional untruth.

Hence the question mark !


> > Pray tell what was his reasoning regarding this.
>
> Check the traceback of one of my posts to see the proof of the Middiot's
> latest pack of lies about me. The posting host belongs to Comcast. Comcast
> = one of the largest broadband networks in the US.

So what *are* your views on the widespread use of broadband connections ? Feel
free to say.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Eeyore said:

> So what *are* your views on the widespread use of broadband connections ? Feel
> free to say.

Asked and answered.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> > "George M. Middius" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Arnii, do you deny being a Luddite?...................
>> >>
>> >> You've preached against widespread use of broadband connectivity.
>> >
>> > He did ?
>>
>> Graham, have you completely lost your mind? The Middiot is speaking,
>> therefore he's lying. Everything he said in that post is a lie. You
>> know,
>> lie as in intentional untruth.

> Hence the question mark !

OK.

>> > Pray tell what was his reasoning regarding this.

Actually, it would have been fun to see what sort of idiotic yarn the
Middiot could spin. If it keeps some young boys safe from him, he should be
encouraged to make up as many lies as possible.

>> Check the traceback of one of my posts to see the proof of the Middiot's
>> latest pack of lies about me. The posting host belongs to Comcast.
>> Comcast
>> = one of the largest broadband networks in the US.

> So what *are* your views on the widespread use of broadband connections ?
> Feel
> free to say.

Broadband is great. I was an early adopter, and encouraged all of my
customers to adopt it ASAP. I know of very few people who don't use it. I
believe that broadband penetration in the Grosse Pointes is in excess of
80%.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg kranks up its Big Lie Muh-sheen.

> If it keeps some young boys safe from him

Did your pastor tell you to practice your projection, Turdy? ;-)

> > So what *are* your views on the widespread use of broadband connections ?
> > Feel free to say.

> broadband penetration

There you have it. Lock up your infant sons and nephews.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stuart Krivis" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:08:34 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:

>>So what *are* your views on the widespread use of broadband connections ?
>>Feel
>>free to say.

> I always shudder when I hear it descibed as "broadband." :-)

Why?

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> >Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >> > "George M. Middius" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Arnii, do you deny being a Luddite?...................
> >> >>
> >> >> You've preached against widespread use of broadband connectivity.
> >> >
> >> > He did ?
> >>
> >> Graham, have you completely lost your mind? The Middiot is speaking,
> >> therefore he's lying. Everything he said in that post is a lie. You know,
> >> lie as in intentional untruth.
> >
> >Hence the question mark !
> >
> >> > Pray tell what was his reasoning regarding this.
> >>
> >> Check the traceback of one of my posts to see the proof of the Middiot's
> >> latest pack of lies about me. The posting host belongs to Comcast. Comcast
> >> = one of the largest broadband networks in the US.
> >
> >So what *are* your views on the widespread use of broadband connections ? Feel
> >free to say.
>
> I always shudder when I hear it descibed as "broadband." :-)

What do you prefer ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

RibbitBorg said:

> (I decided to anonymize myself. I have been getting some really nasty
> e-mail from a usenet kook, so it's time to make it harder for the
> knuckleheads.)

Krooger is a wonderful person -- don't you agree?



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

Here in Ohio wrote:

> (I decided to anonymize myself. I have been getting some really nasty
> e-mail from a usenet kook,

Anyone we know ?

> so it's time to make it harder for the
> knuckleheads.)

Have you looked at the headers to see who it's from ?

Graham

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...
>
>
> Here in Ohio wrote:
>
> > (I decided to anonymize myself. I have been getting some really nasty
> > e-mail from a usenet kook,
>
> Anyone we know ?
>
> > so it's time to make it harder for the
> > knuckleheads.)
>
> Have you looked at the headers to see who it's from ?

I imagine he would have, but most kooks worth their salt will be able to
hide their identity by forging headers.

--
Bill

[Eeyore]

Bill Riel wrote:

> says...
> > Here in Ohio wrote:
> >
> > > (I decided to anonymize myself. I have been getting some really nasty
> > > e-mail from a usenet kook,
> >
> > Anyone we know ?
> >
> > > so it's time to make it harder for the
> > > knuckleheads.)
> >
> > Have you looked at the headers to see who it's from ?
>
> I imagine he would have, but most kooks worth their salt will be able to
> hide their identity by forging headers.

You never know !

Graham

[Sander deWaal]

Fella > said:

>George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>
>> Eeyore said:
>>
>>
>>>>Arnii, do you deny being a Luddite?...................
>>
>>
>>>>You've preached against widespread use of broadband connectivity.
>>
>>
>>>He did ?
>>>Pray tell what was his reasoning regarding this.
>>
>>
>> Are you seriously asking me to translate Kroologic into its human
>> progenitor? I'm not proficient in that skill. I can certainly mock
>> Kroologic, and laugh at it, and deride it. But I can't comprehend it,
>> any more than you can.
>>
>>
>
>I thought it was so that you came close to comprehending it and that's
>what tipped you off the far end. I think you said something similar to
>that effect once, or twice, IMHO.
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.


Thank's mr. Flea for admittiong that, running with the Middiu's pack
of RAO woolves mr. Falle is what, so mUcH! , "hifi" is all, about for
you mr. Falafel. LoT;'S! ;-)


--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:29:28 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:

[...]

> >Have you looked at the headers to see who it's from ?
>
> It looks like someone from the Comcast network, sending e-mail from
> Hotmail. I reported it and we'll see what happens.

The bozo used hotmail?? That's not very bright - the machine it was sent
from is easily traceable then.

We recently had a rather unfortunate experience with some death threats
sent that way - it was surprisingly easy to trace, though we had to get
the police involved. Once that happened the the ISP was more than happy
to cooperate and the perpetrator was caught.

--
Bill

[Sander deWaal]

Here in Ohio > said:


>I've been thinking for a while that maybe I should stop using my real
>name (for a variety of reasons), and this was just the straw that
>broke the camel's back.


I used my real name ever since I joined the internet and usenet back
in '96 or so, and never had any problems like this.

Spam, yes, but a non-existing e-mail address in the headers helps a
lot.

Really determined people know how to reach me ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Eeyore]

Bill Riel wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:29:28 +0100, Eeyore
> > > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >Have you looked at the headers to see who it's from ?
> >
> > It looks like someone from the Comcast network, sending e-mail from
> > Hotmail. I reported it and we'll see what happens.
>
> The bozo used hotmail?? That's not very bright - the machine it was sent
> from is easily traceable then.
>
> We recently had a rather unfortunate experience with some death threats
> sent that way - it was surprisingly easy to trace, though we had to get
> the police involved. Once that happened the the ISP was more than happy
> to cooperate and the perpetrator was caught.

Has he been charged ?

Graham

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...
>
>
> Bill Riel wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:29:28 +0100, Eeyore
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > >Have you looked at the headers to see who it's from ?
> > >
> > > It looks like someone from the Comcast network, sending e-mail from
> > > Hotmail. I reported it and we'll see what happens.
> >
> > The bozo used hotmail?? That's not very bright - the machine it was sent
> > from is easily traceable then.
> >
> > We recently had a rather unfortunate experience with some death threats
> > sent that way - it was surprisingly easy to trace, though we had to get
> > the police involved. Once that happened the the ISP was more than happy
> > to cooperate and the perpetrator was caught.
>
> Has he been charged ?

Due to some sensitive issues, I do not wish to comment very specifically
about this. I will say that formal charges were not layed, though we
could have pursued that route. However, justice was served and things
were resolved in a way that was appropriate and satisfactory for us.

--
Bill

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...

> There was a worse one at the ISP I worked at. We had to provide this
> guy's web site to the police to be used as evidence in a capital
> trial.
>
> We all knew the guy because he called and complained a lot, and I knew
> he was rather paranoid and odd, but we never imagined that he would
> run amok like he did.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/09/national/main553261.shtml

Holy crap! That must have been a huge shock...

--
Bill

[paul packer]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:59:59 -0400, Here in Ohio
> wrote:


>No, the person was not very bright at all.
>
>The e-mails were all spelling mistakes, grammar errors, and profanity.

Hmmm...could be several people on RAO. :-)

>I kind of feel sorry for the person actually.

You mean because they can't render their invective with the
grammatical perfection and literary invention it deserves? Or because
the system's let them down?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >I kind of feel sorry for the person actually.

> You mean because they can't render their invective with the
> grammatical perfection and literary invention it deserves? Or because
> the system's let them down?

I think what Ribbit meant is the uneducated cur does not have the
pleasure of feeling superior to the Krooborg.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

Here in Ohio wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> >Bill Riel wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> says...
> >> > Eeyore > wrote:
> >>
> >> > >Have you looked at the headers to see who it's from ?
> >> >
> >> > It looks like someone from the Comcast network, sending e-mail from
> >> > Hotmail. I reported it and we'll see what happens.
> >>
> >> The bozo used hotmail?? That's not very bright - the machine it was sent
> >> from is easily traceable then.
> >>
> >> We recently had a rather unfortunate experience with some death threats
> >> sent that way - it was surprisingly easy to trace, though we had to get
> >> the police involved. Once that happened the the ISP was more than happy
> >> to cooperate and the perpetrator was caught.
> >
> >Has he been charged ?
> >
>
> There was a worse one at the ISP I worked at. We had to provide this
> guy's web site to the police to be used as evidence in a capital
> trial.
>
> We all knew the guy because he called and complained a lot, and I knew
> he was rather paranoid and odd, but we never imagined that he would
> run amok like he did.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/09/national/main553261.shtml

This is of course why we have tough gun laws here.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Bill Riel wrote:

> says...
> > Bill Riel wrote:
> > > says...
> > > >Eeyore > wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Have you looked at the headers to see who it's from ?
> > > >
> > > > It looks like someone from the Comcast network, sending e-mail from
> > > > Hotmail. I reported it and we'll see what happens.
> > >
> > > The bozo used hotmail?? That's not very bright - the machine it was sent
> > > from is easily traceable then.
> > >
> > > We recently had a rather unfortunate experience with some death threats
> > > sent that way - it was surprisingly easy to trace, though we had to get
> > > the police involved. Once that happened the the ISP was more than happy
> > > to cooperate and the perpetrator was caught.
> >
> > Has he been charged ?
>
> Due to some sensitive issues, I do not wish to comment very specifically
> about this. I will say that formal charges were not layed, though we
> could have pursued that route. However, justice was served and things
> were resolved in a way that was appropriate and satisfactory for us.

Ok.

Graham

[paul packer]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:57:55 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >I kind of feel sorry for the person actually.
>
>> You mean because they can't render their invective with the
>> grammatical perfection and literary invention it deserves? Or because
>> the system's let them down?
>
>I think what Ribbit meant is the uneducated cur does not have the
>pleasure of feeling superior to the Krooborg.


George, must you tie every boat up to the same dock?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >I think what Ribbit meant is the uneducated cur does not have the
> >pleasure of feeling superior to the Krooborg.

> George, must you tie every boat up to the same dock?

The problem with Ribbitborg is his Kroopologism. Other than that, he's
not tied up in knots intellectually, like some others I might mention
who blame the movie industry for half the world's ills.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:01:36 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >I think what Ribbit meant is the uneducated cur does not have the
>> >pleasure of feeling superior to the Krooborg.
>
>> George, must you tie every boat up to the same dock?
>
>The problem with Ribbitborg is his Kroopologism. Other than that, he's
>not tied up in knots intellectually, like some others I might mention
>who blame the movie industry for half the world's ills.

No one with half a brain would argue against it.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:01:36 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>paul packer said:
>>
>>> >I think what Ribbit meant is the uneducated cur does not have the
>>> >pleasure of feeling superior to the Krooborg.
>>
>>> George, must you tie every boat up to the same dock?
>>
>>The problem with Ribbitborg is his Kroopologism. Other than that, he's
>>not tied up in knots intellectually, like some others I might mention
>>who blame the movie industry for half the world's ills.
>
> No one with half a brain would argue against it.

Agreed that Middiotism primarily appeals to people with half a brain or
less.

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...

> It seems like a leading cause of death these days is religion.

No, the core problem is politics. We're just watching a bunch of politicians
and thugs (sometimes its hard to tell the difference) who throw on holy
robes to conceal their true agendas and motivations.

> Perhaps we'd be better off banning that. :-)

Try banning politics. Just try! ;-)

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >The problem with Ribbitborg is his Kroopologism. Other than that, he's
> >not tied up in knots intellectually, like some others I might mention
> >who blame the movie industry for half the world's ills.

> No one with half a brain would argue against it.

Your social circle must be strange indeed. All those half-brainers
wandering around ranting about Hollywood and such.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:04:06 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >The problem with Ribbitborg is his Kroopologism. Other than that, he's
>> >not tied up in knots intellectually, like some others I might mention
>> >who blame the movie industry for half the world's ills.
>
>> No one with half a brain would argue against it.
>
>Your social circle must be strange indeed. All those half-brainers
>wandering around ranting about Hollywood and such.

Let's be fair, George. I never blamed the movie industry for half the
world's ills. I said that the Muslim world got much of its impression
and imagery of the western world from Hollywood movies, and it's not a
pretty sight.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >Your social circle must be strange indeed. All those half-brainers
> >wandering around ranting about Hollywood and such.

> Let's be fair, George. I never blamed the movie industry for half the
> world's ills. I said that the Muslim world got much of its impression
> and imagery of the western world from Hollywood movies, and it's not a
> pretty sight.


I say the terrorist loons are *deprived* of images about the West,
either true-to-life or exaggerated. That's because they are brainwashed
in the madrasses to hate the West, especially America.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Here in Ohio wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >Bill Riel wrote:
>> >> In article >,
>> >> says...
>> >> > Eeyore > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >Have you looked at the headers to see who it's from ?
>> >> >
>> >> > It looks like someone from the Comcast network, sending e-mail from
>> >> > Hotmail. I reported it and we'll see what happens.
>> >>
>> >> The bozo used hotmail?? That's not very bright - the machine it was sent
>> >> from is easily traceable then.
>> >>
>> >> We recently had a rather unfortunate experience with some death threats
>> >> sent that way - it was surprisingly easy to trace, though we had to get
>> >> the police involved. Once that happened the the ISP was more than happy
>> >> to cooperate and the perpetrator was caught.
>> >
>> >Has he been charged ?
>> >
>>
>> There was a worse one at the ISP I worked at. We had to provide this
>> guy's web site to the police to be used as evidence in a capital
>> trial.
>>
>> We all knew the guy because he called and complained a lot, and I knew
>> he was rather paranoid and odd, but we never imagined that he would
>> run amok like he did.
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/09/national/main553261.shtml
>
> This is of course why we have tough gun laws here.

Which is also why when faced with a knife weilding loony
you wish you had a bow and arrow handy.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:04:06 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>paul packer said:
>>
>>> >The problem with Ribbitborg is his Kroopologism. Other than that, he's
>>> >not tied up in knots intellectually, like some others I might mention
>>> >who blame the movie industry for half the world's ills.
>>
>>> No one with half a brain would argue against it.
>>
>>Your social circle must be strange indeed. All those half-brainers
>>wandering around ranting about Hollywood and such.
>
> Let's be fair, George. I never blamed the movie industry for half the
> world's ills. I said that the Muslim world got much of its impression
> and imagery of the western world from Hollywood movies,

Is that Hollywoods faults or the Muslim worlds fault?

> and it's not a
> pretty sight.

Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

> Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
> of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?

Sometimes you are so stupid that I cannot even comprehend the depths of
vapidness in your 'mind.'

So is everything OK, toopid? Wife hasn't kicked you out for some
ill-advised racial comment, or did that pile of HR complaints finally
do you in at work?

You really seem hell-bent on self-destruction the past couple of days.

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>
> > This is of course why we have tough gun laws here.
>
> Which is also why when faced with a knife weilding loony
> you wish you had a bow and arrow handy.

No. The intelligent thing to do is run away actually.

You should never confront a loony.

Graham

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
>> of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?
>
> Sometimes you are so stupid that I cannot even comprehend the depths of
> vapidness in your 'mind.'
>
> So is everything OK, toopid? Wife hasn't kicked you out for some
> ill-advised racial comment, or did that pile of HR complaints finally
> do you in at work?
>
> You really seem hell-bent on self-destruction the past couple of days.

I'll take this rant as your vote for Broke Back Mountain.
Not my personal choice and likely to get you stoned ( not high)
but unlike you, I can respect your choices even when I disagree.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

> Which is also why when faced with a knife weilding loony
> you wish you had a bow and arrow handy.

The Browning M2 machine gun.

The ultimate home-defense weapon.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-50cal.htm

I think you need one, toopid. There are lots and lots of very
frightening things out there.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Eeyore wrote:

> You should never confront a loony.

How do you suppose he shaves in the morning without looking in the
mirror?

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
> > of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?

> Sometimes you are so stupid that I cannot even comprehend the depths of
> vapidness in your 'mind.'

Aren't you going to decode Scooter's nonsense dumpling? I gave up trying
to have a coherent conversation with him ages ago, and lately I've come
to depend on your deconstructions. On the surface, Scooter's comment
seems perverse: Deep Throat was flat-out porn with a typical gauze-thin
"plot", whereas Brokeback evoked a whole range of serious issues while
depicting the sex act only a couple of times. I'm at a loss, as usual.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> Which is also why when faced with a knife weilding loony
>> you wish you had a bow and arrow handy.
>
> The Browning M2 machine gun.
>
> The ultimate home-defense weapon.
>
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-50cal.htm
>
> I think you need one, toopid. There are lots and lots of very
> frightening things out there.

What makes you think I don't have one..or two..or three?
Have to put something in these turrets on these new
fortress style homes that are so popular.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>>> Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
>>>> of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?
>
> <slice>
>
>> I'll take this rant as your vote for Broke Back Mountain.
>> Not my personal choice...
>
> Linda Boreman quote : "Virtually every time someone watches that
> movie, they're watching me being raped."
>
Good point. Though according to
Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali it was her own fault.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote in
message ...
>
>
> Shhhh! said:
>
>> > Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
>> > of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?
>
>> Sometimes you are so stupid that I cannot even comprehend the depths of
>> vapidness in your 'mind.'
>
> Aren't you going to decode Scooter's nonsense dumpling? I gave up trying
> to have a coherent conversation with him ages ago,

lol...you admittedly gave up conversation for ridicule ages ago.

ScottW

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
> >> of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?
> >
> > Sometimes you are so stupid that I cannot even comprehend the depths of
> > vapidness in your 'mind.'
> >
> > So is everything OK, toopid? Wife hasn't kicked you out for some
> > ill-advised racial comment, or did that pile of HR complaints finally
> > do you in at work?
> >
> > You really seem hell-bent on self-destruction the past couple of days.
>
> I'll take this rant as your vote for Broke Back Mountain.
> Not my personal choice and likely to get you stoned ( not high)
> but unlike you, I can respect your choices even when I disagree.

You're truly several short of the full load aren't you ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > You should never confront a loony.
>
> How do you suppose he shaves in the morning without looking in the
> mirror?

LMAO !

As long as it's not a cut-throat razor he may be ok.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> Here in Ohio > wrote:
>
> >>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/09/national/main553261.shtml
> >>
> >>This is of course why we have tough gun laws here.
> >
> >I'm not sure that would have stopped him.
> >
> >It might have, or else he might have packed his Volkswagen with ANFO
> >and destroyed the place.
> >
> >Somehow it doesn's seem right to say that, because one in a million
> >people is really loony toons and can't be trusted with a gun, we're
> >going to take guns away from everyone.
>
> How many people *need* a gun?
>
> >Do we take away butcher knives next? Chainsaws?
>
> Both are illegal to carry in the UK without satisfactory explanation.
> This is entirely reasonable. People who walk around with knives
> without due cause are almost certainly carrying them as weapons.

Our knife laws are quite strict too but there has been some suggestion they
should be tightened too.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> (paul packer) wrote:
>
> >I said that the Muslim world got much of its impression
> >and imagery of the western world from Hollywood movies, and it's not a
> >pretty sight.
>
> I suspect that the "Muslim world" is able to discern that Hollywood
> movies are not a true representation of Western culture. They may
> realize, for instance, that non documentary films are fictional.
> Spiderman, for example. Let's not assume they are all retards, OK?
>
> What they perhaps find offensive is deliberate misrepresentations of
> their culture, invasive foreign policies, murderous attacks on their
> people, and if we are going to get personal: avaricious consumerism
> and open sexuality etc. Yes, I think these are perhaps marginally more
> significant factors, than Hollywood movies.

I entirely agree.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> PS.. what's with this widespread movement of abstinence you have over
> there with your teens? Seems a bit weird!

It's their way of ensuring the rate of STIs goes up ( no condoms used you
see ).

Apparently it doesn't actually stop much since the kids have been taught (
or have decided for themselves ) that only vaginal sex counts.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> >> PS.. what's with this widespread movement of abstinence you have over
> >> there with your teens? Seems a bit weird!
> >
> >It's their way of ensuring the rate of STIs goes up ( no condoms used you
> >see ).
> >
> >Apparently it doesn't actually stop much since the kids have been taught (
> >or have decided for themselves ) that only vaginal sex counts.
>
> I suppose a girl could be confused into thinking it's sinful to have
> intercourse before marriage, whilst sucking a guy off including
> perhaps swallowing and deep throating etc is acceptable to "God".
>
> The following advice doesn't seem very clear.
>
> http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blchristiansonsex.htm

Quite so.

The thing that really worries me is that failing to engage in proper sex means
you'll never know how compatible you are with your proposed partner until
you're married.

In any other area of human activity it's accepted that to be good at something
you need to practice. I'll bet the abstinence idea leads to many unhappy
marriages.

Graham

[paul packer]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:51:11 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>Signal wrote:
>
>> (paul packer) wrote:
>>
>> >I said that the Muslim world got much of its impression
>> >and imagery of the western world from Hollywood movies, and it's not a
>> >pretty sight.
>>
>> I suspect that the "Muslim world" is able to discern that Hollywood
>> movies are not a true representation of Western culture. They may
>> realize, for instance, that non documentary films are fictional.
>> Spiderman, for example. Let's not assume they are all retards, OK?
>>
>> What they perhaps find offensive is deliberate misrepresentations of
>> their culture, invasive foreign policies, murderous attacks on their
>> people, and if we are going to get personal: avaricious consumerism
>> and open sexuality etc. Yes, I think these are perhaps marginally more
>> significant factors, than Hollywood movies.
>
>I entirely agree.
>
>Graham


Obviously it's very difficult for those of a non-conservative
persuasion to think themselves into a conservative mind set. Pity.

[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> >Signal wrote:
> >> (paul packer) wrote:
> >>
> >> >I said that the Muslim world got much of its impression
> >> >and imagery of the western world from Hollywood movies, and it's not a
> >> >pretty sight.
> >>
> >> I suspect that the "Muslim world" is able to discern that Hollywood
> >> movies are not a true representation of Western culture. They may
> >> realize, for instance, that non documentary films are fictional.
> >> Spiderman, for example. Let's not assume they are all retards, OK?
> >>
> >> What they perhaps find offensive is deliberate misrepresentations of
> >> their culture, invasive foreign policies, murderous attacks on their
> >> people, and if we are going to get personal: avaricious consumerism
> >> and open sexuality etc. Yes, I think these are perhaps marginally more
> >> significant factors, than Hollywood movies.
> >
> >I entirely agree.
> >
> >Graham
>
> Obviously it's very difficult for those of a non-conservative
> persuasion to think themselves into a conservative mind set. Pity.

You think the Islamic world should applaud the USA and its allies invading
Muslim countries and killing Muslims ?


Graham

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

> >> Aren't you going to decode Scooter's nonsense dumpling? I gave up trying
> >> to have a coherent conversation with him ages ago,

> >lol...you admittedly gave up conversation for ridicule ages ago.

Are you now begging me to un-KF you, Scooter?

> So did you, self-ridicule in your case. :-)

I can hear Scottie's objections in my imagination: "Who appointed you
the arbiter of self-ridicule?"




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:43:00 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >Signal wrote:
>> >> (paul packer) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I said that the Muslim world got much of its impression
>> >> >and imagery of the western world from Hollywood movies, and it's not a
>> >> >pretty sight.
>> >>
>> >> I suspect that the "Muslim world" is able to discern that Hollywood
>> >> movies are not a true representation of Western culture. They may
>> >> realize, for instance, that non documentary films are fictional.
>> >> Spiderman, for example. Let's not assume they are all retards, OK?
>> >>
>> >> What they perhaps find offensive is deliberate misrepresentations of
>> >> their culture, invasive foreign policies, murderous attacks on their
>> >> people, and if we are going to get personal: avaricious consumerism
>> >> and open sexuality etc. Yes, I think these are perhaps marginally more
>> >> significant factors, than Hollywood movies.
>> >
>> >I entirely agree.
>> >
>> >Graham
>>
>> Obviously it's very difficult for those of a non-conservative
>> persuasion to think themselves into a conservative mind set. Pity.
>
>You think the Islamic world should applaud the USA and its allies invading
>Muslim countries and killing Muslims ?

How does that follow from what I said, Graham?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> Obviously it's very difficult for those of a non-conservative
> persuasion to think themselves into a conservative mind set. Pity.

I've had the same thought. Thank god for brainwashing though!




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> >paul packer wrote:
> >> Eeyore > wrote:
> >> >Signal wrote:
> >> >> (paul packer) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I said that the Muslim world got much of its impression
> >> >> >and imagery of the western world from Hollywood movies, and it's not a
> >> >> >pretty sight.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suspect that the "Muslim world" is able to discern that Hollywood
> >> >> movies are not a true representation of Western culture. They may
> >> >> realize, for instance, that non documentary films are fictional.
> >> >> Spiderman, for example. Let's not assume they are all retards, OK?
> >> >>
> >> >> What they perhaps find offensive is deliberate misrepresentations of
> >> >> their culture, invasive foreign policies, murderous attacks on their
> >> >> people, and if we are going to get personal: avaricious consumerism
> >> >> and open sexuality etc. Yes, I think these are perhaps marginally more
> >> >> significant factors, than Hollywood movies.
> >> >
> >> >I entirely agree.
> >> >
> >> >Graham
> >>
> >> Obviously it's very difficult for those of a non-conservative
> >> persuasion to think themselves into a conservative mind set. Pity.
> >
> >You think the Islamic world should applaud the USA and its allies invading
> >Muslim countries and killing Muslims ?
>
> How does that follow from what I said, Graham?

Would you like to elaborate on what you did actually mean then ?

Graham

[paul packer]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:06:10 +0100, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >paul packer wrote:
>> >> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >> >Signal wrote:
>> >> >> (paul packer) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I said that the Muslim world got much of its impression
>> >> >> >and imagery of the western world from Hollywood movies, and it's not a
>> >> >> >pretty sight.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I suspect that the "Muslim world" is able to discern that Hollywood
>> >> >> movies are not a true representation of Western culture. They may
>> >> >> realize, for instance, that non documentary films are fictional.
>> >> >> Spiderman, for example. Let's not assume they are all retards, OK?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What they perhaps find offensive is deliberate misrepresentations of
>> >> >> their culture, invasive foreign policies, murderous attacks on their
>> >> >> people, and if we are going to get personal: avaricious consumerism
>> >> >> and open sexuality etc. Yes, I think these are perhaps marginally more
>> >> >> significant factors, than Hollywood movies.
>> >> >
>> >> >I entirely agree.
>> >> >
>> >> >Graham
>> >>
>> >> Obviously it's very difficult for those of a non-conservative
>> >> persuasion to think themselves into a conservative mind set. Pity.
>> >
>> >You think the Islamic world should applaud the USA and its allies invading
>> >Muslim countries and killing Muslims ?
>>
>> How does that follow from what I said, Graham?
>
>Would you like to elaborate on what you did actually mean then ?

Simply that you and it seems most others in western society find it
very difficult to view the product of western society from a
conservative viewpoint, Muslim or otherwise. The first and most
blatantly offensive image of western culture arises from just that,
western culture, specifically films and music. Despite having grown up
in a western country, I find most of the current Hollywood product
deeply offensive, and most of my family share that feeling. If it
affects us this way, how offensive must it seem even to relatively
progressive Muslims, let along those living under strict Shariah Law.
It's not for nothing the US is known as "The Great Satan"--and it
isn't because the US has invaded this or that country; the phrase goes
back many years. Even many Americans feel this way (see "Hollywood
Versus America"--Michael Medved). What today is taken as routine in
films and music would not so long ago have caused a riot, and the fact
that so many people blithely accept it doesn't make it any less
offensive to those who prefer to maintain moral and ethical standards
in their lives. Of course invading Afghanistan and Iraq stirs up the
Muslim world, promotes recruiting and incites retribution, but the
real basis of hatred of western society lies with the lack of
standards and the poison spread by its "entertainment" industry, which
Muslims (and not only Muslims) see as Satanic propaganda. You will
never win the bulk of Muslim hearts and minds so long as this huge gap
exists, and frankly I don't see the Muslim world lowering its
standards to close it.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
> comcast [dot] net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Shhhh! said:
>>
>>>> Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
>>>> of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?
>>
>>> Sometimes you are so stupid that I cannot even
>>> comprehend the depths of vapidness in your 'mind.'
>>
>> Aren't you going to decode Scooter's nonsense dumpling?
>> I gave up trying to have a coherent conversation with
>> him ages ago,
>
> lol...you admittedly gave up conversation for ridicule
> ages ago.

I don't recall Middius engaging in even one coherent conversation in the
shistory of RAO.

Middius can't even make declarations that are factual and coherent, let
alone hold a coherent conversation.

[ScottW]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>>>>> Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
>>>>>> of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?
>>>
>>> <slice>
>>>
>>>> I'll take this rant as your vote for Broke Back Mountain.
>>>> Not my personal choice...
>>>
>>> Linda Boreman quote : "Virtually every time someone watches that
>>> movie, they're watching me being raped."
>>>
>>>This is what ScottW prefers to watch and/or distribute.
>>
>>Good point.
>
> Thank you.
>
>>Though according to Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali it was her own fault.
>
> He said that about Boreman? I couldn't find a relevant quote. :-(
>
> Let's have some balance here, Scrote. His comments are similar to
> those of religious conservatives in the USA who suggest that
> pornography leads inexorably to sexual abuse.

Thats absurd...equating victims at fault with
psychological motivations of perps is ridiculous.
You might as well claim dirt and air are similar
cuz both contain nitrogen.

> They mirror statements
> by widely published professor Camille Paglia, who accommodates "victim
> blaming". Indeed, many sociobiologists concur.
>
> Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali has indicated that his comments have been
> misinterpreted and, quote "any form of harassment of women is
> unacceptable", but don't let that distract you from your anti-Muslim
> tirade. :-)
>
> PS.. what's with this widespread movement of abstinence you have over
> there with your teens? Seems a bit weird!

Believe me...the teens aren't paying it any attention.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> blatantly offensive
> Hollywood
> deeply offensive
> offensive
> offensive
> those who prefer to maintain moral and ethical standards
> the poison spread by its "entertainment" industry
> Satanic propaganda

Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:06:10 +0100, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>paul packer wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore > wrote:
>>> >paul packer wrote:
>>> >> Eeyore > wrote:
>>> >> >Signal wrote:
>>> >> >> (paul packer) wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >I said that the Muslim world got much of its impression
>>> >> >> >and imagery of the western world from Hollywood movies, and it's not
>>> >> >> >a
>>> >> >> >pretty sight.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I suspect that the "Muslim world" is able to discern that Hollywood
>>> >> >> movies are not a true representation of Western culture. They may
>>> >> >> realize, for instance, that non documentary films are fictional.
>>> >> >> Spiderman, for example. Let's not assume they are all retards, OK?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> What they perhaps find offensive is deliberate misrepresentations of
>>> >> >> their culture, invasive foreign policies, murderous attacks on their
>>> >> >> people, and if we are going to get personal: avaricious consumerism
>>> >> >> and open sexuality etc. Yes, I think these are perhaps marginally more
>>> >> >> significant factors, than Hollywood movies.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I entirely agree.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Graham
>>> >>
>>> >> Obviously it's very difficult for those of a non-conservative
>>> >> persuasion to think themselves into a conservative mind set. Pity.
>>> >
>>> >You think the Islamic world should applaud the USA and its allies invading
>>> >Muslim countries and killing Muslims ?
>>>
>>> How does that follow from what I said, Graham?
>>
>>Would you like to elaborate on what you did actually mean then ?
>
> Simply that you and it seems most others in western society find it
> very difficult to view the product of western society from a
> conservative viewpoint, Muslim or otherwise. The first and most
> blatantly offensive image of western culture arises from just that,
> western culture, specifically films and music. Despite having grown up
> in a western country, I find most of the current Hollywood product
> deeply offensive, and most of my family share that feeling. If it
> affects us this way, how offensive must it seem even to relatively
> progressive Muslims, let along those living under strict Shariah Law.
> It's not for nothing the US is known as "The Great Satan"--and it
> isn't because the US has invaded this or that country; the phrase goes
> back many years. Even many Americans feel this way (see "Hollywood
> Versus America"--Michael Medved). What today is taken as routine in
> films and music would not so long ago have caused a riot, and the fact
> that so many people blithely accept it doesn't make it any less
> offensive to those who prefer to maintain moral and ethical standards
> in their lives. Of course invading Afghanistan and Iraq stirs up the
> Muslim world, promotes recruiting and incites retribution, but the
> real basis of hatred of western society lies with the lack of
> standards and the poison spread by its "entertainment" industry, which
> Muslims (and not only Muslims) see as Satanic propaganda. You will
> never win the bulk of Muslim hearts and minds so long as this huge gap
> exists, and frankly I don't see the Muslim world lowering its
> standards to close it.

Before the wars it was western liberalism seeping into their culture
they used to brand us the great satan.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg tries to lead RAO into one of his areas of expertiese™.

> shistory of RAO.

Everybody agrees that your devotion to JEE-zus hasn't helped you, Arnii.
Perhaps you should consider a literal confrontation between your skull
and a brick wall?

> Middius can't even make declarations that are factual and coherent, let
> alone hold a coherent conversation.

Why Arnii, how devious you've become. I have acknowledged that you are
Usenet's foremost liar. Not even Jenn can bring herself to state that
fact unequivocally.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
> >> of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?
> >
> > Sometimes you are so stupid that I cannot even comprehend the depths of
> > vapidness in your 'mind.'
> >
> > So is everything OK, toopid? Wife hasn't kicked you out for some
> > ill-advised racial comment, or did that pile of HR complaints finally
> > do you in at work?
> >
> > You really seem hell-bent on self-destruction the past couple of days.
>
> I'll take this rant as your vote for Broke Back Mountain.
> Not my personal choice and likely to get you stoned ( not high)
> but unlike you, I can respect your choices even when I disagree.

As usual, you don't 'get it.'

Oh well.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> >> Which is also why when faced with a knife weilding loony
> >> you wish you had a bow and arrow handy.
> >
> > The Browning M2 machine gun.
> >
> > The ultimate home-defense weapon.
> >
> > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-50cal.htm
> >
> > I think you need one, toopid. There are lots and lots of very
> > frightening things out there.
>
> What makes you think I don't have one..or two..or three?

I would not be surprised.

I can also assure you that your headspace and timing are off.

A long way off.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
> > > of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?
>
> > Sometimes you are so stupid that I cannot even comprehend the depths of
> > vapidness in your 'mind.'
>
> Aren't you going to decode Scooter's nonsense dumpling? I gave up trying
> to have a coherent conversation with him ages ago, and lately I've come
> to depend on your deconstructions. On the surface, Scooter's comment
> seems perverse: Deep Throat was flat-out porn with a typical gauze-thin
> "plot", whereas Brokeback evoked a whole range of serious issues while
> depicting the sex act only a couple of times. I'm at a loss, as usual.

If he'd have said, "Perhaps if we sent over NASCAR racing and WWF
instead of the 30,000 traces of child pornography photoes [sic] that I
have on my PC (which does *not* constitute possession!) we'd get more
respect." maybe I could've worked with it.

toopid really seems to be melting down recently, even worse than normal
even. Perhaps he finally realizes that the republicans truly are going
to get their asses handed to them in about 10 days.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Signal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >>>> Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
> >>>> of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?
> >
> > <slice>
> >
> >> I'll take this rant as your vote for Broke Back Mountain.
> >> Not my personal choice...
> >
> > Linda Boreman quote : "Virtually every time someone watches that
> > movie, they're watching me being raped."
> >
> Good point. Though according to
> Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali it was her own fault.

I thought, just like the pope, he apologized that his words were taken
out of context.

Are you still holding a grudge against Ratzinger too?

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> toopid really seems to be melting down recently, even worse than normal
> even. Perhaps he finally realizes that the republicans truly are going
> to get their asses handed to them in about 10 days.

I've seen this with another right wing bigot in another group recently too (
actually more than one come to think of it ).

Scarily similar. It's like they've lost any semblance whatever of being in
contact with reality and spewing bile is all they have left to offer.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Eeyore said:

> > toopid really seems to be melting down recently, even worse than normal
> > even. Perhaps he finally realizes that the republicans truly are going
> > to get their asses handed to them in about 10 days.
>
> I've seen this with another right wing bigot in another group recently too (
> actually more than one come to think of it ).
>
> Scarily similar. It's like they've lost any semblance whatever of being in
> contact with reality and spewing bile is all they have left to offer.

Nothing is worse than liberals being in charge, you know. Not a bloody
war 10,000 miles away, not a corrupt Executive, not a dissolute
Congress, not an anti-science Judiciary. The liberals are coming! Stock
up on ammo!





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote in
> message ...
> >
> >
> > Shhhh! said:
> >
> >> > Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
> >> > of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?
> >
> >> Sometimes you are so stupid that I cannot even comprehend the depths of
> >> vapidness in your 'mind.'
> >
> > Aren't you going to decode Scooter's nonsense dumpling? I gave up trying
> > to have a coherent conversation with him ages ago,
>
> lol...you admittedly gave up conversation for ridicule ages ago.

A clue for toopid: 'conversations' between people of vastly differing
intelligence is usually only fun for the one with the lower
intelligence.

Hence, nobody enjoys talking with you.

Moron.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:19:07 +0100, Signal > wrote:

(paul packer) wrote:
>
>>Simply that you and it seems most others in western society find it
>>very difficult to view the product of western society from a
>>conservative viewpoint, Muslim or otherwise. The first and most
>>blatantly offensive image of western culture arises from just that,
>>western culture, specifically films and music. Despite having grown up
>>in a western country, I find most of the current Hollywood product
>>deeply offensive, and most of my family share that feeling. If it
>>affects us this way, how offensive must it seem even to relatively
>>progressive Muslims, let along those living under strict Shariah Law.
>>It's not for nothing the US is known as "The Great Satan"--and it
>>isn't because the US has invaded this or that country; the phrase goes
>>back many years. Even many Americans feel this way (see "Hollywood
>>Versus America"--Michael Medved). What today is taken as routine in
>>films and music would not so long ago have caused a riot, and the fact
>>that so many people blithely accept it doesn't make it any less
>>offensive to those who prefer to maintain moral and ethical standards
>>in their lives. Of course invading Afghanistan and Iraq stirs up the
>>Muslim world, promotes recruiting and incites retribution, but the
>>real basis of hatred of western society lies with the lack of
>>standards and the poison spread by its "entertainment" industry, which
>>Muslims (and not only Muslims) see as Satanic propaganda. You will
>>never win the bulk of Muslim hearts and minds so long as this huge gap
>>exists, and frankly I don't see the Muslim world lowering its
>>standards to close it.
>
>The myth you are propagating here is that there is something
>remarkable in the way Muslims (as opposed to say conservative
>Christians) view typical America as embodying "evil" in some way -

I don't believe I made that distinction. I said "and not only
Muslims", suggesting that many in western countries see things the way
Muslims do.

>which you laughably attribute to the entertainment industry rather
>than the culture as a whole.

The culture as a whole is hardly a model of decorum either. But that
you can only really taste by living in the country. The products of
the "entertainment" industry are imported into nearly every other
country and stand in many minds for the culture of the US. This is the
point that's being missed: not that the model presented by films and
music necessarily accurately represents US culture, but that it's
often taken as an accurate reflection of US culture.

>Tell me, from where are you deriving
>these statements you present as fact?

I'm presenting my opinion the same as you're presenting yours with
phrases like "laughable". But does it not give you pause that so many
people raised in western countries find much of the "entertainment" to
be so negative and often plain disgusting? I don't believe westerners
will ever understand the Muslim attitude to the west until they begin
to see themselves from the outside, until they can somehow de-identify
with the culture and see it with different eyes. But that's always
been a problem for westerners, who are as guilty as Muslims of imaging
that their culture is the one the whole world should adopt.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:34:42 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> blatantly offensive
>> Hollywood
>> deeply offensive
>> offensive
>> offensive
>> those who prefer to maintain moral and ethical standards
>> the poison spread by its "entertainment" industry
>> Satanic propaganda
>
>Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?

I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
:-)

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Eeyore said:
>
> > > toopid really seems to be melting down recently, even worse than normal
> > > even. Perhaps he finally realizes that the republicans truly are going
> > > to get their asses handed to them in about 10 days.
> >
> > I've seen this with another right wing bigot in another group recently too (
> > actually more than one come to think of it ).
> >
> > Scarily similar. It's like they've lost any semblance whatever of being in
> > contact with reality and spewing bile is all they have left to offer.
>
> Nothing is worse than liberals being in charge, you know. Not a bloody
> war 10,000 miles away, not a corrupt Executive, not a dissolute
> Congress, not an anti-science Judiciary. The liberals are coming! Stock
> up on ammo!

What really puzzles me is why anyone would object to those ppl called *DEMOCRATS*
!!!

Isn't *Democracy* what the USA is supposed to be spreading around the world ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?

> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
> :-)

Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:30:53 +0000, Signal > wrote:

(paul packer) wrote:
>
>>The culture as a whole is hardly a model of decorum either. But that
>>you can only really taste by living in the country. The products of
>>the "entertainment" industry are imported into nearly every other
>>country and stand in many minds for the culture of the US.
>
>I credit people with the intelligence to distinguish between the
>entertainment industry and factual information.

Then you have no idea how fanatics think, or what inflames them, or
indeed how basic and unsophicticted their thinking can be.

>And if you think Muslims in impoverished countries are drawing
>conclusions about US culture by sitting at home watching Hollywood
>movies and listening to gangster rap, well...

Just as I said, it's very difficult to view a culture from a different
mind set when you're mired in that culture.

>>This is the
>>point that's being missed: not that the model presented by films and
>>music necessarily accurately represents US culture, but that it's
>>often taken as an accurate reflection of US culture.
>
>According to who?

You doubt that? What planet are you living on?

>>I'm presenting my opinion the same as you're presenting yours with
>>phrases like "laughable". But does it not give you pause that so many
>>people raised in western countries find much of the "entertainment" to
>>be so negative and often plain disgusting?
>
>It's the first I've heard of it. Can you specify what material is
>supposedly causing disgust?

If you're seriously not aware that much of the "entertainment" around
today gives offence to many people I doubt anything I say will
enlighten you.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:27:02 +0000, Signal > wrote:

(paul packer) wrote:
>
>>>>The culture as a whole is hardly a model of decorum either. But that
>>>>you can only really taste by living in the country. The products of
>>>>the "entertainment" industry are imported into nearly every other
>>>>country and stand in many minds for the culture of the US.
>>>
>>>I credit people with the intelligence to distinguish between the
>>>entertainment industry and factual information.
>>
>>Then you have no idea how fanatics think, or what inflames them, or
>>indeed how basic and unsophicticted their thinking can be.
>
>Fanatics? Who are you referring to?

Fundamentalist Muslims.

>>>And if you think Muslims in impoverished countries are drawing
>>>conclusions about US culture by sitting at home watching Hollywood
>>>movies and listening to gangster rap, well...
>>
>>Just as I said, it's very difficult to view a culture from a different
>>mind set when you're mired in that culture.
>
>I don't live in the United States!

Do you live in a westernised country permeated by US culture?

>The point that I was making is that most people in Iraq, for example,
>cannot afford a TV, don't queue up to see the latest Hollywood
>blockbuster at their local cinema on a Friday night, nor do they check
>out the latest pop music releases on compact disc. If they did,
>perhaps they would be offended, but of more immediate concern is the
>threat of having your guts blown into the air as you try to buy
>groceries at the local market.

I'm well aware of that. I'm not suggesting they're intimately
acquainted with all the latest Hollywood blockbusters or can name
stars off the tops of their heads. But they are well aware of the
general liberal message emanating from the US generally and its
entertainment industry particularly, and it does not sit with Muslim
values (or Christian values for that matter).

>But as you say, it's the entertainment industry that is uppermost in
>their minds as they condemn the actions of the United States. The
>latest Disney cartoon or what have you. Sure, sure.....

Obfuscation. Why refer to a Disney cartoon when you very well know
what kind of material I'm referring to?

>>>>This is the
>>>>point that's being missed: not that the model presented by films and
>>>>music necessarily accurately represents US culture, but that it's
>>>>often taken as an accurate reflection of US culture.
>>>
>>>According to who?
>>
>>You doubt that?
>
>I haven't got any data on that. Have you? Paul, I don't know a single
>person who considers the plastic garbage coming out of Hollywood to be
>a true representation of American culture, besides yourself. :-)

And where did you see me write that I consider plastic Hollywood
garbage a true representation of US culture? The point is that the
people we're talking about have little or no opportunity to sample US
culture and take the outpourings of the entertainment industry for a
true representation of US culture. We're talking impressions here,
and not my impressions but fundamentalist Muslim's impressions.

>>What planet are you living on?
>>
>>>>I'm presenting my opinion the same as you're presenting yours with
>>>>phrases like "laughable". But does it not give you pause that so many
>>>>people raised in western countries find much of the "entertainment" to
>>>>be so negative and often plain disgusting?
>>>
>>>It's the first I've heard of it. Can you specify what material is
>>>supposedly causing disgust?

Dear God, if you have to ask that then we truly are on a different
wavelengths. Do you really have no idea how many people find the
incessant swearing, persistent violence, intimate sex and generally
negative images in so many films today deeply offensive? If so you
have no experience of a heartfelt conservatism that is not rooted in
ignorance as many here suggest but in a genuine desire to see
positivity, decency and true family values returned to entertainment
and society in general. I'm not talking about turning the world into a
re-run of "The Donna Reed Show" but just letting a little positive
light into what often seems an all-enveloping, soul-sapping darkness.
Liberals often talk about choice, but there hasn't been much adult
choice at my local multiplex since "Mr. Holland's Opus" finished
umpteen years ago.

>>If you're seriously not aware that much of the "entertainment" around
>>today gives offence to many people I doubt anything I say will
>>enlighten you.
>
>If anything, tolerance has increased. You may recall the furor over
>the Beatles utterly offensive haircuts, in the early 60s, and a few
>years later the burning of their records in both the US and SA when
>John Lennon said they were "more popular than Jesus". The forbiddance
>of Catholics from viewing the film "Clockwork Orange" by the United
>States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and
>Broadcasting. The cancellation by local authorities (!) of a series of
>popular concerts by The Sex Pistols, also accompanied by public
>protests, and then the airplay ban of their very splendid "God Save
>the Queen". The list goes on and on... or at least it did. These days,
>you have to do a *lot* more to cause gross offence, and society is
>generally a *lot* more tolerant. Wouldn't you agree, Mr fPacker?

What you're describing as tolerance can as well be described as a
slipping of standards and general de-sensitizing. The worse things
get, the more people accept. Sensitivity is eroded. A movie killing
that once would have had people walking out comes to seem tame, and we
chuckle when the hero makes a witty remark to punctuate it, as the
Governor of California was wont to do. When you say "These days,you
have to do a *lot* more to cause gross offence, and society is
generally a *lot* more tolerant," you make my argument for me and at
the same time reveal a lot about your own mindset. You're making the
assumption common today that everything OUGHT to be tolerated no
matter how outrageous, that there is in fact no right and wrong, no
ultimate standards, and the truly progressive people are those who
"tolerate" everything. I reject that, and I'm not alone.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>> Shhhh! said:
>>
>> > > Maybe if we sent over copies of Deep Throat instead
>> > > of Broke Back Mountain we'd get more respect?
>>
>> > Sometimes you are so stupid that I cannot even comprehend the depths of
>> > vapidness in your 'mind.'
>>
>> Aren't you going to decode Scooter's nonsense dumpling? I gave up trying
>> to have a coherent conversation with him ages ago, and lately I've come
>> to depend on your deconstructions. On the surface, Scooter's comment
>> seems perverse: Deep Throat was flat-out porn with a typical gauze-thin
>> "plot", whereas Brokeback evoked a whole range of serious issues while
>> depicting the sex act only a couple of times. I'm at a loss, as usual.
>
> If he'd have said, "Perhaps if we sent over NASCAR racing and WWF
> instead of the 30,000 traces of child pornography photoes [sic] that I
> have on my PC (which does *not* constitute possession!) we'd get more
> respect." maybe I could've worked with it.
>
> toopid really seems to be melting down recently, even worse than normal
> even. Perhaps he finally realizes that the republicans truly are going
> to get their asses handed to them in about 10 days.

Only reason the Republicans may get their "asses" handed to them
is because they've turned their backs on too many conservative values
to deserve support.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
>>The culture as a whole is hardly a model of decorum either. But that
>>you can only really taste by living in the country. The products of
>>the "entertainment" industry are imported into nearly every other
>>country and stand in many minds for the culture of the US.
>
> I credit people with the intelligence to distinguish between the
> entertainment industry and factual information.
>
> And if you think Muslims in impoverished countries are drawing
> conclusions about US culture by sitting at home watching Hollywood
> movies and listening to gangster rap, well...
>
>>This is the
>>point that's being missed: not that the model presented by films and
>>music necessarily accurately represents US culture, but that it's
>>often taken as an accurate reflection of US culture.
>
> According to who?
>
>>I'm presenting my opinion the same as you're presenting yours with
>>phrases like "laughable". But does it not give you pause that so many
>>people raised in western countries find much of the "entertainment" to
>>be so negative and often plain disgusting?
>
> It's the first I've heard of it. Can you specify what material is
> supposedly causing disgust?

Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a variety of reasons
including the quality of the movies.

http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2005%20tms%20report.pdf

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore said:
>>
>> > > toopid really seems to be melting down recently, even worse than normal
>> > > even. Perhaps he finally realizes that the republicans truly are going
>> > > to get their asses handed to them in about 10 days.
>> >
>> > I've seen this with another right wing bigot in another group recently too
>> > (
>> > actually more than one come to think of it ).
>> >
>> > Scarily similar. It's like they've lost any semblance whatever of being in
>> > contact with reality and spewing bile is all they have left to offer.
>>
>> Nothing is worse than liberals being in charge, you know. Not a bloody
>> war 10,000 miles away, not a corrupt Executive, not a dissolute
>> Congress, not an anti-science Judiciary. The liberals are coming! Stock
>> up on ammo!
>
> What really puzzles me is why anyone would object to those ppl called
> *DEMOCRATS*
> !!!
>
> Isn't *Democracy* what the USA is supposed to be spreading around the world ?

Shallower words have never been written.

ScottW

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >>>Though according to Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali it was her own fault.
> >>
> >> He said that about Boreman? I couldn't find a relevant quote. :-(
> >>
> >> Let's have some balance here, Scrote. His comments are similar to
> >> those of religious conservatives in the USA who suggest that
> >> pornography leads inexorably to sexual abuse.
> >
> >Thats absurd...
>
> It's an opinion expressed by many non Muslims.

I doubt very much that 'porn' per se ( as in pictures of naked ppl ) leads to
sexual abuse.

I do rather expect that some porn that shows certain kinds of situations might
do though.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> The point that I was making is that most people in Iraq, for example,
> cannot afford a TV,

You're joking of course ?

Graham

[ScottW]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>>>Though according to Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali it was her own fault.
>>>
>>> He said that about Boreman? I couldn't find a relevant quote. :-(
>>>
>>> Let's have some balance here, Scrote. His comments are similar to
>>> those of religious conservatives in the USA who suggest that
>>> pornography leads inexorably to sexual abuse.
>>
>>Thats absurd...
>
> It's an opinion expressed by many non Muslims.

Doesn't make it less absurd.

> If you were not
> unbalanced,

thanks for demonstrating your own particular bent.

>you would expose your concerns about those who state such
> things by giving us regular updates, just as you do about Muslims who
> express not-dissimilar views.

Are people who oppose pornography guilty of instigating and rationalizing
abuse?

> But I guess they don't give you handy
> links to that sort of stuff on jihadwatch.com.

You want dozens of links to porn addiction treatment programs here?
>
>>..equating victims at fault with
>>psychological motivations of perps is ridiculous.
>
> I wouldn't know, to be exact.

Nice...so you really were just blowing out your arse.
What a waste of time.

ScottW

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> Only reason the Republicans may get their "asses" handed to them
> is because they've turned their backs on too many conservative values
> to deserve support.

I can't disagree with that analysis.

Graham

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote in
message ...
>
>
> paul packer said:
>
>> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
>
>> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
>> :-)
>
> Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
> Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.

I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with declining
attendance and revenues.
Not to mention actors running about revealing themselves to be
mental midgets making it increasingly difficult for Hollywood to
glamorize them.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Signal wrote:
>
>> The point that I was making is that most people in Iraq, for example,
>> cannot afford a TV,
>
> You're joking of course ?

I wonder what 1/3 of them do with their satellite dishes if they don't
have a TV?

Actually 93% of Iraqis report owning a TV.

http://www.stanhopecentre.org/iraqmediapoll.shtml

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> ScottW wrote:
>
> > Only reason the Republicans may get their "asses" handed to them
> > is because they've turned their backs on too many conservative values
> > to deserve support.
>
> I can't disagree with that analysis.

Except for the "only" part.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

> Only reason the Republicans may get their "asses" handed to them
> is because they've turned their backs on too many conservative values
> to deserve support.

'Turned their backs.'

Sounds like "can't trust them to be as advertised," or perhaps, "aren't
willing (or strong enough) to stand up for what they (allegedly)
believe in," or perhaps, "not in tune with what Americans believe is
best for Americans" to me.

Of course, YMWV.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

toopid<--------------------->logic

ScottW wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote in
> message ...
> >
> >
> > paul packer said:
> >
> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
> >
> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
> >> :-)
> >
> > Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
> > Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.
>
> I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with declining
> attendance and revenues.

Duh. Nice Michael Medved quote. If the viewing public does not want to
see a movie, it won't go see it.

> Not to mention actors running about revealing themselves to be
> mental midgets making it increasingly difficult for Hollywood to
> glamorize them.

Another overgeneralization by toopid to go with "Muslims bad!"

Are you talking all, most, many, or some here, toopid? And, BTW, if you
disagree with a movie or its theme, do you blame the writer, the
producer, the studio, or just Hollywood?

Mel Gibson recently made an ass of himself. Ronald Reagan was indeed a
mental midget. I saw a Dennis Miller show on HBO a couple of nights ago
where he sounded like he wanted Sharia for the US.

But Dennis Miller's neanderthal political views would not stop me from
seeing a movie with him in it if I was interested in seeing it.

And blaming declining revenue on some illogical argument like Medved's
'They are making movies too liberal for the public' is toopid as well.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/medved072705.asp

Other possible explananations: video games, hundreds of channels of
cable or satellite programming, DVDs, or that the average American
family feels less well-off and less safe after six years of bushie and
therefore not spending as freely on entertainment. Remember, toopid,
that corellation does not equal causation.

But there is strong doubt that Hollywood's revenue is declining, which
is (after all) the name of the game for those companies:

http://www.slate.com/id/2123286/

Poor (or nonexistant) research by toopid... again. Is anybody surprised?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

> Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a variety of reasons
> including the quality of the movies.
>
> http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2005%20tms%20report.pdf

Nothing in this PP presentation points to any cause. One year does not
prove anything. You are being dishonest.

This report *does* say, however, that the 'vast majority' of moviegoers
feel that the experience was 'time and money well-spent.'

Even when toopid provides the rare reference, he gets it wrong.

What a moron.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> toopid<--------------------->logic
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>> in
>> message ...
>> >
>> >
>> > paul packer said:
>> >
>> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
>> >
>> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
>> >> :-)
>> >
>> > Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
>> > Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.
>>
>> I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with declining
>> attendance and revenues.
>
> Duh. Nice Michael Medved quote. If the viewing public does not want to
> see a movie, it won't go see it.

I argue against censors and you find dispute by reading into
my statement something I never said but in the end you
agree...Hollywood is about nothing but money.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a variety of reasons
>> including the quality of the movies.
>>
>> http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2005%20tms%20report.pdf
>
> Nothing in this PP presentation points to any cause. One year does not
> prove anything. You are being dishonest.

I said attendance and if you weren't so quick to dispute everything
I say you would see that attendance has declined every year since '02
and was at pre 2000 levels in '05.

If I said grass grows on dirt you'd friggin argue about it.
You're pathetic and consumed by intolerance.

ScottW

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> > > Only reason the Republicans may get their "asses" handed to them
> > > is because they've turned their backs on too many conservative values
> > > to deserve support.
> >
> > I can't disagree with that analysis.
>
> Except for the "only" part.

Ooops ! Yes you're right. Mea culpa. One reason not Only reason.

Graham

[ScottW]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a variety of reasons
>>including the quality of the movies.
>>
>>http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2005%20tms%20report.pdf
>
> I didn't see any references in this document for the reasons for
> decline, let alone quality of movies.

It doesn't go into the whys.
There are lots of other pages subjectively debating
the whole topic...but I think declining attendance shows
Hollywood doesn't define American culture.
We don't automatically consume what Hollywood puts out.

IMO, theatres have blown it as well with the
mega-plexes of 18+ screens
that aren't all that big and don't do much better of a job than
my 65" TV and surround sound.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > toopid<--------------------->logic
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> >> in
> >> message ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > paul packer said:
> >> >
> >> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
> >> >
> >> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
> >> >> :-)
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
> >> > Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.
> >>
> >> I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with declining
> >> attendance and revenues.
> >
> > Duh. Nice Michael Medved quote. If the viewing public does not want to
> > see a movie, it won't go see it.
>
> I argue against censors and you find dispute by reading into
> my statement something I never said but in the end you
> agree...Hollywood is about nothing but money.

Was that an epiphany for you, toopid?

The same can be said about the music business. The same can be said
about the publishing industry.

What I disagreed with was your trying to attribute *causation* to the
one-year decline in attendance at the movie theater, moron.

Tower records closed and Sam Goody and other brick-and-mortar music
outlets are in trouble. Is the music industry too liberal, too? Does
that explain this 'decline' in the music industry? Or are services like
LimeWire a possible cause? Almost every teen (and lots of adults) that
I see seem to have iPods or MP3 players. So people still seem to be
listening to a lot of music. Why aren't you blaming liberals for this
'decline' in music? Or is it just possible that your head is up your
ass... again?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> >> Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a variety of reasons
> >> including the quality of the movies.
> >>
> >> http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2005%20tms%20report.pdf
> >
> > Nothing in this PP presentation points to any cause. One year does not
> > prove anything. You are being dishonest.
>
> I said attendance and if you weren't so quick to dispute everything
> I say you would see that attendance has declined every year since '02
> and was at pre 2000 levels in '05.
>
> If I said grass grows on dirt you'd friggin argue about it.
> You're pathetic and consumed by intolerance.

Once again, toopid, very slowly (so even you can understand):

C A U S A T I O N

You want to try to link a decline in movie attendance to being 'too
liberal.'

I T D O E S N O T F O L L O W.

I T I S F A L S E.

Get it now, toopid?

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> You want to try to link a decline in movie attendance to being 'too
> liberal.'

Would Scott call this 'liberal' ?
http://lionsgate.arcostream.net/lionsgate/saw3/saw3_Trailer4B_Pain_56.wmv

I call it ****ed in the head.

Why is this **** even being made ? It appeared unexpectly in a page I opened at
msn news and quite freaked me out in fact.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> >> You want to try to link a decline in movie attendance to being 'too
> >> liberal.'
> >
> >Would Scott call this 'liberal' ?
> >http://lionsgate.arcostream.net/lionsgate/saw3/saw3_Trailer4B_Pain_56.wmv
> >
> >I call it ****ed in the head.
> >
> >Why is this **** even being made ?
>
> Some people like a thrill don't they. Not a fan of horror myself,
> unless it's humourous - eg. Brain Dead. That's well funny that is. :-)

Thrill ? Deliberate torture and murder is a joke ? Yet the American public is
scared of bare flesh.

Graham

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Signal > wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >>> Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a variety of reasons
> >>>including the quality of the movies.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2005%20tms%20report.pdf
> >>
> >> I didn't see any references in this document for the reasons for
> >> decline, let alone quality of movies.
> >
> > It doesn't go into the whys.
> > There are lots of other pages subjectively debating
> >the whole topic...but I think declining attendance shows
> >Hollywood doesn't define American culture.
> >We don't automatically consume what Hollywood puts out.
> >
> >IMO, theatres have blown it as well with the
> >mega-plexes of 18+ screens
> >that aren't all that big and don't do much better of a job than
> >my 65" TV and surround sound.
>
> They are becoming commonplace here too. No the experience isn't as
> good, tickets cost more, and the food and drink prices are silly. £3
> for a few crisps and a salsa dip? Hmm.. what's the profit margin on
> that I wonder. Made the mistake of ordering a "regular" coke one time,
> was handed like a 1.5 litre bucket LOL!

The margin on tickets is so slim that the concessions bar is the only
way for cinemas to make enough money, especially in the US where most of
the major chains are in financial trouble to start with.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Eeyore wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
>
> > You want to try to link a decline in movie attendance to being 'too
> > liberal.'
>
> Would Scott call this 'liberal' ?
> http://lionsgate.arcostream.net/lionsgate/saw3/saw3_Trailer4B_Pain_56.wmv
>
> I call it ****ed in the head.

Where did you get the smuggled Gitmo footage? From cheney's camcorder?

> Why is this **** even being made ? It appeared unexpectly in a page I opened at
> msn news and quite freaked me out in fact.

It must sell. If it doesn't, people will not pay to see it (at the
theater, anyway).

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Eeyore wrote:
> Signal wrote:
>
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> >
> > >> You want to try to link a decline in movie attendance to being 'too
> > >> liberal.'
> > >
> > >Would Scott call this 'liberal' ?
> > >http://lionsgate.arcostream.net/lionsgate/saw3/saw3_Trailer4B_Pain_56.wmv
> > >
> > >I call it ****ed in the head.
> > >
> > >Why is this **** even being made ?
> >
> > Some people like a thrill don't they. Not a fan of horror myself,
> > unless it's humourous - eg. Brain Dead. That's well funny that is. :-)
>
> Thrill ? Deliberate torture and murder is a joke ? Yet the American public is
> scared of bare flesh.

Burn 'em up thrillers have always been around. They're a conservative
phenomena. Tree-hugging liberals prefer Bambi or some other Disney
product.

So we can see that I have logically and conclusively proven that
conservatives have ruined Hollywood. conservatives are the cause of
dwindling attendance at theaters.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:32:45 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
>
>> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
>> :-)
>
>Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
>Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.

I've never advocated imposed censorship.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

paul packer wrote:

> You're making the assumption common today that everything OUGHT to be tolerated no
> matter how outrageous, that there is in fact no right and wrong, no
> ultimate standards, and the truly progressive people are those who
> "tolerate" everything. I reject that, and I'm not alone.

I don't think that's true. I don't see anybody saying that at all. I do
see people critical of placing attempts on someone's right to say or do
something.

Assuming that the actors are all adults and willing, I do not see a
problem with pornographic movies, for example. Personally, I find them
boring. I might also find them disgusting if, for example, there was
scat involved. But toopid, for example, may really like that kind of
movie. I don't personally approve of it, and I would not tolerate it in
my house. But if adults are willingly doing it, and toopid is willingly
watching it, who am I to say they can't?

I don't agree with what is happening on the extremes of either Islam or
christianity. It is over the line of my ultimate standards. Where our
ultimate standards happen to meet, great! We agree. There are areas
where I'm sure our ultimate standards are different. Now what?

I also insist that the people responsible be specifically identified,
*not* an entire group that contains a guilty subset. I'm not too
tolerant of that. toopid's jihad against all of Islam is an example.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:44:55 +0000, Signal > wrote:


>How dare you impose your values on others. I enjoy all the stuff
>above, which you apparently consider sub-standard.

Says it all really.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >
>> >> Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a variety of reasons
>> >> including the quality of the movies.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2005%20tms%20report.pdf
>> >
>> > Nothing in this PP presentation points to any cause. One year does not
>> > prove anything. You are being dishonest.
>>
>> I said attendance and if you weren't so quick to dispute everything
>> I say you would see that attendance has declined every year since '02
>> and was at pre 2000 levels in '05.
>>
>> If I said grass grows on dirt you'd friggin argue about it.
>> You're pathetic and consumed by intolerance.
>
> Once again, toopid, very slowly (so even you can understand):
>
> C A U S A T I O N
>
> You want to try to link a decline in movie attendance to being 'too
> liberal.'

Never said that...your fixation is causing you delusions again.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
>
>> You want to try to link a decline in movie attendance to being 'too
>> liberal.'
>
> Would Scott call this 'liberal' ?

Nope, just another stupid horror flick.

If you want to understand my position, read my posts rather than
sssshhhhh twisted interpretations.
His intolerant hatred has his panties in quite the wad these days.

> http://lionsgate.arcostream.net/lionsgate/saw3/saw3_Trailer4B_Pain_56.wmv
>
> I call it ****ed in the head.
>
> Why is this **** even being made ?

Its easy/cheap and makes money.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
>>> They are becoming commonplace here too. No the experience isn't as
>>> good, tickets cost more, and the food and drink prices are silly. £3
>>> for a few crisps and a salsa dip? Hmm.. what's the profit margin on
>>> that I wonder. Made the mistake of ordering a "regular" coke one time,
>>> was handed like a 1.5 litre bucket LOL!
>>
>>The margin on tickets is so slim that the concessions bar is the only
>>way for cinemas to make enough money, especially in the US where most of
>>the major chains are in financial trouble to start with.
>
> I didn't know that. I wonder why that is? The old-skool Regal down the
> road here has two *massive* screens, often full to 5-10% capacity and
> yet charges half the entry fee!

Many of our old school theatres were forced to close
when the local mega-plex opened. Couldn't compete.

There is another interesting phenom going on in theaters over digital
cinema. The studios keep
complaining about the technology but in reality they are desperately
afraid that they will lose theater content control if digital projectors
become common.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
>>>How dare you impose your values on others. I enjoy all the stuff
>>>above, which you apparently consider sub-standard.
>>
>>Says it all really.
>
> Your reply does cut to the heart of the matter. You are one of those
> people who thinks your own preferences are more valid than those of
> others. Nothing less than deluded thinking on your part, Paul.

You're echoing my argument against teaching people what to love.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

paul packer wrote:
> But they are well aware of the
> general liberal message emanating from the US generally and its
> entertainment industry particularly, and it does not sit with Muslim
> values (or Christian values for that matter).

I'm curious.

I always thought christian values were things like 'Do unto others...'
and 'Judge not lest ye...' and 'Let he who has not sinned cast...' and
so on.

What christian values are you referring to?

The values that I see most christians talk about are from the old, not
the new, testament.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Signal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (paul packer) wrote:
> >
> >>>How dare you impose your values on others. I enjoy all the stuff
> >>>above, which you apparently consider sub-standard.
> >>
> >>Says it all really.
> >
> > Your reply does cut to the heart of the matter. You are one of those
> > people who thinks your own preferences are more valid than those of
> > others. Nothing less than deluded thinking on your part, Paul.
>
> You're echoing my argument against teaching people what to love.

You're arguing to put Dilbert and Screw Magazine into the same pile of
literature as Kurt Vonnegut or Charles Dickens because it is, after
all, somebody's preference. Why teach people about good literature?
It's all relative, right?

Teaching an appreciation for something does not mean that you are
teaching them to love something. In fact, you can't teach someone to
love something. You can only expose them to it. But exposure to it can
lead to them liking it, yes.

You begin to make it appear that you would be against a literature
teacher having a list of selected works that are recognized as
classics, or in selecting from such a list for material for the
students to read.

It probably best to send those students down to some local newsstand.
They might get lucky and find something good to read. But if they
don't, they can still look at magazines and comics and romance
paperbacks.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a variety of reasons
> >> >> including the quality of the movies.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2005%20tms%20report.pdf
> >> >
> >> > Nothing in this PP presentation points to any cause. One year does not
> >> > prove anything. You are being dishonest.
> >>
> >> I said attendance and if you weren't so quick to dispute everything
> >> I say you would see that attendance has declined every year since '02
> >> and was at pre 2000 levels in '05.
> >>
> >> If I said grass grows on dirt you'd friggin argue about it.
> >> You're pathetic and consumed by intolerance.
> >
> > Once again, toopid, very slowly (so even you can understand):
> >
> > C A U S A T I O N
> >
> > You want to try to link a decline in movie attendance to being 'too
> > liberal.'
>
> Never said that...your fixation is causing you delusions again.

No delusions. Maybe you didn't say 'liberalism' in Hollywood, although
you joined in with Paul on a post that tied 'western liberalism' to the
entertainment industry in the US regarding the negative view of the US
in the Middle East. It was "Quality of movies.' Whatever. You're
attributing causation with no proof... again.

That was the point that I made, which stands.

Do you really suppose that I study your illogic that intently, you
freak? LOL!

[George M. Middius]

Ribbit said:

[Deep Throat]

> >Linda Boreman quote : "Virtually every time someone watches that
> >movie, they're watching me being raped."

> >This is what ScottW prefers to watch and/or distribute.

> It's an unusual statement. Is she saying that sometimes when people
> watch it they are not seeing her being raped?

What's the matter, Stoopy? Can't spend 2 minutes to look it up?

> I haven't seen it in years, but I must admit it sure didn't look like
> she was being forced to do anything.

Lazy little Ribbit. She has plenty to say about that movie.

> I tend to think she regretted making the movie and has been trying to
> blame it all on those evil people in Hollywood.

You're a numbskull. Congratulations on earning the Arnii Krooger Merit
Badge of Extreme Stupidity.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> But Dennis Miller's neanderthal political views would not stop me from
> seeing a movie with him in it if I was interested in seeing it.

Speaking of Mr. Crabby, I've been wondering if he is sincere in his
stated political views, or if he just adopted the posture for the fun of
it. One reason I wonder when he makes a rightwingish comment, half the
time he follow up with a joke that undercuts it.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > ps.com...
> > > toopid<--------------------->logic
> > >
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> > >> in
> > >> message ...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > paul packer said:
> > >> >
> > >> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
> > >> >
> > >> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
> > >> >> :-)
> > >> >
> > >> > Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
> > >> > Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.
> > >>
> > >> I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with declining
> > >> attendance and revenues.
> > >
> > > Duh. Nice Michael Medved quote. If the viewing public does not want to
> > > see a movie, it won't go see it.
> >
> > I argue against censors and you find dispute by reading into
> > my statement something I never said but in the end you
> > agree...Hollywood is about nothing but money.
>
> Was that an epiphany for you, toopid?
>
> The same can be said about the music business. The same can be said
> about the publishing industry.
>
> What I disagreed with was your trying to attribute *causation* to the
> one-year decline in attendance at the movie theater, moron.

You still can't get your facts straight on theater attendance
and you definitely can't keep straight what I said.....again.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

> >Dear God, if you have to ask that then we truly are on a different
> >wavelengths. Do you really have no idea how many people find the
> >incessant swearing, persistent violence, intimate sex and generally
> >negative images in so many films today deeply offensive?

> Are you talking about 'stiffs'? As George says, change the channel.

That's not enough for a true-blue "conservative". Their agenda is only
served by censoring, banishing, or eradicating all the "offensive" art.

Don't you have bands of marauding puritanical butt-holes in the UK? We
are never free of them in the USA.

> >Liberals often talk about choice, but there hasn't been much adult
> >choice at my local multiplex since "Mr. Holland's Opus" finished
> >umpteen years ago.

> Unlucky.

Here's a partial list of recent films from Oz:
http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/film/dbase/index.html
I haven't checked out all of them but I recognize a lot of titles as
general-interest, not necessarily suitable for children, but neither
what are known in Hollywood as "B movies".




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> You begin to make it appear that you would be against a literature
> teacher having a list of selected works that are recognized as
> classics, or in selecting from such a list for material for the
> students to read.

Scottiedork never really understood the whole "subjective" thing. That's
why he aspired to be an engineering wonk.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

> I stand corrected.

Thank's Mr. Dromer for, admitting M.r Doorman that if you have some
fact's with, your cofee its like too much of a bad creamer Mrr. Doermem.

LOl! ;-) TROFFLMOO! ;-(





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Eeyore said:

> Why is this **** even being made ? It appeared unexpectly in a page I opened at
> msn news and quite freaked me out in fact.

'Tis the season to be gory. At least in the USA.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

> Not a fan of horror myself,
> unless it's humourous - eg. Brain Dead. That's well funny that is. :-)

Did you see Shawn of the Dead? Pretty funny stuff.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Eeyore said:

> Yet the American public is scared of bare flesh.

I hope you know better than to believe that, Poopie.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> So we can see that I have logically and conclusively proven that
> conservatives have ruined Hollywood. conservatives are the cause of
> dwindling attendance at theaters.

Conservatives run all the big corporations, which is why movie theaters
can't make a profit even at $10 a ticket (more in NYC and LA,
presumably). Burn the conservatives!




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?

> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
> >> :-)

> >Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
> >Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.

> I've never advocated imposed censorship.

Then what are you advocating?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > ps.com...
> > > > toopid<--------------------->logic
> > > >
> > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> > > >> in
> > > >> message ...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > paul packer said:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
> > > >> >> :-)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
> > > >> > Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with declining
> > > >> attendance and revenues.
> > > >
> > > > Duh. Nice Michael Medved quote. If the viewing public does not want to
> > > > see a movie, it won't go see it.
> > >
> > > I argue against censors and you find dispute by reading into
> > > my statement something I never said but in the end you
> > > agree...Hollywood is about nothing but money.
> >
> > Was that an epiphany for you, toopid?
> >
> > The same can be said about the music business. The same can be said
> > about the publishing industry.
> >
> > What I disagreed with was your trying to attribute *causation* to the
> > one-year decline in attendance at the movie theater, moron.
>
> You still can't get your facts straight on theater attendance
> and you definitely can't keep straight what I said.....again.

My most sincere apologies, toopid.

When you said, "Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
variety of reasons
including the quality of the movies." I took that to mean that you
meant that movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
variety of reasons including the quality of the movies. You know, a
causal link with no supporting evidence that this is true, especially
since the 'evidence' that you provided actually showed that the people
who went to the movies thought it was money well spent. You've also
said it was due to 'mega theaters' with quality no better than you have
at home. You know, like another causal link.

You'll probably say that I 'can't keep what you said straight' even
though it's quoted above.

I probably should have asked you this question:

"toopid, when you said, 'Movie attendance remains in significant
decline for a variety of reasons including the quality of the movies'
did you mean, 'Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
variety of reasons including the quality of the movies'? I don't want
to be accused by RAOs resident genius of not keeping what you said
straight."

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > You begin to make it appear that you would be against a literature
> > teacher having a list of selected works that are recognized as
> > classics, or in selecting from such a list for material for the
> > students to read.
>
> Scottiedork never really understood the whole "subjective" thing. That's
> why he aspired to be an engineering wonk.

I'm sure I'm misrespresenting what he said though. He's probably not
against some 'snobs' teaching appreciation of something, he just
doesn't want them to be taught to love it.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > But Dennis Miller's neanderthal political views would not stop me from
> > seeing a movie with him in it if I was interested in seeing it.
>
> Speaking of Mr. Crabby, I've been wondering if he is sincere in his
> stated political views, or if he just adopted the posture for the fun of
> it. One reason I wonder when he makes a rightwingish comment, half the
> time he follow up with a joke that undercuts it.

I think this show was called 'All In.' It was clearly a repeat, perhaps
from the 2004 election cycle.

In it, he seemed pretty adamant that sex offenders should be put to
death. He wondered why Scott Peterson was still alive. He discussed why
we should bomb the **** out of the Iraqis. His overall attitude seemed
to be, "We're America. We can do what we want. **** you."

While it's true that he'd toss in a joke or two, I left with the
impression that these were his true views.

Here are some quotes from wiki:

Dennis Miller (born November 3, 1953 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an
American comedian, political and social commentator, and television
personality. He is known for his support of the Iraq War and his
conservative opinions, which are generally aligned with
neolibertarianism or even postlibertarianism.

"I'm sorry, those pictures from the Abu Ghraib. At first they, like,
infuriated me, I was sad. Then like, a couple days later, after they
cut the guy's head off, they didn't seem like much. And now, I like to
trade them with friends." (CNBC show, 8 June 2004)

"Critics of the death penalty say that when we execute a murderer then
we as a society are no better than he is. Hey, I'm not an elitist snob,
I don't think I'm better than anyone. So fry the mother****er." (I
Rant, Therefore I Am, "Capital Punishment")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Miller

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > > ps.com...
> > > > > toopid<--------------------->logic
> > > > >
> > > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> message ...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > paul packer said:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
> > > > >> >> :-)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
> > > > >> > Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with declining
> > > > >> attendance and revenues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Duh. Nice Michael Medved quote. If the viewing public does not want to
> > > > > see a movie, it won't go see it.
> > > >
> > > > I argue against censors and you find dispute by reading into
> > > > my statement something I never said but in the end you
> > > > agree...Hollywood is about nothing but money.
> > >
> > > Was that an epiphany for you, toopid?
> > >
> > > The same can be said about the music business. The same can be said
> > > about the publishing industry.
> > >
> > > What I disagreed with was your trying to attribute *causation* to the
> > > one-year decline in attendance at the movie theater, moron.
> >
> > You still can't get your facts straight on theater attendance
> > and you definitely can't keep straight what I said.....again.
>
> My most sincere apologies, toopid.
>
> When you said, "Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
> variety of reasons
> including the quality of the movies." I took that to mean that you
> meant that movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
> variety of reasons including the quality of the movies.

Thats a leap from your usual claim that I said 'They are making movies
too liberal for the public'. Keep on spinning.

> You know, a
> causal link with no supporting evidence that this is true,

that would be called an opinion

> especially
> since the 'evidence' that you provided actually showed that the people
> who went to the movies thought it was money well spent.

A survey of people who go to movies is going to answer why people
don't go to movies?
Only in your rubber room shuuushie. Time to strap yourself down extra
tight tonight.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> Signal said:
>
> > Not a fan of horror myself,
> > unless it's humourous - eg. Brain Dead. That's well funny that is. :-)
>
> Did you see Shawn of the Dead? Pretty funny stuff.

Go for the 200 gram lps first.

Stephen

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Signal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > (paul packer) wrote:
> > >
> > >>>How dare you impose your values on others. I enjoy all the stuff
> > >>>above, which you apparently consider sub-standard.
> > >>
> > >>Says it all really.
> > >
> > > Your reply does cut to the heart of the matter. You are one of those
> > > people who thinks your own preferences are more valid than those of
> > > others. Nothing less than deluded thinking on your part, Paul.
> >
> > You're echoing my argument against teaching people what to love.
>
> You're arguing to put Dilbert and Screw Magazine into the same pile of
> literature as Kurt Vonnegut or Charles Dickens because it is, after
> all, somebody's preference. Why teach people about good literature?
> It's all relative, right?

Once again.....no I'm not.

>
> Teaching an appreciation for something does not mean that you are
> teaching them to love something.
> In fact, you can't teach someone to
> love something.

You'll have to take it up with Jenn, it was her idea.

>You can only expose them to it. But exposure to it can
> lead to them liking it, yes.
>
> You begin to make it appear that you would be against a literature
> teacher having a list of selected works that are recognized as
> classics, or in selecting from such a list for material for the
> students to read.

Lots of strange things appear to you.

ScottW

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> You'll have to take it up with Jenn, it was her idea.

LOL ! Too funny.

Graham

[paul packer]

On 30 Oct 2006 14:15:05 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>> > > ScottW wrote:
>> > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> > > > ps.com...
>> > > > > toopid<--------------------->logic
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ScottW wrote:
>> > > > >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>> > > > >> in
>> > > > >> message ...
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > paul packer said:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
>> > > > >> >> :-)
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
>> > > > >> > Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with declining
>> > > > >> attendance and revenues.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Duh. Nice Michael Medved quote. If the viewing public does not want to
>> > > > > see a movie, it won't go see it.
>> > > >
>> > > > I argue against censors and you find dispute by reading into
>> > > > my statement something I never said but in the end you
>> > > > agree...Hollywood is about nothing but money.
>> > >
>> > > Was that an epiphany for you, toopid?
>> > >
>> > > The same can be said about the music business. The same can be said
>> > > about the publishing industry.
>> > >
>> > > What I disagreed with was your trying to attribute *causation* to the
>> > > one-year decline in attendance at the movie theater, moron.
>> >
>> > You still can't get your facts straight on theater attendance
>> > and you definitely can't keep straight what I said.....again.
>>
>> My most sincere apologies, toopid.
>>
>> When you said, "Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
>> variety of reasons
>> including the quality of the movies." I took that to mean that you
>> meant that movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
>> variety of reasons including the quality of the movies.
>
>Thats a leap from your usual claim that I said 'They are making movies
>too liberal for the public'. Keep on spinning.
>
>> You know, a
>> causal link with no supporting evidence that this is true,
>
> that would be called an opinion
>
>> especially
>> since the 'evidence' that you provided actually showed that the people
>> who went to the movies thought it was money well spent.
>
> A survey of people who go to movies is going to answer why people
>don't go to movies?
> Only in your rubber room shuuushie. Time to strap yourself down extra
>tight tonight.
>
>ScottW
>

Good point actually.

I think the real point of this discussion is the demographic. A huge
number of older people who used to be regular cinema goers just don't
go anymore. There's nothing there for them. Films today are aimed
squarely at the 5 to 35 bracket. That means most are instant
gratification without depth or substance. Of course there are
exceptions, but they only prove the rule. I would go now about every
couple of years, where back in the early 60s I would go every week.
It's a shame, because I loved the cinema and thought it the great
future art form. But since then it's turned into a sideshow alley.

[Jenn]

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On 30 Oct 2006 14:15:05 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >> ScottW wrote:
> >> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >> > > ScottW wrote:
> >> > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> > > > message
> >> > > > ps.com...
> >> > > > > toopid<--------------------->logic
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ScottW wrote:
> >> > > > >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
> >> > > > >> net> wrote
> >> > > > >> in
> >> > > > >> message ...
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > paul packer said:
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet,
> >> > > > >> >> George.
> >> > > > >> >> :-)
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be
> >> > > > >> > Censors'
> >> > > > >> > Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph
> >> > > > >> > Reed.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with
> >> > > > >> declining
> >> > > > >> attendance and revenues.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Duh. Nice Michael Medved quote. If the viewing public does not
> >> > > > > want to
> >> > > > > see a movie, it won't go see it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I argue against censors and you find dispute by reading into
> >> > > > my statement something I never said but in the end you
> >> > > > agree...Hollywood is about nothing but money.
> >> > >
> >> > > Was that an epiphany for you, toopid?
> >> > >
> >> > > The same can be said about the music business. The same can be said
> >> > > about the publishing industry.
> >> > >
> >> > > What I disagreed with was your trying to attribute *causation* to the
> >> > > one-year decline in attendance at the movie theater, moron.
> >> >
> >> > You still can't get your facts straight on theater attendance
> >> > and you definitely can't keep straight what I said.....again.
> >>
> >> My most sincere apologies, toopid.
> >>
> >> When you said, "Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
> >> variety of reasons
> >> including the quality of the movies." I took that to mean that you
> >> meant that movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
> >> variety of reasons including the quality of the movies.
> >
> >Thats a leap from your usual claim that I said 'They are making movies
> >too liberal for the public'. Keep on spinning.
> >
> >> You know, a
> >> causal link with no supporting evidence that this is true,
> >
> > that would be called an opinion
> >
> >> especially
> >> since the 'evidence' that you provided actually showed that the people
> >> who went to the movies thought it was money well spent.
> >
> > A survey of people who go to movies is going to answer why people
> >don't go to movies?
> > Only in your rubber room shuuushie. Time to strap yourself down extra
> >tight tonight.
> >
> >ScottW
> >
>
> Good point actually.
>
> I think the real point of this discussion is the demographic. A huge
> number of older people who used to be regular cinema goers just don't
> go anymore. There's nothing there for them. Films today are aimed
> squarely at the 5 to 35 bracket. That means most are instant
> gratification without depth or substance.

But that doesn't mean that something else might be better! ;-)

> Of course there are
> exceptions, but they only prove the rule. I would go now about every
> couple of years, where back in the early 60s I would go every week.
> It's a shame, because I loved the cinema and thought it the great
> future art form. But since then it's turned into a sideshow alley.

I love going to the movies but most of the product is so bad today, IMO,
that I won't spend the $9 plus food to take a chance. And to add insult
to injury, you now get a half hour of what amounts to a TV commercial
before the previews start.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:57:06 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
>
>> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
>> >> :-)
>
>> >Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
>> >Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.
>
>> I've never advocated imposed censorship.
>
>Then what are you advocating?

Self modification, modulation, whatever you want to call it, in the
national interest. External censorship simply doesn't work. In any
case there's already a good deal of self-censorship going on now in
movies, dictated by public standards and sentiment. Much of the more
negative material in films simply isn't necessary to the telling of
the story.

As someone so prudently put it: "No one ever came out of the cinema
saying, "Gee, it was a great movie, but they didn't say '****'
enough."

[paul packer]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:16:39 -0500, Here in Ohio
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:19:10 GMT, (paul packer)
>wrote:
>
>>real basis of hatred of western society lies with the lack of
>>standards and the poison spread by its "entertainment" industry, which
>
>It seems to me that this "poison" is often in the mind of the person
>who perceives it as "poison."

Look up "discrimination".

[Jenn]

In article m>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > "Signal" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > (paul packer) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>>How dare you impose your values on others. I enjoy all the stuff
> > > >>>above, which you apparently consider sub-standard.
> > > >>
> > > >>Says it all really.
> > > >
> > > > Your reply does cut to the heart of the matter. You are one of those
> > > > people who thinks your own preferences are more valid than those of
> > > > others. Nothing less than deluded thinking on your part, Paul.
> > >
> > > You're echoing my argument against teaching people what to love.
> >
> > You're arguing to put Dilbert and Screw Magazine into the same pile of
> > literature as Kurt Vonnegut or Charles Dickens because it is, after
> > all, somebody's preference. Why teach people about good literature?
> > It's all relative, right?
>
> Once again.....no I'm not.
>
> >
> > Teaching an appreciation for something does not mean that you are
> > teaching them to love something.
> > In fact, you can't teach someone to
> > love something.
>
> You'll have to take it up with Jenn, it was her idea.

I've decided to take a new track in my teaching. I'm going to teach
that "My Humps" and the William Hung oeuvre are the high points of
Western culture composition and performance respectfully.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> I've never advocated imposed censorship.

> >Then what are you advocating?

> Self modification, modulation, whatever you want to call it, in the
> national interest. External censorship simply doesn't work. In any
> case there's already a good deal of self-censorship going on now in
> movies, dictated by public standards and sentiment. Much of the more
> negative material in films simply isn't necessary to the telling of
> the story.

You seem to be a bit lost in your thoughts here.

How would the standards you desire be communicated to the movie
producers?

> As someone so prudently put it: "No one ever came out of the cinema
> saying, "Gee, it was a great movie, but they didn't say '****'
> enough."

Somebody just observed, right here on RAO, that movies are getting
dumbed-down on a wide scale. If that opinion is supported by facts,
isn't it possible that the ticket-buying public isn't so observant as to
keep a running count of profanities?



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:10:59 GMT, Jenn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
>> On 30 Oct 2006 14:15:05 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>> >> ScottW wrote:
>> >> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>> >> > > ScottW wrote:
>> >> > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> >> > > > message
>> >> > > > ps.com...
>> >> > > > > toopid<--------------------->logic
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > ScottW wrote:
>> >> > > > >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
>> >> > > > >> net> wrote
>> >> > > > >> in
>> >> > > > >> message ...
>> >> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > >> > paul packer said:
>> >> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > >> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
>> >> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > >> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet,
>> >> > > > >> >> George.
>> >> > > > >> >> :-)
>> >> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > >> > Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be
>> >> > > > >> > Censors'
>> >> > > > >> > Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph
>> >> > > > >> > Reed.
>> >> > > > >>
>> >> > > > >> I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with
>> >> > > > >> declining
>> >> > > > >> attendance and revenues.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Duh. Nice Michael Medved quote. If the viewing public does not
>> >> > > > > want to
>> >> > > > > see a movie, it won't go see it.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I argue against censors and you find dispute by reading into
>> >> > > > my statement something I never said but in the end you
>> >> > > > agree...Hollywood is about nothing but money.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Was that an epiphany for you, toopid?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The same can be said about the music business. The same can be said
>> >> > > about the publishing industry.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > What I disagreed with was your trying to attribute *causation* to the
>> >> > > one-year decline in attendance at the movie theater, moron.
>> >> >
>> >> > You still can't get your facts straight on theater attendance
>> >> > and you definitely can't keep straight what I said.....again.
>> >>
>> >> My most sincere apologies, toopid.
>> >>
>> >> When you said, "Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
>> >> variety of reasons
>> >> including the quality of the movies." I took that to mean that you
>> >> meant that movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
>> >> variety of reasons including the quality of the movies.
>> >
>> >Thats a leap from your usual claim that I said 'They are making movies
>> >too liberal for the public'. Keep on spinning.
>> >
>> >> You know, a
>> >> causal link with no supporting evidence that this is true,
>> >
>> > that would be called an opinion
>> >
>> >> especially
>> >> since the 'evidence' that you provided actually showed that the people
>> >> who went to the movies thought it was money well spent.
>> >
>> > A survey of people who go to movies is going to answer why people
>> >don't go to movies?
>> > Only in your rubber room shuuushie. Time to strap yourself down extra
>> >tight tonight.
>> >
>> >ScottW
>> >
>>
>> Good point actually.
>>
>> I think the real point of this discussion is the demographic. A huge
>> number of older people who used to be regular cinema goers just don't
>> go anymore. There's nothing there for them. Films today are aimed
>> squarely at the 5 to 35 bracket. That means most are instant
>> gratification without depth or substance.
>
>But that doesn't mean that something else might be better! ;-)

Depth and substance wouldn't be better? :-)

>> Of course there are
>> exceptions, but they only prove the rule. I would go now about every
>> couple of years, where back in the early 60s I would go every week.
>> It's a shame, because I loved the cinema and thought it the great
>> future art form. But since then it's turned into a sideshow alley.
>
>I love going to the movies but most of the product is so bad today, IMO,
>that I won't spend the $9 plus food to take a chance. And to add insult
>to injury, you now get a half hour of what amounts to a TV commercial
>before the previews start.

It's the previews I hate! The same guy with that stupid voice.....

[paul packer]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:24:16 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >Your social circle must be strange indeed. All those half-brainers
>> >wandering around ranting about Hollywood and such.
>
>> Let's be fair, George. I never blamed the movie industry for half the
>> world's ills. I said that the Muslim world got much of its impression
>> and imagery of the western world from Hollywood movies, and it's not a
>> pretty sight.
>
>
>I say the terrorist loons are *deprived* of images about the West,
>either true-to-life or exaggerated. That's because they are brainwashed
>in the madrasses to hate the West, especially America.

And if you were doing the brainwashing, wouldn't you simply delight in
the amount of material Hollywood furnished you?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >I say the terrorist loons are *deprived* of images about the West,
> >either true-to-life or exaggerated. That's because they are brainwashed
> >in the madrasses to hate the West, especially America.

> And if you were doing the brainwashing, wouldn't you simply delight in
> the amount of material Hollywood furnished you?

No, definitely not. Why do you think 99% of people in countries with
repressive governments want to come to America?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[MiNe 109]

In article

om>,
Jenn > wrote:

> In article m>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > "Signal" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > (paul packer) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>>How dare you impose your values on others. I enjoy all the stuff
> > > > >>>above, which you apparently consider sub-standard.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Says it all really.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your reply does cut to the heart of the matter. You are one of those
> > > > > people who thinks your own preferences are more valid than those of
> > > > > others. Nothing less than deluded thinking on your part, Paul.
> > > >
> > > > You're echoing my argument against teaching people what to love.
> > >
> > > You're arguing to put Dilbert and Screw Magazine into the same pile of
> > > literature as Kurt Vonnegut or Charles Dickens because it is, after
> > > all, somebody's preference. Why teach people about good literature?
> > > It's all relative, right?
> >
> > Once again.....no I'm not.
> >
> > >
> > > Teaching an appreciation for something does not mean that you are
> > > teaching them to love something.
> > > In fact, you can't teach someone to
> > > love something.
> >
> > You'll have to take it up with Jenn, it was her idea.
>
> I've decided to take a new track in my teaching. I'm going to teach
> that "My Humps" and the William Hung oeuvre are the high points of
> Western culture composition and performance respectfully.

Fergie-licious!

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> It's the previews I hate! The same guy with that stupid voice.....

Sorry, the man's a genius:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_LaFontaine

Unless you mean one of these other guys:

http://www.donlafontaine.com/video/5men.html

Also:

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Don+LaFontaine&search=Search

Stephen

[paul packer]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:46:26 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >I say the terrorist loons are *deprived* of images about the West,
>> >either true-to-life or exaggerated. That's because they are brainwashed
>> >in the madrasses to hate the West, especially America.
>
>> And if you were doing the brainwashing, wouldn't you simply delight in
>> the amount of material Hollywood furnished you?
>
>No, definitely not. Why do you think 99% of people in countries with
>repressive governments want to come to America?

I imagine there are quite a lot of people in Pakistan, Iran and even
Saudi Arabia who would love to go to America. :-)

[paul packer]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:30:32 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> I've never advocated imposed censorship.
>
>> >Then what are you advocating?
>
>> Self modification, modulation, whatever you want to call it, in the
>> national interest. External censorship simply doesn't work. In any
>> case there's already a good deal of self-censorship going on now in
>> movies, dictated by public standards and sentiment. Much of the more
>> negative material in films simply isn't necessary to the telling of
>> the story.
>
>You seem to be a bit lost in your thoughts here.

Not really. I'm simply saying that self-censorship already exists and
always has; public standards and sentiment are its determinants.

On another tack, Hollywood must be aware that there's a huge
dissatisfaction and resentment toward its product out there in
conservative-land, yet it fiercely resists not only catering to that
huge market, but even moderating its excesses so as not to offend.
Indeed, it seems determined to offend as often possible. There's a
"Take this in your face!" kind of mentality that I suggest is
ideologically driven. To be honest, I'm surprised that conservative
money hasn't yet been used to set up an alternative film industry with
a different agenda. I may not want to see its films, and you certainly
wouldn't, but at least it'd be a genuine alternative, like the days
when there was a viable British film industry.

>How would the standards you desire be communicated to the movie
>producers?

Good question and a natural follow on. Since movie producers seem to
have sold out utterly to the youth market it's hard to know. Of course
money talks, but how to convince them the older, more conservative
generation has uncommitted money as well? There have been a few box
office hits over the years clearly aimed at a more mature market--I
mentioned "Mr. Holland's Opus"--and at the time there was hope these
might start an off-shoot industry. But no, there was no follow up and
not much along similar reflective lines. Even "The English Patient"
was a loner. It seems producers just don't have any faith in the
over-40 market, or else find too little personal connection with more
thoughtful material. Now that's a thought.....

>> As someone so prudently put it: "No one ever came out of the cinema
>> saying, "Gee, it was a great movie, but they didn't say '****'
>> enough."
>
>Somebody just observed, right here on RAO, that movies are getting
>dumbed-down on a wide scale.

Getting dumbed-down? I thought that was a given from years ago.

> If that opinion is supported by facts,
>isn't it possible that the ticket-buying public isn't so observant as to
>keep a running count of profanities?

Don't see the connection between dumbed-down and propanities. The
point I'm making is that much of the offensive material in films is
redundant to the story and characters. OK, if you're re-making "Who's
Afraid of Virginia Woolf" or "Boys In The Band" the subject obviously
demands a certain toughness of dialogue and characterisation, but
these days utterly inappropriate sex, swearing and every other form of
grossness (like the now-obligatory vomitting scene) seems to find it's
way even into the most otherwise innocent looking PG material. Is it
to get a higher rating so as to appeal to the youth market? Why for
instance is there just a single "****" in Titanic--totally unnecessary
and wrong for that picture. Why does Harrison Ford say "Holy ****!" in
Raiders Of The Lost Ark, the only swearing in that picture and again,
wince-inducingly wrong, especially for a movie set in the 30s and
aimed at kids I'd just like to understand the thinking that seems to
demand this kind of material be placed in every movie above "The Lion
King".

[paul packer]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:50:27 GMT, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (paul packer) wrote:
>
>> It's the previews I hate! The same guy with that stupid voice.....
>
>Sorry, the man's a genius:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_LaFontaine
>
>Unless you mean one of these other guys:
>
>http://www.donlafontaine.com/video/5men.html
>
>Also:
>
>http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Don+LaFontaine&search=Search
>
>Stephen


How I would love to have been there to blow up that limo.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> paul packer said:
>
> > >I say the terrorist loons are *deprived* of images about the West,
> > >either true-to-life or exaggerated. That's because they are brainwashed
> > >in the madrasses to hate the West, especially America.
>
> > And if you were doing the brainwashing, wouldn't you simply delight in
> > the amount of material Hollywood furnished you?
>
> No, definitely not. Why do you think 99% of people in countries with
> repressive governments want to come to America?

They do ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> On another tack, Hollywood must be aware that there's a huge
> dissatisfaction and resentment toward its product out there in
> conservative-land, yet it fiercely resists not only catering to that
> huge market, but even moderating its excesses so as not to offend.
> Indeed, it seems determined to offend as often possible. There's a
> "Take this in your face!" kind of mentality that I suggest is
> ideologically driven. To be honest, I'm surprised that conservative
> money hasn't yet been used to set up an alternative film industry with
> a different agenda. I may not want to see its films, and you certainly
> wouldn't, but at least it'd be a genuine alternative, like the days
> when there was a viable British film industry.

I am nonplussed. I'm astonished, amazed, befogged. You have perceived
the "culture wars" in such a completely backward way that it takes my
breath away.

Of course, you're from the other side of the world, so maybe your
"culture wars" are upside-down as compared to ours.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> There have been a few box
> office hits over the years clearly aimed at a more mature market--I
> mentioned "Mr. Holland's Opus"--and at the time there was hope these
> might start an off-shoot industry. But no, there was no follow up and
> not much along similar reflective lines.

That was a lame and trite movie. Case closed, Charlie.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:47:23 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> On another tack, Hollywood must be aware that there's a huge
>> dissatisfaction and resentment toward its product out there in
>> conservative-land, yet it fiercely resists not only catering to that
>> huge market, but even moderating its excesses so as not to offend.
>> Indeed, it seems determined to offend as often possible. There's a
>> "Take this in your face!" kind of mentality that I suggest is
>> ideologically driven. To be honest, I'm surprised that conservative
>> money hasn't yet been used to set up an alternative film industry with
>> a different agenda. I may not want to see its films, and you certainly
>> wouldn't, but at least it'd be a genuine alternative, like the days
>> when there was a viable British film industry.
>
>I am nonplussed. I'm astonished, amazed, befogged. You have perceived
>the "culture wars" in such a completely backward way that it takes my
>breath away.

Feel free to delineate the culture wars from your POV.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:48:03 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> There have been a few box
>> office hits over the years clearly aimed at a more mature market--I
>> mentioned "Mr. Holland's Opus"--and at the time there was hope these
>> might start an off-shoot industry. But no, there was no follow up and
>> not much along similar reflective lines.
>
>That was a lame and trite movie. Case closed, Charlie.

In your opinion, which is only that. It wasn't perfect (what is?), but
it took a positive, uncynical view of life and provided a welcome
antidote to the unrelievedly dark stuff. I found it quite moving.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >I am nonplussed. I'm astonished, amazed, befogged. You have perceived
> >the "culture wars" in such a completely backward way that it takes my
> >breath away.

> Feel free to delineate the culture wars from your POV.

We have a history of tyrannical puritans periodically taking control of
government in order to inflict their agenda of sanctimonious repression
on the rest of us. The puritans are always plotting and scheming ways to
assert their own social primacy at the expense of some minority or
other. Up until the 1960s, they had their hands full with our civil
rights movement. They lost that battle. Then their long-held dominion
over Gay subculture started to erode. The current flashpoint of gay
marriage should tell you how entrenched the bigots are. The crusading
puritans are also trying to stem the "brown tide" or whatever they call
it (i.e. immigration by non-whites). They are using the same kind of
fear tactics that are encapsulated in the hypocritical slogan "defense
of marriage".

With that backdrop, you should be able to perceive that tolerance and
accommodation are the underdogs in the American culture wars. Socially
liberal viewpoints are espoused in the entertainment media, whereas
socially repressive ones are the warhorses of Big Christianity, Big
Business, and Big Media.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> "Mr. Holland's Opus"

> >That was a lame and trite movie. Case closed, Charlie.

> In your opinion, which is only that. It wasn't perfect (what is?), but
> it took a positive, uncynical view of life and provided a welcome
> antidote to the unrelievedly dark stuff. I found it quite moving.

Weren't you the one who lectured somebody on the great value of your
wisdom, amassed through 70 years of toil and trouble?

I suggest you've gone soft in the head.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > > > ps.com...
> > > > > > toopid<--------------------->logic
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > > >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> message ...
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > paul packer said:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
> > > > > >> >> :-)
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
> > > > > >> > Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with declining
> > > > > >> attendance and revenues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Duh. Nice Michael Medved quote. If the viewing public does not want to
> > > > > > see a movie, it won't go see it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I argue against censors and you find dispute by reading into
> > > > > my statement something I never said but in the end you
> > > > > agree...Hollywood is about nothing but money.
> > > >
> > > > Was that an epiphany for you, toopid?
> > > >
> > > > The same can be said about the music business. The same can be said
> > > > about the publishing industry.
> > > >
> > > > What I disagreed with was your trying to attribute *causation* to the
> > > > one-year decline in attendance at the movie theater, moron.
> > >
> > > You still can't get your facts straight on theater attendance
> > > and you definitely can't keep straight what I said.....again.
> >
> > My most sincere apologies, toopid.
> >
> > When you said, "Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
> > variety of reasons
> > including the quality of the movies." I took that to mean that you
> > meant that movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
> > variety of reasons including the quality of the movies.
>
> Thats a leap from your usual claim that I said 'They are making movies
> too liberal for the public'. Keep on spinning.

LOL!

toopid, you've caught me in one very small mistake, which is the
equivalent of a typo.

That does not undo the thousands of ignorant posts that you've made. No
spin involved. Sorry!

> > You know, a
> > causal link with no supporting evidence that this is true,
>
> that would be called an opinion

Then why, immediately after you made the comment, did you include a
link? If you'll note, I was not the only one who pointed out there was
no causation provided in the link.

LOL! Who's spinning now, toopid?

> > especially
> > since the 'evidence' that you provided actually showed that the people
> > who went to the movies thought it was money well spent.
>
> A survey of people who go to movies is going to answer why people
> don't go to movies?

Don't ask me, toopid. It was the 'proof' that *you* provided, which is
why I brought it up, moron. you did read your 'proof' didn't you? LOL!

> Only in your rubber room shuuushie. Time to strap yourself down extra
> tight tonight.

Self-medicating again?

See a doctor, toopid. Your prescriptions aren't doing any good WRT your
lack of any logical thought process. god you're dumb.

LOL!

Moron.

[sock-it-to-me]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Signal said:
>
> > I stand corrected.
>
> Thank's Mr. Dromer for, admitting M.r Doorman that if you have some
> fact's with, your cofee its like too much of a bad creamer Mrr. Doermem.
>
> LOl! ;-) TROFFLMOO! ;-(


LOL! :-)

[sock-it-to-me]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> > Not a fan of horror myself,
> > unless it's humourous - eg. Brain Dead. That's well funny that is. :-)
>
> Did you see Shawn of the Dead? Pretty funny stuff.

Sadly not yet - it's on my list of things to watch.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

paul packer wrote:

> On another tack, Hollywood must be aware that there's a huge
> dissatisfaction and resentment toward its product out there in
> conservative-land, yet it fiercely resists not only catering to that
> huge market, but even moderating its excesses so as not to offend.
> Indeed, it seems determined to offend as often possible. There's a
> "Take this in your face!" kind of mentality that I suggest is
> ideologically driven. To be honest, I'm surprised that conservative
> money hasn't yet been used to set up an alternative film industry with
> a different agenda. I may not want to see its films, and you certainly
> wouldn't, but at least it'd be a genuine alternative, like the days
> when there was a viable British film industry.

I'd like to know what qualifies as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'
movie.

What we actually get are movies where the US or the US contingent
always gets the bad guy, there is blatant (and often blind) patriotism,
where we're smarter, faster, stronger, and (gosh darn it) better
looking too. Those are conservative views.

Here are the top ten grossing films from 2005. Which, IYO, are liberal
and which are conservative?

380,262,555 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
291,709,845 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the
Wardrobe (2005)
289,994,397 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
234,280,354 War of the Worlds (2005)
218,051,260 King Kong (2005)
209,218,368 Wedding Crashers (2005)
206,456,431 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
205,343,774 Batman Begins (2005)
193,136,719 Madagascar (2005)
186,336,103 Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/2005/top-grossing

Here's a list of releases from this year. Same question:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2006&p=.htm

What are some examples of "in your face" from the past 2-3 years?

I'm suspecting that this is about like the conservative saw that the
press is liberal, when there is much contrary evidence. I posted some
of that evidence concerning the press within the past month or so.

[sock-it-to-me]

Here in Ohio wrote:

> >>Somehow it doesn's seem right to say that, because one in a million
> >>people is really loony toons and can't be trusted with a gun, we're
> >>going to take guns away from everyone.
> >
> >How many people *need* a gun?
>
> How many people *need* a stereo system? :-)

How many stereo systems are considered lethal weapons?

> >>Do we take away butcher knives next? Chainsaws?
> >
> >Both are illegal to carry in the UK without satisfactory explanation.
> >This is entirely reasonable. People who walk around with knives
> >without due cause are almost certainly carrying them as weapons.
>
> In the US we assume people are innocent until they're proved guilty.
> You should try that in the UK. :-)

They are. People are not assumed to be carrying weapons,
until they are found on their person.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

paul packer wrote:

> In your opinion, which is only that. It wasn't perfect (what is?), but
> it took a positive, uncynical view of life and provided a welcome
> antidote to the unrelievedly dark stuff. I found it quite moving.

Oh, so conservative movies are more like "Lassie Come Home" and liberal
movies are more like "The Constant Gardener."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387131/

Don't you get "The Waltons" in syndication down under? Or, as an
alternative, you can rent virtually *any* movie made prior to 1967. The
ones from the 1950s may be best.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ps.com...
> > > > > > > toopid<--------------------->logic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > > > >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> message ...
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > paul packer said:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >Have you ever heard the expression "change the channel"?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> I'm not convinced you've properly absorbed the program yet, George.
> > > > > > >> >> :-)
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Perhaps you should look up the recent history of the Would-Be Censors'
> > > > > > >> > Brigade in the U.S. Specifically, examine the story of Ralph Reed.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I think society itself will effectively censor hollywood with declining
> > > > > > >> attendance and revenues.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Duh. Nice Michael Medved quote. If the viewing public does not want to
> > > > > > > see a movie, it won't go see it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I argue against censors and you find dispute by reading into
> > > > > > my statement something I never said but in the end you
> > > > > > agree...Hollywood is about nothing but money.
> > > > >
> > > > > Was that an epiphany for you, toopid?
> > > > >
> > > > > The same can be said about the music business. The same can be said
> > > > > about the publishing industry.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I disagreed with was your trying to attribute *causation* to the
> > > > > one-year decline in attendance at the movie theater, moron.
> > > >
> > > > You still can't get your facts straight on theater attendance
> > > > and you definitely can't keep straight what I said.....again.
> > >
> > > My most sincere apologies, toopid.
> > >
> > > When you said, "Movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
> > > variety of reasons
> > > including the quality of the movies." I took that to mean that you
> > > meant that movie attendance remains in significant decline for a
> > > variety of reasons including the quality of the movies.
> >
> > Thats a leap from your usual claim that I said 'They are making movies
> > too liberal for the public'. Keep on spinning.
>
> LOL!
>
> toopid, you've caught me in one very small mistake, which is the
> equivalent of a typo.

That leap is a SMALL one? Damn, whats next? Tall buildings in a
single bound?

>
> That does not undo the thousands of ignorant posts that you've made. No
> spin involved. Sorry!
>
> > > You know, a
> > > causal link with no supporting evidence that this is true,
> >
> > that would be called an opinion
>
> Then why, immediately after you made the comment, did you include a
> link?

The link showed my statement to be factual, movie attendance is
declining.
Why is a subject of opinion.
Is this really that complicated for you?

> If you'll note, I was not the only one who pointed out there was
> no causation provided in the link.
>
> LOL! Who's spinning now, toopid?
>
> > > especially
> > > since the 'evidence' that you provided actually showed that the people
> > > who went to the movies thought it was money well spent.
> >
> > A survey of people who go to movies is going to answer why people
> > don't go to movies?
>
> Don't ask me, toopid. It was the 'proof' that *you* provided,

The proof I provided showed movie attendance declining.
The other stuff on satisfied movie goers is something you
seemed to think is relevant to non-movie goers.


> which is
> why I brought it up, moron. you did read your 'proof' didn't you? LOL!

Wow...guess I'll have to provide single data points.
Too much data gets you all confused.

What is clear is that once again you'll grasp any straw to make
anything into an argument to sustain your failing ego. Not sure if
this one didn't do more harm than good.

ScottW

[paul packer]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:06:00 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> "Mr. Holland's Opus"
>
>> >That was a lame and trite movie. Case closed, Charlie.
>
>> In your opinion, which is only that. It wasn't perfect (what is?), but
>> it took a positive, uncynical view of life and provided a welcome
>> antidote to the unrelievedly dark stuff. I found it quite moving.
>
>Weren't you the one who lectured somebody on the great value of your
>wisdom, amassed through 70 years of toil and trouble?

Nope. I have no idea what you're referring to. I haven't even lived 70
years.

>I suggest you've gone soft in the head.

Or,....maybe you have.

[paul packer]

On 31 Oct 2006 15:43:02 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>
>> In your opinion, which is only that. It wasn't perfect (what is?), but
>> it took a positive, uncynical view of life and provided a welcome
>> antidote to the unrelievedly dark stuff. I found it quite moving.
>
>Oh, so conservative movies are more like "Lassie Come Home" and liberal
>movies are more like "The Constant Gardener."
>
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387131/
>
>Don't you get "The Waltons" in syndication down under? Or, as an
>alternative, you can rent virtually *any* movie made prior to 1967. The
>ones from the 1950s may be best.

Cheap jibing unworthy of you, Shhhh! Try harder.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

> > toopid, you've caught me in one very small mistake, which is the
> > equivalent of a typo.
>
> That leap is a SMALL one? Damn, whats next? Tall buildings in a
> single bound?

toopid sinks his teeth into a very small mistake. Yes, toopid, very
small.

> > That does not undo the thousands of ignorant posts that you've made. No
> > spin involved. Sorry!
> >
> > > > You know, a
> > > > causal link with no supporting evidence that this is true,
> > >
> > > that would be called an opinion

That would be called, 'advancing an argument with either no, or with
contradictory, evidence.'

> > Then why, immediately after you made the comment, did you include a
> > link?
>
> The link showed my statement to be factual, movie attendance is
> declining.
> Why is a subject of opinion.
> Is this really that complicated for you?

No, no more than you'd be confused by my point about bushie's polling
data below.

> > > A survey of people who go to movies is going to answer why people
> > > don't go to movies?
> >
> > Don't ask me, toopid. It was the 'proof' that *you* provided,
>
> The proof I provided showed movie attendance declining.
> The other stuff on satisfied movie goers is something you
> seemed to think is relevant to non-movie goers.

Duh.

> > which is
> > why I brought it up, moron. you did read your 'proof' didn't you? LOL!
>
> Wow...guess I'll have to provide single data points.
> Too much data gets you all confused.

bushie's poll ratings are way down from November, 2001 because of his
low IQ, his wanton promiscuity, and a large child pornography
collection, as well as some other reasons:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

> What is clear is that once again you'll grasp any straw to make
> anything into an argument to sustain your failing ego. Not sure if
> this one didn't do more harm than good.

LOL!

toopid, you've nailed it: I want to be just like you. Dumb and bigoted,
but apparently with a successful ego.

Moron.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> Cheap

Aren't you going to argue with my post about the culture wars?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

paul packer wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2006 15:43:02 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >paul packer wrote:
> >
> >> In your opinion, which is only that. It wasn't perfect (what is?), but
> >> it took a positive, uncynical view of life and provided a welcome
> >> antidote to the unrelievedly dark stuff. I found it quite moving.
> >
> >Oh, so conservative movies are more like "Lassie Come Home" and liberal
> >movies are more like "The Constant Gardener."
> >
> >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387131/
> >
> >Don't you get "The Waltons" in syndication down under? Or, as an
> >alternative, you can rent virtually *any* movie made prior to 1967. The
> >ones from the 1950s may be best.
>
> Cheap jibing unworthy of you, Shhhh! Try harder.

I'm trying to understand what makes a movie 'liberal.'

Can you give me some recent examples?

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > Cheap jibing unworthy of you, Shhhh! Try harder.

> I'm trying to understand what makes a movie 'liberal.'
> Can you give me some recent examples?

"Three Days of the Condor" -- recent enough? ;-)

Maybe paul is thinking of movies that are chockablock with gratuitous
violence. Socially liberal but not necessarily politically liberal. Like
"Rambo". ;-)




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:28:40 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >I am nonplussed. I'm astonished, amazed, befogged. You have perceived
>> >the "culture wars" in such a completely backward way that it takes my
>> >breath away.
>
>> Feel free to delineate the culture wars from your POV.
>
>We have a history of tyrannical puritans periodically taking control of
>government in order to inflict their agenda of sanctimonious repression
>on the rest of us. The puritans are always plotting and scheming ways to
>assert their own social primacy at the expense of some minority or
>other. Up until the 1960s, they had their hands full with our civil
>rights movement. They lost that battle. Then their long-held dominion
>over Gay subculture started to erode. The current flashpoint of gay
>marriage should tell you how entrenched the bigots are. The crusading
>puritans are also trying to stem the "brown tide" or whatever they call
>it (i.e. immigration by non-whites). They are using the same kind of
>fear tactics that are encapsulated in the hypocritical slogan "defense
>of marriage".
>
>With that backdrop, you should be able to perceive that tolerance and
>accommodation are the underdogs in the American culture wars. Socially
>liberal viewpoints are espoused in the entertainment media, whereas
>socially repressive ones are the warhorses of Big Christianity, Big
>Business, and Big Media.

All of which just shows how far apart we are in our respective POVs.
I don't see the culture wars in those (siege mentality) terms at all.
To me they're a battle for the hears and minds of the rising
geneneration, whether they're to receive the message that man is
basically a spiritual being with unlimited possibility and the
universe before him, or an evolved animal with no particular reason to
adhere to any moral or ethical codes other than the dictates of
conscience; whether he's to see the world as a place of light and hope
or darkness and cynicism; whether order and respect or chaos and
violence are to reign supreme in our brave new millenium. To me that's
the essence and point of the culture wars--a fight for the future. I
really couldn't care less whether gays get to marry or lesbians become
priests or any of those trendy issues that consume so much debating
time in the media. So I suggest we close the discussion on the mutual
assurance that on this subject at least we will never reach even vague
consencus.

[paul packer]

On 31 Oct 2006 14:03:45 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>
>> On another tack, Hollywood must be aware that there's a huge
>> dissatisfaction and resentment toward its product out there in
>> conservative-land, yet it fiercely resists not only catering to that
>> huge market, but even moderating its excesses so as not to offend.
>> Indeed, it seems determined to offend as often possible. There's a
>> "Take this in your face!" kind of mentality that I suggest is
>> ideologically driven. To be honest, I'm surprised that conservative
>> money hasn't yet been used to set up an alternative film industry with
>> a different agenda. I may not want to see its films, and you certainly
>> wouldn't, but at least it'd be a genuine alternative, like the days
>> when there was a viable British film industry.
>
>I'd like to know what qualifies as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'
>movie.
>
>What we actually get are movies where the US or the US contingent
>always gets the bad guy, there is blatant (and often blind) patriotism,
>where we're smarter, faster, stronger, and (gosh darn it) better
>looking too. Those are conservative views.
>
>Here are the top ten grossing films from 2005. Which, IYO, are liberal
>and which are conservative?
>
>380,262,555 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
>291,709,845 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the
>Wardrobe (2005)
>289,994,397 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
>234,280,354 War of the Worlds (2005)
>218,051,260 King Kong (2005)
>209,218,368 Wedding Crashers (2005)
>206,456,431 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
>205,343,774 Batman Begins (2005)
>193,136,719 Madagascar (2005)
>186,336,103 Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Liberal and conservative are not political terms here. The movies (and
TV shows for that matter) that concern me are those that espouse an
(unfortunately fashionably) dark, cynical view of humanity. I don't
want to name names and then get "That's my favourite show/movie" type
posts. My general objection is that at one time in Hollywood there was
real choice. You could go and see "Public Enemy" or "It's A Wonderful
Life", "Brute Force" or "Keys of the Kingdom." Now this cynicism
pervades, maybe even more obviously on TV where the darkness is even
physical (CSI anyone?). You say "Or, as an alternative, you can rent
virtually *any* movie made prior to 1967. The ones from the 1950s may
be best." without apparently noticing that you're making my case for
me. Why indeed should I have to rent old movies to find something
positive and uncynical? Why has there been this shift away from a
hopeful view of humanity? It's no good making a list of popular movies
(half of which target children anyway) and asking which is liberal and
which conservative, as if everything could be neatly divided into
those halves. A movie has an effect. On the impressionable young it
often has a huge effect (I think we can all recall being deeply
stirred by a particularly movie in our youth. For me it was "Ben-Hur",
the kind of movie they literally don't make anymore--and there's a
message in itself). My concern is with the message today's movies sent
to young people, not individually but collectively and cumulatively. I
go down to my local video store and see 15/16 y.o youths stockpiling
DVDs from the Action/Horror sections that not so long ago would have
been seized by customs for explicit content. Are we to assume despite
what we read about out-of-control youth that none of this is having an
effect, that there's no link, that kids watch this stuff for
hours/days and just walk away unscathed? I don't believe it, and what
I see on the streets and in the high schools these days confirms
otherwise.( I had a teacher tell me the other day that 80% of what
teachers do these days is behaviour modification/control, which leaves
20% for education).

And hey, here's a thought. If my concern in ungrounded, but I act on
it anyway, where the harm? But if my concern is well grounded but I
fail to act on it, well...see the point?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

paul packer wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2006 14:03:45 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >paul packer wrote:
> >
> >> On another tack, Hollywood must be aware that there's a huge
> >> dissatisfaction and resentment toward its product out there in
> >> conservative-land, yet it fiercely resists not only catering to that
> >> huge market, but even moderating its excesses so as not to offend.
> >> Indeed, it seems determined to offend as often possible. There's a
> >> "Take this in your face!" kind of mentality that I suggest is
> >> ideologically driven. To be honest, I'm surprised that conservative
> >> money hasn't yet been used to set up an alternative film industry with
> >> a different agenda. I may not want to see its films, and you certainly
> >> wouldn't, but at least it'd be a genuine alternative, like the days
> >> when there was a viable British film industry.

I'd actrually prefer my children to be raised with a "don't believe
everything you see" mentality.

> >I'd like to know what qualifies as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'
> >movie.
> >
> >What we actually get are movies where the US or the US contingent
> >always gets the bad guy, there is blatant (and often blind) patriotism,
> >where we're smarter, faster, stronger, and (gosh darn it) better
> >looking too. Those are conservative views.
> >
> >Here are the top ten grossing films from 2005. Which, IYO, are liberal
> >and which are conservative?
> >
> >380,262,555 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
> >291,709,845 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the
> >Wardrobe (2005)
> >289,994,397 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
> >234,280,354 War of the Worlds (2005)
> >218,051,260 King Kong (2005)
> >209,218,368 Wedding Crashers (2005)
> >206,456,431 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
> >205,343,774 Batman Begins (2005)
> >193,136,719 Madagascar (2005)
> >186,336,103 Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)
>
> Liberal and conservative are not political terms here. The movies (and
> TV shows for that matter) that concern me are those that espouse an
> (unfortunately fashionably) dark, cynical view of humanity. I don't
> want to name names and then get "That's my favourite show/movie" type
> posts. My general objection is that at one time in Hollywood there was
> real choice. You could go and see "Public Enemy" or "It's A Wonderful
> Life", "Brute Force" or "Keys of the Kingdom." Now this cynicism
> pervades, maybe even more obviously on TV where the darkness is even
> physical (CSI anyone?). You say "Or, as an alternative, you can rent
> virtually *any* movie made prior to 1967. The ones from the 1950s may
> be best." without apparently noticing that you're making my case for
> me. Why indeed should I have to rent old movies to find something
> positive and uncynical? Why has there been this shift away from a
> hopeful view of humanity?

Um, because back then people believed that the government was actually
working for (or torward) thier best interests, and that this was a time
of unbridled "America rules" which may or may not have been a good
thing?

Look at the movies then: basically plays set on a stage where the guy
who works harder/smarter/longer wins the girl/prize/promotion. The guy
is invariably white (as is the girl). I think hat the 'problem' is that
now Hollywood takes on more detailed (and realistic) subjects.

> It's no good making a list of popular movies
> (half of which target children anyway) and asking which is liberal and
> which conservative, as if everything could be neatly divided into
> those halves. A movie has an effect. On the impressionable young it
> often has a huge effect (I think we can all recall being deeply
> stirred by a particularly movie in our youth. For me it was "Ben-Hur",
> the kind of movie they literally don't make anymore--and there's a
> message in itself). My concern is with the message today's movies sent
> to young people, not individually but collectively and cumulatively. I
> go down to my local video store and see 15/16 y.o youths stockpiling
> DVDs from the Action/Horror sections that not so long ago would have
> been seized by customs for explicit content. Are we to assume despite
> what we read about out-of-control youth that none of this is having an
> effect, that there's no link, that kids watch this stuff for
> hours/days and just walk away unscathed?

I would argue that the answer is "yes."

I have children. It is my 'job' as a parent to discuss things with
them, including movies. Abdicating parenting roles to Hollywood is a
cheap cop-out.

> I don't believe it, and what
> I see on the streets and in the high schools these days confirms
> otherwise.( I had a teacher tell me the other day that 80% of what
> teachers do these days is behaviour modification/control, which leaves
> 20% for education).

And the parents are where?

> And hey, here's a thought. If my concern in ungrounded, but I act on
> it anyway, where the harm? But if my concern is well grounded but I
> fail to act on it, well...see the point?

That's the same argument that someone (Descartes?) proposed to 'prove'
that god exists. "if god doesn't exist, where's the harm in acting as
though he does? But if he does, then it's safer to behave that way."
Someone here can point out who said that, as it's well-known.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >With that backdrop, you should be able to perceive that tolerance and
> >accommodation are the underdogs in the American culture wars. Socially
> >liberal viewpoints are espoused in the entertainment media, whereas
> >socially repressive ones are the warhorses of Big Christianity, Big
> >Business, and Big Media.

> All of which just shows how far apart we are in our respective POVs.
> I don't see the culture wars in those (siege mentality) terms at all.

Probably because you're a straight white Christian male, the group that
(coincidentally? ha!) made all the repressive rules that denigrate,
subjugate, and abnegate the rest of us. You don't suffer from any of the
institutional or cultural biases that make life difficult for people who
aren't exactly the same as you.

> To me they're a battle for the hears and minds of the rising
> geneneration, whether they're to receive the message that man is
> basically a spiritual being with unlimited possibility and the
> universe before him, or an evolved animal with no particular reason to
> adhere to any moral or ethical codes other than the dictates of
> conscience; whether he's to see the world as a place of light and hope
> or darkness and cynicism; whether order and respect or chaos and
> violence are to reign supreme in our brave new millenium. To me that's
> the essence and point of the culture wars--a fight for the future. I

Spoken like somebody who can live entirely above the fray with no need
to fight any battles.

> really couldn't care less whether gays get to marry or lesbians become
> priests or any of those trendy issues that consume so much debating
> time in the media. So I suggest we close the discussion on the mutual
> assurance that on this subject at least we will never reach even vague
> consencus.

No, I can't agree to that. I'll only agree to forego reaching consensus.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[MiNe 109]

In article . com>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> That's the same argument that someone (Descartes?) proposed to 'prove'
> that god exists. "if god doesn't exist, where's the harm in acting as
> though he does? But if he does, then it's safer to behave that way."
> Someone here can point out who said that, as it's well-known.

That's Pascal's Wager.

Stephen

[paul packer]

On 1 Nov 2006 00:34:03 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>paul packer wrote:
>> On 31 Oct 2006 14:03:45 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >paul packer wrote:
>> >
>> >> On another tack, Hollywood must be aware that there's a huge
>> >> dissatisfaction and resentment toward its product out there in
>> >> conservative-land, yet it fiercely resists not only catering to that
>> >> huge market, but even moderating its excesses so as not to offend.
>> >> Indeed, it seems determined to offend as often possible. There's a
>> >> "Take this in your face!" kind of mentality that I suggest is
>> >> ideologically driven. To be honest, I'm surprised that conservative
>> >> money hasn't yet been used to set up an alternative film industry with
>> >> a different agenda. I may not want to see its films, and you certainly
>> >> wouldn't, but at least it'd be a genuine alternative, like the days
>> >> when there was a viable British film industry.
>
>I'd actrually prefer my children to be raised with a "don't believe
>everything you see" mentality.

It's not a question of belief. Belief is a conscious intellectual
activity. It's a question of impressions and emotional responses
which take place at an irrational level and are not shaken off by
later rationalisation or "little talks" with Dad.

>> >I'd like to know what qualifies as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'
>> >movie.
>> >
>> >What we actually get are movies where the US or the US contingent
>> >always gets the bad guy, there is blatant (and often blind) patriotism,
>> >where we're smarter, faster, stronger, and (gosh darn it) better
>> >looking too. Those are conservative views.
>> >
>> >Here are the top ten grossing films from 2005. Which, IYO, are liberal
>> >and which are conservative?
>> >
>> >380,262,555 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
>> >291,709,845 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the
>> >Wardrobe (2005)
>> >289,994,397 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
>> >234,280,354 War of the Worlds (2005)
>> >218,051,260 King Kong (2005)
>> >209,218,368 Wedding Crashers (2005)
>> >206,456,431 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
>> >205,343,774 Batman Begins (2005)
>> >193,136,719 Madagascar (2005)
>> >186,336,103 Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)
>>
>> Liberal and conservative are not political terms here. The movies (and
>> TV shows for that matter) that concern me are those that espouse an
>> (unfortunately fashionably) dark, cynical view of humanity. I don't
>> want to name names and then get "That's my favourite show/movie" type
>> posts. My general objection is that at one time in Hollywood there was
>> real choice. You could go and see "Public Enemy" or "It's A Wonderful
>> Life", "Brute Force" or "Keys of the Kingdom." Now this cynicism
>> pervades, maybe even more obviously on TV where the darkness is even
>> physical (CSI anyone?). You say "Or, as an alternative, you can rent
>> virtually *any* movie made prior to 1967. The ones from the 1950s may
>> be best." without apparently noticing that you're making my case for
>> me. Why indeed should I have to rent old movies to find something
>> positive and uncynical? Why has there been this shift away from a
>> hopeful view of humanity?
>
>Um, because back then people believed that the government was actually
>working for (or torward) thier best interests, and that this was a time
>of unbridled "America rules" which may or may not have been a good
>thing?

A US-centric observation and somewhat irrelevant in its politicism. I
doubt it's true anyway. Did Howard Fast and Dalton Trumbo believe the
government was working in their best interests in the early 50s?
There has always been cynicism and opposition, and a certain amount of
it is healthy. I'm talking about a widespread, endemic cynicism that
colours the popular view, eats away at faith and hope in the future
and leaves a grey pessimism that drags down even teenagers. Checked
the youth suicide figures lately?

>Look at the movies then: basically plays set on a stage where the guy
>who works harder/smarter/longer wins the girl/prize/promotion. The guy
>is invariably white (as is the girl). I think hat the 'problem' is that
>now Hollywood takes on more detailed (and realistic) subjects.

Eh? What movies are you talking about? Basically plays set on a stage?
I think I'd need examples.

>> It's no good making a list of popular movies
>> (half of which target children anyway) and asking which is liberal and
>> which conservative, as if everything could be neatly divided into
>> those halves. A movie has an effect. On the impressionable young it
>> often has a huge effect (I think we can all recall being deeply
>> stirred by a particularly movie in our youth. For me it was "Ben-Hur",
>> the kind of movie they literally don't make anymore--and there's a
>> message in itself). My concern is with the message today's movies sent
>> to young people, not individually but collectively and cumulatively. I
>> go down to my local video store and see 15/16 y.o youths stockpiling
>> DVDs from the Action/Horror sections that not so long ago would have
>> been seized by customs for explicit content. Are we to assume despite
>> what we read about out-of-control youth that none of this is having an
>> effect, that there's no link, that kids watch this stuff for
>> hours/days and just walk away unscathed?
>
>I would argue that the answer is "yes."

Then I would argue that we are worlds apart on this issue. Obviously
you also don't believe advertising has any affect, so I'd inform the
advertising industry ASAP that they're wasting their time. They can
also forget about product placements in movies....waste of money.

>I have children. It is my 'job' as a parent to discuss things with
>them, including movies. Abdicating parenting roles to Hollywood is a
>cheap cop-out.

Abdicating parental roles to Hollywood is exactly what I DON'T want to
happen but what too often does. Dear God....

>> I don't believe it, and what
>> I see on the streets and in the high schools these days confirms
>> otherwise.( I had a teacher tell me the other day that 80% of what
>> teachers do these days is behaviour modification/control, which leaves
>> 20% for education).
>
>And the parents are where?

Good question. I hate to think. Abdicating their parental role down at
the local watering hole perhaps?

>> And hey, here's a thought. If my concern in ungrounded, but I act on
>> it anyway, where the harm? But if my concern is well grounded but I
>> fail to act on it, well...see the point?
>
>That's the same argument that someone (Descartes?) proposed to 'prove'
>that god exists. "if god doesn't exist, where's the harm in acting as
>though he does? But if he does, then it's safer to behave that way."
>Someone here can point out who said that, as it's well-known.

And your logical objection to it is what?

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > That's the same argument that someone (Descartes?) proposed to 'prove'
> > that god exists. "if god doesn't exist, where's the harm in acting as
> > though he does? But if he does, then it's safer to behave that way."
> > Someone here can point out who said that, as it's well-known.

> That's Pascal's Wager.

Luckily for Pascal's veracity, he lived before the science of statistics
was developed.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message


I don't see the culture wars in those
> (siege mentality) terms at all. To me they're a battle
> for the hearts and minds of the rising geneneration,
> whether they're to receive the message that man is
> basically a spiritual being with unlimited possibility
> and the universe before him, or an evolved animal with no
> particular reason to adhere to any moral or ethical codes
> other than the dictates of conscience; whether he's to
> see the world as a place of light and hope or darkness
> and cynicism; whether order and respect or chaos and
> violence are to reign supreme in our brave new millenium.

Such an example of Paul's confinement to the world of the excluded middle!

Needless to say, there are many other orthogonal views.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message


> In article
> . com>,
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote:
>
>> That's the same argument that someone (Descartes?)
>> proposed to 'prove' that god exists. "if god doesn't
>> exist, where's the harm in acting as though he does? But
>> if he does, then it's safer to behave that way." Someone
>> here can point out who said that, as it's well-known.
>
> That's Pascal's Wager.

Actually, it is a comic book version of Pascal's Wager. The real thing had
2 other parts and was obviously not intended to prove that God exists.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >I'd actrually prefer my children to be raised with a "don't believe
> >everything you see" mentality.

> It's not a question of belief. Belief is a conscious intellectual
> activity. It's a question of impressions and emotional responses
> which take place at an irrational level and are not shaken off by
> later rationalisation or "little talks" with Dad.

You've been dragged to a few too many sermons at church, methinks.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

RibbetBorg is not a journeyborg in the "debating trade" just yet.

> >> >How many people *need* a gun?

> >> How many people *need* a stereo system? :-)

> >How many stereo systems are considered lethal weapons?

> What does that have to do with it?

duh!

> A brick can be a lethal weapon. Do we ban bricks?

I think we should start banning morons from Usenet. Is there a second?





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Ruud Broens]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
:
:
: "George M. Middius" wrote:
:
: > paul packer said:
: >
: > > >I say the terrorist loons are *deprived* of images about the West,
: > > >either true-to-life or exaggerated. That's because they are brainwashed
: > > >in the madrasses to hate the West, especially America.
: >
: > > And if you were doing the brainwashing, wouldn't you simply delight in
: > > the amount of material Hollywood furnished you?
: >
: > No, definitely not. Why do you think 99% of people in countries with
: > repressive governments want to come to America?
:
: They do ?
:
: Graham
:
well, they mustafseen *that* movie :-)
R.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > In article
> > . com>,
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> That's the same argument that someone (Descartes?)
> >> proposed to 'prove' that god exists. "if god doesn't
> >> exist, where's the harm in acting as though he does? But
> >> if he does, then it's safer to behave that way." Someone
> >> here can point out who said that, as it's well-known.
> >
> > That's Pascal's Wager.
>
> Actually, it is a comic book version of Pascal's Wager. The real thing had
> 2 other parts and was obviously not intended to prove that God exists.

Correct. I've referred to it at length here on RAO.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > That's the same argument that someone (Descartes?) proposed to 'prove'
> > > that god exists. "if god doesn't exist, where's the harm in acting as
> > > though he does? But if he does, then it's safer to behave that way."
> > > Someone here can point out who said that, as it's well-known.
>
> > That's Pascal's Wager.
>
> Luckily for Pascal's veracity, he lived before the science of statistics
> was developed.

He was more of a gambling man.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > Luckily for Pascal's veracity, he lived before the science of statistics
> > was developed.

> He was more of a gambling man.

I wonder why Mr. Krooger doesn't post his reverence for Pascal on
religious-type newsgroups. After all, a cursory glance at the Wager (my
cursory glance, anyway) shows much common ground with Krooger's "debating
trade" shtick. Some examples....

1. Pondering the question of "God" can take up as much time as one has to
burn. Just as engaging in mindless rituals of obeisance and worship can.
We know that the Krooborg has invested hundred's of thousand's of hour's
in the latter, so why shouldn't he invest them in the former as well?

2. Pascal liked the science part of his vocation, but he also luuuved to
chatter on about "belief" and "believing". Same for Mr. Krooger. As we
know, Audio Scientism is full of blind faith and belief in the unproven.

3. The structure of the Wager hinges on a rhetorical device that is the
preeminent can of gunk in Krooger's "debating trade" toolkit -- namely,
the false dichotomy. Pascal framed his Wager so as to bypass the entire
question of what we mean by "God". Arnii Krooborg does the same thing in
many "debating trade" encounters. One example is when he "interprets"
people's words to mean not what was said but what Krooger wishes was said.



So why doesn't the Krooborg devote himself to recapitulating Pascal's
thoughts? If Krooger is capable of feeling kinship, I imagine it would be
with somebody who's simultaneously devoted to "science" and to a body of
beliefs in which real science is completely irrelevant. I would especially
like to hear from Lionel on this point, but I suspect his tolerance for
the Krooborg has been exceeded.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > In article
> > . com>,
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> That's the same argument that someone (Descartes?)
> >> proposed to 'prove' that god exists. "if god doesn't
> >> exist, where's the harm in acting as though he does? But
> >> if he does, then it's safer to behave that way." Someone
> >> here can point out who said that, as it's well-known.
> >
> > That's Pascal's Wager.
>
> Actually, it is a comic book version of Pascal's Wager. The real thing had
> 2 other parts and was obviously not intended to prove that God exists.

Gosh, Arny, I think the point that I was making (that the form of
argument was exactly the same) was made. If I was worried about it, I
suppose I could've looked it up and posted a reference to a detailed
discussion of it. I knew, however, that someone here would know what I
was talking about (hence, "Someone here can point out who said that, as
it's well-known.) (BTW, thanks, Steve.)

Do you disagree that the point was made, or do you want to pick more
nits? Or perhaps you wish to start a thread on how you *know* that your
god exists, including proof and evidence?

(I'm *so* embarrassed that my very detailed examination and logical
deconstruction of Pascal's Wager didn't pass muster...)

LOL!

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> (I'm *so* embarrassed that my very detailed examination and logical
> deconstruction of Pascal's Wager didn't pass muster...)

Arnii needed to "proove" that he knows all about Pascal's Wager. Your
failure to acknowledge Krooger's full and kompleat knowledge in your
original mention was a bare-faced challenge to his omniscience. You should
have expected to be corrected for your glaring omission.






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

paul packer wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2006 00:34:03 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
> >paul packer wrote:
> >> On 31 Oct 2006 14:03:45 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >> > wrote:

> >Um, because back then people believed that the government was actually
> >working for (or torward) thier best interests, and that this was a time
> >of unbridled "America rules" which may or may not have been a good
> >thing?
>
> A US-centric observation and somewhat irrelevant in its politicism. I
> doubt it's true anyway. Did Howard Fast and Dalton Trumbo believe the
> government was working in their best interests in the early 50s?

We are talking about movies here. The majority were what it appears
that you are arguing for: uplifting, strong family values, seperate
beds in the bedroom, if the actors were on a bed they had to have one
foot on the floor, no real violence, and so on.

Further, Hollywood is a US industry aimed primarily at a US market, so
why should a comment like that be considered 'US-centric'? Hollywood
*is* US-centric.

> There has always been cynicism and opposition, and a certain amount of
> it is healthy. I'm talking about a widespread, endemic cynicism that
> colours the popular view, eats away at faith and hope in the future
> and leaves a grey pessimism that drags down even teenagers. Checked
> the youth suicide figures lately?
>
> >Look at the movies then: basically plays set on a stage where the guy
> >who works harder/smarter/longer wins the girl/prize/promotion. The guy
> >is invariably white (as is the girl). I think hat the 'problem' is that
> >now Hollywood takes on more detailed (and realistic) subjects.
>
> Eh? What movies are you talking about? Basically plays set on a stage?
> I think I'd need examples.

Any Rock Hudson movie. You can almost imagine the curtain closing as
they switch out the office for the apartment.

> >> My concern is with the message today's movies sent
> >> to young people, not individually but collectively and cumulatively. I
> >> go down to my local video store and see 15/16 y.o youths stockpiling
> >> DVDs from the Action/Horror sections that not so long ago would have
> >> been seized by customs for explicit content. Are we to assume despite
> >> what we read about out-of-control youth that none of this is having an
> >> effect, that there's no link, that kids watch this stuff for
> >> hours/days and just walk away unscathed?
> >
> >I would argue that the answer is "yes."
>
> Then I would argue that we are worlds apart on this issue.

It would appear then, that I am more conservative on this issue than
you are.

> Obviously
> you also don't believe advertising has any affect, so I'd inform the
> advertising industry ASAP that they're wasting their time. They can
> also forget about product placements in movies....waste of money.

I disagree: I have whiter whites and more vibrant colors in my laundry
as a direct result of ads.

> >I have children. It is my 'job' as a parent to discuss things with
> >them, including movies. Abdicating parenting roles to Hollywood is a
> >cheap cop-out.
>
> Abdicating parental roles to Hollywood is exactly what I DON'T want to
> happen but what too often does. Dear God....

That is not Hollywood's problem, but a parenting and supervision
problem.


There is dark and violent everything: music, books, magazines, Internet
websites, yet you focus on Hollywood. Why?

> >And the parents are where?
>
> Good question. I hate to think. Abdicating their parental role down at
> the local watering hole perhaps?

People not supervising or raising their children is not something you
can alter in Hollywood.

> >> And hey, here's a thought. If my concern in ungrounded, but I act on
> >> it anyway, where the harm? But if my concern is well grounded but I
> >> fail to act on it, well...see the point?
> >
> >That's the same argument that someone (Descartes?) proposed to 'prove'
> >that god exists. "if god doesn't exist, where's the harm in acting as
> >though he does? But if he does, then it's safer to behave that way."
> >Someone here can point out who said that, as it's well-known.
>
> And your logical objection to it is what?

As applied to you? None. You do as you do. You raise your kids as you
see fit. You go to movies or read books or visit Internet sitres based
on whatever criteria you develop for you and your children.

As applied to me? I'll do the same.

Have you read _The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg_ by Mark Twain?

http://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk/the-man-that-corrupted-hadleyburg-and-other-stories/

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
>> > toopid, you've caught me in one very small mistake, which is the
>> > equivalent of a typo.
>>
>> That leap is a SMALL one? Damn, whats next? Tall buildings in a
>> single bound?
>
> toopid sinks his teeth into a very small mistake. Yes, toopid, very
> small.

Well, small for you perhaps.

ScottW

[paul packer]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:58:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>
>I don't see the culture wars in those
>> (siege mentality) terms at all. To me they're a battle
>> for the hearts and minds of the rising geneneration,
>> whether they're to receive the message that man is
>> basically a spiritual being with unlimited possibility
>> and the universe before him, or an evolved animal with no
>> particular reason to adhere to any moral or ethical codes
>> other than the dictates of conscience; whether he's to
>> see the world as a place of light and hope or darkness
>> and cynicism; whether order and respect or chaos and
>> violence are to reign supreme in our brave new millenium.
>
>Such an example of Paul's confinement to the world of the excluded middle!
>
>Needless to say, there are many other orthogonal views.

Arnie, why don't you stop using stupid repeat phrases and actually
state a meaningful opinion? I may not agree with George, or even see
the debate in the same terms, but he has at least stated where he's
coming from. You on the other hand just interject sniping and
meaningless noise. Why don't you tell us now what the culture wars
means to you from a personal POV, and what you hope for your own
family in terms of the future. That would be far more useful than yet
another "excluded middle" remark.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:46:45 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >I'd actrually prefer my children to be raised with a "don't believe
>> >everything you see" mentality.
>
>> It's not a question of belief. Belief is a conscious intellectual
>> activity. It's a question of impressions and emotional responses
>> which take place at an irrational level and are not shaken off by
>> later rationalisation or "little talks" with Dad.
>
>You've been dragged to a few too many sermons at church, methinks.

I never attend church, George. How many times!

[paul packer]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:44:21 +0000, Signal > wrote:

(paul packer) wrote:
>
>>>How dare you impose your values on others. I enjoy all the stuff
>>>above, which you apparently consider sub-standard.
>>
>>Says it all really.
>
>Your reply does cut to the heart of the matter. You are one of those
>people who thinks your own preferences are more valid than those of
>others. Nothing less than deluded thinking on your part, Paul.

Not a question of validity at all, but of influence. What I like or
what you like ultimately doesn't matter. What impinges on the hearts
and developing minds of the young is all that matters.

Incidentally, I don't advocate less choice but more. I want to see
more movies that offer an alternative to the pessimism and horror. I'm
not talking about banning anything; I'm talking about balance. Not
everything was sweetness and light even in the 30s/40s/50s; there were
plenty of dark and violent films, some of which I've named elsewhere.
But there were plenty of hopeful, inspiring films too: there was
choice. Today we have plenty of "Silence of the Lambs:", "Seven",
"Hollow Man" etc, but where's the counterbalance?

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:58:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> I don't see the culture wars in those
>>> (siege mentality) terms at all. To me they're a battle
>>> for the hearts and minds of the rising geneneration,
>>> whether they're to receive the message that man is
>>> basically a spiritual being with unlimited possibility
>>> and the universe before him, or an evolved animal with
>>> no particular reason to adhere to any moral or ethical
>>> codes other than the dictates of conscience; whether
>>> he's to see the world as a place of light and hope or
>>> darkness and cynicism; whether order and respect or
>>> chaos and violence are to reign supreme in our brave
>>> new millenium.
>>
>> Such an example of Paul's confinement to the world of
>> the excluded middle!
>>
>> Needless to say, there are many other orthogonal views.
>
> Arnie, why don't you stop using stupid repeat phrases and
> actually state a meaningful opinion?

Show us how it is done, Paul. I'm telling you that if the above is the best
you can do, you need to do some thinking and learning.

> I may not agree with
> George, or even see the debate in the same terms, but he
> has at least stated where he's coming from.

Who cares where *George* comes from? Actually we know that - George is a
pathetic, plastic invention of a very disturbed, useless mind.

> You on the other hand just interject sniping and meaningless noise.

Got your attention, didn't I? ;-)

> Why don't you tell us now what the culture wars means to
> you from a personal POV, and what you hope for your own
> family in terms of the future.

Not worth the trouble. It would be like trying to teach a kindergarten class
about the meaning of life.

> That would be far more useful than yet another "excluded middle" remark.

The shoe fits Paul, if you don't want to wear it, find a better one. Only
you can change you.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said to DebatingTradeBorg:

> >Such an example of Paul's confinement to the world of the excluded middle!

> Arnie, why don't you stop using stupid repeat phrases and actually
> state a meaningful opinion? I may not agree with George, or even see
> the debate in the same terms, but he has at least stated where he's
> coming from. You on the other hand just interject sniping and
> meaningless noise. Why don't you tell us now what the culture wars
> means to you from a personal POV, and what you hope for your own
> family in terms of the future. That would be far more useful than yet
> another "excluded middle" remark.

Your request would be reasonable if directed at a human being who is
endowed with a soul. However, you are talking to the Krooborg, which is a
mostly mechanized construct whose only purpose is to garner "debating
trade" points.

Unlike humans, the Krooborg does not know what right and wrong are. All it
understands is that "winning" means not admitting error. The post you
replied to shows the Krooborg jumping on an "error" it believes you made.
By pointing out this "error", the Krooborg believes it can "win" a point.

Humans have discussions and conversations for numerous soul-related
reasons that are, unfortunately, not within the Krooborg's capacity to
understand. Your request that the Krooborg state its own POV is
meaningless to the creature. Its most likely response will be: "Mr. Pakcer
proove I have a POV, Mr. Parker or admit you lied about it Mr. Pcakek."

Yesterday, the Krooborg actually stated that its trolling on Usenet is its
idea of "work". That tells us volumes about the Krooborg's ability to
relate to human beings in a discussion about cultural and moral values.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> It's not a question of belief. Belief is a conscious intellectual
> >> activity. It's a question of impressions and emotional responses
> >> which take place at an irrational level and are not shaken off by
> >> later rationalisation or "little talks" with Dad.

> >You've been dragged to a few too many sermons at church, methinks.

> I never attend church, George. How many times!

Then where did you get your idea that people are mush-brained puppets, if
not in church?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Fella]

George M. Middius wrote:
>However, you are talking to the Krooborg, which is a
> mostly mechanized construct whose only purpose is to garner "debating
> trade" points.
>

True. And it makes this "whoooooooshp tchkannaaaaaaaa, whoooooooshp
tchkannaaaaaaaa" sounds with each point earned. I think it opens
something inside it's guts and throws some flotsam and jetsom blub into
it, hence the mechanichal sounds "whoooooooshp tchkannaaaaaaaa" of that
receptacle opening and closing.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >
> >> > toopid, you've caught me in one very small mistake, which is the
> >> > equivalent of a typo.
> >>
> >> That leap is a SMALL one? Damn, whats next? Tall buildings in a
> >> single bound?
> >
> > toopid sinks his teeth into a very small mistake. Yes, toopid, very
> > small.
>
> Well, small for you perhaps.

As usual, you'd prefer to argue over semantics.

There's what you said, and apparently what you meant to say. What you
said implied causation. I was not the only one who took it so. The
other person who publicly took it so speaks English better than you, so
it's not imaginary. Specifically what causation you stated is
irrelevant. So yes, the mistake is minor and unimportant.

So tell me: how did you get to be so stupid? Were your parents below
average too, so that this could be genetic? Did you have some
catastrophic head injury? Was there some kind of emotional trauma? Or
do you just work really hard at it?

Moron.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > >> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > >
> > >> > toopid, you've caught me in one very small mistake, which is the
> > >> > equivalent of a typo.
> > >>
> > >> That leap is a SMALL one? Damn, whats next? Tall buildings in a
> > >> single bound?
> > >
> > > toopid sinks his teeth into a very small mistake. Yes, toopid, very
> > > small.
> >
> > Well, small for you perhaps.
>
> As usual, you'd prefer to argue over semantics.
>
> There's what you said, and apparently what you meant to say. What you
> said implied causation.

Implications are in the eyes of the beholder...and your eyes behold so
very many strange and nonexistant things.

> I was not the only one who took it so.


> The
> other person who publicly took it so speaks English better than you, so
> it's not imaginary. Specifically what causation you stated is
> irrelevant.

What causation I stated was just my opinion, an opinion similarly
expressed by others.
You don't think the quality of movies has an impact on theater
attendance?
I find that arguing against that quite odd, like arguing that grass
doesn't grow in dirt.


> So yes, the mistake is minor and unimportant.
>
> So tell me: how did you get to be so stupid? Were your parents below
> average too, so that this could be genetic? Did you have some
> catastrophic head injury? Was there some kind of emotional trauma? Or
> do you just work really hard at it?

Back to the mature approach I see.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > > >
> > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > >> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> > toopid, you've caught me in one very small mistake, which is the
> > > >> > equivalent of a typo.
> > > >>
> > > >> That leap is a SMALL one? Damn, whats next? Tall buildings in a
> > > >> single bound?
> > > >
> > > > toopid sinks his teeth into a very small mistake. Yes, toopid, very
> > > > small.
> > >
> > > Well, small for you perhaps.
> >
> > As usual, you'd prefer to argue over semantics.
> >
> > There's what you said, and apparently what you meant to say. What you
> > said implied causation.
>
> Implications are in the eyes of the beholder...and your eyes behold so
> very many strange and nonexistant things.

Apprently mine and others, toopid. Just like Kerry, you apprently said
something you didn't mean to. Interestingly, Kerry is a POS for doing
so (in your eyes), yet when you do the same thing, you expect a pass.
LOL!

Don't worry, toopid. I do not expect you to see the hypocrisy.

> > I was not the only one who took it so.

> > The
> > other person who publicly took it so speaks English better than you, so
> > it's not imaginary. Specifically what causation you stated is
> > irrelevant.

You blew right past that part. No surprise there.

> What causation I stated was just my opinion, an opinion similarly
> expressed by others.

We're back to the popularity approach. Do you ever think for yourself?

> You don't think the quality of movies has an impact on theater
> attendance?

While it may, it equally may not. Define 'quality.' What parameters are
you discussing?

Do you have something to back up your opinion, or should that be
'filed' with the rest of your (generally quite biased and usually
worthless) opinions?

> I find that arguing against that quite odd, like arguing that grass
> doesn't grow in dirt.

Goody for you. I think lower attendance is due to soggy popcorn. If you
disagree, I'd find it odd.

> > So yes, the mistake is minor and unimportant.
> >
> > So tell me: how did you get to be so stupid? Were your parents below
> > average too, so that this could be genetic? Did you have some
> > catastrophic head injury? Was there some kind of emotional trauma? Or
> > do you just work really hard at it?
>
> Back to the mature approach I see.

I'm simply trying to insure that your stupidity isn't just an act. I
have a hard time believing that people as dumb as you get around
without assistance.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > > ups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > >> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> > toopid, you've caught me in one very small mistake, which is the
> > > > >> > equivalent of a typo.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That leap is a SMALL one? Damn, whats next? Tall buildings in a
> > > > >> single bound?
> > > > >
> > > > > toopid sinks his teeth into a very small mistake. Yes, toopid, very
> > > > > small.
> > > >
> > > > Well, small for you perhaps.
> > >
> > > As usual, you'd prefer to argue over semantics.
> > >
> > > There's what you said, and apparently what you meant to say. What you
> > > said implied causation.
> >
> > Implications are in the eyes of the beholder...and your eyes behold so
> > very many strange and nonexistant things.
>
> Apprently mine and others, toopid.


> Just like Kerry, you apprently said
> something

If I said it...it wouldn't be an implication now would it.

>you didn't mean to. Interestingly, Kerry is a POS for doing
> so (in your eyes),

No, there's plenty of meaningful reasons to think Kerry is a POS.
He's just an arrogant jerk who couldn't admit a mistake in this case.

> yet when you do the same thing, you expect a pass.
> LOL!
>
> Don't worry, toopid. I do not expect you to see the hypocrisy.
>
> > > I was not the only one who took it so.
>
> > > The
> > > other person who publicly took it so speaks English better than you, so
> > > it's not imaginary. Specifically what causation you stated is
> > > irrelevant.
>
> You blew right past that part. No surprise there.

The probability of me blowing right past something you write is
exceeding 90% these days.

>
> > What causation I stated was just my opinion, an opinion similarly
> > expressed by others.
>
> We're back to the popularity approach. Do you ever think for yourself?

Oh the irony....

>
> > You don't think the quality of movies has an impact on theater
> > attendance?
>
> While it may, it equally may not. Define 'quality.' What parameters are
> you discussing?

Here we go...what is dirt upon which grass may grow?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > > > ups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > > > >> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > toopid, you've caught me in one very small mistake, which is the
> > > > > >> > equivalent of a typo.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> That leap is a SMALL one? Damn, whats next? Tall buildings in a
> > > > > >> single bound?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > toopid sinks his teeth into a very small mistake. Yes, toopid, very
> > > > > > small.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, small for you perhaps.
> > > >
> > > > As usual, you'd prefer to argue over semantics.
> > > >
> > > > There's what you said, and apparently what you meant to say. What you
> > > > said implied causation.
> > >
> > > Implications are in the eyes of the beholder...and your eyes behold so
> > > very many strange and nonexistant things.
> >
> > Apprently mine and others, toopid.
>
>
> > Just like Kerry, you apprently said
> > something
>
> If I said it...it wouldn't be an implication now would it.

You apparently agree, then, that bushie's polls are a result of his
child porn collection.

Do you disagree that how you say something imparts a meaning?

Moron.

> >you didn't mean to. Interestingly, Kerry is a POS for doing
> > so (in your eyes),
>
> No, there's plenty of meaningful reasons to think Kerry is a POS.
> He's just an arrogant jerk who couldn't admit a mistake in this case.

Sounds similar to someone here. Any guesses who, toopid?

> > yet when you do the same thing, you expect a pass.
> > LOL!
> >
> > Don't worry, toopid. I do not expect you to see the hypocrisy.
> >
> > > > I was not the only one who took it so.
> >
> > > > The
> > > > other person who publicly took it so speaks English better than you, so
> > > > it's not imaginary. Specifically what causation you stated is
> > > > irrelevant.
> >
> > You blew right past that part. No surprise there.
>
> The probability of me blowing right past something you write is
> exceeding 90% these days.

I'm all sad on the inside.

> > > What causation I stated was just my opinion, an opinion similarly
> > > expressed by others.
> >
> > We're back to the popularity approach. Do you ever think for yourself?
>
> Oh the irony....

Look up the word, toopid. No irony.

> > > You don't think the quality of movies has an impact on theater
> > > attendance?
> >
> > While it may, it equally may not. Define 'quality.' What parameters are
> > you discussing?
>
> Here we go...what is dirt upon which grass may grow?

You're making a claim. I'm asking you to back it up.

You seem more willing to discuss dirt than you are discussing your
claim, which you (apparently) think should be given a free ride because
you said it. Given your intelligence challenges, that's not a very sane
approach.

LOL!

Moron.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
> You apparently agree, then, that bushie's polls are a result of his
> child porn collection.
>


I'm gonna wait for your next prescription refill.
Till then, don't be depressed if your blowby hits 100%.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >
> > You apparently agree, then, that bushie's polls are a result of his
> > child porn collection.

> I'm gonna wait for your next prescription refill.
> Till then, don't be depressed if your blowby hits 100%.

toopid, I really don't care if you respond or not.

I'll just keep pointing out your stupidity either way.

Get over yourself, little man.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > >
> > > You apparently agree, then, that bushie's polls are a result of his
> > > child porn collection.
>
> > I'm gonna wait for your next prescription refill.
> > Till then, don't be depressed if your blowby hits 100%.
>
> toopid, I really don't care if you respond or not.

That figures.

>
> I'll just keep pointing out your stupidity either way.

Like a lunatic screaming at himself in the mirror.

>
> Get over yourself, little man.

Lol, right after you get over me.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You apparently agree, then, that bushie's polls are a result of his
> > > > child porn collection.
> >
> > > I'm gonna wait for your next prescription refill.
> > > Till then, don't be depressed if your blowby hits 100%.
> >
> > toopid, I really don't care if you respond or not.
>
> That figures.
>
> >
> > I'll just keep pointing out your stupidity either way.
>
> Like a lunatic screaming at himself in the mirror.

But you keep responding, toopid. Why not just stop? Then everybody can
see that I was wrong, and you're really not a moron or a bigot. You're
above all of that. LOL!

> > Get over yourself, little man.
>
> Lol, right after you get over me.

Why, if you were to quit posting stupid bigoted stuff, watch what might
happen, toopid!

As RAO's resident bigot and republican propaganda machine, I guess
you'll just have to suffer, girlfriend. Oh well.

Moron.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 08:50:38 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> It's not a question of belief. Belief is a conscious intellectual
>> >> activity. It's a question of impressions and emotional responses
>> >> which take place at an irrational level and are not shaken off by
>> >> later rationalisation or "little talks" with Dad.
>
>> >You've been dragged to a few too many sermons at church, methinks.
>
>> I never attend church, George. How many times!
>
>Then where did you get your idea that people are mush-brained puppets, if
>not in church?

Show me where I said that, George. What I was describing was the
process by which advertising is supposed to work, at that near
subliminal level where most of our biases and emotional responses are
formulated. Nothing to do with much-brained puppets---which
incidentally have nothing to do with church. Looks like you're right
off the mark all the way.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:20:00 +0000, Signal > wrote:

(paul packer) wrote:
>
>>>>>How dare you impose your values on others. I enjoy all the stuff
>>>>>above, which you apparently consider sub-standard.
>>>>
>>>>Says it all really.
>>>
>>>Your reply does cut to the heart of the matter. You are one of those
>>>people who thinks your own preferences are more valid than those of
>>>others. Nothing less than deluded thinking on your part, Paul.
>>
>>Not a question of validity at all, but of influence. What I like or
>>what you like ultimately doesn't matter. What impinges on the hearts
>>and developing minds of the young is all that matters.
>
>Remember back in the 50s when youngsters started listening to "Rock
>and Roll" (a euphemism for ****ing)? A barbaric and uncivilized form
>of "entertainment" which infected the minds of the young and weak,
>involving the pounding of animal hides, electrified musical
>"instruments", provocative and ungodly hip movements. A debasement of
>society you might say, signaling the end of the golden age and the
>beginning of a decay in civilization, which would finally reach its
>nadir in the early 21st century.

Gee, you agree with me. Nothing to discuss there then.

>>Incidentally, I don't advocate less choice but more. I want to see
>>more movies that offer an alternative to the pessimism and horror. I'm
>>not talking about banning anything; I'm talking about balance. Not
>>everything was sweetness and light even in the 30s/40s/50s; there were
>>plenty of dark and violent films, some of which I've named elsewhere.
>>But there were plenty of hopeful, inspiring films too: there was
>>choice. Today we have plenty of "Silence of the Lambs:", "Seven",
>>"Hollow Man" etc, but where's the counterbalance?
>
>Speaking of cynicism, are you familiar with the concept of cultural
>pessimism?

Cultural pessimism is only justified after cynicism has taken firm
hold.

Incidentally, stimulated by this discussion I was looking over
Hollywood V. America again and two phrases leapt off the page at me,
the first by Medved himself:

"Much of the popular culture may be worthless, but none of it is
devoid of impact. For better or worse, the values in every piece of
popular entertainment, no matter how mindless, will touch the
audience."

And the second from producer David Puttnam:

"Every single movie has within it an element of propaganda. You walk
away with either benign or malign propaganda."

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> >> It's not a question of belief. Belief is a conscious intellectual
> >> >> activity. It's a question of impressions and emotional responses
> >> >> which take place at an irrational level and are not shaken off by
> >> >> later rationalisation or "little talks" with Dad.

> >> >You've been dragged to a few too many sermons at church, methinks.

> >> I never attend church, George. How many times!

> >Then where did you get your idea that people are mush-brained puppets, if
> >not in church?

> Show me where I said that, George.

Chill, dude. Just askin'.

> What I was describing was the
> process by which advertising is supposed to work, at that near
> subliminal level where most of our biases and emotional responses are
> formulated. Nothing to do with much-brained puppets---which
> incidentally have nothing to do with church. Looks like you're right
> off the mark all the way.

It may not be religion, but it's your own personal irrational belief. I
know that some people can avoid making choices only on the basis of
fundamental "emotional responses". If you think nobody can, you're
dreaming. Or praying, as the case may be.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 08:15:11 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> >> It's not a question of belief. Belief is a conscious intellectual
>> >> >> activity. It's a question of impressions and emotional responses
>> >> >> which take place at an irrational level and are not shaken off by
>> >> >> later rationalisation or "little talks" with Dad.
>
>> >> >You've been dragged to a few too many sermons at church, methinks.
>
>> >> I never attend church, George. How many times!
>
>> >Then where did you get your idea that people are mush-brained puppets, if
>> >not in church?
>
>> Show me where I said that, George.
>
>Chill, dude.

Have you hired a teenage boy to write your posts, George? Or are you
regressing? ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
> RibbetBorg is not a journeyborg in the "debating trade" just yet.
>

>
> > A brick can be a lethal weapon. Do we ban bricks?
>
> I think we should start banning morons from Usenet. Is there a second?
>
>
Ther are "at least" eight of them.

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
> paul packer said:
>
> > >I'd actrually prefer my children to be raised with a "don't believe
> > >everything you see" mentality.
>
> > It's not a question of belief. Belief is a conscious intellectual
> > activity. It's a question of impressions and emotional responses
> > which take place at an irrational level and are not shaken off by
> > later rationalisation or "little talks" with Dad.
>
> You've been dragged to a few too many sermons at church, methinks.
>

Maybe you have gone to too few of them in drag.

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > Luckily for Pascal's veracity, he lived before the science of statistics
> > > was developed.
>
> > He was more of a gambling man.
>
> I wonder why Mr. Krooger doesn't post his reverence for Pascal on
> religious-type newsgroups. After all, a cursory glance at the Wager (my
> cursory glance, anyway) shows much common ground with Krooger's "debating
> trade" shtick. Some examples....
>
> 1. Pondering the question of "God" can take up as much time as one has to
> burn. Just as engaging in mindless rituals of obeisance and worship can.
> We know that the Krooborg has invested hundred's of thousand's of hour's
> in the latter, so why shouldn't he invest them in the former as well?
>
> 2. Pascal liked the science part of his vocation, but he also luuuved to
> chatter on about "belief" and "believing". Same for Mr. Krooger. As we
> know, Audio Scientism is full of blind faith and belief in the unproven.
>
> 3. The structure of the Wager hinges on a rhetorical device that is the
> preeminent can of gunk in Krooger's "debating trade" toolkit -- namely,
> the false dichotomy. Pascal framed his Wager so as to bypass the entire
> question of what we mean by "God". Arnii Krooborg does the same thing in
> many "debating trade" encounters. One example is when he "interprets"
> people's words to mean not what was said but what Krooger wishes was said.
>
>
>
> So why doesn't the Krooborg devote himself to recapitulating Pascal's
> thoughts? If Krooger is capable of feeling kinship, I imagine it would be
> with somebody who's simultaneously devoted to "science" and to a body of
> beliefs in which real science is completely irrelevant. I would especially
> like to hear from Lionel on this point, but I suspect his tolerance for
> the Krooborg has been exceeded.
>

"At least" PAscal didn't waste $20,000 on sound cards.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:

>
> Who cares where *George* comes from? Actually we know that - George is a
> pathetic, plastic invention of a very disturbed, useless mind.
>

....with whom you are compelled to endlessly argue.
You can't seem to get John Parcher to shut up.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Who cares where *George* comes from?

> ...with whom you are compelled to endlessly argue.
> You can't seem to get John Parcher to shut up.

Pity the Krooborg... At the age of 59, it still doesn't know the
difference between snottiness and outright hostility.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
oups.com
> George M. Middius a scris:
>> RibbetBorg is not a journeyborg in the "debating trade"
>> just yet.
>>
>
>>
>>> A brick can be a lethal weapon. Do we ban bricks?
>>
>> I think we should start banning morons from Usenet. Is
>> there a second?
>>
>>
> Ther are "at least" eight of them.

At least one of them can't spell worth a darn, and none of them have ever
thought a creative thought about audio.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > George M. Middius a scris:
> >> RibbetBorg is not a journeyborg in the "debating trade"
> >> just yet.
> >>
> >
> >>
> >>> A brick can be a lethal weapon. Do we ban bricks?
> >>
> >> I think we should start banning morons from Usenet. Is
> >> there a second?
> >>
> >>
> > Ther are "at least" eight of them.
>
> At least one of them can't spell worth a darn, and none of them have ever
> thought a creative thought about audio.

"At least" one of them wasted $20,000 on obsolete sound cards, spends
"at least"
8 hours a day on usenet, can't recognize the difference between a typo
and a spelling mistake, believes he has a Usenet "career, and has ****
for brains.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> "At least" one of them wasted $20,000 on obsolete sound cards, spends "at least"
> 8 hours a day on usenet, can't recognize the difference between a typo
> and a spelling mistake, believes he has a Usenet "career, and has **** for brains.

.... and has delusions about meeting up with dead people in "heaven" after
he croaks.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:43:58 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Clyde Slick said:
>
>> "At least" one of them wasted $20,000 on obsolete sound cards, spends "at least"
>> 8 hours a day on usenet, can't recognize the difference between a typo
>> and a spelling mistake, believes he has a Usenet "career, and has **** for brains.
>
>... and has delusions about meeting up with dead people in "heaven" after
>he croaks.


And you have superior intelligence on that subject, George?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >> "At least" one of them wasted $20,000 on obsolete sound cards, spends "at least"
> >> 8 hours a day on usenet, can't recognize the difference between a typo
> >> and a spelling mistake, believes he has a Usenet "career, and has **** for brains.

> >... and has delusions about meeting up with dead people in "heaven" after
> >he croaks.

> And you have superior intelligence on that subject, George?

Just common sense. Why believe one set of myths (christian ones) and
disbelieve all the other ones (50,000 other religions that various tribes
have invented)? Yours is no more or less full of crapola than any other,
paul.

Besides, since I'm feeling grandiloquent, no amount of praying or
worshipping imaginary "gods" will change the content of Hollywood
entertainment product.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

George M. Middius wrote:
> paul packer said:
>
> > >> "At least" one of them wasted $20,000 on obsolete sound cards, spends "at least"
> > >> 8 hours a day on usenet, can't recognize the difference between a typo
> > >> and a spelling mistake, believes he has a Usenet "career, and has **** for brains.
>
> > >... and has delusions about meeting up with dead people in "heaven" after
> > >he croaks.
>
> > And you have superior intelligence on that subject, George?
>
> Just common sense. Why believe one set of myths (christian ones) and
> disbelieve all the other ones (50,000 other religions that various tribes
> have invented)? Yours is no more or less full of crapola than any other,
> paul.
>
> Besides, since I'm feeling grandiloquent, no amount of praying or
> worshipping imaginary "gods" will change the content of Hollywood
> entertainment product.

Or get a POS like Arns into 'heaven.'

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message

> paul packer said:

>> And you have superior intelligence on that subject,
>> George?

George has superior knowlege about *everything*. That's why he hides behind
an alias, he doesn't want people to know the true identity of a person as
smart as he is.

> Just common sense. Why believe one set of myths
> (christian ones) and disbelieve all the other ones
> (50,000 other religions that various tribes have
> invented)?

I see no evidence at all that George or for that matter his good buddy ****R
has a reasonable understanding of Christian beliefs. I would hazard a guess
that George knows no more about Christianity than he knows about audio.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg tries to blunder into the realm of the metaphysical, but he
ends up, as usual, in the dimension of hyper-****tiness.

> > Just common sense. Why believe one set of myths
> > (christian ones) and disbelieve all the other ones
> > (50,000 other religions that various tribes have
> > invented)?

> I see no evidence at all that George or for that matter his good buddy ****R
> has a reasonable understanding of Christian beliefs. I would hazard a guess
> that George knows no more about Christianity than he knows about audio.

Well, let's reflect on this a bit.... Arnii Krooborg klaims to be a
"christian". [pause 2 seconds for reflection] OK, I've decided. Any
church that welcomes the Krooborg as a member is not worth saving.

That was too easy, Arnii. You really should try changing up your pitches.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I see no evidence at all that George or for that matter his good buddy ****R
> has a reasonable understanding of Christian beliefs. I would hazard a guess
> that George knows no more about Christianity than he knows about audio.

Oh goody. I've made it into the 'gratuitous attack' column with Arns.

I know enough about christian beliefs to know that you're not a very
good example of someone living them...

Or was christ a petty asshole like you?