On 18 Jan 2005 15:55:32 -0800, "WillStG" wrote:

What do you have against religious people that you'd participate in
smearing them on a false premise?

It's not a false premise that the religious right has an agenda of
censorship. It's a proven fact.

Al

In this situation, the graphic violence is relevant to the subject matter
but is the point of this movie to watch some chick get her genitalia hosed
down or to discuss the issue of a dirty bomb? What's so important about the
nudity other than it just being used as a means to bait a segment of the
population who don't particularly want their kids seeing it........like
traditional Christians, Jews Muslims and others and also radical
reactionary Christians, Jews, Muslims and other who might object to it..
These folks have rights too and if it's being broadcast on network TV, then
they should have a reasonable expectation of not having their kids exposed
to this.

HBO, etc. would be a different situation, IMO.

What's the point in the nudity? Is it' in itself important or even relevant?

DJ


"Glenn Dowdy" wrote in message
...

"WillStG" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jay Kadis wrote:

How about killing your TV? It's easy.

How about if guys like Geoff - or you - think your kids need to see
more nudity, you go rent them a video? Fact is there are lot of people
who are neither "Puritans" nor "religious fundamentalists" here in
America who simply think that nudity is inappropriate content for their
school age children.

Hey I have friends who are nudists, but they would never impose
that on the other children in their daughter's preschool class. Fact
is the predicate of this thread has very little to do with what
Christian Puritans are actually doing, but it has everything to do with
Geoff's desire to spread his anti-relgious bigotry.

What do you have against nudity that you'd rather kids watch graphic
violence than see naked people?

Glenn D.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:42:39 -0800, play on
wrote:

You can hardly blame them... the FCC could just about put them out of
business with some hefty fines. snip

That's the plan. The Bushies are just salivating for a chance to put
NPR/PBS out of business.

dB

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:59:34 -0500, "wulfye"
wrote:

And you dumb asses re-elected Bush who at the helm of this stupidness! snip

Hey! Don't blame me! Talk to the church nutters and corporate
assholes who DID vote for him!

dB

"WillStG" wrote in message
ups.com...



How about if guys like Geoff - or you - think your kids need to see
more nudity, you go rent them a video? Fact is there are lot of people
who are neither "Puritans" nor "religious fundamentalists" here in
America who simply think that nudity is inappropriate content for their
school age children.

Yeah well that will sure bring them up to be well-adjusted broad-minded
adults. Much better to have them watching violence, eh ?

Hey I have friends who are nudists, but they would never impose
that on the other children in their daughter's preschool class.

Do you not control what programs and times your kids watch TV ?

Fact is the predicate of this thread has very little to do with what
Christian Puritans are actually doing, but it has everything to do with
Geoff's desire to spread his anti-relgious bigotry.

I think that's almost a contradiction in terms.

geoff

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


OR bring them with you to volunteer at the annual Avalon nudist camp
folk festival. Some top notch bands (only some of them naked... trust
me you don't want to see the Limelighters without clothes) and one of the
better festival PA crews.

Drummers need to be careful with their hi-hats, I guess. Maybe there is a
TV reality series there.... "Nudist Musican Injuries You Would Not Have
Imagined"

geoff

"Animix" wrote in message
...
In this situation, the graphic violence is relevant to the subject matter
but is the point of this movie to watch some chick get her genitalia hosed
down or to discuss the issue of a dirty bomb?

The point was that her body was being hosed down. I don't think anybody but
the "up-tighers" were focussing on genitalia.

geoff

Animix wrote:
What's so important about the
nudity other than it just being used as a means to bait a segment of the
population who don't particularly want their kids seeing it........like
traditional Christians, Jews Muslims and others and also radical
reactionary Christians, Jews, Muslims and other who might object to it..
These folks have rights too....

They have the right to change the freaking channel! That doesn't give
them the right to censor it for the rest of us.

Kids don't even care about nudity - at least not until we succeed in
teaching them that there's something "naughty" about it.

Geoff Wood from the land of wrote:

Drummers need to be careful with their hi-hats, I guess. Maybe there is a
TV reality series there.... "Nudist Musican Injuries You Would Not Have
Imagined"

geoff

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this discussion, but can't help
myself.

This comment reminds me of a poster a friend of mine had. Imagine.....
a Spanish architectural courtyard, bright sunny day, over a hundred lovely
young women, standing there, totally without clothing....and all wearing...
accordians.

The caption: "Ladies of Pain."

carlos
(Get it? Ha. "Ladies of Spain." Ha. Ha.)

Carlos Alden wrote:

Imagine.....
a Spanish architectural courtyard, bright sunny day, over a hundred lovely
young women, standing there, totally without clothing....and all wearing...
accordians.

The caption: "Ladies of Pain."

You're a sick man, Carlos. g

--
ha

"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Animix wrote:
What's so important about the
nudity other than it just being used as a means to bait a segment of the
population who don't particularly want their kids seeing it........like
traditional Christians, Jews Muslims and others and also radical
reactionary Christians, Jews, Muslims and other who might object to it..
These folks have rights too....

They have the right to change the freaking channel! That doesn't give
them the right to censor it for the rest of us.

What is your fascination with this? Is having a naked female torso in the
movie a make-or-break part of the plot?.


Kids don't even care about nudity - at least not until we succeed in
teaching them that there's something "naughty" about it.

I agree, but unfortunately you and I don't know everything and we could be
wrong about this considering the fact that there are literally billions of
parents out there who don't want their kids exposed to nudity. I'm not quite
arrogant enough to attempt to impose my morality on them since they are the
majority so it's not about the kids, it's about the parents and if this was
on paid TV, I would agree. If it's on network TV, it's subject to a broader
audience and stricter broadcast standards (though I think it's sorta stupid
too.......I mean, network TV is about a crassand tasteless as anything I've
ever seen these days)

DJ

Animix wrote:
"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message
...

Animix wrote:

What's so important about the
nudity other than it just being used as a means to bait a segment of the
population who don't particularly want their kids seeing it........like
traditional Christians, Jews Muslims and others and also radical
reactionary Christians, Jews, Muslims and other who might object to it..
These folks have rights too....

They have the right to change the freaking channel! That doesn't give
them the right to censor it for the rest of us.

What is your fascination with this? Is having a naked female torso in the
movie a make-or-break part of the plot?.

Sometimes it is, and in this particular case I'm pretty sure that it is.
This is a serious BBC production, not some Hollywood movie.

But my "fascination" is with censorship - I just don't like having some
other group of people censoring the broadcasts that I choose to watch.

Kids don't even care about nudity - at least not until we succeed in
teaching them that there's something "naughty" about it.

I agree, but unfortunately you and I don't know everything and we could be
wrong about this considering the fact that there are literally billions of
parents out there who don't want their kids exposed to nudity. I'm not quite
arrogant enough to attempt to impose my morality on them....

Well they're certainly arrogant enough to impose their morality on you.

....if this was
on paid TV, I would agree. If it's on network TV, it's subject to a broader
audience and stricter broadcast standards....

You can change the channel just as easily on broadcast TV as you can on
cable. And if enough people change the channel, the broadcasters will
take note and adjust their content to meet the needs of the audience.

play_on wrote:
On 18 Jan 2005 15:55:32 -0800, "WillStG" wrote:

What do you have against religious people that you'd participate in
smearing them on a false premise?

It's not a false premise that the religious right has an agenda of
censorship. It's a proven fact.

Al

You know Al, I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself trying to follow
along.

The strawman/false premise I was specifically addressing was that
the the choice is between exposing children to violence, or exposing
them to nudity. I do not think either is apprpriate for young children,
and if you feel your own children need to see more nudity than you can
possibly provide, personally or with a cable TV pay per view, you CAN
always rent a video.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio / Fox News / M-AES
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

play_on wrote:
On 18 Jan 2005 15:55:32 -0800, "WillStG" wrote:

What do you have against religious people that you'd participate in
smearing them on a false premise?

It's not a false premise that the religious right has an agenda of
censorship. It's a proven fact.

Al

You know Al, I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself trying to follow
along.

The strawman/false premise I was specifically addressing was that
the the choice is between exposing children to violence, or exposing
them to nudity. I do not think either is appropriate for young
children, and if you feel your own children need to see more nudity
than you can possibly provide, personally or with a cable TV pay per
view, you CAN always rent a video.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio / Fox News / M-AES
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:04:43 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
wrote:


"Animix" wrote in message
...
In this situation, the graphic violence is relevant to the subject matter
but is the point of this movie to watch some chick get her genitalia hosed
down or to discuss the issue of a dirty bomb?

The point was that her body was being hosed down. I don't think anybody but
the "up-tighers" were focussing on genitalia.

geoff


The message seems to be:

human body = bad or shameful

violence = acceptable

Al

On 19 Jan 2005 09:52:56 -0800, "WillStG" wrote:


play_on wrote:
On 18 Jan 2005 15:55:32 -0800, "WillStG" wrote:

What do you have against religious people that you'd participate in
smearing them on a false premise?

It's not a false premise that the religious right has an agenda of
censorship. It's a proven fact.

Al

You know Al, I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself trying to follow
along.

The strawman/false premise I was specifically addressing was that
the the choice is between exposing children to violence, or exposing
them to nudity.

I didn't say that. I guess you didn't notice.

Al

play_on wrote:
I didn't say that. I guess you didn't notice.

I didn't say you did, again try to follow along. If you are going
to try to be clever by butting into other people's conversations it
will keep you from looking dumb.

To wit, I said

WillStG Fact is there are lot of people
who are neither "Puritans" nor "religious fundamentalists" here in
America who simply think that nudity is inappropriate content for their
school age children.

So Glenn Dowdy asked me

Glenn Dowdy wrote:
What do you have against nudity that you'd rather kids watch graphic
violence than see naked people?

And I replied

WillStG I said nothing whatsoever about your violence on TV
(strawman), and
I certainly do not let my 5 year old watch that either.

What do you have against religious people that you'd participate in
smearing them on a false premise? And for views that are actually
broader held and pretty representative of the American electorate?

And so *YOU* butted in with

play_on wrote: It's not a false premise that the religious right has
an agenda of censorship. It's a proven fact.

- thus again demonstrating your typical cognitive dissonance, as I
had just knocked down both strawman claims, first the claim that only
religious puritans consider nudity imappropriate content for school age
children, and second that the choice is if not nudity then violence.

Stoned as usual, perhaps?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio / Fox News / M-AES
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

there should be NO restriction on sex or violence on TV
there should be NO censorship

the only thing that hurts the children is being prevented from
understanding the world
they grow up into Adults that can not handle a naked breast on a statue
or will not face up to the horrors of the violence we inflict when we go
to war
george

Hmmmm.........yes. That's pretty much the message and has been for a long
time hasn't it? I wonder why that is. I have a feeling that it's primordial
on some level and borne of ancient experience on another. The primordial
thing is pretty obvious and we have that survival instinct in common with
every other organism (well, expept lemmings on occasion). Most of our
Judeo/Christian and Muslim belief systems emanated from hard lessons learned
about survival in unforgiving environments .............ie, the desert, in a
time when it was populated by humans and other organisms who were in
competition for it's meagre resources and when preventive medicine and
behaviour was really the only effective means to keep from either beng
killed by your human competitors or by animal and microbial competitors.

Is this still relavent to today's world? Well lots of people think so, the
religious right sees sexual permissiveness as being equivalent to the onset
of the decadence moral decay that was the precursor to the story of Sodom
and Gomorrah, the fall of the Roman Empire, etc. Though AIDs wasn't actually
*caused* by sezual permissiveness, it certainly can be spread by it.

If you look at civilizations like ours that are becoming more and more
permissive, they have historically become so corrupt and complacent that
they are conquered by the barbarian hoardes who are much more ruthless in
their thinking.

I'd say that the Islamofacists certainly quality under the name of
*barbarian hoards* in that their agenda is to convert everyone to their way
of thinking or kill them. It's a familiar story, eh?

Myself.......I'm gonna go build a teepee in the wilderness, dress myself in
goat skins and cable my studio with hemp twine and coconut shells and get
back to nature so that when the barbarian hoards show up, I won't have a
****in' thing they would ever want anyway.

:O)





"play_on" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:04:43 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
wrote:


"Animix" wrote in message
...
In this situation, the graphic violence is relevant to the subject
matter
but is the point of this movie to watch some chick get her genitalia
hosed
down or to discuss the issue of a dirty bomb?

The point was that her body was being hosed down. I don't think anybody
but
the "up-tighers" were focussing on genitalia.

geoff


The message seems to be:

human body = bad or shameful

violence = acceptable

Al

Animix wrote:

Is this still relavent to today's world? Well lots of people think so, the
religious right sees sexual permissiveness as being equivalent to the onset
of the decadence moral decay that was the precursor to the story of Sodom
and Gomorrah, the fall of the Roman Empire, etc.....

"play_on" wrote in message
...


The message seems to be:

human body = bad or shameful

violence = acceptable

Interesting to note that while Al was talking about the display of the
human body, you responded with a discussion of sexuality. They are not
at all the same thing, and in the specific case being discussed are not
even related. This is a pervasive problem - our culture can't seem to
let go of the notion that a naked body is somehow inherently sexual.

It's too bad - this false connection is the cause of a lot of problems.
It's certainly caused some HUGE problems in many Muslim nations, where
they've gone so far as to require every inch of a woman's skin to be
covered. We're not quite that uptight, but we certainly still have some
serious hangups about skin.

On 19 Jan 2005 12:12:03 -0800, "WillStG" wrote:


play_on wrote:
I didn't say that. I guess you didn't notice.

I didn't say you did, again try to follow along.

I meant, I didn't see anyone saying this.

Stoned as usual, perhaps?

Insults as usual? Definitely.

Al

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:52:35 -0700, "Animix"
wrote:


The message seems to be:

human body = bad or shameful

violence = acceptable

Al

Hmmmm.........yes. That's pretty much the message and has been for a long
time hasn't it?

Sorry, but you are dead wrong. These attitudes are by no means a
natural state of affairs. Take a class in anthropology, or maybe read
a book on the subject sometime. It might spare us having to read your
ignorant missives if you would become more well-informed.

Al

Jim Gilliland wrote:
Animix wrote:


Is this still relavent to today's world? Well lots of people think so,
the
religious right sees sexual permissiveness as being equivalent to the
onset
of the decadence moral decay that was the precursor to the story of Sodom
and Gomorrah, the fall of the Roman Empire, etc.....

"play_on" wrote in message
...


The message seems to be:

human body = bad or shameful

violence = acceptable


Interesting to note that while Al was talking about the display of the
human body, you responded with a discussion of sexuality. They are not
at all the same thing, and in the specific case being discussed are not
even related. This is a pervasive problem - our culture can't seem to
let go of the notion that a naked body is somehow inherently sexual.

It's too bad - this false connection is the cause of a lot of problems.
It's certainly caused some HUGE problems in many Muslim nations, where
they've gone so far as to require every inch of a woman's skin to be
covered. We're not quite that uptight, but we certainly still have some
serious hangups about skin.

I was going to say something like this as well! In fact, treating the
human body as something taboo causes more problems than when it is
treated as something natural and normal. And certainly there are *many*
naked bodies that do not cause a sexual reaction at all.

"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Animix wrote:

Is this still relavent to today's world? Well lots of people think so,
the
religious right sees sexual permissiveness as being equivalent to the
onset
of the decadence moral decay that was the precursor to the story of
Sodom
and Gomorrah, the fall of the Roman Empire, etc.....

"play_on" wrote in message
...


The message seems to be:

human body = bad or shameful

violence = acceptable

Interesting to note that while Al was talking about the display of the
human body, you responded with a discussion of sexuality.

I agree with you. the reason I I responded with a discussion fo sexuality is
precicely because that is how it is seen by those to whom it is offensive.

They are not
at all the same thing, and in the specific case being discussed are not
even related.

Again, I agree.

This is a pervasive problem - our culture can't seem to
let go of the notion that a naked body is somehow inherently sexual.

Part of the body is sexual and it isn't often acceptable social behaviour
for it to be on display. When you look at a naked female, the *idea* of sex
does not cross your mind? You would be a rarity in this world if you are a
man. I'm not saying that you would want to necessarily *have sexual
relations* with said body and
I'm not saying that it is purient.

It's too bad - this false connection is the cause of a lot of problems.

I agree.

It's certainly caused some HUGE problems in many Muslim nations, where
they've gone so far as to require every inch of a woman's skin to be
covered. We're not quite that uptight, but we certainly still have some
serious hangups about skin.

Again, I personally agree with you. Where we differ is that this is no big
deal to me and I don't get so hung up with *what others should think* that
it keeps me awake at night. I guess I'm getting old, but I've spent my time
on nude beaches and used to even lived at a nude apartment complex in Austin
back in the 70's. It was no big deal until the pervs and flashers started
moving in, then they shut the place down.

This agrument is such a yawner. I think that there has been an acceptable
compromise reached on this as the article said that an unedited version is
available on HBO. If I feel like the nude torso is so important that I have
to see it, I'll watch HBO while the people who have children who might
benefit from the *message* of this movie can watch the edited version. After
all, it's PBS if it's taxpasyer money paying for it, then the taxpayers who
don't want their $$$ used to promote *the torso* have rights too.

DJ

Animix wrote:


When you look at a naked female, the *idea* of sex does not cross
your mind? You would be a rarity in this world if you are a man.

Actually it really depends.

When I see a great looking female, she doesn't have to be naked for sex
to be crossing my mind. In fact, many times I find it less so for
many woman naked (or near so like in the people mag photos, tabloids,
etc). Many times their naked bodies are disappointing. A little mystery
is usually more sexy.

"Joe Sensor" wrote in message
...
Animix wrote:


When you look at a naked female, the *idea* of sex does not cross
your mind? You would be a rarity in this world if you are a man.

Actually it really depends.

When I see a great looking female, she doesn't have to be naked for sex
to be crossing my mind. In fact, many times I find it less so for
many woman naked (or near so like in the people mag photos, tabloids,
etc). Many times their naked bodies are disappointing. A little mystery
is usually more sexy.

I'm with you there too. That's why God invented Fredericks of Hollywood.

;O)

"play_on" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:52:35 -0700, "Animix"
wrote:


The message seems to be:

human body = bad or shameful

violence = acceptable

Al

Hmmmm.........yes. That's pretty much the message and has been for a long
time hasn't it?

Sorry, but you are dead wrong. These attitudes are by no means a
natural state of affairs. Take a class in anthropology, or maybe read
a book on the subject sometime. It might spare us having to read your
ignorant missives if you would become more well-informed.

Al

Kiss my ass Al. You just can't stand to have your own **** thrown in your
face can you? If you think you can sit around and smugly pontificate without
being challenged, your're delusional. It has benn going on for a long time
amigo if you chart the course of recorded human civilization..........or
have you ever studied it at all? I doubt it. You may have read it, deduced
that you didn't like it and then lapsed into Al's little fantasy world where
nothing exists but Alworld, but I've got news for you..........it's just
Alworld......not reality.

"Animix" wrote in message
...

"play_on" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:52:35 -0700, "Animix"
wrote:


The message seems to be:

human body = bad or shameful

violence = acceptable

Al

Hmmmm.........yes. That's pretty much the message and has been for a
long
time hasn't it?

Sorry, but you are dead wrong. These attitudes are by no means a
natural state of affairs. Take a class in anthropology, or maybe read
a book on the subject sometime. It might spare us having to read your
ignorant missives if you would become more well-informed.

Al

Kiss my ass Al. You just can't stand to have your own **** thrown in your
face can you? If you think you can sit around and smugly pontificate
without
being challenged, your're delusional. It has benn going on for a long time
amigo if you chart the course of recorded human civilization..........or
have you ever studied it at all? I doubt it. You may have read it, deduced
that you didn't like it and then lapsed into Al's little fantasy world
where
nothing exists but Alworld, but I've got news for you..........it's just
Alworld......not reality.

I have a solution to all this... just cut PBS funding entirely. Bam. Done.
They're now allowed to sell advertising just like any commercial station
does, not just underwriting mentions/sponsorhips anymore, so screw 'em. If
they survive on that, then it's free market economics working at it's best;
if they go under, then those same exact programs will show up on A&E & the
like, now that there are other venues for it... we no longer need to fund it
with taxes, IMO.

Neil Henderson

play_on wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:52:35 -0700, "Animix"
wrote:


The message seems to be:

human body = bad or shameful

violence = acceptable

Al

Hmmmm.........yes. That's pretty much the message and has been for a
long
time hasn't it?

Sorry, but you are dead wrong. These attitudes are by no means a
natural state of affairs. Take a class in anthropology, or maybe
read
a book on the subject sometime. It might spare us having to read
your
ignorant missives if you would become more well-informed.

Al


Better yet take a look at the violence and murder rates in countries
that have more sex and less violence on TV. It's pretty simple stuff.
What gets thrown in your face again and again becomes socially
aceptable.In the USA; War movies and cop shows good, Janet Jackson's
plastic tit Bad.

Then again parts of Utah basically have the same beliefs as the
Taliban, but who wants to hear about them.

Animix wrote:

Part of the body is sexual and it isn't often acceptable social behaviour
for it to be on display. When you look at a naked female, the *idea* of sex
does not cross your mind? You would be a rarity in this world if you are a
man..... I guess I'm getting old, but I've spent my time
on nude beaches and used to even lived at a nude apartment complex in Austin
back in the 70's.

I can have a sexual response to a woman regardless of what she is or is
not wearing. And if you've been to a nude beach, you are no doubt
already aware of how quickly the sexual response goes away when you are
surrounded by social nudity. The reason we respond so strongly to
nudity is much more cultural than inate - as you say, it has to do with
acceptable _social_ behavior. In any event, it doesn't sound like we've
got much to disagree about.

From: "Animix"

(well, expept lemmings on occasion)

snopes.com:

Disney's White Wilderness was filmed in Alberta, Canada, which is not a native
habitat for lemmings and has no outlet to the sea. Lemmings were imported for
use in the film, purchased from Inuit children by the filmmakers. The Arctic
rodents were placed on a snow-covered turntable and filmed from various angles
to produce a "migration" sequence; afterwards, the helpless creatures were
transported to a cliff overlooking a river and herded into the water. White
Wilderness does not depict an actual lemming migration €” at no time are more
than a few dozen lemmings ever shown on the screen at once. The entire sequence
was faked using a handful of lemmings deceptively photographed to create the
illusion of a large herd of migrating creatures.

I have a solution to all this... just cut PBS funding entirely. Bam. Done.
They're now allowed to sell advertising just like any commercial station
does, not just underwriting mentions/sponsorhips anymore, so screw 'em. If
they survive on that, then it's free market economics working at it's
best; if they go under, then those same exact programs will show up on A&E
& the like, now that there are other venues for it... we no longer need to
fund it with taxes, IMO.


There are damn few "free markets" in America, Adam Smith breath, and least
of all the public airwaves. Based upon the phenomenal growth of the Al
Foxera Network, we can conclude that grocery store tabloid journalism
thrives as well on TV.



Being profitable does not provide proof of merit. The illicit drug trade is
highly profitable and one of the few enterprises that still operates under
true "free market" forces. There is unlimited profit potential and real
risk in peddling dope.



Without PBS, where are un-parented children going to get positive messages,
real learning opportunities, and a chance to be exposed to social mores?
Where are we going to get quality programming without being exposed to
sexual and bodily dysfunction ads, or ads for prescriptions drugs that need
a doctor's approval? How about those who contribute so much to our society
but cannot afford cable TV because they are doing well to pay the rent and
light bill? You don't get A&E through local stations. Are they to be
deprived of a little enlightenment too?



No, I like America the way it is and hope that it continues to improve the
lives of ALL of its citizens.

Animix wrote:

but I've got news for you...

You have news for no one. Get used to it.

--
ha

Neil Henderson wrote:

I have a solution to all this... just cut PBS funding entirely. Bam. Done.
They're now allowed to sell advertising just like any commercial station
does, not just underwriting mentions/sponsorhips anymore, so screw 'em. If
they survive on that, then it's free market economics working at it's best;
if they go under, then those same exact programs will show up on A&E & the
like, now that there are other venues for it... we no longer need to fund it
with taxes, IMO.

The only free markets in the US are underground and generally illegal;
otherwise, the government's hand is in everything, and the black markets
are made by governemtn, too.

You want a free market? Let's tax fuel enough to pay for highways.
Rhetoric will pave nothing but minds.

--
ha

Yes, you're right. What I said *shouldn't* be news to anyone. Unfortunately
for some, it is.


"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
Animix wrote:

but I've got news for you...

You have news for no one. Get used to it.

--
ha

"Rupert" wrote in message news:iNWdnU3-

Without PBS, where are un-parented children going to get positive
messages, real learning opportunities, and a chance to be exposed to
social mores?

I would image the types of people accustomed to watching PBS tend to be th
well-adjusted type who would tend to not be unduly fazed by an in-context
piece on 'natural reality' in a drama.

geoff

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Neil Henderson wrote:

I have a solution to all this... just cut PBS funding entirely. Bam.
Done.
They're now allowed to sell advertising just like any commercial station
does, not just underwriting mentions/sponsorhips anymore, so screw 'em.
If
they survive on that, then it's free market economics working at it's
best;
if they go under, then those same exact programs will show up on A&E &
the
like, now that there are other venues for it... we no longer need to fund
it
with taxes, IMO.

The only free markets in the US are underground and generally illegal;
otherwise, the government's hand is in everything, and the black markets
are made by governemtn, too.


It's quite amusing to see you government make astute comments about how
corrupt (for example) Indonesia is. In reality it suits the US Government
( or should I say the corporations who run it) very well, who profit greatly
by taking advantage of that corruption.


geoff

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:22:32 -0700, "Animix"
wrote:


"play_on" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:52:35 -0700, "Animix"
wrote:


The message seems to be:

human body = bad or shameful

violence = acceptable

Al

Hmmmm.........yes. That's pretty much the message and has been for a long
time hasn't it?

Sorry, but you are dead wrong. These attitudes are by no means a
natural state of affairs. Take a class in anthropology, or maybe read
a book on the subject sometime. It might spare us having to read your
ignorant missives if you would become more well-informed.

Al

Kiss my ass Al. You just can't stand to have your own **** thrown in your
face can you?

I think it's more like, you can't really debate from an informed
position, can you? Struck a nerve I guess...

If you think you can sit around and smugly pontificate without
being challenged, your're delusional. It has benn going on for a long time
amigo if you chart the course of recorded human civilization..........

There have been many many cultures that did not consider nudity, sex,
or the human body shameful. The attachment of shame and "sin" to what
is only natural is a result of imposed Christian and Muslim
"morality".

Look it up why don't you. If you don't like being called ignorant,
then educate yourself so that you can have something to talk about
other than your poorly-informed opinions.

Al

Troll

Animix wrote:

Hmmmm.........yes. That's pretty much the message and has been for a long
time hasn't it? I wonder why that is. I have a feeling that it's primordial
on some level and borne of ancient experience on another. The primordial
thing is pretty obvious and we have that survival instinct in common with
every other organism (well, expept lemmings on occasion). Most of our
Judeo/Christian and Muslim belief systems emanated from hard lessons learned
about survival in unforgiving environments .............ie, the desert, in a
time when it was populated by humans and other organisms who were in
competition for it's meagre resources and when preventive medicine and
behaviour was really the only effective means to keep from either beng
killed by your human competitors or by animal and microbial competitors.

Is this still relavent to today's world? Well lots of people think so, the
religious right sees sexual permissiveness as being equivalent to the onset
of the decadence moral decay that was the precursor to the story of Sodom
and Gomorrah, the fall of the Roman Empire, etc. Though AIDs wasn't actually
*caused* by sezual permissiveness, it certainly can be spread by it.

If you look at civilizations like ours that are becoming more and more
permissive, they have historically become so corrupt and complacent that
they are conquered by the barbarian hoardes who are much more ruthless in
their thinking.

I'd say that the Islamofacists certainly quality under the name of
*barbarian hoards* in that their agenda is to convert everyone to their way
of thinking or kill them. It's a familiar story, eh?

Myself.......I'm gonna go build a teepee in the wilderness, dress myself in
goat skins and cable my studio with hemp twine and coconut shells and get
back to nature so that when the barbarian hoards show up, I won't have a
****in' thing they would ever want anyway.

:O)

"play_on" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:04:43 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
wrote:


"Animix" wrote in message
...
In this situation, the graphic violence is relevant to the subject
matter
but is the point of this movie to watch some chick get her genitalia
hosed
down or to discuss the issue of a dirty bomb?

The point was that her body was being hosed down. I don't think anybody
but
the "up-tighers" were focussing on genitalia.

geoff


The message seems to be:

human body = bad or shameful

violence = acceptable

Al

Animix wrote:

Part of the body is sexual and it isn't often acceptable social behaviour
for it to be on display. When you look at a naked female, the *idea* of sex
does not cross your mind? You would be a rarity in this world if you are a
man. I'm not saying that you would want to necessarily *have sexual
relations* with said body and

You haven't spent much time with groups of naked people have
you? You very quickly come to the realization that it is
the covering used properly which creates prurient interest.
Where it is optional I'd bet that, after any considerable
period of time, you would end up looking more at those who
were "revealingly" clad than those who were naked.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein