The Parents Television Council: "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing"
Juan F. Lara
those evil things in children's television that PTC is trying to protect your
little larvae from. Go to their website:
and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
:-P
- Juan F. Lara
The Eternal Lost Lurker
"Juan F. Lara" <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:du7v2i$cr$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
There's just a handful of things in particular I want to address in this...
The Offensive/Excretory Content category refers
primarily to issues of bodily functions and includes:
? Spitting/drooling
? Nose-picking, eating of or depiction of nasal
mucus
....riiiight. Because God forbid we let our children be exposed to drool
or--GASP--BOOGERS!!
> Now that the WB has done away with its children’s weekday programming
> block, ABC Family Channel and Cartoon Network will likely reign supreme as
> the networks with the most violent content.
Hooray! *throws tickertape*
> “Stupid” was the most used questionable word, followed by “loser” and
“butt.”
Stupid loserbutt!!
> The WB’s Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends contained the highest
> frequency of verbally abusive language with an average of 4.3 incidents
per
> episode.
[Bloo] "Verbally abusive language? What's THAT supposed to mean?"
[Mac] "I think it means they think you're an asshole."
[Bloo] "Ah, go screw yourself."
> The WB’s The Batman had the most sexual content with an average of
> 1.33 incidents per episode.
I must've missed THOSE episodes...@_@
> The WB’s Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends had the highest frequency of
> offensive or excretory content with an average of 3.66 incidents per
episode.
"MISS FRANCIS! Master Bloo has defecated in the foyer again!"
"I DID NOT! ...it was Coco."
> The influence of Japanese anime on children’s cartoons is quite evident.
Apparently not, because...
> The following examples show the ways this influence is played out.
> This very intense scene took place on Fox’s Shaman King:
...the authors seem to not have noticed Shaman King *IS* anime.
> From Disney Channel’s Even Stevens a disturbing use of language
> between an adult and child:
> ? Louis dumps a bucket of water over coach’s head to celebrate
> Twitty’s great pitching.
> Coach: “IDIOT! We’re at the top of the 5th. We have two innings to
> go!” [August 3, 2005]
....calling someone an idiot for doing something idiotic is "disturbing"
now?
Same goes for the "disturbing" adult interaction referenced from "Proud
Family".
> DISRESPECT FOR PARENTS/AUTHORITY
> From Disney’s Sister, Sister:
> ? Allison can’t come to the party because she is grounded for
> mouthing-off to her mom. While she is on the phone, you hear her
> say to her mom, “Shut up mother and get out of my face!”
I'd agree with their sentiments here if it weren't also evident that the
character in question is *being punished for EXACTLY this behavior*.
> Billy sticks his entire hand in his nose pulls out some mucus
> and throws it. [July 22, 2005]
In what way is that offensive aside from being offensively stupid?
> Bugs Bunny didn’t call Elmer Fudd an idiot.
...IN WHAT UNIVERSE?
--
This message brought to you by S'LITTLES:
S'LITTLES: Feel the loli. Taste the loli.
~~*~~
The Eternal Lost Lurker
www.lurkerdrome.com
elsie
"The Eternal Lost Lurker" <kuraebakayaro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
in message news:2tMNf.17494$rL5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>> Bugs Bunny didn’t call Elmer Fudd an idiot.
>
>
>
> ...IN WHAT UNIVERSE?
>
>
Because someone's gotta say it:
"What a maroon!"
laurie
sanjian
Their website doesn't even mention FMA or Naruto. Boring.
elsie
"sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:du8653$4n4$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
hadn't started airing yet during their viewing period. Can you imagine how
these people would have reacted to Naruto? The violence! The martial arts!
The witchcraft-like powers! The bad attitudes! The sexy no jutsu would never
have gotten past these folks.
laurie
sanjian
I would be more interested to see their reactions to FMA. Definately much
darker.
elsie
would it have taken the Night of the Chimera's Cry?
Inappropriate content in FMA according to their criteria:
Violent behavior: physical violence, martial arts, use of weapons, violence
involving objects, fire, implied violence, death implied or depicted,
graphic depiction
Verbal abuse: verbal aggression, threats, insults;
Offensive language: vulgar or profane language, mild language (can't think
of any toilet humor in FMA)
Problematic attitudes and behaviors:defiance, disobediance; disrespect for
authority/parents, lying, cheating, stealing, disruptive behavior/tantrums,
harmful pranks, mob/gang activity, racism, negative peer pressure, bullying
(no computer related hacking)
Sexual content: adult subtext/innuendo, nudity, partial nudity, cross
dressing, sexual activity implied, revealing clothing, underwear shown
(can't think of any references to homosexuality in FMA other than suspicions
about Armstrong)
Offensive/Excretory Content: Vomit -- Izumi's blood is the only thing I can
think of in this category
Social Institutions: (Oooh, good stuff here) parental
authority/responsibility, portrayal of parents in a negative light, family,
parent/child relationships, adult/child relationships, educational
authority, law enforcement, other authority figures, friendship, religion,
religious symbolism, occultism/witchcraft/paganism, war
laurie
sanjian
>> I would be more interested to see their reactions to FMA. Definately much
>> darker.
> Do you think their heads would have been exploded by episode 3
> (Mother) or would it have taken the Night of the Chimera's Cry?
Episode 1, even before the opening credits.
> Inappropriate content in FMA according to their criteria:
>
> Violent behavior: physical violence, martial arts, use of weapons,
> violence involving objects, fire, implied violence, death implied or
> depicted, graphic depiction
>
> Verbal abuse: verbal aggression, threats, insults;
>
> Offensive language: vulgar or profane language, mild language (can't
> think of any toilet humor in FMA)
>
> Problematic attitudes and behaviors:defiance, disobediance;
> disrespect for authority/parents, lying, cheating, stealing,
> disruptive behavior/tantrums, harmful pranks, mob/gang activity,
> racism, negative peer pressure, bullying (no computer related hacking)
>
> Sexual content: adult subtext/innuendo, nudity, partial nudity, cross
> dressing, sexual activity implied, revealing clothing, underwear shown
> (can't think of any references to homosexuality in FMA other than
> suspicions about Armstrong)
>
> Offensive/Excretory Content: Vomit -- Izumi's blood is the only thing
> I can think of in this category
>
> Social Institutions: (Oooh, good stuff here) parental
> authority/responsibility, portrayal of parents in a negative light,
> family, parent/child relationships, adult/child relationships,
> educational authority, law enforcement, other authority figures,
> friendship, religion, religious symbolism,
> occultism/witchcraft/paganism, war
And that's not even getting into the playing God / resurrection and genocide
issues.
Relic
ShEEsh...I have been seeing the PTC's nonsense for years...I am
convinced that if they sat down and watched the classic WB cartoons
uncut, their collective heads would explode. I have the 3 Golden
Collections...Heere, PTCy, heeere, PTCy...look what the "nice"
man has to show you...^_<
> laurie
>
>
--
New version of an old favorite!
The Briefcase Fulla Rant!
http://briefrant.com
It'll grab you and won't let you go ^_^!
Fish Eye no Miko
> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote:
>
>> I would be more interested to see their reactions to FMA. Definately
>> much darker.
>
> Do you think their heads would have been exploded by episode 3
> (Mother)
Good.
> or would it have taken the Night of the Chimera's Cry?
I think they wouldn't've made it past the first episode... Seriously.
> Inappropriate content in FMA according to their criteria:
<snip>
> Problematic attitudes and behaviors:defiance, disobediance;
> disrespect for authority/parents, lying, cheating, stealing,
> disruptive behavior/tantrums, harmful pranks, mob/gang activity,
> racism, negative peer pressure, bullying (no computer related
> hacking)
We did see someone tapping someone else's phone without permission, which
is... kinda the same thing?
> Sexual content: adult subtext/innuendo, nudity, partial nudity,
> cross dressing, sexual activity implied, revealing clothing,
> underwear shown
Woo-hoo! Ed's trunks!
> (can't think of any references to homosexuality in FMA other
> than suspicions about Armstrong)
Wow, you're right... O_O
> Offensive/Excretory Content: Vomit -- Izumi's blood is the only
> thing I can think of in this category
Greed and Lust coughing up the red stones?
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"The more steps we take forward, the longer we see the path is ahead."
-Shou Tucker, _FullMetal Alchemist_
Neil Nadelman
F. Lara) wrote:
> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report covering all
>those evil things in children's television that PTC is trying to protect your
>little larvae from. Go to their website:
Imagine a world where all children's entertainment met with
their approval. It would all be terribly nurturing and positive and
peaceful and utterly unwatchable.
(CUE ITCHY AND SCRATCHY ROCKING ON THE FRONT PORCH)
"Lemonade?"
"Please."
"Thank you."
"You're my best friend."
THE END
-----------------------------------------------------
Neil Nadelman ar...@navzr-genafyngbe.pbz (ROT13)
-----------------------------------------------------
I have no fears in life,
for I have already survived Theta-G!
Current favorite spam subject line:
Be vancouver the imaginate!
elsie
> elsie wrote:
>> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in message
>> news:du87ko$csm$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
>
>>> I would be more interested to see their reactions to FMA. Definately
>>> much darker.
>> Do you think their heads would have been exploded by episode 3
>> (Mother) or would it have taken the Night of the Chimera's Cry?
>
> Episode 1, even before the opening credits.
>
brain wants to forget that we get the human transmutation there and wants to
think it only comes in Episode 3.
That's under religion and war. But yeah, they would have a field day.
laurie
elsie
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
news:nTNNf.3027$p43.363@fed1read05...
> elsie wrote:
>
>> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> I would be more interested to see their reactions to FMA. Definately
>>> much darker.
>>
>> Do you think their heads would have been exploded by episode 3
>> (Mother)
>
> Good.
>
>> or would it have taken the Night of the Chimera's Cry?
>
> I think they wouldn't've made it past the first episode... Seriously.
>
other family.
>> Inappropriate content in FMA according to their criteria:
> <snip>
>> Problematic attitudes and behaviors:defiance, disobediance;
>> disrespect for authority/parents, lying, cheating, stealing,
>> disruptive behavior/tantrums, harmful pranks, mob/gang activity,
>> racism, negative peer pressure, bullying (no computer related
>> hacking)
>
> We did see someone tapping someone else's phone without permission, which
> is... kinda the same thing?
>
>> Sexual content: adult subtext/innuendo, nudity, partial nudity,
>> cross dressing, sexual activity implied, revealing clothing,
>> underwear shown
>
> Woo-hoo! Ed's trunks!
That's what I was thinking of !
>
>> (can't think of any references to homosexuality in FMA other
>> than suspicions about Armstrong)
>
> Wow, you're right... O_O
Which actually surprised me when I was going through it. Barry may have been
a cross-dresser but he'd also been married.
>
>> Offensive/Excretory Content: Vomit -- Izumi's blood is the only
>> thing I can think of in this category
>
> Greed and Lust coughing up the red stones?
>
That's true. Those had slipped my mind. It surprised me that they didn't
have an entry for blood, since there's quite a lot of it.
> Catherine Johnson.
> --
> fenm at cox dot net
> "The more steps we take forward, the longer we see the path is ahead."
> -Shou Tucker, _FullMetal Alchemist_
>
laurie
Fish Eye no Miko
> Inappropriate content in FMA according to their criteria:
Since people have brought up _Naruto_ here, pardon me hijacking your post
to see that they'd think of it...
> Violent behavior: physical violence, martial arts, use of
> weapons, violence involving objects, fire, implied violence,
> death implied or depicted, graphic depiction
All but the "graphic depiction", I think... Haku and Zabuza's deaths were
kinda graphic. And there's some coming up...
BTW. elsie, did they have a category for violence using, against, or among
animals? Cuz there's some in both FMA and _Naruto_.
> Verbal abuse: verbal aggression, threats, insults;
Yep.
> Offensive language: vulgar or profane language, mild language
> (can't think of any toilet humor in FMA)
They don't have swearing, as such. But mild stuff, sure.
There is a little toilet humor; Naruto being the toilet for most of the
third episode, and the "thousand years of pain" attack (which we'll be
seeing again...)
> Problematic attitudes and behaviors:defiance, disobediance;
> disrespect for authority/parents, lying, cheating, stealing,
> disruptive behavior/tantrums, harmful pranks, mob/gang activity, racism,
Hmm.. I'm not sure there's much racism.
> negative peer pressure, bullying
Yeah, _Naruto_ has all of this.
> Sexual content: adult subtext/innuendo, nudity, partial nudity,
> cross dressing,
Would sexy no jutsu be "cross dressing"? And Haku's outfit it pretty
girlie.
> sexual activity implied,
Not that I know of.
> revealing clothing,
Anko, anyone? HELLO!
> underwear shown
Uhh.. hmmm..
> (can't think of any references to homosexuality in FMA other than
> suspicions about Armstrong)
Haku and Zabuza's relationship was ambigious.
Oh, and the Sasuke/Naruto "kiss" in episode... three? Oddly, even though
they edited it out of that ep, we see it in a flashback thingie in a later
up, and it stays up on the screen longer than it probably lasted in the
first place! Good job, CN...
> Offensive/Excretory Content: Vomit -- Izumi's blood is the only
> thing I can think of in this category
There was a little toilet humor, and Kabuto was heard throwing up in one
episode. Not sure about anything else.
> Social Institutions: (Oooh, good stuff here) parental
> authority/responsibility, portrayal of parents in a negative light,
Hmmm.. The Kazekage, maybe?
> family,
I can think if a few dysfunctional families in _Naruto_.
> parent/child relationships, adult/child relationships,
> educational authority,
If they mean these things are subverted of disrespected, then yeah.
> law enforcement,
What would be considered law enforcement in the Naruto-'verse?
> other authority figures, friendship,
Yep, yep...
> religion, religious symbolism,
Not sure about this... See below.
> occultism/witchcraft/paganism,
Wouldn't many mainstream Asian religions be seen as "pagan" by US
standards?
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
Fish Eye no Miko
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote
>> elsie wrote:
>>> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would be more interested to see their reactions to FMA.
>>>> Definately much darker.
>>>
>>> Do you think their heads would have been exploded by
>>> episode 3 (Mother)
>>
>> Good.
>>
>>> or would it have taken the Night of the Chimera's Cry?
>>
>> I think they wouldn't've made it past the first episode... Seriously.
> They would like Hughes and his family, but be outraged by
> practically every other family.
I'm not sure what you mean here...
>>> Sexual content: adult subtext/innuendo, nudity, partial
>>> nudity, cross dressing, sexual activity implied, revealing
>>> clothing, underwear shown
>>
>> Woo-hoo! Ed's trunks!
>
> That's what I was thinking of !
Cool!
They actually have "underwear shown"? Sheesh. I've seen shows--and real
life situations--where one person's underwear is more modest than another
person's outerwear. I think "undressing" would be more a reason for
concern. Someone walking around in their modest underwear is very
different than someone undressing. And...
Oh, never mind, I'm not in the mood to rant, and I'd be preaching to the
choir, anyway.
>>> Offensive/Excretory Content: Vomit -- Izumi's blood is the only
>>> thing I can think of in this category
>>
>> Greed and Lust coughing up the red stones?
>>
> That's true. Those had slipped my mind.
Understood.
> It surprised me that they didn't have an entry for blood, since
> there's quite a lot of it.
Yeah, that is weird.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"At least some oboe player got a paycheck out of all this horse hockey..."
-Mike Nelson, _Mystery Science Theater 3000_.
Richard V. Lamb
"The Eternal Lost Lurker" <kuraebakayaro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
in message news:2tMNf.17494$rL5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> news:du7v2i$cr$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
> > The WB’s The Batman had the most sexual content with an average of
>
> > 1.33 incidents per episode.
>
>
>
> I must've missed THOSE episodes...@_@
Count the scenes in which Catwoman appears. Double them so there is one
point for each of her boobs. Divide by total number of episodes. Presto,
an average of 1.33 sexual incidents per episode!
--
Vince "Professor Plum" Lamb
"Washuu has crabs!"
sanjian
>>> Social Institutions: (Oooh, good stuff here) parental
>>> authority/responsibility, portrayal of parents in a negative light,
>>> family, parent/child relationships, adult/child relationships,
>>> educational authority, law enforcement, other authority figures,
>>> friendship, religion, religious symbolism,
>>> occultism/witchcraft/paganism, war
>>
>> And that's not even getting into the playing God / resurrection and
>> genocide issues.
>
> That's under religion and war. But yeah, they would have a field day.
I'd say genocide goes far beyond war. As for religion, I think that would
be the fact that religion, especially in the Lior episodes is shown in a
negative light, with the tired old "the priest is the bad guy" cliche
(seriously, I'm bloody sick of it). The whole human transmutation thing
goes beyond that. I'd say it's closer to occultism and voodoo.
sanjian
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
> news:nTNNf.3027$p43.363@fed1read05...
>> elsie wrote:
>>
>>> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would be more interested to see their reactions to FMA.
>>>> Definately much darker.
>>>
>>> Do you think their heads would have been exploded by episode 3
>>> (Mother)
>>
>> Good.
>>
>>> or would it have taken the Night of the Chimera's Cry?
>>
>> I think they wouldn't've made it past the first episode... Seriously.
> They would like Hughes and his family, but be outraged by practically
> every other family.
Rockbells would be fine. Orphaned child adopted by grandmother. Parents
still married at death. All good. Sure, the crafting of prosthetics is a
strange trade for the family, but no big deal.
<snip>
> That's true. Those had slipped my mind. It surprised me that they
> didn't have an entry for blood, since there's quite a lot of it.
They probably aren't used to seeing it outside violence or gore.
Abraham Evangelista
<ar...@navzr-genafyngbe.pbz (ROT13)> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 23:28:18 +0000 (UTC), lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan
>F. Lara) wrote:
>
>> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report covering all
>>those evil things in children's television that PTC is trying to protect your
>>little larvae from. Go to their website:
>
> Imagine a world where all children's entertainment met with
>their approval. It would all be terribly nurturing and positive and
>peaceful and utterly unwatchable.
>
> (CUE ITCHY AND SCRATCHY ROCKING ON THE FRONT PORCH)
>
> "Lemonade?"
>
> "Please."
>
> "Thank you."
>
> "You're my best friend."
Binchou-tan called. She wants her script back.
>
> THE END
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Neil Nadelman ar...@navzr-genafyngbe.pbz (ROT13)
>-----------------------------------------------------
> I have no fears in life,
> for I have already survived Theta-G!
>
> Current favorite spam subject line:
> Be vancouver the imaginate!
--
"ZAKKENAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"
Abraham Evangelista
Richard V. Lamb
news:L0ONf.6490$5M6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
SPOILER AHEAD!
> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in message
> news:du891n$gk9$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> > elsie wrote:
> >> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:du87ko$csm$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> >
> >>> I would be more interested to see their reactions to FMA. Definately
> >>> much darker.
> >> Do you think their heads would have been exploded by episode 3
> >> (Mother) or would it have taken the Night of the Chimera's Cry?
> >
> > Episode 1, even before the opening credits.
> >
> That's right. I keep forgetting that scene is there. For some reason, my
> brain wants to forget that we get the human transmutation there and wants
to
> think it only comes in Episode 3.
>
> >> Inappropriate content in FMA according to their criteria:
<snip>
> >> Social Institutions: (Oooh, good stuff here) parental
> >> authority/responsibility, portrayal of parents in a negative light,
> >> family, parent/child relationships, adult/child relationships,
> >> educational authority, law enforcement, other authority figures,
> >> friendship, religion, religious symbolism,
> >> occultism/witchcraft/paganism, war
> >
> > And that's not even getting into the playing God / resurrection and
> > genocide issues.
>
> That's under religion and war. But yeah, they would have a field day.
Can you imagine their reaction to the epiosode that mentioned that
Christianity went extinct?
Chuck Stewart
> Neil Nadelman wrote:
>> (CUE ITCHY AND SCRATCHY ROCKING ON THE FRONT PORCH)
>> "Lemonade?"
>> "Please."
>> "Thank you."
>> "You're my best friend."
> Binchou-tan called. She wants her script back.
And she's coming over with Yurie-kamisama,
two aprons, and a pair of P90's to get it...
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Quiet Desperation
lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
> and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
Oh, I'm printing this one out for entertaining bedtime reading. :)
The Eternal Lost Lurker
FMA isn't "childrens' programming" because it comes on after 10pm, and
Naruto had not yet premiered at the time they began this study.
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
Why are so much of the anime on the "no examples" list?!
So why am I watching it for then?! >;-]
Laters. =)
STan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ LostRune+sig [at] UofR [dot] net
| ( _| | http://www.uofr.net/~lostrune/
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
>
> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in message
> news:du8653$4n4$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> > Juan F. Lara wrote:
> >> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report
> >> covering all those evil things in children's television that PTC is
> >> trying to protect your little larvae from. Go to their website:
> >>
> >> http://www.parentstv.org/
> >>
> >> and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
> >
> > Their website doesn't even mention FMA or Naruto. Boring.
>
> Yeah, at least they kept Adult Swim out of it, and I'm guessing Naruto
>
Well, Adult Swim is supposed to be for adults,
even though it's on a cartoon network.
Including it would undermine them further.
The Eternal Lost Lurker
> >> I think they wouldn't've made it past the first episode... Seriously.
> > They would like Hughes and his family, but be outraged by practically
> > every other family.
>
> Rockbells would be fine. Orphaned child adopted by grandmother. Parents
> still married at death. All good. Sure, the crafting of prosthetics is a
> strange trade for the family, but no big deal.
Nope, because Winry walks around half-naked most of the time and her
grandmother lets her.
(BLESS YOU, PINAKO. h.h)
The Eternal Lost Lurker
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
> Since people have brought up _Naruto_ here, pardon me hijacking your post
> to see that they'd think of it...
>
> > Violent behavior: physical violence, martial arts, use of
> > weapons, violence involving objects, fire, implied violence,
> > death implied or depicted, graphic depiction
>
> All but the "graphic depiction", I think... Haku and Zabuza's deaths
were
> kinda graphic. And there's some coming up...
There's quite a few graphic depictions of death and severe injury in Naruto.
As well as other graphic depictions of bodily disfigurement that relate to
certain bloodline limits...
> BTW. elsie, did they have a category for violence using, against, or among
> animals? Cuz there's some in both FMA and _Naruto_.
Didn't see one about animals. I don't think they thought of that.
> > Offensive language: vulgar or profane language, mild language
> > (can't think of any toilet humor in FMA)
>
> They don't have swearing, as such. But mild stuff, sure.
> There is a little toilet humor; Naruto being the toilet for most of the
> third episode, and the "thousand years of pain" attack (which we'll be
> seeing again...)
And how. XD Also some major toilet humor coming up in about 20 episodes,
and...I wouldn't be surprised if we got the occasional swear word in an
intense scene, since the rating *IS* TV PG.
> > Problematic attitudes and behaviors:defiance, disobediance;
> > disrespect for authority/parents, lying, cheating, stealing,
> > disruptive behavior/tantrums, harmful pranks, mob/gang activity, racism,
>
> Hmm.. I'm not sure there's much racism.
It's hard to have racism when you don't have races. :)
> > Sexual content: adult subtext/innuendo, nudity, partial nudity,
> > cross dressing,
>
> Would sexy no jutsu be "cross dressing"? And Haku's outfit it pretty
> girlie.
As is *r*c*i*a*u's when he first shows up. I don't know WHAT you'd call Sexy
no Jutsu, though (aside from just plain pervy).
> > revealing clothing,
>
> Anko, anyone? HELLO!
HelllllOOOOOOOOOO Anko! *drooooool*
> > underwear shown
>
> Uhh.. hmmm..
Off the top of my head I can't think of any except maybe in the later
episodes after *r*s*n*i* shows up.
> > (can't think of any references to homosexuality in FMA other than
> > suspicions about Armstrong)
>
> Haku and Zabuza's relationship was ambigious.
> Oh, and the Sasuke/Naruto "kiss" in episode... three? Oddly, even though
> they edited it out of that ep, we see it in a flashback thingie in a later
> up, and it stays up on the screen longer than it probably lasted in the
> first place! Good job, CN...
You misspelled "Viz" :P
> There was a little toilet humor, and Kabuto was heard throwing up in one
> episode. Not sure about anything else.
*thinks* Pretty sure we get a lot of blood-coughing, um...snot (the study
counts snot as offensive excretory)...flatulence, urination (Akamaru), and
there's a few things which would probably qualify which are just plain
abnormal.
> > Social Institutions: (Oooh, good stuff here) parental
> > authority/responsibility, portrayal of parents in a negative light,
>
> Hmmm.. The Kazekage, maybe?
Also Hyuuga Hiashi.
> > family,
>
> I can think if a few dysfunctional families in _Naruto_.
ONLY a few? :P
> > law enforcement,
>
> What would be considered law enforcement in the Naruto-'verse?
ANBU?
> > occultism/witchcraft/paganism,
>
> Wouldn't many mainstream Asian religions be seen as "pagan" by US
> standards?
At best.
Fish Eye no Miko
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>
>> Since people have brought up _Naruto_ here, pardon me hijacking
>> your post to see that they'd think of it...
>>
>>> Violent behavior: physical violence, martial arts, use of
>>> weapons, violence involving objects, fire, implied violence,
>>> death implied or depicted, graphic depiction
>>
>> All but the "graphic depiction", I think... Haku and Zabuza's
>> deaths were kinda graphic. And there's some coming up...
>
> There's quite a few graphic depictions of death and severe injury
> in Naruto. As well as other graphic depictions of bodily
> disfigurement that relate to certain bloodline limits...
Ok, though I wonder if there might be some editing of this. Certain things
I only commented on what we've seen since I'm not sure how editing will go.
The things I referred to that haven't happened yet are things I can't
imagine them editing (like the Kazekage thing).
>> BTW. elsie, did they have a category for violence using, against,
>> or among animals? Cuz there's some in both FMA and _Naruto_.
>
> Didn't see one about animals. I don't think they thought of that.
Which is weird. What, they figure kids don't care if animals get hurt or
killed? Hell, let 'em watch _Wolf's Rain_, then!
>>> Offensive language: vulgar or profane language, mild language
>>> (can't think of any toilet humor in FMA)
>>
>> They don't have swearing, as such. But mild stuff, sure.
>> There is a little toilet humor; Naruto being the toilet for most
>> of the third episode, and the "thousand years of pain" attack
>> (which we'll be seeing again...)
>
> And how. XD Also some major toilet humor coming up in about
> 20 episodes, and...I wouldn't be surprised if we got the occasional
> swear word in an intense scene, since the rating *IS* TV PG.
Yeah, I kinda hope they let in a little swearing.
>>> Problematic attitudes and behaviors:defiance, disobediance;
>>> disrespect for authority/parents, lying, cheating, stealing,
>>> disruptive behavior/tantrums, harmful pranks, mob/gang activity,
>>> racism,
>>
>> Hmm.. I'm not sure there's much racism.
>
> It's hard to have racism when you don't have races. :)
Right.
>>> Sexual content: adult subtext/innuendo, nudity, partial nudity,
>>> cross dressing,
>>
>> Would sexy no jutsu be "cross dressing"? And Haku's outfit it
>> pretty girlie.
>
> As is *r*c*i*a*u's when he first shows up.
Oh! Interesting.
> I don't know WHAT you'd call Sexy no Jutsu, though (aside from
> just plain pervy).
Well, I'm thinking a guy making himself look female could be seen as a sort
of crossdressing... <shrug>
But, yeah, that really fits better under "nudity"
>>> revealing clothing,
>>
>> Anko, anyone? HELLO!
>
> HelllllOOOOOOOOOO Anko! *drooooool*
<hands you a drool bucket>
>>> underwear shown
>>
>> Uhh.. hmmm..
>
> Off the top of my head I can't think of any except maybe in the
> later episodes after *r*s*n*i* shows up.
Could you rewrite that with just the first and last letters?
>>> (can't think of any references to homosexuality in FMA other than
>>> suspicions about Armstrong)
>>
>> Haku and Zabuza's relationship was ambiguous.
>> Oh, and the Sasuke/Naruto "kiss" in episode... three? Oddly, even
>> though they edited it out of that ep, we see it in a flashback
>> thingie in a later up, and it stays up on the screen longer than
>> it probably lasted in the first place! Good job, CN...
>
> You misspelled "Viz" :P
Oh, right. My bad.
>> There was a little toilet humor, and Kabuto was heard throwing up
>> in one episode. Not sure about anything else.
>
> *thinks* Pretty sure we get a lot of blood-coughing,
Well, it seems they edit some of that out, though.
> um...snot (the study counts snot as offensive excretory)...
Lots of snot when people cry. You don't see that in American animation, do
you...?
> flatulence, urination (Akamaru),
Hehheeh...
> and there's a few things which would probably qualify
> which are just plain abnormal.
... I don't wanna know...
>>> Social Institutions: (Oooh, good stuff here) parental
>>> authority/responsibility, portrayal of parents in a negative
>>> light,
>>
>> Hmmm.. The Kazekage, maybe?
>
> Also Hyuuga Hiashi.
Ah, yes. I don't know the whole story, but I'm not surprised.
>>> family,
>>
>> I can think if a few dysfunctional families in _Naruto_.
>
> ONLY a few? :P
Well, I'm thinking of case where we actually know more than one family
member. I'm not thinking of orphans like Naruto...
Basically, I'm thinking of cases where we actually see or specifically hear
about family members who are at odds with each other (again, like the
Kazekage, or the Hyugas).
>>> law enforcement,
>>
>> What would be considered law enforcement in the Naruto-'verse?
>
> ANBU?
Ah, ok.
>>> occultism/witchcraft/paganism,
>>
>> Wouldn't many mainstream Asian religions be seen as "pagan" by US
>> standards?
>
> At best.
Yeah...
Which, to me, makes the issues of "religion" and paganism" more complex
than a simple case of, say, an American show with witches or someone who's
atheist.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"I'm the impish officer of death."
elsie
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
news:FgONf.3030$p43.1697@fed1read05...
> elsie wrote:
>
>> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote
>>> elsie wrote:
>>>> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would be more interested to see their reactions to FMA.
>>>>> Definately much darker.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think their heads would have been exploded by
>>>> episode 3 (Mother)
>>>
>>> Good.
>>>
>>>> or would it have taken the Night of the Chimera's Cry?
>>>
>>> I think they wouldn't've made it past the first episode... Seriously.
>> They would like Hughes and his family, but be outraged by
>> practically every other family.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here...
>
Elrics: Hohenheim left. Disrespect of son towards father
Tringhams: children without parents, warped ideas of respect of parents
Tuckers: Where to begin
Rick and Leo: attitudes towards deceased mother....
Scar and his brother
>>>> Sexual content: adult subtext/innuendo, nudity, partial
>>>> nudity, cross dressing, sexual activity implied, revealing
>>>> clothing, underwear shown
>>>
>>> Woo-hoo! Ed's trunks!
>>
>> That's what I was thinking of !
>
> Cool!
> They actually have "underwear shown"? Sheesh. I've seen shows--and real
> life situations--where one person's underwear is more modest than another
> person's outerwear. I think "undressing" would be more a reason for
> concern. Someone walking around in their modest underwear is very
> different than someone undressing. And...
> Oh, never mind, I'm not in the mood to rant, and I'd be preaching to the
> choir, anyway.
Yep.
>
laurie
Quiet Desperation
"elsie" <lcub...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Children without parents
What... you mean, like, pod people? :-o
sanjian
> news:du8gqb$1uo$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
>>>> I think they wouldn't've made it past the first episode...
>>>> Seriously.
>>> They would like Hughes and his family, but be outraged by
>>> practically every other family.
>>
>> Rockbells would be fine. Orphaned child adopted by grandmother.
>> Parents still married at death. All good. Sure, the crafting of
>> prosthetics is a strange trade for the family, but no big deal.
>
> Nope, because Winry walks around half-naked most of the time and her
> grandmother lets her.
Hmm, true.
> (BLESS YOU, PINAKO. h.h)
And true again. Though, I've got to say, she was amazingly hot in the
movie. And the "Who do you think you're talking to?" scene just about
killed me.
Yes, I'm an unrepentant Winry fanoby.
sanjian
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 04:33:15 +0000, Abraham Evangelista wrote:
>
>> Neil Nadelman wrote:
>
>>> (CUE ITCHY AND SCRATCHY ROCKING ON THE FRONT PORCH)
>
>>> "Lemonade?"
>
>>> "Please."
>
>>> "Thank you."
>
>>> "You're my best friend."
>
>> Binchou-tan called. She wants her script back.
>
> And she's coming over with Yurie-kamisama,
> two aprons, and a pair of P90's to get it...
Hmm... I wonder if they would like some tea. *blushes over the mere thought
of that much moe cuteness*
sanjian
> news:du8653$4n4$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
>> Juan F. Lara wrote:
>>> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report
>>> covering all those evil things in children's television that PTC is
>>> trying to protect your little larvae from. Go to their website:
>>>
>>> http://www.parentstv.org/
>>>
>>> and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
>>
>> Their website doesn't even mention FMA or Naruto. Boring.
>
> FMA isn't "childrens' programming" because it comes on after 10pm, and
> Naruto had not yet premiered at the time they began this study.
Damn. Noticing that they had pulled in some shows that were clearly not for
kids, I figured they were hitting everything.
sanjian
> Fri, 3 Mar 2006 1:49am-0000, elsie <lcub...@earthlink.net>:
>
>>
>> "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in message
>> news:du8653$4n4$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
>>> Juan F. Lara wrote:
>>>> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report
>>>> covering all those evil things in children's television that PTC is
>>>> trying to protect your little larvae from. Go to their website:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.parentstv.org/
>>>>
>>>> and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
>>>
>>> Their website doesn't even mention FMA or Naruto. Boring.
>>
>> Yeah, at least they kept Adult Swim out of it, and I'm guessing
>> Naruto
>>
>
> Well, Adult Swim is supposed to be for adults,
> even though it's on a cartoon network.
> Including it would undermine them further.
But we know all cartoons are for children. (actually, to their credit, in
one of their essays, they addressed that fallacy - so they're not laboring
under that misconception)
Lee Ratner
Relic wrote:
> elsie wrote:
> > "sanjian" <mill...@vt.edu> wrote in message
> > news:du8653$4n4$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> >> Juan F. Lara wrote:
> >>> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report
> >>> covering all those evil things in children's television that PTC is
> >>> trying to protect your little larvae from. Go to their website:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.parentstv.org/
> >>>
> >>> and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
> >> Their website doesn't even mention FMA or Naruto. Boring.
> > Yeah, at least they kept Adult Swim out of it, and I'm guessing Naruto
> > these people would have reacted to Naruto? The violence! The martial arts!
> > The witchcraft-like powers! The bad attitudes! The sexy no jutsu would never
> > have gotten past these folks.
> >
>
> ShEEsh...I have been seeing the PTC's nonsense for years...I am
> convinced that if they sat down and watched the classic WB cartoons
> uncut, their collective heads would explode. I have the 3 Golden
> Collections...Heere, PTCy, heeere, PTCy...look what the "nice"
> man has to show you...^_<
>
Especially the WB's version of the Three Little Pigs, the one
were they are in a band that Wolf wants to join. "You have to get real
bad to get real good."
Abraham Evangelista
Yurie: Swoon.
Binchou-tan: Cautious Drooling.
P90: **STEAL**
--
"ZAKKENAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"
Abraham Evangelista
Michael
> ShEEsh...I have been seeing the PTC's nonsense for years...I am
> convinced that if they sat down and watched the classic WB cartoons
> uncut, their collective heads would explode. I have the 3 Golden
> Collections...Heere, PTCy, heeere, PTCy...look what the "nice"
> man has to show you...^_<
And why do you think WB was showing EDITED versions of Bugs Bunny for a
long time?
Cause if some kid sees Elmer Fudd shoot Daffy, they'll want to mimic it?
Dumb censors.
Chuck Stewart
> "sanjian" wrote:
>>Chuck Stewart wrote:
>>> And she's coming over with Yurie-kamisama,
>>> two aprons, and a pair of P90's to get it...
>>Hmm... I wonder if they would like some tea. *blushes over the mere thought
>>of that much moe cuteness*
> Yurie: Swoon.
> Binchou-tan: Cautious Drooling.
> P90: **STEAL**
But Yurie-kamisama is carrying the P90
under her apron, and Binchou-tan is
hoisting her P90 over her shoulder like
a rocket launcher...
... dangerous... very dangerous...
The Eternal Lost Lurker
> Tuckers: Where to begin
Physical, mental, emotional, and possibly sexual abuse of a young child by
her father...*for starters*...and if he's doing what I suspect he's doing
with those empty Ninas he keeps making, let's add a dash of necrophilia to
that as well...
The Eternal Lost Lurker
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
news:zdRNf.3039$p43.853@fed1read05...
> The Eternal Lost Lurker wrote:
> >>> revealing clothing,
> >>
> >> Anko, anyone? HELLO!
> >
> > HelllllOOOOOOOOOO Anko! *drooooool*
>
> <hands you a drool bucket>
Thanks. *fills it*
> >>> underwear shown
> >>
> >> Uhh.. hmmm..
> >
> > Off the top of my head I can't think of any except maybe in the
> > later episodes after *r*s*n*i* shows up.
>
> Could you rewrite that with just the first and last letters?
What, e**s****n?
> > um...snot (the study counts snot as offensive excretory)...
>
> Lots of snot when people cry. You don't see that in American animation,
do
> you...?
Not as much, no.
> > flatulence, urination (Akamaru),
>
> Hehheeh...
Seriously, the scenes of Akamaru's high-flying, high-speed tree marking, I
could do without. X_X
> >> I can think if a few dysfunctional families in _Naruto_.
> >
> > ONLY a few? :P
>
> Well, I'm thinking of case where we actually know more than one family
> member. I'm not thinking of orphans like Naruto...
> Basically, I'm thinking of cases where we actually see or specifically
hear
> about family members who are at odds with each other (again, like the
> Kazekage, or the Hyugas).
...the Uchiha...
Liz Broadwell
>"elsie" <lcub...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Tuckers: Where to begin
>
>Physical, mental, emotional, and possibly sexual abuse of a young child by
>her father...*for starters*...and if he's doing what I suspect he's doing
>with those empty Ninas he keeps making, let's add a dash of necrophilia to
>that as well...
Ouch. I don't think there's narrative support for sexual abuse (thank
heaven!) unless there's something in the Japanese script that isn't
getting translated into the dub (or that I'm missing from the season 1
episodes). Those empty Ninas look like a fetish to me, sure, but not a
sexual one. And I think if the narrative wanted to suggest a sexual
fetish, it would find a way to do so: they got Rose's rape into the story
on implication, frex.
Peace,
Liz
--
Liz Broadwell (username-in-header at orphco dot org), Charter Orphan
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
"Our target remains inert, men. Set phasers to chafe."
"But she sleeps like an angel!"
"Point taken. Fluff her pillow a little." -- David Willis, _Roomies_
Juan F. Lara
Richard V. Lamb <prof...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Count the scenes in which Catwoman appears. Double them so there is one
>point for each of her boobs. Divide by total number of episodes. Presto,
>an average of 1.33 sexual incidents per episode!
Bleah. Now the Catwoman in the first season of "Batman:TAS" WAS sexy.
A well toned physique and a bodysuit in a hot shade of gray. The "The Batman"
Catwoman doesn't compare. The "Men in Black" artistic style they ripped off
from Columbia makes their Catwoman look like a black bag of bones.
- Juan F. Lara
elsie
"Quiet Desperation" <x...@x.com> wrote in message
news:x-5F7124.05...@news.giganews.com...
Lack of intact nuclear families complete with father, mother and children.
Now that I'm home from school I can go into detail.
Elric family: Father abandons the family. Mother dies. Sons left to fend for
themselves and attempt to bring mother back from the dead resulting in
grievous injury to children.
Rockbell family: Parents killed in wartime. Daughter cared for by
grandmother.
Tucker family: father kills mother in a scientific experiment, enacts same
experiment on daughter (who is then killed); spends rest of series trying to
combine animals and humans to bring her back
Hughes family: father murdered.
Tringham family: father apparently murdered. Mother's fate unknown. Sons
left to fend for themselves.
Rick and Leo: No father in picture. Blind mother killed in explosion.
Bitterness of sons toward mother.
Scar and his brother: no known parents
Curtis family: Father and mother survive but child does not. Mother is
abusive toward children placed in her care.
That's not even going into the various dysfunctional families the Elrics
meet along the way.
laurie
ender
> Damn. Noticing that they had pulled in some shows that were clearly not for
> kids, I figured they were hitting everything.
Why do some people feel they have the right to dictate what other people
can watch? If it's disturbing for them, use the damn remote and switch to
another program. I wonder what these people would do if they saw the
playboy advertisements that appeared on the big advertising panels around
here (the girl is topless with her chest fully exposed).
--
< ender ><><><><><><><>◊<><><><><><><>◊<><><><><><><>< e at ena dot si >
Because 10 billion years' time is so fragile, so ephemeral... it arouses
such a bittersweet, almost heartbreaking fondness.
Patrick Joseph McNamara
"Juan F. Lara" <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:du7v2i$cr$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report covering
> all
> those evil things in children's television that PTC is trying to protect
> your
> little larvae from. Go to their website:
>
> http://www.parentstv.org/
>
> and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
>
And the wolf is Disney trying to push it's garbage and keep the good stuff
out.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Ummm, they're not ripping off anything; these *are* the "Men in
Black" people . . .
--
- ReFlex 76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
Antonio E. Gonzalez
F. Lara) wrote:
> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report covering all
>those evil things in children's television that PTC is trying to protect your
>little larvae from. Go to their website:
>
> http://www.parentstv.org/
>
>and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
>
> :-P
>
Ah, good ol' Bozo Brentell and his ilk never fail to disappoint.
Now, if only more people didn't take them seriously . . .
Juan F. Lara
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ummm, they're not ripping off anything; these *are* the "Men in
>Black" people . . .
Sorry, I should've worded that differently.
- Juan F. Lara
Patrick Joseph McNamara
"ender" <ec...@arnes.si> wrote in message
news:popcwl8yqf5j$.3fu4yjgfxf19$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:26:26 -0500, sanjian wrote:
>
>> Damn. Noticing that they had pulled in some shows that were clearly not
>> for
>> kids, I figured they were hitting everything.
>
> Why do some people feel they have the right to dictate what other people
> can watch? If it's disturbing for them, use the damn remote and switch to
> another program.
It's not that they're dictating what people can watch, it's that they're
dictating what children's programming is. But since they don't know the
first thing about animation, they assume it should all be kiddie fare. They
also seem to have a problem distinguishing between material aimed at small
children, material aimed at pre-teens and material aimed at teens and up. It
TV was up to them they'd take it back to the days of Superfriends and
Smurfs.
The Eternal Lost Lurker
"Liz Broadwell" <ebro...@see-below-in.sig.thanks> wrote in message
news:slrne0h0ld....@pobox.upenn.edu...
> The Eternal Lost Lurker <kuraebakayaro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >"elsie" <lcub...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Tuckers: Where to begin
> >
> >Physical, mental, emotional, and possibly sexual abuse of a young child
by
> >her father...*for starters*...and if he's doing what I suspect he's doing
> >with those empty Ninas he keeps making, let's add a dash of necrophilia
to
> >that as well...
>
> Ouch. I don't think there's narrative support for sexual abuse (thank
> heaven!) unless there's something in the Japanese script that isn't
> getting translated into the dub (or that I'm missing from the season 1
> episodes). Those empty Ninas look like a fetish to me, sure, but not a
> sexual one.
It's just a personal impression I get from the way he talks and handles the
Ninadolls.
Then again, I tend to be very Freudian about these things, so...
Gerardo Campos
2006 02:53:03p:
>
> It's not that they're dictating what people can watch, it's that
> they're dictating what children's programming is. But since they don't
> know the first thing about animation, they assume it should all be
> kiddie fare. They also seem to have a problem distinguishing between
> material aimed at small children, material aimed at pre-teens and
> material aimed at teens and up. It TV was up to them they'd take it
> back to the days of Superfriends and Smurfs.
I don't think the Smurfs will be considered safe, since they use magic and
sorcery.
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Chris Sobieniak
> Imagine a world where all children's entertainment met with
> their approval. It would all be terribly nurturing and positive and
> peaceful and utterly unwatchable.
>
> (CUE ITCHY AND SCRATCHY ROCKING ON THE FRONT PORCH)
>
> "Lemonade?"
>
> "Please."
>
> "Thank you."
>
> "You're my best friend."
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Neil Nadelman ar...@navzr-genafyngbe.pbz (ROT13)
> -----------------------------------------------------
I have the scary feeling that could happen too quickly!
Charlie
not letting their children watching such "evil" shows should throw
their TV away rather than messing up our time.
Juan F. Lara 寫道：
> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report covering all
> those evil things in children's television that PTC is trying to protect your
> little larvae from. Go to their website:
>
> http://www.parentstv.org/
>
> and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
>
> :-P
>
> - Juan F. Lara
Stephane Dumas
"Charlie" <imo.c...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1141445009.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
The article is loads of bullshit. Parents who don't have the ability to
not letting their children watching such "evil" shows should throw
their TV away rather than messing up our time.
> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report covering all
> those evil things in children's television that PTC is trying to protect
> your
> little larvae from. Go to their website:
>
> http://www.parentstv.org/
>
> and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
>
> :-P
>
> - Juan F. Lara
I taught of the same thing, I guess Matt and Trey had hit the target in the
South Park episode "Death" when the parents protested against Terrance and
Phillip (and they did it again in the movie Bigger, Longer and Uncut) There
was a good quote of Kyle and Kenny on this topic founded at
http://maxpages.com/southpark2k/What_Kenny_is_Saying : "Well what I think,
basically, if you let the decision of what you watch to be under the
parent's control, television sucks. Television sucks because parents get
offended mmmmmm a baby sitter for their kids."(the mmmmmm is because It is
unclear what he's saying)
These folks of the PTC are turning into "Ralph Nader wannabes", I wonder how
they could react if we force them to watch, tied on a chair, lots of
episodes of "teens sitcoms" like Saved by the Bell and all this stuff? (and
speaking of Saved by the Bell, there a old reference in the webcomic "The
Japanese Beetle"
http://www.worldfamouscomics.com/beetle/archive.shtml?19991220 )
Stéphane Dumas
sanjian
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:26:26 -0500, sanjian wrote:
>
>> Damn. Noticing that they had pulled in some shows that were clearly
>> not for kids, I figured they were hitting everything.
>
> Why do some people feel they have the right to dictate what other people
> can watch? If it's disturbing for them, use the damn remote and
> switch to another program. I wonder what these people would do if they saw
> the
> playboy advertisements that appeared on the big advertising panels
> around here (the girl is topless with her chest fully exposed).
Dude, it's a guide for like-minded people who want to raise their children
in accordance with their own values and beliefs, rather than the violent,
libertine values of society. The guide isn't anything but suggestions to
those types of parents. Breathe, sir, breathe!
And I would say that topless panels in public are inappropriate. And that's
even with me being an unredeemed hentail
sanjian
> The article is loads of bullshit. Parents who don't have the ability
> to
> not letting their children watching such "evil" shows should throw
> their TV away rather than messing up our time.
> Juan F. Lara 寫道：
Right, and their turning to like-minded individuals for a good guide of how
things are going is soooooo horrible, how? If you can't stand that there
are others online who don't think like you do, you should throw away your
computer rather than messing up our interwebs.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Dude, it's a guide for like-minded people who want to raise
> their children in accordance with their own values and beliefs,
> rather than the violent, libertine values of society. The guide
> isn't anything but suggestions to those types of parents. Breathe, sir,
> breathe!
Except that it's by the PTC, who are ready willing, and able to try their
damnest to effect what EVERYONE watches by getting the FCC to fine the crap
out anyone who airs something they see as inappropriate.
Catherine Johnson. "Suggestions" my ass.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"At least some oboe player got a paycheck out of all this horse hockey..."
-Mike Nelson, _Mystery Science Theater 3000_.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Charlie wrote:
>
>> The article is loads of bullshit. Parents who don't have the
>> ability to not letting their children watching such "evil" shows
>> should throw their TV away rather than messing up our time.
>
> Right, and their turning to like-minded individuals for a good
> guide of how things are going is soooooo horrible, how?
You really think that's all they're doing? You do know that 98% of the
complaints to the FCC about inappropriate TV content comes from the PTC,
right? They DO want to effect what EVERYONE sees. Don't kid yourself into
thinking otherwise.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
Patrick Joseph McNamara
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
> sanjian wrote:
>
>> Charlie wrote:
>>
>>> The article is loads of bullshit. Parents who don't have the
>>> ability to not letting their children watching such "evil" shows
>>> should throw their TV away rather than messing up our time.
>>
>> Right, and their turning to like-minded individuals for a good
>> guide of how things are going is soooooo horrible, how?
>
> You really think that's all they're doing? You do know that 98% of the
> complaints to the FCC about inappropriate TV content comes from the PTC,
> right? They DO want to effect what EVERYONE sees. Don't kid yourself
> into thinking otherwise.
>
I'm curious what those parent watch. Desperate Housewives? CSI? It seems to
be they may be being hypocritical.
ERMAC
> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report covering all
> those evil things in children's television that PTC is trying to protect your
> little larvae from. Go to their website:
>
> http://www.parentstv.org/
>
> and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
>
> :-P
>
> - Juan F. Lara
<$-- https://www.parentstv.org/ptc/faqs/main.asp -->
They are quite totalitarian alright.
But fear not. Lord Kalki soon will come fuck and kill all puritans!
"Tag matches are not so bad.
You can really go nuts knowing you've got back-up,eh?"
[Rock Howard --- "Battle Coliseum"]
###############################################
Roger
> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report covering all
>those evil things in children's television that PTC is trying to protect your
>little larvae from. Go to their website:
>
> http://www.parentstv.org/
Lordy... I'm a grand parent and I consider the PTC to be more ofensive
than what the kids see on TV.
Roger
>
>and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
>
> :-P
>
> - Juan F. Lara
>
Roger
Ethan Hammond
> all
> those evil things in children's television that PTC is trying to protect
> your
> little larvae from. Go to their website:
>
> http://www.parentstv.org/
>
>
> :-P
They sure would like Bastard, LIKE IT!
--
All Purpose Culture Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
sanjian
"Michael" <Tly...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:lnZNf.1674$kg....@news02.roc.ny...
> Relic wrote:
>
>> ShEEsh...I have been seeing the PTC's nonsense for years...I am convinced
>> that if they sat down and watched the classic WB cartoons
>> uncut, their collective heads would explode. I have the 3 Golden
>> Collections...Heere, PTCy, heeere, PTCy...look what the "nice"
>> man has to show you...^_<
>
> And why do you think WB was showing EDITED versions of Bugs Bunny for a
> long time?
> Cause if some kid sees Elmer Fudd shoot Daffy, they'll want to mimic it?
>
> Dumb censors.
Actually, I think showing the black-powder-faced shootings is more dangerous
than showing the a real shooting. It separates cause from effect, and when
it comes to firearms, cause and effect need to be absolutely clear.
sanjian
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
> sanjian wrote:
>
>> Dude, it's a guide for like-minded people who want to raise
>> their children in accordance with their own values and beliefs,
>> rather than the violent, libertine values of society. The guide
>> isn't anything but suggestions to those types of parents. Breathe, sir,
>> breathe!
>
> Except that it's by the PTC, who are ready willing, and able to try their
> damnest to effect what EVERYONE watches by getting the FCC to fine the
> crap out anyone who airs something they see as inappropriate.
The discussion was the guide, not other activities by the PTC. If you're
going to hate it, you should do so for what it is, not for who its
associated with.
sanjian
news:m3mOf.8004$RM2.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
> news:jMkOf.3734$p43.1536@fed1read05...
>> sanjian wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie wrote:
>>>
>>>> The article is loads of bullshit. Parents who don't have the
>>>> ability to not letting their children watching such "evil" shows
>>>> should throw their TV away rather than messing up our time.
>>>
>>> Right, and their turning to like-minded individuals for a good
>>> guide of how things are going is soooooo horrible, how?
>>
>> You really think that's all they're doing? You do know that 98% of the
>> complaints to the FCC about inappropriate TV content comes from the PTC,
>> right? They DO want to effect what EVERYONE sees. Don't kid yourself
>> into thinking otherwise.
We're talking about the guide, not the group.
> I'm curious what those parent watch. Desperate Housewives? CSI? It seems
> to be they may be being hypocritical.
(ok, now talking about the group and not the guide)
Let's see... First, you assume they're watching DH and CSI, in order to say
they're being hypocritical, but you have no evidence, or anything at all to
suggest that is actually the case. Now, granted, you didn't come out and
call them hypocritical, but it's what you're suggesting (and saying "well,
what if they are" is meaningless, you could say the same thing about anyone
regarding something they feel strongly about - unless you have some sort of
evidence that they are, in fact, acting hypocritically, all you're doing is
slinging mud.
Also, there's nothing hypocritical about them watching stuff they wouldn't
let their kids watch. The only time it would be hypocritical would be if
they tried to get the shows off the air... which, if they're watching them,
wouldn't be very likely.
Relic
showing me how to do it, I already had a perfectly clear cause and
effect when it came to guns. You shoot someone, they get hurt or die.
My sense of this did not come from a cartoon. His guns and knives were
locked up, with him having the only key.
But perhaps that is the problem nowadays. Too many people have
shirked their responsibility when it comes to their kids, expecting
the village to raise 'em, then only speaking out when the kid does
something stupid. Saying things like "The GAMES caused my little angel
to kill his fellow students", or "It must have been the representations
of anthropomorphic animals shooting guns that caused it".
Yeah, and I'm Frank Sinatra.
Now, I am not saying that a steady diet of violence has no effect on
someone. But I am saying that some parents seem to distance themselves
from whatever their kids are involved in or worse, are so abusive
mentally or physically to their kids that the kid thinks that violence
is the proper way to solve a situation. And then, well, we hear about
the result on the 6 o'clock news. So I wonder how many parents
even know the existence of a V-Chip, let alone use it?
--
New version of an old favorite!
The Briefcase Fulla Rant!
http://briefrant.com
It'll grab you and won't let you go ^_^!
hobb...@yahoo.com
Juan F. Lara wrote:
> Media nanny the Parents Television Council has a new report covering all
> those evil things in children's television that PTC is trying to protect your
> little larvae from. Go to their website:
>
> http://www.parentstv.org/
>
> and click on the mean looking wolf's eye to read the .pdf file...
Brent Bozell admitted he watched Tom & Jerry and Popeye as a kid. He'd
rather have today's cartoons return to the simplistic plotting and
levels of violence of those halcyon days. Unfortunately, in this day &
age, society's tastes have changed such that the more violent it is,
the "cooler" it is to people. Bozell's PTC, and groups like it, want to
take us back 50-60 years, but it just isn't going to happen. If there's
money to be made in Hollywood, they're not going to change a thing.
Going retro, they think, will hurt their bottom line.
We live in an age of improved technological advances (i.e. video games,
HDTV, iPods, etc.) and too many latchkey kids lacking parental
supervision. (Why do you think so many kids are getting killed for x
amount of reasons in NYC alone?) The PTC, Focus on the Family, et al,
should not be so pushy, complaining about programs that are NOT
intended for young, impressionable children with malleable minds. We're
rational, thinking people. We have remote controls. Do the math, folks.
We have our options before us.
J. C. Gilbert
sanjian
news:i7MOf.18904$rL5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> sanjian wrote:
>> "Michael" <Tly...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:lnZNf.1674$kg....@news02.roc.ny...
>>> Relic wrote:
>>>
>>>> ShEEsh...I have been seeing the PTC's nonsense for years...I am
>>>> convinced that if they sat down and watched the classic WB cartoons
>>>> uncut, their collective heads would explode. I have the 3 Golden
>>>> Collections...Heere, PTCy, heeere, PTCy...look what the "nice"
>>>> man has to show you...^_<
>>> And why do you think WB was showing EDITED versions of Bugs Bunny for a
>>> long time?
>>> Cause if some kid sees Elmer Fudd shoot Daffy, they'll want to mimic it?
>>>
>>> Dumb censors.
>>
>> Actually, I think showing the black-powder-faced shootings is more
>> dangerous than showing the a real shooting. It separates cause from
>> effect, and when it comes to firearms, cause and effect need to be
>> absolutely clear.
> When I was a child, watching my father shoot at inanimate targets and
> showing me how to do it, I already had a perfectly clear cause and
> effect when it came to guns. You shoot someone, they get hurt or die.
I already know how I'm going to teach my kids. Get a half a pig from the
butcher, and show her exactly what shotguns do to soft body tissue. No
doubts. Then I'll teach how to actually handle the thing. My idea is that
the kid will know that she can go shooting with me whenever we have time -
between the pig and that, I hope to de-glamorize guns.
> My sense of this did not come from a cartoon. His guns and knives were
> locked up, with him having the only key.
> But perhaps that is the problem nowadays. Too many people have
> shirked their responsibility when it comes to their kids, expecting
The average parent knows very little about guns, let alone enough to teach
their kids about them. I learned about them from my step brother.
Fortunately, he didn't also teach me how to conduct armed robberies. He
kept that part secret (well, not for long - he wasn't very good at it).
> the village to raise 'em, then only speaking out when the kid does
> something stupid. Saying things like "The GAMES caused my little angel
> to kill his fellow students", or "It must have been the representations
> of anthropomorphic animals shooting guns that caused it".
> Yeah, and I'm Frank Sinatra.
> Now, I am not saying that a steady diet of violence has no effect on
Clearly not. Companies wouldn't spend millions in advertising if it didn't
work.
> someone. But I am saying that some parents seem to distance themselves
> from whatever their kids are involved in or worse, are so abusive
> mentally or physically to their kids that the kid thinks that violence
> is the proper way to solve a situation. And then, well, we hear about the
> result on the 6 o'clock news. So I wonder how many parents
> even know the existence of a V-Chip, let alone use it?
The problem is, though, everyone gets up in arms if parents actually -do-
try to monitor and control what their kids see.
sanjian
news:1141608810....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We live in an age of improved technological advances (i.e. video games,
> HDTV, iPods, etc.) and too many latchkey kids lacking parental
> supervision. (Why do you think so many kids are getting killed for x
> amount of reasons in NYC alone?) The PTC, Focus on the Family, et al,
> should not be so pushy, complaining about programs that are NOT
> intended for young, impressionable children with malleable minds. We're
> rational, thinking people. We have remote controls. Do the math, folks.
> We have our options before us.
PTC shouldn't be so pushy - that, I agree with. None the less, we shouldn't
be as snarky and offensive, either. We should see things like this guide as
a good thing and a step in the right direction, even if we have to laugh at
their conclusions. Maybe if we worked with groups like this, instead of
ridiculing them whenever they say anything, we could create a tool for
reason, common sense, and good parenting.
Relic
Good idea, per se. Even though I was taught how to shoot, I haven't shot
one in over 20 years, and I have never owned one (not because I am
against 'em, just never felt the need to have one).
>
>> My sense of this did not come from a cartoon. His guns and knives were
>> locked up, with him having the only key.
>> But perhaps that is the problem nowadays. Too many people have
>> shirked their responsibility when it comes to their kids, expecting
>
> The average parent knows very little about guns, let alone enough to teach
> their kids about them. I learned about them from my step brother.
> Fortunately, he didn't also teach me how to conduct armed robberies. He
> kept that part secret (well, not for long - he wasn't very good at it).
I got a brother like that; couldn't stay out of jail (not for guns; he
was into b&e, and as you said, not very good at it); I'd like to think
he grew out of it, but I haven't heard from him in years. And as for
the average parent not knowing about guns, that depends on where they
live. Around here, many have 'em (and shoot 'em off on either New Years
or July 4th; they ain't got the brains of a retarded goat for the
most part).
>
>> the village to raise 'em, then only speaking out when the kid does
>> something stupid. Saying things like "The GAMES caused my little angel
>> to kill his fellow students", or "It must have been the representations
>> of anthropomorphic animals shooting guns that caused it".
>> Yeah, and I'm Frank Sinatra.
>> Now, I am not saying that a steady diet of violence has no effect on
>
> Clearly not. Companies wouldn't spend millions in advertising if it didn't
> work.
Let me tell you a little story about some of the people coming in to buy
games at the store I used to work at. Kid comes over and asks to buy a
copy of GTA3. I had instructed my workers to request that a parent or
over-18 guardian buy any M-rated game, so she told the tike (maybe 12
years old) to get said parent. Parent comes over, rather indignant,
and tells her that "My child's mature enough to play that."
And this kind of stuff happened a number of times, until I finally
made a sign and put it on the games case. To some parents' credit,
they would ask about the game and if they didn't like the rating, they
wouldn't buy it. But they were too few and far between. If a person
buys something solely on the basis of a tv voice, they deserve to be
suckered.
>> someone. But I am saying that some parents seem to distance themselves
>> from whatever their kids are involved in or worse, are so abusive
>> mentally or physically to their kids that the kid thinks that violence
>> is the proper way to solve a situation. And then, well, we hear about the
>> result on the 6 o'clock news. So I wonder how many parents
>> even know the existence of a V-Chip, let alone use it?
>
> The problem is, though, everyone gets up in arms if parents actually -do-
> try to monitor and control what their kids see.
>
>
The only ones I see getting up in arms if a parent acts like a parent
are the children that don't like the idea of their parents acting
like a parent. It's when an organization decides to "protect the
children from themselves", or supersede a parent's authority that
people start objecting. If an organization exists simply to
educate, no problem. When an organization decides to do something to
block others' access (through boycotts, misinformation campaigns, etc.),
then there's a problem.
Roger
I've been around for too many years to believe that would, or could
happen. This type of group is *generally* led by the more vocal
and/or aggressive (bull headed) of the bunch and trying to get them to
change their minds, even a little, just gets them more fired up.
>
As to violence in cartoons and games that has gone in two directions.
When I was young cartoons had a *lot* of violence in them, but it was
presented in a non realistic way. They gave the parents and kids
credit for being able to tell the difference. *Most* cartoons aimed at
children today are far milder than what we saw. OTOH there are a
number of games loaded with rather realistic violence with realistic,
graphic results.
There is also a "middle-of-the-road" slice of life group of programs
that have turned up aimed at teens and young adults. I'd call many of
them animated sitcoms. Of course as the target audience gets older
the programs become more adult oriented as well. I really don't think
many parents can tell the difference between a cartoon aimed at
children and "South Park", that is until they happen to see their kids
watching South Park. <:-))
Unfortunately some of the TV listing publishers don't seem to be able
to tell the difference either. A while back I came across both
American Dad as well as Family Guy listed as Animated,
children/Family. Some one must have shown them the programs as they
are no longer listed that way and are "not usually" in prime time.
I see nothing wrong with a guide, or parents using one, but I do have
a problem with parents that complain about the content of a late night
show they discovered their kids watching. That is their
responsibility. If they had their way all we'd have on satellite and
cable would be "G Rated" shows.
OTOH the US, in general, is far more prudish than most European and
Asian countries.
Roger
Roger
Evan Kirshenbaum
>> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote
>>> You really think that's all they're doing? You do know that 98%
>>> of the complaints to the FCC about inappropriate TV content comes
>>> from the PTC, right? They DO want to effect what EVERYONE sees.
>>> Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise.
>
> We're talking about the guide, not the group.
Okay, let's talk about the guide:
It has often been said that silence gives consent. Parents must
be vocal in opposing the coarsening of child-centric programming.
The networks airing these programs and the companies sponsoring
them need to know that they are helping to contribute to a culture
of violence. [p. 18]
This is not "Here's a heads-up about programs you might not want your
child to watch". It's "Here are the shows to complain about and
convince sponsors to pull their advertising from." The press release
accompanying the report makes this clear:
"The downward spiral of children's television must stop.
Broadcast and cable networks must be held accountable for allowing
such inappropriate content to corrupt our children. We must also
hold advertisers responsible for underwriting these messages,"
Bozell concluded.
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/release/2006/0302.asp
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Of course, over the first 10^-10
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |seconds and 10^-30 cubic
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |centimeters it averages out to
|zero, but when you look in
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |detail....
(650)857-7572 | Philip Morrison