On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:26:10 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 06 Feb 2004 03:17:13 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:


In article , Robert Casey
writes:


:-)

I think the call WH0RE fits her better.


An article in today's Toronto Star, which covers our amusement with
the Janet Jackson issue pretty well! Double standards abound......

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1076022610517

Here is my take on the whole thing, Leo. Ms Jackson is free to expose
herself under appropriate circumstances. If she wants to do a dance
routine and have Justin Timberlake tear off part of her outfit. That is
also okay - tho she might want to use a less weird presentation.

There are appropriate television venues for that, such as HBO, Cinemax,
etc. Late night TV kind of stuff.

But not on the super bowl halftime show. Not on Teletubbies or Barney
or Blues Clues or fishing shows. Those just aren't the places for that
sort of thing. Even my favorite, the History channel, has some shows
that deal with sex and show nudity. They put them on late at night when
the kids are in bed, and any viewing is strictly voluntary. No one harmed.

For some reason, some people don't want to watch simulated kinky sex
while their kids are watching the same.

Everything in it's time and place, and the superbowl isn't the time or
place IMO.

The NFL has been trying to pander to a different audience the last few
years. I remember when a sb halftime show was put on by "Up With
People", of all things. Now it's simulated intercourse and exposed body
parts. yawn.

I hope they realize that the "edgy" stuff was a miserable failure for
the XFL.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Actually, Mike, I don't disagree with you at all - what she did was
quite inappropriate for the venue. But it ain't really that big a
deal....

Read the article that I referenced, if you have time - it presents an
interesting perspective on what tends to constitute "obscenity". Sex
bad, violence good - you know. And, as always, Jack Nicholson's
comment is priceless

Example - I watched a bit of "Full Metal Jacket" on TBS a while back.
While all of the profanity and sexual references had been 'sanitized',
most of the gore and violence remained (it was funny, though, to see
Sgt. Hartman saying "Darn" and "Heck" and such, even though his lips
clearly had other intentions...).

Where did society get the mistaken impression that sex is bad, but
violence is OK? Is that really what we want to teach our children?

Not me!

73, Leo

Leo wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:26:10 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Leo wrote:

On 06 Feb 2004 03:17:13 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:



In article , Robert Casey
writes:



:-)

I think the call WH0RE fits her better.


An article in today's Toronto Star, which covers our amusement with
the Janet Jackson issue pretty well! Double standards abound......

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1076022610517

Here is my take on the whole thing, Leo. Ms Jackson is free to expose
herself under appropriate circumstances. If she wants to do a dance
routine and have Justin Timberlake tear off part of her outfit. That is
also okay - tho she might want to use a less weird presentation.

There are appropriate television venues for that, such as HBO, Cinemax,
etc. Late night TV kind of stuff.

But not on the super bowl halftime show. Not on Teletubbies or Barney
or Blues Clues or fishing shows. Those just aren't the places for that
sort of thing. Even my favorite, the History channel, has some shows
that deal with sex and show nudity. They put them on late at night when
the kids are in bed, and any viewing is strictly voluntary. No one harmed.

For some reason, some people don't want to watch simulated kinky sex
while their kids are watching the same.

Everything in it's time and place, and the superbowl isn't the time or
place IMO.

The NFL has been trying to pander to a different audience the last few
years. I remember when a sb halftime show was put on by "Up With
People", of all things. Now it's simulated intercourse and exposed body
parts. yawn.

I hope they realize that the "edgy" stuff was a miserable failure for
the XFL.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Actually, Mike, I don't disagree with you at all - what she did was
quite inappropriate for the venue. But it ain't really that big a
deal....

Read the article that I referenced, if you have time - it presents an
interesting perspective on what tends to constitute "obscenity". Sex
bad, violence good - you know. And, as always, Jack Nicholson's
comment is priceless
Ahh, smilin' Jack. Gotta admit, he's honest. Probably says what most of
us want to say and don't have the cojones for. See his comments re
Brittany Spears in GQ!

Example - I watched a bit of "Full Metal Jacket" on TBS a while back.
While all of the profanity and sexual references had been 'sanitized',
most of the gore and violence remained (it was funny, though, to see
Sgt. Hartman saying "Darn" and "Heck" and such, even though his lips
clearly had other intentions...).

Darn good movie that! I don't watch a lot of movies with violence in
them, but that one was worth it. I couldn't imagine it without the
profanity, though.

Where did society get the mistaken impression that sex is bad, but
violence is OK? Is that really what we want to teach our children?

Dunno! I don't allow kids to watch the nasty violent stuff either. I'm
talking about stuff like FMJ.As good as the movie was, it was plenty
disturbing. Three Stooges are fine, as well as the other tame stuff.
Normal kids are fully capable of figuring out that when Moe hits curly
on the head with a pipe wrench, and it makes a sound like a hammer
hitting a frying pan, or when Bugs bunny blows up daffy duck, and
Daffy's bill is then upside down and on the back of his head, that's all
just fun.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:39:19 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Dunno! I don't allow kids to watch the nasty violent stuff either. I'm
talking about stuff like FMJ.As good as the movie was, it was plenty
disturbing. Three Stooges are fine, as well as the other tame stuff.
Normal kids are fully capable of figuring out that when Moe hits curly
on the head with a pipe wrench, and it makes a sound like a hammer
hitting a frying pan, or when Bugs bunny blows up daffy duck, and
Daffy's bill is then upside down and on the back of his head, that's all
just fun.

Sounds safe enough!

!!WARNING - OFF TOPIC MATERIAL FOLLOWS!!

Hmmm - Mike, if you have a high speed internet connection. check out
the following newsgroups:

alt.binaries.multimedia.3-stooges
alt.binaries.multimedia.cartoons.looneytunes

You can download complete episodes there, which should amuse the
little ones (and you too!) for quite a while. New ones are uploaded to
these groups every day.

And, unlike this group, there are only a total of 6 stooges to be
found!

/offtopic


- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Leo wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:39:19 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Dunno! I don't allow kids to watch the nasty violent stuff either. I'm
talking about stuff like FMJ.As good as the movie was, it was plenty
disturbing. Three Stooges are fine, as well as the other tame stuff.
Normal kids are fully capable of figuring out that when Moe hits curly
on the head with a pipe wrench, and it makes a sound like a hammer
hitting a frying pan, or when Bugs bunny blows up daffy duck, and
Daffy's bill is then upside down and on the back of his head, that's all
just fun.


Sounds safe enough!

!!WARNING - OFF TOPIC MATERIAL FOLLOWS!!

Hmmm - Mike, if you have a high speed internet connection. check out
the following newsgroups:

alt.binaries.multimedia.3-stooges
alt.binaries.multimedia.cartoons.looneytunes

You can download complete episodes there, which should amuse the
little ones (and you too!) for quite a while. New ones are uploaded to
these groups every day.

And, unlike this group, there are only a total of 6 stooges to be
found!

Thanks, Leo! I'm checkin it out now.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:38:55 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

snip

Thanks, Leo! I'm checkin it out now.

Cool. You'll need to locate a copy of WinRAR (a decompression program
similar to ZIP) and perhaps a few others as you go along. Just give
me a holler if you need any help.

For your reference, some info on the various file types you will
encounter, and what to do with 'em, is he

http://www.warezfaq.com/file_types.htm


- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Where did society get the mistaken impression that sex is bad, but
violence is OK?

Nuns in Catholic grammar school routinely used violence on the kids, but
would
sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex....

Is that really what we want to teach our children?

I wouldn't want to subject kids to the crap I had to endure in said
school.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...



Where did society get the mistaken impression that sex is bad, but
violence is OK?

Nuns in Catholic grammar school routinely used violence on the kids, but
would
sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex....

Is that really what we want to teach our children?

I wouldn't want to subject kids to the crap I had to endure in said
school.


When you get right down to it, except for a few shameful and widely
publicized exceptions, todays kids suffer from too little rather than too
much
physical punishment. Worst form of abuse for todays kids is to let'em grow
up with no self control or discipline. That was true in earlier generations,
too.
Look at Bill Clinton and, for that matter, the younger days of our current
President. Sometimes they grow out of it and sometimes they don't.

HWB

In article , "Harold Burton"
writes:

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...



Where did society get the mistaken impression that sex is bad, but
violence is OK?

Nuns in Catholic grammar school routinely used violence on the kids, but
would
sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex....

Is that really what we want to teach our children?

I wouldn't want to subject kids to the crap I had to endure in said
school.


When you get right down to it, except for a few shameful and widely
publicized exceptions, todays kids suffer from too little rather than too
much physical punishment.

I disagree! Beating children simply means the beater can't think of
a better way to deal with the kid.

It also teaches the kid at a very primeval level that violence is a
legitimate method of getting what you want from others.

Worst form of abuse for todays kids is to let'em grow
up with no self control or discipline. That was true in earlier generations,
too.

I agree 100%, except that I'd call it "neglect" rather than "abuse". And in
some cases neglect is worse because it tells the kid he's not worth bothering
with.

Look at Bill Clinton and, for that matter, the younger days of our current
President.

Not just the younger days, either.

Sometimes they grow out of it and sometimes they don't.

Exactly!

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Harold Burton"
writes:


"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...



Where did society get the mistaken impression that sex is bad, but
violence is OK?


Nuns in Catholic grammar school routinely used violence on the kids, but
would
sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex....


Is that really what we want to teach our children?


I wouldn't want to subject kids to the crap I had to endure in said
school.


When you get right down to it, except for a few shameful and widely
publicized exceptions, todays kids suffer from too little rather than too
much physical punishment.


I disagree! Beating children simply means the beater can't think of
a better way to deal with the kid.

It also teaches the kid at a very primeval level that violence is a
legitimate method of getting what you want from others.

And the argument is null anyway. If beating your kid worked, you would
only have to do it once or twice.

In fact, I was recently enlightened to the fact that (I hope this
doesn't invoke Godwin's law!) Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf
Hitler have one thing in common. They recieved regular beatings as children.


Worst form of abuse for todays kids is to let'em grow
up with no self control or discipline. That was true in earlier generations,
too.


I agree 100%, except that I'd call it "neglect" rather than "abuse". And in
some cases neglect is worse because it tells the kid he's not worth bothering
with.

And discipline doesn't have to be beatings! Sit a kid on the couch for a
couple hours with no entertainment, and they'll come around. Sounds
simple and a little stupid, but it works. I got "wailed" on occasion as
a kid, and while it hurt, once it was over, big deal. All it taught me
was it was a good idea to not get caught, and if I could delay the
punishment until the punisher cooled down, I wasn't as likely to get
hit. That last part is telling in itself.

Look at Bill Clinton and, for that matter, the younger days of our current
President.


Not just the younger days, either.


Sometimes they grow out of it and sometimes they don't.


Exactly!

And sometimes, despite getting beat, they still turn out bad. Kind of
makes you wonder what does work! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

N2EY wrote:


And the argument is null anyway. If beating your kid worked, you would
only have to do it once or twice.

You're on a slippery slope, Mike. If TALKING to your child did any
good, you'd only have to do it a couple of time, right? I can hear my
mother's voice now: "How many times to I have to tell you?"

In fact, I was recently enlightened to the fact that (I hope this
doesn't invoke Godwin's law!) Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf
Hitler have one thing in common. They recieved regular beatings as children.

So the secret seems to be, beat your children on an irregular basis and
they won't grow up to be tyrants and ogres. It'd be interesting to find
that Jeffrey Dahmer was never spanked and that his parents tried to
reason with him.

Dave K8MN