FCC proposes “loosening” indecency regulations

[J]

Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
of my agenda. This particular issue, the FCC proposing loosening their
criteria for what they consider indecent, needs to be vigorously
opposed. I urge everyone to file a complaint with the FCC whenever you
witness indecency on broadcast television or on the airwaves.






http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/05/15/fcc-proposes-loosening-indecency-regulations/






The Parents Television Council (PTC), a media-watchdog group, opposes
the Federal Communications Commission�s proposal to loosen its policy
against radio and T.V. indecency (obscene speech and nudity). The PTC
is making its opposition known to the FCC during a public comment
period, which end June 19, 2013. They encourage parents to send
comments to the FCC on this subject, as well.

According to PornHarms.com, Tim Winter, the president of PTC,
commented:

�It unnecessarily weakens a decency law that withstood a ferocious,
10-year constitutional attack waged by the broadcast industry. It
invites yet another wave of special interest pressure to obviate the
intent of Congress and the will of the American people,� Winter said.

�� Either material is legally indecent or it is not,� Winter said. �It
is unnecessary for indecent content to be repeated many times in order
to be actionable, and it is unwise for the FCC to pursue a new course
which will guarantee nothing but a new rash of new litigation.�



File an official indecency complaint with the FCC



http://w2.parentstv.org/Main/Action/ContactFCC.aspx








J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

Honesty. Decency. Integrity

[Adam H. Kerman]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
>decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront

>of my agenda. . . .

That would be other people's children, not your own. You're a creep.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <as4bp8dpa1650k8r3...@4ax.com>,

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
> decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
> of my agenda.

Translation: "I think the religious views of the Christian Taliban
should be in charge of every aspect of American life."


Is this some lame Canadian plot to weaken the US so much you can invade
us?

<giggle>

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <as4bp8dpa1650k8r3...@4ax.com>,
J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
> decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
> of my agenda. This particular issue, the FCC proposing loosening their
> criteria for what they consider indecent, needs to be vigorously
> opposed. I urge everyone to file a complaint with the FCC whenever you
> witness indecency on broadcast television or on the airwaves.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/05/15/fcc-proposes-loosening-indecency-regulat
> ions/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Parents Television Council (PTC), a media-watchdog group, opposes
> the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to loosen its policy
> against radio and T.V. indecency (obscene speech and nudity). The PTC
> is making its opposition known to the FCC during a public comment
> period, which end June 19, 2013. They encourage parents to send
> comments to the FCC on this subject, as well.
>
> According to PornHarms.com, Tim Winter, the president of PTC,
> commented:
>
> “It unnecessarily weakens a decency law that withstood a ferocious,
> 10-year constitutional attack waged by the broadcast industry. It
> invites yet another wave of special interest pressure to obviate the
> intent of Congress and the will of the American people,” Winter said.

You mean the American people watching shows you don't like in large
enough numbers to keep them on the air?


> “… Either material is legally indecent or it is not,” Winter said. “It

> is unnecessary for indecent content to be repeated many times in order
> to be actionable, and it is unwise for the FCC to pursue a new course
> which will guarantee nothing but a new rash of new litigation.”
>
>
>
> File an official indecency complaint with the FCC

Can we file one against you? Because I find not allowing parents to
decide what their children watch an indecent act.

[Dakota]

On 5/16/2013 11:01 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <as4bp8dpa1650k8r3...@4ax.com>,
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
>> decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
>> of my agenda. This particular issue, the FCC proposing loosening their
>> criteria for what they consider indecent, needs to be vigorously
>> opposed. I urge everyone to file a complaint with the FCC whenever you
>> witness indecency on broadcast television or on the airwaves.
>>
>> http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/05/15/fcc-proposes-loosening-indecency-regulat
>> ions/
>>
>> The Parents Television Council (PTC), a media-watchdog group, opposes

>> the Federal Communications Commission�s proposal to loosen its policy

>> against radio and T.V. indecency (obscene speech and nudity). The PTC
>> is making its opposition known to the FCC during a public comment
>> period, which end June 19, 2013. They encourage parents to send
>> comments to the FCC on this subject, as well.
>>
>> According to PornHarms.com, Tim Winter, the president of PTC,
>> commented:
>>

>> �It unnecessarily weakens a decency law that withstood a ferocious,

>> 10-year constitutional attack waged by the broadcast industry. It
>> invites yet another wave of special interest pressure to obviate the

>> intent of Congress and the will of the American people,� Winter said.

>
> You mean the American people watching shows you don't like in large
> enough numbers to keep them on the air?
>
>

>> �� Either material is legally indecent or it is not,� Winter said. �It

>> is unnecessary for indecent content to be repeated many times in order
>> to be actionable, and it is unwise for the FCC to pursue a new course

>> which will guarantee nothing but a new rash of new litigation.�

>>
>>
>>
>> File an official indecency complaint with the FCC
>
> Can we file one against you? Because I find not allowing parents to
> decide what their children watch an indecent act.
>

If child-hating J had any concern for children, he would not respect
the leader of the world's largest pedophile syndicate - fake-atheist
J's beloved and disgusting Roman Catholic Church. Instead, vile J
refers to each of those evil old men as His Holiness.

<abortion snipped>

[RichA]

On May 17, 12:01 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <as4bp8dpa1650k8r379tm4kh48bk1r4...@4ax.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
> > decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
> > of my agenda. This particular issue, the FCC proposing loosening their
> > criteria for what they consider indecent, needs to be vigorously
> > opposed. I urge everyone to file a complaint with the FCC whenever you
> > witness indecency on broadcast television or on the airwaves.
>

> >http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/05/15/fcc-proposes-loosening-indecenc...

> > ions/
>
> > The Parents Television Council (PTC), a media-watchdog group, opposes
> > the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to loosen its policy
> > against radio and T.V. indecency (obscene speech and nudity). The PTC
> > is making its opposition known to the FCC during a public comment
> > period, which end June 19, 2013. They encourage parents to send
> > comments to the FCC on this subject, as well.
>
> > According to PornHarms.com, Tim Winter, the president of PTC,
> > commented:
>
> > “It unnecessarily weakens a decency law that withstood a ferocious,
> > 10-year constitutional attack waged by the broadcast industry. It
> > invites yet another wave of special interest pressure to obviate the
> > intent of Congress and the will of the American people,” Winter said.
>
> You mean the American people watching shows you don't like in large
> enough numbers to keep them on the air?
>
> > “… Either material is legally indecent or it is not,” Winter said. “It
> > is unnecessary for indecent content to be repeated many times in order
> > to be actionable, and it is unwise for the FCC to pursue a new course
> > which will guarantee nothing but a new rash of new litigation.”
>
> > File an official indecency complaint with the FCC
>
> Can we file one against you? Because I find not allowing parents to
> decide what their children watch an indecent act.

Even crack-smoking, sub-100 IQ parents who infest ghettos? No one
wants some all-dominating monstrosity running TV, I'd rather have the
freedom of the 1990's back, but don't pretend all parents are fit to
BE parents. Use another argument.

[SkyEyes]

On May 16, 7:46 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
> decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
> of my agenda. This particular issue, the FCC proposing loosening their
> criteria for what they consider indecent, needs to be vigorously
> opposed. I urge everyone to file a complaint with the FCC whenever you
> witness indecency on broadcast television or on the airwaves.

If somebody doesn't like what's on TV, the can always exercise their
Constitutional right to TURN IT OFF.

-
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
-

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:58:40 PM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <as4bp8dpa1650k8r3...@4ax.com>,
>
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
>
> > decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
>
> > of my agenda.
>
>
>
> Translation: "I think the religious views of the Christian Taliban
>
> should be in charge of every aspect of American life."
>
>
>
>
>
> Is this some lame Canadian plot to weaken the US so much you can invade
>
> us?
>
>
>
> <giggle>
>

I can imagine J waddling across the border with a cap pistol
in his shaky hand, screaming "You killed General Wolf! I'm
gonna getcha!"

[hypatiab7]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:01:41 AM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <as4bp8dpa1650k8r3...@4ax.com>,
>
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
> > decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
> > of my agenda. This particular issue, the FCC proposing loosening their
> > criteria for what they consider indecent, needs to be vigorously
> > opposed. I urge everyone to file a complaint with the FCC whenever you
> > witness indecency on broadcast television or on the airwaves.
>
>
> > http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/05/15/fcc-proposes-loosening-indecency-regulations/
>
> > The Parents Television Council (PTC), a media-watchdog group, opposes
> > the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to loosen its policy
> > against radio and T.V. indecency (obscene speech and nudity). The PTC
> > is making its opposition known to the FCC during a public comment
> > period, which end June 19, 2013. They encourage parents to send
> > comments to the FCC on this subject, as well.
>
> > According to PornHarms.com, Tim Winter, the president of PTC,
> > commented: “It unnecessarily weakens a decency law that withstood a ferocious, 10-year constitutional attack waged by the broadcast industry. It
> > invites yet another wave of special interest pressure to obviate the
> > intent of Congress and the will of the American people,” Winter said.
>
> You mean the American people watching shows you don't like in large
> enough numbers to keep them on the air?

"True Blood" is coming back in June for another season and
the fifth season dvd is coming out soon. Yay! And there's
nothing JJ can do about it. I wonder if and how they'll
bring Bill back.

And, I was right about who Sookie ended up with in the books.
Anyone else would have made no sense. That book was like Old
Home Week except for a certain sideburned singer.

>
> > “… Either material is legally indecent or it is not,” Winter said. “It
> > is unnecessary for indecent content to be repeated many times in order
> > to be actionable, and it is unwise for the FCC to pursue a new course
> > which will guarantee nothing but a new rash of new litigation.”
>
> > File an official indecency complaint with the FCC
>
> Can we file one against you? Because I find not allowing parents to
> decide what their children watch an indecent act.

JJ doesn't discuss his own indecency.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <352b386c-6e73-45fb...@googlegroups.com>,

From the trailers I've seen, there's gonna be lots of blood. <giggle>

> And, I was right about who Sookie ended up with in the books.
> Anyone else would have made no sense. That book was like Old
> Home Week except for a certain sideburned singer.

I got, like 7 or 8 books in and stopped reading.


> > > ³Š Either material is legally indecent or it is not,² Winter said. ³It

> > > is unnecessary for indecent content to be repeated many times in order
> > > to be actionable, and it is unwise for the FCC to pursue a new course
> > > which will guarantee nothing but a new rash of new litigation.²
> >
> > > File an official indecency complaint with the FCC
> >
> > Can we file one against you? Because I find not allowing parents to
> > decide what their children watch an indecent act.
>
> JJ doesn't discuss his own indecency.

No, he just tells us exactly what he is with every single one of his
posts--the dishonest ones, the passive-aggressive ones, the actively
hostile ones.

[Syd M.]

On May 16, 10:46 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
> decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
> of my agenda.

Still more lies.
Controling others seems to be your ultimate agenda, IBen.

PDW

[linuxgal]

hypatiab7 wrote:
> I can imagine J waddling across the border with a cap pistol
> in his shaky hand, screaming "You killed General Wolf! I'm
> gonna getcha!"

"I'm gonna bust a cap in your ass."

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Mason Barge]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 22:40:01 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On May 16, 7:46 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
>> decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
>> of my agenda. This particular issue, the FCC proposing loosening their
>> criteria for what they consider indecent, needs to be vigorously
>> opposed. I urge everyone to file a complaint with the FCC whenever you
>> witness indecency on broadcast television or on the airwaves.
>
>If somebody doesn't like what's on TV, the can always exercise their
>Constitutional right to TURN IT OFF.

Would you agree or disagree with the proposition that "it takes a
village to raise a child"?

[linuxgal]

Mason Barge wrote:
> Would you agree or disagree with the proposition that "it takes a
> village to raise a child"?

John McCain version: "Take the village!"

[Mitchell Holman]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in
news:as4bp8dpa1650k8r3...@4ax.com:

>
> Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
> decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
> of my agenda. This particular issue, the FCC proposing loosening their
> criteria for what they consider indecent, needs to be vigorously
> opposed. I urge everyone to file a complaint with the FCC whenever you
> witness indecency on broadcast television or on the airwaves.
>

"If thine eye offend thee......."

[anim8rFSK]

In article <m2acp85ono8ujs39c...@4ax.com>,

Disagree. Obviously the correct answer is "a child may or may not be
raised by a village"

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Uncle Vic]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in news:as4bp8dpa1650k8r379tm4kh48bk1r44ov@
4ax.com:

> Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
> decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
> of my agenda. This particular issue, the FCC proposing loosening their
> criteria for what they consider indecent, needs to be vigorously
> opposed. I urge everyone to file a complaint with the FCC whenever you
> witness indecency on broadcast television or on the airwaves.

Once again I must focus your attention to the little hand-held device that
sits on the coffee table. There is a button on that device that will save
you all this grief. Do you know what it does?

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[BTR1701]

In article <m2acp85ono8ujs39c...@4ax.com>,
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would. There are plenty of examples of parents who have raised
children on their own without villages.

[MarkA]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:46:00 -0700, J wrote:

>
> The Parents Television Council (PTC), a media-watchdog group, opposes the
> Federal Communications Commission's proposal to loosen its policy
> against radio and T.V. indecency (obscene speech and nudity). The PTC is
> making its opposition known to the FCC during a public comment period,
> which end June 19, 2013. They encourage parents to send comments to the
> FCC on this subject, as well.
>

This reminds me off all the effort the Roman Catholic Church recently
invested into making subtle changes to the wording of Mass, while people
are abandoning the Church in droves for reasons that have nothing to do
with the wording of Mass.

Over-the-air TV is becoming increasingly irrelevant. If you want to make
it the last bastion of your version of "decency", I will hardly notice.
Nor will the children growing up today.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Dakota]

On 5/17/2013 10:50 AM, MarkA wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:46:00 -0700, J wrote:
>
>>
>> The Parents Television Council (PTC), a media-watchdog group, opposes the
>> Federal Communications Commission's proposal to loosen its policy
>> against radio and T.V. indecency (obscene speech and nudity). The PTC is
>> making its opposition known to the FCC during a public comment period,
>> which end June 19, 2013. They encourage parents to send comments to the
>> FCC on this subject, as well.
>>
>
> This reminds me off all the effort the Roman Catholic Church recently
> invested into making subtle changes to the wording of Mass, while people
> are abandoning the Church in droves for reasons that have nothing to do
> with the wording of Mass.
>

I applaud fake-atheist J's beloved Catholic Pedophile Protection
Syndicate for removing Latin and Greek from the mass and replacing
them with local languages. The use of a dead language as the primary
combined with ornate robes and incense helped to create a mystical,
arcane effect during their ceremonies. Once the people could
understand the words, more and more realized that it was simply silly
bullshit and walked away shaking their heads. It's reached the point
where the church has too few children to attract a sufficient number
of pedophiles to the priesthood.

>
> Over-the-air TV is becoming increasingly irrelevant. If you want to make
> it the last bastion of your version of "decency", I will hardly notice.
> Nor will the children growing up today.
>

Religious wackos enjoy righteously screaming at empty chairs. It's all
about themselves. No one else matters. Certainly not the children.

<abortion snipped>

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<8af717ed-383a-4a1e...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Of course.

He wants the Christian Taliban in control.

[Mason Barge]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:19:05 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

The Catholic Church in just the United States dispensed over $3
billion in outright charity last year, not to mention various schools,
hospitals etc. they underwrote with non-dollar charitable contribution
from people who earn way less than the market rate for their services.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/CH0030.html

[June G]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-16BFD4...@news.giganews.com...

> In article
> <8af717ed-383a-4a1e...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Piggybacking

>> On May 16, 10:46 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> > Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
>> > decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
>> > of my agenda.

One of your posts describes watching a cat being cruelly killed by a dog as
fun. You call that decent?
--
June G
# 364

[June G]

Piggybacking

>>
>> >On May 16, 7:46 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> >> Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
>> >> decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
>> >> of my agenda. This particular issue, the FCC proposing loosening their
>> >> criteria for what they consider indecent, needs to be vigorously
>> >> opposed. I urge everyone to file a complaint with the FCC whenever you
>> >> witness indecency on broadcast television or on the airwaves.

To whom does one file a complaint about sick videos showing a cat being
cruelly killed by a dog? There's not much that's more indecent than that.

[suzeeq]

Dakota wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 10:50 AM, MarkA wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:46:00 -0700, J wrote:
>>
>>> The Parents Television Council (PTC), a media-watchdog group, opposes the
>>> Federal Communications Commission's proposal to loosen its policy
>>> against radio and T.V. indecency (obscene speech and nudity). The PTC is
>>> making its opposition known to the FCC during a public comment period,
>>> which end June 19, 2013. They encourage parents to send comments to the
>>> FCC on this subject, as well.
>>>
>> This reminds me off all the effort the Roman Catholic Church recently
>> invested into making subtle changes to the wording of Mass, while people
>> are abandoning the Church in droves for reasons that have nothing to do
>> with the wording of Mass.
>>
> I applaud fake-atheist J's beloved Catholic Pedophile Protection
> Syndicate for removing Latin and Greek from the mass and replacing
> them with local languages. The use of a dead language as the primary
> combined with ornate robes and incense helped to create a mystical,
> arcane effect during their ceremonies. Once the people could
> understand the words, more and more realized that it was simply silly
> bullshit and walked away shaking their heads.

They changed the language of the Mass from Latin about 50 years ago. So
you're saying it's taken that long for people to figure out what they
were saying in their local language?

[Dakota]

The Catholic Church has been in steady decline ever since. Of course
that decline has been hastened by the frequent disclosures over the
years that child raping priests were abetted by that disgusting
criminal organization.

[SkyEyes]

On May 17, 5:54 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 22:40:01 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>

I disagree with it. Parents raise a child. The "village" might have
a certain amount of input, but the parents can, and should, counteract
any village input they don't care for.

Here's what I agree with: the airwaves shouldn't be run strictly by
and for children's preferences. Adults get to have programming too.
If a particular parent doesn't want their kids watching particular
programs, s/he can always use the V-Chip built into each television
that allows parents to block content.

*OR* they can do what my parents did and simply turn the TV set *off*
and not allow the kid to watch any television.

*OR* they can simply get rid of their television, as unAmerican as
that may sound.

But only allowing programming fit for children? No. Let the parents
*do their jobs* and actually *parent* their children. Too many
parents consider the job of parenting done the minute they grunt out
the squealing piglet.

[Mason Barge]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 20:30:17 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

What is your factual source?

Wikipedia says that the Catholic Church has grown steadily, from 437
million people in 1950 to about 1.2 billion in 2013. It grew by 1.5%
in 2012.

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

And how can you call it a "criminal organization"? The Economist
estimates that its total expenditure on health care, education, and
charities exceeded $150 billion in 2010.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/17/the-economist-estimates-the-catholic-church-spent-171600000000-in-2010/

I hope you can rid your heart of some of your rage and hurt.

[MarkA]

Oh, well, in that case, who cares that priests were raping children, and
the Church hid the evidence from authorities, and allowed the abuse to go
on?

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[MarkA]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:14:08 -0500, Uncle Vic wrote:

> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in news:as4bp8dpa1650k8r379tm4kh48bk1r44ov@
> 4ax.com:
>
>> Anyone who has followed my postings throughout the years know that
>> decency and the welfare of children have always been in the forefront
>> of my agenda. This particular issue, the FCC proposing loosening their
>> criteria for what they consider indecent, needs to be vigorously
>> opposed. I urge everyone to file a complaint with the FCC whenever you
>> witness indecency on broadcast television or on the airwaves.
>
> Once again I must focus your attention to the little hand-held device that
> sits on the coffee table. There is a button on that device that will save
> you all this grief. Do you know what it does?

Unfortunately, my hand-held device likes to hide itself between the
cushions of the sofa, or will frequently latch onto a nearby, moving
animal, to have itself carried to the kitchen.

[Dano]

"MarkA" wrote in message
news:pan.2013.05.18....@somewhere.invalid...

================================================

I'd also ask how much they took in. Nice of them to distribute the monies
given them by parishioners.

And were they counting the money in settlements to victims of abuse?

Look. They do some good works. Not ALL the clergy are guilty of anything.
I'll bet most are very good folks. But the smearing of their own is a
direct consequence of the Church's own intransigency in resolving these
cases and punishing those responsible. Actually...what SHOULD have happened
is...they should have been turned over to authorities and prosecuted. Then
their brother clergymen would not have been stained as much by their sins.
They have themselves to blame.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:41:07 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:

Why does anyone use Microsoft Windows Live Mail for usenet?

[Dano]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
news:vtbfp8599f8tmr3dc...@4ax.com...

========================================

Why do you care?

[Dano]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
news:vtbfp8599f8tmr3dc...@4ax.com...

========================================

If you really are bothered...use your killfile.

[Dano]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
news:vtbfp8599f8tmr3dc...@4ax.com...

Why does anyone use Microsoft Windows Live Mail for usenet?

=========================================

And people wonder why Usenet is dying.

[Dano]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
news:vtbfp8599f8tmr3dc...@4ax.com...

Why does anyone use Microsoft Windows Live Mail for usenet?

====================================

Because it's free.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:56:27 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote

Because the idiots who created Microsoft Windows Live Mail have no idea
how to set up attributions, at least by default. Can you fix your
settings so they aren't defective?

[Mason Barge]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:56:11 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>

Nice rhetoric. It was a terrible series of crimes and a number of
bishops were involved in hushing it up.

But anyone who can't say anything else about the Catholic Church is
just looking to bash Catholicism. It's an old habit in the U.S.
though.

[BTR1701]

Yeah, because people like you who reply repeatedly to the same message.

[linuxgal]

So is Seamonkey Mail from the Mozilla project.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Dakota]

One option you didn't mention was that parents could watch television
with their children as my parents did (except on Saturday mornings
when I watched cartoons).

[Dakota]

Three billion dollars is a drop in the bucket for the obscenely
wealthy Roman Catholic Pedophile Protection Syndicate that has paid
around a fifth of that - $600,000 to compensate their victims for the
heinous crimes committed against them by Catholic priests.

[Dano]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message

news:o3ffp8deo3kg4u7b4...@4ax.com...

==========================================

Nope. Because the software IS defective. I don't see the point. The
reason why it hasn't been "fixed" is that precious few give a shit.

Let's just enjoy the waning days of Usenet while anyone is still
here...beyond the majority consisting of mental defectives, trolls, and
bigots that inhabit this twisted corner of the Interwebs in peace.

And no...for the thousandth time...I'm NOT purchasing some newsreader for
the insignificant amount of participation I still engage in here. Simply
not worth even that much time, let alone a few bucks.

[Michael Black]

On Sun, 19 May 2013, Dano wrote:


> Because the idiots who created Microsoft Windows Live Mail have no idea
> how to set up attributions, at least by default. Can you fix your
> settings so they aren't defective?
>
> ==========================================
>
> Nope. Because the software IS defective. I don't see the point. The
> reason why it hasn't been "fixed" is that precious few give a shit.
>
> Let's just enjoy the waning days of Usenet while anyone is still
> here...beyond the majority consisting of mental defectives, trolls, and
> bigots that inhabit this twisted corner of the Interwebs in peace.
>
> And no...for the thousandth time...I'm NOT purchasing some newsreader for the
> insignificant amount of participation I still engage in here. Simply not
> worth even that much time, let alone a few bucks.
>

I've never paid for a newsreader. Surely some of the Unix-based
newsreaders have been ported to Windows. I've used Pine (admittedly a mix
of mail and newsreader) since 1996. amd there's a port to WIndows. Since
most of the Unix/Linux software is open source, I would guess other
programs have made the transistion to Windows.

After all, Usenet wsa around a long time before Microsoft jumped on the
bandwagon. People used third party software, likely freeware or open
source, to get on Usenet.

Michael

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:47:48 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote

And why do you inflict your opinions on us with this defective software
when there is free software that works properly?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:39:18 -0400, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote
in alt.atheism:

He could use Thunderbird. Even Giggle Groups works better than the crap
he is using.

[BTR1701]

In article <knavg7$lbr$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Let's just enjoy the waning days of Usenet while anyone is still
> here...beyond the majority consisting of mental defectives, trolls, and
> bigots that inhabit this twisted corner of the Interwebs in peace.

Everyone but you, right? You're so above it all.

[SkyEyes]

Indeed, and that's a good option. Doesn't keep your kid from seeing
things not meant for children, but allows the parent to take advantage
of a teachable moment.

Brenda

[trotsky]

Ha, good one! You should take him out teabaggin' some time.


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[Dano]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message

news:oe4ip8lbkb21q0n64...@4ax.com...

==============================================

Hey. I didn't start this nonsense. Too bad you "experts" can't simply
ignore me if the format so outrages you. Don't your awesome readers have
filters?

Guess I should be flattered you care so much about what I bother to post.
Thanks I suppose...

[William December Starr]

In article <vtbfp8599f8tmr3dc...@4ax.com>,

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> said:

> Why does anyone use Microsoft Windows Live Mail for usenet?

It's a religious thing.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <s6vep8t2c18nleirc...@4ax.com>,

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:

> Wikipedia says that the Catholic Church has grown steadily, from
> 437 million people in 1950 to about 1.2 billion in 2013. It grew
> by 1.5% in 2012.

How does that break down for "in areas where the Church was strong
in 1950" and "in 'virgin territory' that the Church's been expanding
into since 1950"? It's perfectly conceivable that membership -- at
least, per capita -- has been declining in places where the Church
was once unassailable, while growing through conversion in places
where it barely had a presence in 1950.

-- wds

[Michael Black]

I don't know about the decline, but I've definitely seen articles about
how Catholicism is groing mostly in South America (and I suspect some
other areas ithadn't penetrated much in the past, like maybe China).

Here in Quebec, there's certainly been a decline. I think it was Mark
Twain who came to town and said something about how you could swing a cat
here without hitting a church. A lot of those churches are going empty,
turned into condos or community centers. ONce upon a time, the catholic
church practically ran things, now most people just kind of ignore it.
They just said on the evening news that 3/4 of Quebecers believe in
freedom of choice. And we have a high level of "living in sin".

All of that is a big change from decades back when the catholic church
ruled here.

Michael

[Dakota]

Membership in the Catholic Church is attained through baptism or
reception into the Church (for individuals previously baptised in
non-Catholic Christian churches).[56] For some years until 2009, if
someone formally left the Church, that fact was noted in the register
of the person's baptism.

In 2011, Vatican records listed 413,418 Catholic priests in the world.
The main growth areas have been Asia and Africa, with 39% and 32%
growth respectively over the previous year.[1]

Since the early 2000s the number of practicing Catholics have been
reported to be declining in millions throughout the world.[57]

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

Once on the membership list, you can't get off unless you are
excommunicated. I was baptized as an infant and will stay on their
list long after I'm dead. That's one of the deceptive ways they keep
their numbers so high.

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

or

http://tinyurl.com/8sgdqqw

The Mormons go one better. They baptize dead people including some who
had never expressed an interest in that church.

[Mason Barge]

On 29 May 2013 23:16:58 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December

I really don't understand where this is coming from. Is there a post
I didn't see?

All I said was that the statement about the Catholic Church being in
decline, according to Wikipedia at least, seems to be incorrect. All
I saw was what appeared to be a statement on gross membership.

FWIW, I'd certainly agree that it's declining heavily in some areas. I
just read something the other days about an old church in New Jersey
selling off windows and architectural features of a beautiful old
church, and iirc it said that four Catholic parishes had been
consolidated into one due to falling participation.

My guess is that the overall rise in membership has a lot to do with
Spanish-speaking immigrants, and the decline (at least in New Jersey)
with third/fourth generation Italians. Very few of the Italians I
went to school with had any interest in Catholicism, other than
talking about how mean the nuns were at Catholic school.

Catholicism is booming in Atlanta, even among non-Hispanics.

But it's interesting, to me at least, to see which churches are
growing and which ones are declining.

Catholics, Mormons, evangelical and pentacostal denominations are
growing. Also Seventh-day Adventists, which has become big among
African-Americans.

Old mainstream "liberal" Protestant churches are sharply declining,
like 3-8% per year. In 20 years, at the rate it's going, there will
hardly be any Epicopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or
Church of Christ churches left.

Hmm, looking around, the NCC 2012 yearbook, which is a lot more
authoritative than Wikipedia, says the Catholic Church declined
slightly 2011-2012 (.45%).
http://www.ncccusa.org/news/120209yearbook2012.html

[William December Starr]

In article <4k2fq8d1lgoaqpl8d...@4ax.com>,

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:

> But it's interesting, to me at least, to see which churches are
> growing and which ones are declining.
>
> Catholics, Mormons, evangelical and pentacostal denominations are
> growing. Also Seventh-day Adventists, which has become big among
> African-Americans.
>
> Old mainstream "liberal" Protestant churches are sharply
> declining, like 3-8% per year. In 20 years, at the rate it's
> going, there will hardly be any Epicopalian, Methodist, Lutheran,
> Presbyterian, or Church of Christ churches left.

I think the general rule is that the ones that are gaining are the
ones that try very hard to recruit new members, especially in new
territories, while the ones that aren't are the ones that mostly say
"Hey, we're here if anybody's interested."

-- wds

[Dakota]

Wiki articles generally provide a list of references. The National
Council of Churches article at your link makes the following statement
regarding the data.

"Membership figures reported in the 2012 Yearbook were collected by
the churches in 2010 and reported to the Yearbook in 2011."

Got that? The churches reported the figures.

It's absurd to claim that the Christian organization "is a lot more
authoritative than Wikipedia" unless also post the references at the
wiki and show them to be less reliable.