| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Robert Casey wrote:
:-) Then her and kimmy can be "bosom" buddies, pun intended. |
janet jackson to get ham license "K6TIT"
:-)
|
In article , Robert Casey
writes: :-) I think the call WH0RE fits her better. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
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 73 de Larry, K3LT 73, Leo |
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:45:29 GMT, 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. snip Oh yeah, almost forgot - I was going to suggest N1PLE, but it looks like some guy in Massachusetts got that one first :) 73, Leo |
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 - |
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 |
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 |
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 |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: 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, "Robert Casey, you bold brazen article, how dare you talk like that!" but would sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex.... In my experience, such things would make them violent. In fact almost anything could make an IHM nun violent. Bunch of nutcases, actually. Is that really what we want to teach our children? No! I wouldn't want to subject kids to the crap I had to endure in said school. Nor I! What all that violence really taught kids was that violence was the preferred method to solve problems and get your way. As if. The irony is that they were responsible for the creation of millions of ex-catholics. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: 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. I gotta get cable... They put them on late at night when the kids are in bed, and any viewing is strictly voluntary. No one harmed. I agree 100%, Mike, but I'd put it this way: The big problem isn't the content but whether it's expected or not when the viewer tunes in. Shows like "Sex in the City" and "Coupling" pretty much tell you what to expect by the name of the show. Other shows have warnings, ratings and writeups in the program guides. The problem with the "wardrobe malfunction" was that nobody expected it except Ms. Jackson. Yet she will not incur any fine or penalty. That's just wrong. Everything in it's time and place, and the superbowl isn't the time or place IMO. Agreed - particularly without any warning. Some may say this whole thing ahs nothing to do with amateur radio policy, but the exact opposite is true. The big problem with that "wardrobe malfunction" was its unexpected nature. Since amateur radio is unscheduled, crosses time zones and no licensee owns a frequency, the standards of all amateur on-air activity have to be "G-rated". 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. Well, it's just a different sort of "up"... I hope they realize that the "edgy" stuff was a miserable failure for the XFL. Who? ;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 |
Leo wrote:
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.... If it is a big deal for a segment of the population, it is a big deal for the network, the FCC and MTV. 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 :) I've not read or heard anything about obsenity being the issue. The halftime show was quite inappropriate. Everyone is making the noise about Janet Jackson but the lyrics used by P. Diddy, Nelly and Kid Rock were offensive. Kid Rock's defacing of the American Flag and his use of it as a poncho were offensive. 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? Songs about the use of women as sexual objects, about multiple casual sexual partners, about the glorification of drug use, drinking and criminal behavior in a public performance on prime-time TV are among the things I'd rather children didn't see or hear because they cater to the lowest, base side of humanity. Dave K8MN |
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: 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. I gotta get cable... Even then, it isn't smarmy stuff. It's mostly educational, with an erotic undertone. It's the sort of thing that even if a youngster were to watch it, they wouldn't be affected negatively They put them on late at night when the kids are in bed, and any viewing is strictly voluntary. No one harmed. I agree 100%, Mike, but I'd put it this way: The big problem isn't the content but whether it's expected or not when the viewer tunes in. Shows like "Sex in the City" and "Coupling" pretty much tell you what to expect by the name of the show. Other shows have warnings, ratings and writeups in the program guides. Good point. The problem with the "wardrobe malfunction" was that nobody expected it except Ms. Jackson. Yet she will not incur any fine or penalty. That's just wrong. I'll bet she doesn't get on Prime-time TV without a tape delay, tho'! Everything in it's time and place, and the superbowl isn't the time or place IMO. Agreed - particularly without any warning. Some may say this whole thing ahs nothing to do with amateur radio policy, but the exact opposite is true. The big problem with that "wardrobe malfunction" was its unexpected nature. Since amateur radio is unscheduled, crosses time zones and no licensee owns a frequency, the standards of all amateur on-air activity have to be "G-rated". Agreed! Why some people have a problem understanding that is beyond me. Everything in moderation and in it's time and place. If Janet wants to go around with parts hanging out of her clothes, she is welcome to. (IMO) As long as as it is in the proper place. Otherwise, keep it clean. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 - |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Leo wrote: 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.... If it is a big deal for a segment of the population, it is a big deal for the network, the FCC and MTV. If we accept "It ain't that big a deal", we'll get more and more of it. Oh wait, that's how we got where we are now. 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 :) There is no reason for us to look to show business personnel for role models. But too many of us do. I've not read or heard anything about obsenity being the issue. The halftime show was quite inappropriate. Everyone is making the noise about Janet Jackson but the lyrics used by P. Diddy, Nelly and Kid Rock were offensive. Kid Rock's defacing of the American Flag and his use of it as a poncho were offensive. I say those things were obscene. Far more so than what Ms. Jackson did. 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? It's what the media wants to teach us. Songs about the use of women as sexual objects, about multiple casual sexual partners, about the glorification of drug use, drinking and criminal behavior in a public performance on prime-time TV are among the things I'd rather children didn't see or hear because they cater to the lowest, base side of humanity. I agree 100%. 73 de Jim, N2EY "I'm tired of all this sex on the television - I mean, I keep falling off!" - Monty Python |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Robert Casey writes: 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, "Robert Casey, you bold brazen article, how dare you talk like that!" but would sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex.... In my experience, such things would make them violent. In fact almost anything could make an IHM nun violent. Bunch of nutcases, actually. I had anotehr species of nuns in my school. "Sisters of Mercy" IIRC, but there was no mercy if you forgot your homework..... On the first or second day of 1st grade, the nun teacher had to leave our classroom for a few minutes. Of course some of us were talking and making noise, as small kids will. When she got back, she freaked out. Made the kids line up at her desk and punish each one in turn. Must have been 20 minutes it took to do all 30 something kids. Also on the first day, it was time for lunch, as the nun announced it. So I get out my sandwitch and started eating in my desk. Nun freaks. How would I know that the school had another room for eating lunch? Have heard that teachers nowadays are taught to anticipate kids not knowing such things when they start school.... |
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 |
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. It also delivered a message that people in authority are likely to abuse their positions and cannot be trusted. As the teachers often punished kids that didn't misbehave as the ones that did. Throw in it being the Vietnam era and ..... Sometimes teachers try to "teach respect" with violence. Well, if "fear and hatred" = "respect" then it worked.... But I don't think respect does equal that. We also had male nuns, called "brothers". CFX was their callsign, stood for -something-something-Xavier. One of them was an ex marine drill seargent, and thought nothing beating on a kid 20 minutes non-stop. Another was from the Navy, and also could beat on a kid even longer. Not suprizing that some kids tried to burn the school down. No real damage, something like a wastepaper basket on fire. We always hoped it was the real thing whenever they did a fire drill (after the fire dept made them not pre-announce that there'd be a drill today). |
I'll bet she doesn't get on Prime-time TV without a tape delay, tho'! If I ran CBS or ABC or NBC or WB or UPN for that matter, I'd pass every live rock singer thru a tape delay. Or any other likely loose cannon. And I bet CBS has ordered a delay to pass future live performances thru. That should make the FCC a little happier. So a director in the control booth can dump something inappropriate before it goes over the air. |
Robert Casey wrote:
I'll bet she doesn't get on Prime-time TV without a tape delay, tho'! If I ran CBS or ABC or NBC or WB or UPN for that matter, I'd pass every live rock singer thru a tape delay. Or any other likely loose cannon. And I bet CBS has ordered a delay to pass future live performances thru. That should make the FCC a little happier. So a director in the control booth can dump something inappropriate before it goes over the air. I would sugest that they keep a tape of "Heidi" running to interject over any offending portion that needs bleeped out. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dave Heil wrote: 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?" Ahh, but talking DOESN'T work! You can't always reason with a child. You have to deprive them of something that they value for a little while. Then you give it back to them until the next time they misbehave. I'm not advocating talk, and I'm not advocating beatings, I'm advocating something I've found that works. 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. Read: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_k...er/naked1.html for an interesting if horrible accounting of Jeffrey Dahmer. Indeed, he was not raised in an abusive environment. But it is unfair to attibute anything to a pathological serial killer's upbringing compared to a normal person. But there is a difference between Dahmer and the nasties I mentioned above. Many people call them all madmen, but there is a huge difference between Dahmer and the others. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Robert Casey wrote: I'll bet she doesn't get on Prime-time TV without a tape delay, tho'! If I ran CBS or ABC or NBC or WB or UPN for that matter, I'd pass every live rock singer thru a tape delay. Or any other likely loose cannon. And I bet CBS has ordered a delay to pass future live performances thru. That should make the FCC a little happier. So a director in the control booth can dump something inappropriate before it goes over the air. I would sugest that they keep a tape of "Heidi" running to interject over any offending portion that needs bleeped out. As long as it's Heidi Klum 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: 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?" Ahh, but talking DOESN'T work! You can't always reason with a child. Take my word, my folks never attempted reason when we were younger. My sister and I were issued edicts in no uncertain terms. If we argued or talked back, we could expect some time in a corner or in our rooms or were grounded. You have to deprive them of something that they value for a little while. Then you give it back to them until the next time they misbehave. I'm not advocating talk, and I'm not advocating beatings, I'm advocating something I've found that works. My dad called it "giving us a little more leash". He retracted some leash when we demonstrated that we couldn't handle the extra freedom. 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. Read: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_k...er/naked1.html for an interesting if horrible accounting of Jeffrey Dahmer. Indeed, he was not raised in an abusive environment. But it is unfair to attibute anything to a pathological serial killer's upbringing compared to a normal person. But there is a difference between Dahmer and the nasties I mentioned above. Many people call them all madmen, but there is a huge difference between Dahmer and the others. I'll check out the link. Dave K8MN |
In article , Leo
writes: 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...star/Layout/Ar ticle_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid =1076022610517 Leo: I don't even have to bother to read it. I'm guessing it says that all of us hyper-conservative, redneck UhmurriKans are so backwardly non-progressive in our morality that we're shocked and outraged by the little act put on during Super Bowl XXXVIII by Jackson and Timberlake. Yada, yada, yada. I'm no prude, but I know obscenity when I see it, and that was obscene -- the whole half-time show, not just the Jackson thing. If it were being shown after 11 PM or on a cable channel, that would be a different matter, but this was shown on a major network during Prime Time, and during a high-profile sporting event with a maxxed-out audience, including young children. If there was anything that was designed to bring our culture "...one step closer to extinction," this was it. Fortunately, the negative reaction, while not understood by our ever-so-liberal neighbors to the North, had the effect of at least getting Janet Jackson booted from the Grammys, and forced CBS to change the Grammys from a real-time "live" broadcast to a delayed broadcast, so that any other such shennanigans can be edited out. Unfortunately, all the dumbed-down New-Age pop-culture idiots out there will probably buy Janet's new CD in record numbers, and that was her intention from the beginning. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... Fortunately, the negative reaction, while not understood by our ever-so-liberal neighbors to the North, had the effect of at least getting Janet Jackson booted from the Grammys, and forced CBS to change the Grammys from a real-time "live" broadcast to a delayed broadcast, so that any other such shennanigans can be edited out. Unfortunately, all the dumbed-down New-Age pop-culture idiots out there will probably buy Janet's new CD in record numbers, and that was her intention from the beginning. 73 de Larry, K3LT Most of us northerners are also conservatives. Liberals are generally more noisy than conservatives so get noticed more. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
On 08 Feb 2004 06:31:37 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote: In article , Leo writes: 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...star/Layout/Ar ticle_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&ci d=1076022610517 Leo: I don't even have to bother to read it. I'm guessing it says that all of us hyper-conservative, redneck UhmurriKans are so backwardly non-progressive in our morality that we're shocked and outraged by the little act put on during Super Bowl XXXVIII by Jackson and Timberlake. Yada, yada, yada. Not really - it was more of an editorial on the rather odd perception that any reference to sex is bad, yet violence is perfectly OK. It's worth a read, Larry - it does present an interesting perspective! I'm no prude, but I know obscenity when I see it, and that was obscene -- the whole half-time show, not just the Jackson thing. If it were being shown after 11 PM or on a cable channel, that would be a different matter, but this was shown on a major network during Prime Time, and during a high-profile sporting event with a maxxed-out audience, including young children. If there was anything that was designed to bring our culture "...one step closer to extinction," this was it. Fortunately, the negative reaction, while not understood by our ever-so-liberal neighbors to the North Um, you really should read the article before you draw the wrong conclusions here, Larry. Our society ain't that much different than yours, we just have this fundamental belief here that graphic violence is far more objectionable than sex....an odd concept, for sure.... :) Liberal? Hey, I voted Conservative.... :) , had the effect of at least getting Janet Jackson booted from the Grammys, and forced CBS to change the Grammys from a real-time "live" broadcast to a delayed broadcast, so that any other such shennanigans can be edited out. Unfortunately, all the dumbed-down New-Age pop-culture idiots out there will probably buy Janet's new CD in record numbers, and that was her intention from the beginning. Yup, I have no doubt that you are absolutely correct here - I'm certain this was done to market Ms. Jackson's CDs all right, and it didn't happen by accident either. Shock has become a valuable selling tool in the entertainment business. And, also no arguement that it was entirely inappropriate for the Super Bowl (I'd go as far as saying that the whole #$%^ halftime show should be scrapped, so that footcall fans like you and I can watch the game without unnecessary interruption....). 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes: In article , Leo writes: 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...star/Layout/Ar ticle_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&ci d=1076022610517 Leo: I don't even have to bother to read it. I'm guessing it says that all of us hyper-conservative, redneck UhmurriKans are so backwardly non-progressive in our morality that we're shocked and outraged by the little act put on during Super Bowl XXXVIII by Jackson and Timberlake. Yada, yada, yada. No, it's not like that at all, Larry. You should read it, because it's a perfect example of a bunch of good facts connected by a bit of muddle-headed illogic. I'm no prude, but I know obscenity when I see it, and that was obscene -- the whole half-time show, not just the Jackson thing. I didn't watch past the part where the psuedo-cheerleader-dancers took off their outfits. I flicked back briefly and saw some no-talent wearing the American flag like a poncho, and tuned away. If it were being shown after 11 PM or on a cable channel, that would be a different matter, but this was shown on a major network during Prime Time, and during a high-profile sporting event with a maxxed-out audience, including young children. It's even simpler than that: It was aired with no warning of the content, so that those who would be offended could not make an informed choice. That's what's really offensive - and a point totally missed by the above article. If there was anything that was designed to bring our culture "...one step closer to extinction," this was it. Fortunately, the negative reaction, while not understood by our ever-so-liberal neighbors to the North, had the effect of at least getting Janet Jackson booted from the Grammys, and forced CBS to change the Grammys from a real-time "live" broadcast to a delayed broadcast, so that any other such shennanigans can be edited out. Unfortunately, all the dumbed-down New-Age pop-culture idiots out there will probably buy Janet's new CD in record numbers, and that was her intention from the beginning. The article fails to note the difference between movies (which are rated) and live TV (which isn't). 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
I don't even have to bother to read it. I'm guessing it says that all of us hyper-conservative, redneck UhmurriKans are so backwardly non-progressive in our morality that we're shocked and outraged by the little act put on during Super Bowl XXXVIII by Jackson and Timberlake. Yada, yada, yada. I'm no prude, but I know obscenity when I see it, and that was obscene -- the whole half-time show, not just the Jackson thing. If it were being shown after 11 PM or on a cable channel, that would be a different matter, but this was shown on a major network during Prime Time, and during a high-profile sporting event with a maxxed-out audience, including young children. If there was anything that was designed to bring our culture "...one step closer to extinction," this was it. Fortunately, the negative reaction, while not understood by our ever-so-liberal neighbors to the North, had the effect of at least getting Janet Jackson booted from the Grammys, and forced CBS to change the Grammys from a real-time "live" broadcast to a delayed broadcast, so that any other such shennanigans can be edited out. Unfortunately, all the dumbed-down New-Age pop-culture idiots out there will probably buy Janet's new CD in record numbers, and that was her intention from the beginning. 73 de Larry, K3LT Jackson and that other idot singing with her keep trying to convince everyone it was accidental that her breast was exposed. She wore nipple decoration because she meant for her breast to be exposed. What a lovely upstanding example that Jackson family is....NOT!!! And the other moron wearing the flag with a hole in it as a cape screaming his junk they attempt to call music was just a bad. |
On 08 Feb 2004 20:19:54 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
In article , ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) writes: In article , Leo writes: 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...star/Layout/Ar ticle_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&c id=1076022610517 Leo: I don't even have to bother to read it. I'm guessing it says that all of us hyper-conservative, redneck UhmurriKans are so backwardly non-progressive in our morality that we're shocked and outraged by the little act put on during Super Bowl XXXVIII by Jackson and Timberlake. Yada, yada, yada. No, it's not like that at all, Larry. You should read it, because it's a perfect example of a bunch of good facts connected by a bit of muddle-headed illogic. It was pretty accurate and intelligently written, actually! But I assume from your statement that it didn't agree with your own viewpoint, as it too is "wrong". I take it you're not a Robbie Burns fan: "Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us!" The experience would do you a world of good, Jim.... :) snip 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: 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. It also delivered a message that people in authority are likely to abuse their positions and cannot be trusted. WOW - good point, Robert! As the teachers often punished kids that didn't misbehave as the ones that did. IHM nuns were big on punishing the whole class. Throw in it being the Vietnam era and ..... Bingo. Sometimes teachers try to "teach respect" with violence. Well, if "fear and hatred" = "respect" then it worked.... But I don't think respect does equal that. We also had male nuns, called "brothers". CFX was their callsign, stood for -something-something-Xavier. One of them was an ex marine drill seargent, and thought nothing beating on a kid 20 minutes non-stop. Another was from the Navy, and also could beat on a kid even longer. We didn't have those until high school. None of them were as sadistic as nuns. Not suprizing that some kids tried to burn the school down. No real damage, something like a wastepaper basket on fire. We always hoped it was the real thing whenever they did a fire drill (after the fire dept made them not pre-announce that there'd be a drill today). We were told that if someone attacked the school or a "religious person" they'd burn in hell. And would probably have other consequences, like having their arm fall off when they tried to raise it to hit a nun. Nobody ever tried to find out if such things were true... All that's changed now. Catholic schools are now more like private academies, and most of the teachers are lay people because nuns and brothers are too few. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: ike Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: 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?" Ahh, but talking DOESN'T work! You can't always reason with a child. Take my word, my folks never attempted reason when we were younger. Yup. In many cases it's counterproductive. For example, if you want a kid to go to bed at 7 and he wants to go to bed at 8, and you spend half an hour or even half a minute after 7 trying to reason with him, he's "won", because his bedtime wasn't 7. My sister and I were issued edicts in no uncertain terms. If we argued or talked back, we could expect some time in a corner or in our rooms or were grounded. Which today is called "time out" and which works very well if done right. You have to deprive them of something that they value for a little while. Then you give it back to them until the next time they misbehave. I'm not advocating talk, and I'm not advocating beatings, I'm advocating something I've found that works. Bingo. And for most kids, what they value most are freedom and attention. Deprive them of either or both, and the message gets through. My dad called it "giving us a little more leash". He retracted some leash when we demonstrated that we couldn't handle the extra freedom. And the lesson was that the *kid's* behavior is what caused it. 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. Read: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_k...er/naked1.html for an interesting if horrible accounting of Jeffrey Dahmer. Indeed, he was not raised in an abusive environment. But it is unfair to attibute anything to a pathological serial killer's upbringing compared to a normal person. But there is a difference between Dahmer and the nasties I mentioned above. Many people call them all madmen, but there is a huge difference between Dahmer and the others. I'll check out the link. Me too. I would point out that *most* kids, beaten or not, will not grow up to be serial killers. But the legacy of violence plays out in other ways. And there's even a connection to amateur radio policy in all this: Dave's dad's analogy of "leash" is very accurate. FCC gives its licensees a lot of "leash" (freedom) in exchange for proper behavior. Violate that agreement, and the "leash" is shortened. As in the cases of licenses not renewed for "character" issues (meaning the licensee was convicted of serious crimes that were not violations of the license itself). The kid who talked back or got into a fight at school might find he wasn't allowed to watch TV, even though the offense had nothing to do with TV. Same principle with FCC licenses. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: 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. I gotta get cable... Even then, it isn't smarmy stuff. Dang. It's mostly educational, with an erotic undertone. It's the sort of thing that even if a youngster were to watch it, they wouldn't be affected negatively Doesn't matter. The point is whether or not the audience knows what to expect. Last night, the local PBS station showed "Catch-22". More than a little nudity, sex and violence. But they showed it at 10 PM, with content warnings. Anybody who might be offended knew *ahead of time* to avoid it. No such warning or rating on the superbowl. That's the point that the Toronto Star article completely misses. They put them on late at night when the kids are in bed, and any viewing is strictly voluntary. No one harmed. I agree 100%, Mike, but I'd put it this way: The big problem isn't the content but whether it's expected or not when the viewer tunes in. Shows like "Sex in the City" and "Coupling" pretty much tell you what to expect by the name of the show. Other shows have warnings, ratings and writeups in the program guides. Good point. The problem with the "wardrobe malfunction" was that nobody expected it except Ms. Jackson. Yet she will not incur any fine or penalty. That's just wrong. I'll bet she doesn't get on Prime-time TV without a tape delay, tho'! So what? She got what she wanted - publicity. A week before the superbowl, who was even talking about her? Everything in it's time and place, and the superbowl isn't the time or place IMO. Agreed - particularly without any warning. Some may say this whole thing ahs nothing to do with amateur radio policy, but the exact opposite is true. The big problem with that "wardrobe malfunction" was its unexpected nature. Since amateur radio is unscheduled, crosses time zones and no licensee owns a frequency, the standards of all amateur on-air activity have to be "G-rated". Agreed! Why some people have a problem understanding that is beyond me. Me too. Everything in moderation Anything worth doing is worth overdoing and in it's time and place. If Janet wants to go around with parts hanging out of her clothes, she is welcome to. (IMO) As long as as it is in the proper place. Otherwise, keep it clean. Agreed! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Robert Casey writes: 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, "Robert Casey, you bold brazen article, how dare you talk like that!" but would sure be upset about anything vaguely about sex.... In my experience, such things would make them violent. In fact almost anything could make an IHM nun violent. Bunch of nutcases, actually. I had anotehr species of nuns in my school. "Sisters of Mercy" IIRC, but there was no mercy if you forgot your homework..... Oyez, they had it down to an art. Grab a bit of a kid's hair and dribble his head on the slate blackboard was one trick. I remember one nun who busted an 18 inch wooden ruler beating a kid, so he had to go to a specific store after school and buy another with his own money, (they cost about a quarter) and then bring it back the next day so she could finish beating him with it. On the first or second day of 1st grade, the nun teacher had to leave our classroom for a few minutes. Of course some of us were talking and making noise, as small kids will. When she got back, she freaked out. Made the kids line up at her desk and punish each one in turn. Must have been 20 minutes it took to do all 30 something kids. Only 30 kids in your first grade class? There were 70 (seventy) in mine. IHM nuns preferred group punishment - keep the whole class after school or such for the misdeeds of a few. The theory was that the innocent would beat the &^% out of the offenders after school. Which happened sometimes. Also on the first day, it was time for lunch, as the nun announced it. So I get out my sandwitch and started eating in my desk. Nun freaks. How would I know that the school had another room for eating lunch? Oh man... Have heard that teachers nowadays are taught to anticipate kids not knowing such things when they start school.... Oh yes, but it's usually not needed, because nowadays most kids have at least been to kndergarten, and most have been in preschool and day care since diaper time. So they're more used to the whole concept of school. But back in those days it was common for a kid to have never set foot in a school or classroom until the first day of forst grade. I still remember other kids being terrified. I wasn't - I'd gone to public school kindergarten. Then I learned how different catholic school was... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 09 Feb 2004 01:21:52 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
snip Last night, the local PBS station showed "Catch-22". More than a little nudity, sex and violence. But they showed it at 10 PM, with content warnings. Anybody who might be offended knew *ahead of time* to avoid it. No such warning or rating on the superbowl. That's the point that the Toronto Star article completely misses. Jim, my friend, if you had cared to read past the title you may have noted the other far more important points that the article was actually making..... However, if you feel so passionately about this subject and believe that the material presented was erroneous, please feel free to write to the Editor at the following address: I'm certain that they would publish your perspective on this issue in the "Letters to the Editor" column. Or, you could just continue to complain here, in this little group.......and continue to prove Benford's Law. Your choice. 73, Leo |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com