PNN - Richmond,VA,USA
In response to the recent attention given by Congress and the FCC to
"indecent"
radio air personalities like Howard Stern, a nonprofit organization has
been ...
http://www.pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=5177&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

"Mike Terry" wrote in
:

In response to the recent attention given by Congress and the FCC to
"indecent"
radio air personalities like Howard Stern, a nonprofit organization has
been ...

Wow. A non profit organization to defend smut peddlers on the airwaves.

I, for one, am sick of turning on the TV or radio and being bombarded with
ads for natural male enhancement, sex drugs for those who no longer can,
condoms, feminine strips, etc. Talentless "entertainers" like Stern,
Mancow, and their ilk stoop to the lowest common denominator (sleaze)
because they know it sells and that the intelligence level of their
audience is barely above that of pond scum.

I think the FCC is finally headed back in the right direction.

scroob wrote in message ...
"Mike Terry" wrote in
:

In response to the recent attention given by Congress and the FCC to
"indecent"
radio air personalities like Howard Stern, a nonprofit organization has
been ...

Wow. A non profit organization to defend smut peddlers on the airwaves.

I, for one, am sick of turning on the TV or radio and being bombarded with
ads for natural male enhancement, sex drugs for those who no longer can,
condoms, feminine strips, etc. Talentless "entertainers" like Stern,
Mancow, and their ilk stoop to the lowest common denominator (sleaze)
because they know it sells and that the intelligence level of their
audience is barely above that of pond scum.

I think the FCC is finally headed back in the right direction.


YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!

"scroob" wrote:

(snip) I, for one, am sick of turning on
the TV or radio and being bombarded
with ads for natural male enhancement,
sex drugs for those who no longer can,
condoms, feminine strips, etc. Talentless
"entertainers" like Stern, Mancow, and
their ilk stoop to the lowest common
denominator (sleaze) because they
know it sells and that the intelligence
level of their audience is barely above
that of pond scum. (snip)


Absolutely right. I'm also fed up with the sleazy garbage on TV and radio.
In my opinion, the FCC hasn't gone nearly far enough. They should also go
after the cable companies too - all are using satellites regulated by the
FCC to distribute their programming nationwide (something that industry
seems to be trying to avoid drawing attention to).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

I can't stand people like stern and I wish they would boot rush too.

that is why I listen to shortwave and not the pathetic american media


"Mike Terry" wrote in message ...
PNN - Richmond,VA,USA
In response to the recent attention given by Congress and the FCC to
"indecent"
radio air personalities like Howard Stern, a nonprofit organization has
been ...
http://www.pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=5177&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

"the captain" wrote in message
om...
I can't stand people like stern and I wish they would boot rush too.

that is why I listen to shortwave and not the pathetic american media


LOL! Hey captain -- ask the navigator where the "off" button is!

-- Stinger

"Richard Cranium" wrote:

Every single radio and television set
I've ever seen has two controls built-
in for personal censorship: An OFF
switch and a tuning knob or channel
selector. Use them if you don't like
what you hear or see. Nobody
FORCED you wo watch Janet
Jackson bare her shapely breast,
after all. (snip)


Unless I carry a remote with me throughout the house whenever the
television is on (living room, kitchen, dining room, and so on), I am indeed
forced to see this garbage - on commercials, within programs, on news
broadcasts, and so on. For example, I can't even guess how many times I've
seen the sleazy "Tripping the Riff" commercials, with the fart jokes and
cartoon sex scenes, on the Sci-Fi channel. I certainly didn't sit down to
watch that show. Instead, the commercials were placed into the show I was
watching (without warning, parental or otherwise).

Likewise, I can't even guess how many times I've started watching a movie
only to be confronted with a gratuitous sex scene which has nothing to do
with the subject of the show (not to overlook the endless foul language).
The Janet Jackson breast incident was repeated over and over in news
broadcasts, again with no warning whatsoever. The latest "Hollywood" fad
over the last year or so is more explicit bathroom toilet scenes.

Indeed, it's almost impossible to find a movie today without incredible
levels of violence, foul language, gratuitous sex, and so on. In reality,
the only possible way to not see this stuff is to turn off the television
entirely. And I see no reason why I should be forced to turn off my
television without objection just so others can entertain themselves by
endlessly watching this garbage.

Finally, this isn't just a personal matter. My family has the potential to
be directly impacted by the sleaze and violence watched by the family next
door or down the street. I would like to go about my day without worrying
about the violence each person I meet enjoys for entertainment. I would also
like my wife and daughter to be able to go about their day without
concerning themselves with the filth and sleaze each person they meet enjoys
for their entertainment.


Nobody has the right to impose
their view of what is "right" or "good"
on anyone other than themselves.


Who said? Every person in this country has a right to their views and a
right to advocate those views. Show me anything that says otherwise.
Likewise, if the majority accepts those views, show me anything that says
those views cannot be imposed through law. Free speech has never been
absolute in this country and, based on what I see now, I dread the very
thought of what might happen if it ever does.


Public censorship is what smallminded
people resort to.


Utter nonsense. It's small-minded, and downright foolish, not to have some
level of censorship. For example, do you believe videos of victims taken by
sex offenders should be shown on television - not by the perpetrator, but by
those who don't believe in censorship? What about videos by murderers
showing torture of their victims? Clearly, the issue isn't about no
censorship, but about where the line on censorship should be drawn. At this
point, the line is way out there on the side of filth, violence, and other
such garbage.


BTW, I don't like Howard Stern, so I
don't listen to him. I also don't like Rush
Limbaugh or G. Gordon Libby, so I
don't listen to them either. If I'm intelligent
enough to think of that, why didn't you?


Then why were you not also intelligent enough to notice I said nothing
about Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Libby, or anyone else. Instead,
I commented about sleaze and garbage on radio and television in general.
Howard Stern is only one small example of a very much wider problem.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article . net,
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

"Richard Cranium" wrote:

Every single radio and television set
I've ever seen has two controls built-
in for personal censorship: An OFF
switch and a tuning knob or channel
selector. Use them if you don't like
what you hear or see. Nobody
FORCED you wo watch Janet
Jackson bare her shapely breast,
after all. (snip)


Unless I carry a remote with me throughout the house whenever the
television is on (living room, kitchen, dining room, and so on), I am indeed
forced to see this garbage - on commercials, within programs, on news
broadcasts, and so on. For example, I can't even guess how many times I've
seen the sleazy "Tripping the Riff" commercials, with the fart jokes and
cartoon sex scenes, on the Sci-Fi channel. I certainly didn't sit down to
watch that show. Instead, the commercials were placed into the show I was
watching (without warning, parental or otherwise).

Likewise, I can't even guess how many times I've started watching a movie
only to be confronted with a gratuitous sex scene which has nothing to do
with the subject of the show (not to overlook the endless foul language).
The Janet Jackson breast incident was repeated over and over in news
broadcasts, again with no warning whatsoever. The latest "Hollywood" fad
over the last year or so is more explicit bathroom toilet scenes.

Indeed, it's almost impossible to find a movie today without incredible
levels of violence, foul language, gratuitous sex, and so on. In reality,
the only possible way to not see this stuff is to turn off the television
entirely.

"In reality, the only possible way to not see this stuff is to turn off
the television entirely."

Yes that's the answer. You won't miss much. All you will miss is the
lowest common denominator entertainment. No great loss.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"Richard Cranium" wrote:

Every single radio and television set
I've ever seen has two controls built-
in for personal censorship: An OFF
switch and a tuning knob or channel
selector. Use them if you don't like
what you hear or see. Nobody
FORCED you wo watch Janet
Jackson bare her shapely breast,
after all. (snip)


Unless I carry a remote with me throughout the house whenever the
television is on (living room, kitchen, dining room, and so on), I am indeed
forced to see this garbage - on commercials, within programs, on news
broadcasts, and so on. For example, I can't even guess how many times I've
seen the sleazy "Tripping the Riff" commercials, with the fart jokes and
cartoon sex scenes, on the Sci-Fi channel. I certainly didn't sit down to
watch that show. Instead, the commercials were placed into the show I was
watching (without warning, parental or otherwise).

So find something that doesn't offend you so much or turn it OFF. Or
is that too much to ask of you? You'd hate TV in Europe, I can assure
you; why they even show full frontal nudity. And nobody thinks
anything about it! Stop trying to impose your outdated Puritanical
views on the rest of us.

Likewise, I can't even guess how many times I've started watching a movie
only to be confronted with a gratuitous sex scene which has nothing to do
with the subject of the show (not to overlook the endless foul language).
The Janet Jackson breast incident was repeated over and over in news
broadcasts, again with no warning whatsoever. The latest "Hollywood" fad
over the last year or so is more explicit bathroom toilet scenes.

You have the right to vote with your dollars and not go to the sleazy
movies, you know. Or is that too much to ask? You pay your money, sit
thru a crappy film, then whine about it on the UseNet? Gee, I'm
impressed.

Indeed, it's almost impossible to find a movie today without incredible
levels of violence, foul language, gratuitous sex, and so on. In reality,
the only possible way to not see this stuff is to turn off the television
entirely. And I see no reason why I should be forced to turn off my
television without objection just so others can entertain themselves by
endlessly watching this garbage.

So you agree that you're trying to impose your uptight so-called
"morals" on others? No two people are exactly alike; no two people
will enjoy the exact same thing. Why shouldn't you turn off your TV if
you don't like what you're seeing? Is your life so boring that all you
have to do is stare at the boob toob and then whine about what "other
people" do?

Finally, this isn't just a personal matter. My family has the potential to
be directly impacted by the sleaze and violence watched by the family next
door or down the street. I would like to go about my day without worrying
about the violence each person I meet enjoys for entertainment. I would also
like my wife and daughter to be able to go about their day without
concerning themselves with the filth and sleaze each person they meet enjoys
for their entertainment.

Nonsense. There's no evidence that what I watch affects you in any
way.


Nobody has the right to impose
their view of what is "right" or "good"
on anyone other than themselves.


Who said? Every person in this country has a right to their views and a
right to advocate those views. Show me anything that says otherwise.
Likewise, if the majority accepts those views, show me anything that says
those views cannot be imposed through law. Free speech has never been
absolute in this country and, based on what I see now, I dread the very
thought of what might happen if it ever does.

Certainly everyone has the same rights, but show me in the
Constitution of the United States where it says that if YOU don't like
something, I can't hear or see it. Incidently, thee's no
constitutional guarantee that you'll never be offended or bothered.
Get used to it.


Public censorship is what smallminded
people resort to.


Utter nonsense. It's small-minded, and downright foolish, not to have some
level of censorship. For example, do you believe videos of victims taken by
sex offenders should be shown on television - not by the perpetrator, but by
those who don't believe in censorship? What about videos by murderers
showing torture of their victims? Clearly, the issue isn't about no
censorship, but about where the line on censorship should be drawn. At this
point, the line is way out there on the side of filth, violence, and other
such garbage.

Sounds as though you would have enjoyed living in Nazi Germany or the
former Soviet Union, Dwight. If you can't handle the freedom we have
here in the USA, maybe you should consider emigrating somewhere else.
Singapore might fit the bill; there ain't no freedom in Singapore.


BTW, I don't like Howard Stern, so I
don't listen to him. I also don't like Rush
Limbaugh or G. Gordon Libby, so I
don't listen to them either. If I'm intelligent
enough to think of that, why didn't you?


Then why were you not also intelligent enough to notice I said nothing
about Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Libby, or anyone else. Instead,
I commented about sleaze and garbage on radio and television in general.
Howard Stern is only one small example of a very much wider problem.

The only "problem" is that people like YOU want to impose their views
and beliefs on everybody else: Your taste, your type of entertainment.
You didn't have to, personally, mention Howard Stern. He's the topic
of the thread, remember?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article ,
says...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"Richard Cranium" wrote:

Every single radio and television set
I've ever seen has two controls built-
in for personal censorship: An OFF
switch and a tuning knob or channel
selector. Use them if you don't like
what you hear or see. Nobody
FORCED you wo watch Janet
Jackson bare her shapely breast,
after all. (snip)


Unless I carry a remote with me throughout the house whenever the
television is on (living room, kitchen, dining room, and so on), I am indeed
forced to see this garbage - on commercials, within programs, on news
broadcasts, and so on. For example, I can't even guess how many times I've
seen the sleazy "Tripping the Riff" commercials, with the fart jokes and
cartoon sex scenes, on the Sci-Fi channel. I certainly didn't sit down to
watch that show. Instead, the commercials were placed into the show I was
watching (without warning, parental or otherwise).

So find something that doesn't offend you so much or turn it OFF. Or
is that too much to ask of you? You'd hate TV in Europe, I can assure
you; why they even show full frontal nudity. And nobody thinks
anything about it! Stop trying to impose your outdated Puritanical
views on the rest of us.

Likewise, I can't even guess how many times I've started watching a movie
only to be confronted with a gratuitous sex scene which has nothing to do
with the subject of the show (not to overlook the endless foul language).
The Janet Jackson breast incident was repeated over and over in news
broadcasts, again with no warning whatsoever. The latest "Hollywood" fad
over the last year or so is more explicit bathroom toilet scenes.

You have the right to vote with your dollars and not go to the sleazy
movies, you know. Or is that too much to ask? You pay your money, sit
thru a crappy film, then whine about it on the UseNet? Gee, I'm
impressed.

Indeed, it's almost impossible to find a movie today without incredible
levels of violence, foul language, gratuitous sex, and so on. In reality,
the only possible way to not see this stuff is to turn off the television
entirely. And I see no reason why I should be forced to turn off my
television without objection just so others can entertain themselves by
endlessly watching this garbage.

So you agree that you're trying to impose your uptight so-called
"morals" on others? No two people are exactly alike; no two people
will enjoy the exact same thing. Why shouldn't you turn off your TV if
you don't like what you're seeing? Is your life so boring that all you
have to do is stare at the boob toob and then whine about what "other
people" do?

Finally, this isn't just a personal matter. My family has the potential to
be directly impacted by the sleaze and violence watched by the family next
door or down the street. I would like to go about my day without worrying
about the violence each person I meet enjoys for entertainment. I would also
like my wife and daughter to be able to go about their day without
concerning themselves with the filth and sleaze each person they meet enjoys
for their entertainment.

Nonsense. There's no evidence that what I watch affects you in any
way.


Nobody has the right to impose
their view of what is "right" or "good"
on anyone other than themselves.


Who said? Every person in this country has a right to their views and a
right to advocate those views. Show me anything that says otherwise.
Likewise, if the majority accepts those views, show me anything that says
those views cannot be imposed through law. Free speech has never been
absolute in this country and, based on what I see now, I dread the very
thought of what might happen if it ever does.

Certainly everyone has the same rights, but show me in the
Constitution of the United States where it says that if YOU don't like
something, I can't hear or see it. Incidently, thee's no
constitutional guarantee that you'll never be offended or bothered.
Get used to it.


Public censorship is what smallminded
people resort to.


Utter nonsense. It's small-minded, and downright foolish, not to have some
level of censorship. For example, do you believe videos of victims taken by
sex offenders should be shown on television - not by the perpetrator, but by
those who don't believe in censorship? What about videos by murderers
showing torture of their victims? Clearly, the issue isn't about no
censorship, but about where the line on censorship should be drawn. At this
point, the line is way out there on the side of filth, violence, and other
such garbage.

Sounds as though you would have enjoyed living in Nazi Germany or the
former Soviet Union, Dwight. If you can't handle the freedom we have
here in the USA, maybe you should consider emigrating somewhere else.
Singapore might fit the bill; there ain't no freedom in Singapore.


BTW, I don't like Howard Stern, so I
don't listen to him. I also don't like Rush
Limbaugh or G. Gordon Libby, so I
don't listen to them either. If I'm intelligent
enough to think of that, why didn't you?


Then why were you not also intelligent enough to notice I said nothing
about Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Libby, or anyone else. Instead,
I commented about sleaze and garbage on radio and television in general.
Howard Stern is only one small example of a very much wider problem.

The only "problem" is that people like YOU want to impose their views
and beliefs on everybody else: Your taste, your type of entertainment.
You didn't have to, personally, mention Howard Stern. He's the topic
of the thread, remember?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Nice post Richard!! You said it very well, congrats.

BDK