Take a Stand Against More Nudity and Profanity on Network Televison

[J]

( no comment by me is necessary )





http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against-more-nudity-and-profanity-on-network-televison/




by Guest Author



The Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing
indecency standards for broadcast television. These proposed changes
would allow “isolated” episodes of nudity and obscene language to be
included in network television programming, so long as they are not
repetitive. This change would result in a major ramping up of
sexually explicit and profane content in daytime television
programming.

We appreciate the tremendous response from so many of you who wanted
to register your objections with the FCC. (The public comment period
ends next Wednesday, June 19th.) Here is a simple way for you to share
your thoughts with the Federal Communications Commission. Click the
link below this article. It will take you to the FCC’s public comment
page. On that page click the item that reads “submit a filing
(express).” That will take you to a page with cases on the FCC
docket. Choose Proceeding #13-86, which should be the first one on
the page. There you will find an easily understandable form in which
to share your comments.

Thank you for taking the time to speak out in support of retaining
existing decency standards on television. The time is long overdue to
put the brakes on the foul and filthy nature of television
programming. We certainly don’t need to give broadcast executives
even more license to take television content even more tawdry and
trashy. In all of our efforts to clean up our environment, there is
no place more polluted than our entertainment environment.

by Missouri Family Policy Council










J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

Honesty. Decency. Integrity

[thinbluemime]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 01:24:23 +0100, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> ( no comment by me is necessary )
>

I don't like government censorship, hell at this point in human history,
I'm not real fond of government, but I do endorse and practice censorship.
How did I take this stand?

I took the stand, along with the TV that was on the stand, and pitched
them both. The only time I watch TV is when I watch it on the computer,
which is highly regulated by me.

I suggest self-censorship.

Turn off, tune out, drop into a public library.

You have the power...you have the remote. Do IT!

[Dreamer In Colore]

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

You have free will, no?

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Davej]

On Jun 14, 7:24 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> The Federal Communications Commission is considering
> relaxing indecency standards for broadcast television.

Let's eliminate the religious liars and frauds.

[Tom McDonald]

Yeah, but he'd have the horror of knowing that someone, somewhere, was
having a good time. He'd hate that.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Let's make the religious channels a premium package so you don't pay
for them if you don't watch them.

[thinbluemime]

Most of the religious channels are run by the Christian right, Christian
Zionists and pro-supporters of Israel, that find nothing wrong with
killing innocent Muslims in the name of the Prince of Peace, who once
walked the foot-hills of Palestine.


My favorite video of this group, CUFI, Christians United for Israel,
features Benjamin Netanyahu invoking a first century rabbi that he hates
(the Galilean)and then quoting Amos, a prophet he would probably kill
today for the scathing rebuke he (Amos) gave to Israel for the same crimes
Bibi commits today.

I don't watch the Christian channels anymore, because they are essentially
Israeli TV propaganda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdc0TB9YBiM

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <sscnr8hsc84r5urk9...@4ax.com>,

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

> ( no comment by me is necessary )
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against-more-nud
> ity-and-profanity-on-network-televison/
>
>
>
>
> by Guest Author
>
>
>
> The Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing
> indecency standards for broadcast television. These proposed changes
> would allow “isolated” episodes of nudity and obscene language to be
> included in network television programming, so long as they are not
> repetitive. This change would result in a major ramping up of
> sexually explicit and profane content in daytime television
> programming.

And you have a problem with this...why, exactly?

--

JD

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

[Mitchell Holman]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in
news:sscnr8hsc84r5urk9...@4ax.com:

> ( no comment by me is necessary )
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against-m
> ore-nudity-and-profanity-on-network-televison/
>
>
>
>
> by Guest Author
>
>
>
> The Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing
> indecency standards for broadcast television. These proposed changes
> would allow “isolated” episodes of nudity

Funny how "Christians" don't complain about nudity
in National Geographic shows about pygmies or Zulus
or Borneo natives. But a three second shot of Janet
Jackson's left nipple sends them to the roof screaming
about.....(gasp)......NUDITY!

Do explain.

[Robert H]

On Jun 14, 10:19 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote innews:sscnr8hsc84r5urk9...@4ax.com:

First - How do you know what "Christian's" complain about?
Have you talked to all Christians?
Second - Do you think it was only "Christians" who got upset over that
episode with Janet Jackson?

Has it ever occurred to you that people from all sides got upset due
to the fact that this was during prime time and it appeared
intentional?
That children were watching, and perhaps, parents may not want their
children to watch that?

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people are not happy with the
general direction entertainment is going in? That it appears that the
networks are getting more and more desperate to get ratings, so they
just keep increasing the shock factor? What is the limit?

Are you going to be happy when we just start watching full blown sex
acts on prime time? Hell, we are pretty close to that now.

Or is it that you are just such a bigot that you just need something
to holler about over Christians?

I'm thinking the latter.

[Robert H]

On Jun 14, 8:24 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> ( no comment by me is necessary )
>

> http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against...

> jdyou...@ymail.com
>
> Honesty. Decency. Integrity

Just do what my wife and I did. Cut off all cable and satellite
television. We have just Netflix, and to be honest..besides a HUGE cut
in our payments and saving money to where we can go out as a family
and take more trips, we are happy with Netflix.

[Robert H]

On Jun 14, 4:43 pm, thinbluemime <thinbluemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 01:24:23 +0100, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > ( no comment by me is necessary )
>
> I don't like government censorship, hell at this point in human history,
> I'm not real fond of government, but I do endorse and practice censorship.
> How did I take this stand?
>
> I took the stand, along with the TV that was on the stand, and pitched
> them both. The only time I watch TV is when I watch it on the computer,
> which is highly regulated by me.
>
> I suggest self-censorship.
>
> Turn off, tune out, drop into a public library.
>
> You have the power...you have the remote. Do IT!

Well said.

My wife and I took a stand. Told the Cable company that due to budget
concerns we had to make some cuts in our budget and they are on the
chopping block. So we cut them, we have netflix, and we are very
happy.

Saved a bit, we choose what we want to watch.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against...

> > jdyou...@ymail.com
>
> > Honesty. Decency. Integrity

[Robert H]

How do you propose to do that?
I would like to hear how you propose to eliminate the religious.

[J]

That's fine for people who can afford that luxury but there are many
people still who are struggling to get by, especially in areas of the
Appalachian region or on Native-American reservations. Those
households depend on free broadcast television, and with both parents
working multiple part-time jobs, often the oldest child is babysitting
the younger ones who are watching television. Don't those people
deserve to have the t.v.industry uphold standards of decency?

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:24:23 -0700, J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>( no comment by me is necessary )

Nothing to add. I just really like your first sentence.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Olrik]

Le 2013-06-14 22:49, Robert H a écrit :
> On Jun 14, 10:19 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote innews:sscnr8hsc84r5urk9...@4ax.com:
>>

>>> ( no comment by me is necessary )
>>
>>> http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against-m
>>> ore-nudity-and-profanity-on-network-televison/
>>
>>> by Guest Author
>>
>>> The Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing
>>> indecency standards for broadcast television. These proposed changes
>>> would allow “isolated” episodes of nudity
>>
>> Funny how "Christians" don't complain about nudity
>> in National Geographic shows about pygmies or Zulus
>> or Borneo natives. But a three second shot of Janet
>> Jackson's left nipple sends them to the roof screaming
>> about.....(gasp)......NUDITY!
>>
>> Do explain.
>
> First - How do you know what "Christian's" complain about?

They're quite vocal about those things.

> Have you talked to all Christians?

?

> Second - Do you think it was only "Christians" who got upset over that
> episode with Janet Jackson?

Well, I'm pretty sure your muslim friends were not happy about it.

> Has it ever occurred to you that people from all sides got upset due
> to the fact that this was during prime time and it appeared
> intentional?

And?

> That children were watching, and perhaps, parents may not want their
> children to watch that?

I don't recall many children complaining.

> Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people are not happy with the
> general direction entertainment is going in?

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people **are** happy with the

general direction entertainment is going in?

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[thinbluemime]

I grew up in Appalachia in the 50's and 60's. We spent most of our time
outdoors playing in the creek, the woods, catching frogs and turtles and
making tree forts, picking berries and mushrooms and swinging from tree
vines. Played stick ball with the neighbor kids, wrestled and
walked...gawd did we walk, miles just to the bus stop. During the summer,
mom took us to the library weekly, where we stocked up on a supply of
books, yes books. Today I still can spend hours in the library stacks just
exploring. We were healthy and strong and relatively happy albeit
relatively poor.

At night mom or dad would read us a bed time story. Mom was a fantastic
storyteller, creating tales of fantasy on the spur of the moment. Dad
would read from picture Bible story books. My brother had a favorite that
dad read so many times to us that my brother could recite the story
verbatim before he could even read.

Television is not necessary for a child's early development, in fact TV
probably stunts development if it's not educational programming. If a
family decides it must have TV programming, a cheap $40 DVD player with
library loaned kid DVD's is a good way to start. Buy a cheap CD player and
let the kids listen to classic books 'on tape'. They will be entertained
and educated at the same time and the audio without pictures will cause
the young mind to become creative as it fashions the mental picture to
accompany the audiobooks.

Television is an excellent medium for learning, use it wisely and
sparingly and explore the other areas of life. Schedule TV time together
and make it a family event. If TV is being used as a baby-sitter, then TV
is not being used wisely.

If you use this approach or some form of it, you will find a liberation
from the pressures of TV, including freedom from a lot of crap the kids
shouldn't watch anyway.

BTW, I applaud your concern with the FCC relaxation of broadcasting
standards, but being proactive, taking control of the TV with the remote
instead of legislation is a quicker method to resolving your concerns and
protecting the children from watching unwanted content.

[Uncle Vic]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in news:sscnr8hsc84r5urk999gfc4tnu9513b5v6@
4ax.com:

> ( no comment by me is necessary )

No reply by me is necessary then.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

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

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <3vmnr8lvh5dv31vlr...@4ax.com>,

What do you think the blocking function is for?

[Father Haskell]

On Jun 14, 10:49 pm, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:19 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote innews:sscnr8hsc84r5urk9...@4ax.com:
>
> > > ( no comment by me is necessary )
>
> > >http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against-m
> > > ore-nudity-and-profanity-on-network-televison/
>
> > > by Guest Author
>
> > > The Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing
> > > indecency standards for broadcast television. These proposed changes
> > > would allow “isolated” episodes of nudity
>
> >   Funny how "Christians" don't complain about nudity
> > in National Geographic shows about pygmies or Zulus
> > or Borneo natives. But a three second shot of Janet
> > Jackson's left nipple sends them to the roof screaming
> > about.....(gasp)......NUDITY!
>
> >   Do explain.
>
> First - How do you know what "Christian's" complain about?
> Have you talked to all Christians?
> Second - Do you think it was only "Christians" who got upset over that
> episode with Janet Jackson?

I dunno. Did the Church of Satan release any statements?

> Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people are not happy with the
> general direction entertainment is going in?

Musicians can't play and Autotune not only blows dead goats,
it's an insult to real singers who've practiced half a lifetime. A
little more T&A is the least consolation we can ask for.

[Father Haskell]

On Jun 14, 8:24 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

Turn off the damned set if you don't like it.

[RichA]

Again, as I keep saying, just ONE more reason for PHYSICAL ownership
of media products like TV shows and movies. Otherwise, they can
censor, ban, remove whatever they LIKE. Of course, if they enact
anything, new TV programs are doomed, but at least we can preserve old
ones if we OWN copies. F--- censorship and the morons leading us to a
"cloud-steaming" HELL!

http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against-more-nudity-and-profanity-on-network-televison/

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:04:45 -0500, Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sorry, what? I was too busy watching Game of Thrones and Hannibal...

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[thinbluemime]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 05:26:17 +0100, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Again, as I keep saying, just ONE more reason for PHYSICAL ownership
> of media products like TV shows and movies. Otherwise, they can
> censor, ban, remove whatever they LIKE. Of course, if they enact
> anything, new TV programs are doomed, but at least we can preserve old
> ones if we OWN copies. F--- censorship and the morons leading us to a
> "cloud-steaming" HELL!

LOL, Believe it or not, with all of my bitchin' and grumpin' bout TV, I
have archived over 3000 disks of content, much of which are movies or TV
shows. All 3000 are indexed with a Windows based catalog program.
Everything is stored locally so I don't worry about the cloud going down
or netflix content not being available.

BTW, here is the indexer I use.

http://www.softprime.com/

It's simple, compact and FAST and very versatile with report generation
and a fantastic search function.

After I burn a disk, all I have to do to update the database, is insert
the disk into the DVD drive and the indexer automatically reads the
content and ejects the disk. I label the burnt disk with a sequential
number.

Later when I want to watch a specific TV show, I load the catalog, search
for the desired content and the indexer shows me which numbered disk it's
on. Pull that disk and pop it into the player to watch.

Sounds more complicated than it really is, because it only takes about a
minute to find what I am looking for before actually viewing, which is not
bad for content scattered across 3000 disks spanning over ten years of
collecting.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <rhunr8pev9ab20803...@4ax.com>,

Oh, another "Hannibal" fan, eh? Very odd show for network tv; I really
don't know how they got it on there, even at 10pm; there's been some
really gruesome stuff.

As for "GoT", how the hell do I wait another year for more? But I do
have hopes that Martin will finally get the next book out.

[Dakota]

My oldest friend recently told me about 'My Name is Earl.' I'd never
heard of it. I had several major WTF moments when I watched the pilot.
I'm about halfway through season one now. It's hilarious. Theres not a
stereotype that isn't ridiculed in that show. I never imagined that it
could have run on a broadcast channel.

<for once I don't have to snip rec.arts.tv. abortion snipped>

[Robert H]

On Jun 15, 12:05 am, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Le 2013-06-14 22:49, Robert H a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 10:19 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote innews:sscnr8hsc84r5urk9...@4ax.com:
>
> >>> ( no comment by me is necessary )
>
> >>>http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against-m
> >>> ore-nudity-and-profanity-on-network-televison/
>
> >>> by Guest Author
>
> >>> The Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing
> >>> indecency standards for broadcast television. These proposed changes
> >>> would allow “isolated” episodes of nudity
>
> >>    Funny how "Christians" don't complain about nudity
> >> in National Geographic shows about pygmies or Zulus
> >> or Borneo natives. But a three second shot of Janet
> >> Jackson's left nipple sends them to the roof screaming
> >> about.....(gasp)......NUDITY!
>
> >>    Do explain.
>
> > First - How do you know what "Christian's" complain about?
>
> They're quite vocal about those things.

They are??? All of them???
Wow, tell me more about what "Christians" do.

>
> > Have you talked to all Christians?
>
> ?
>
> > Second - Do you think it was only "Christians" who got upset over that
> > episode with Janet Jackson?
>
> Well, I'm pretty sure your muslim friends were not happy about it.

My Muslim friends?

>
> > Has it ever occurred to you that people from all sides got upset due
> > to the fact that this was during prime time and it appeared
> > intentional?
>
> And?

And people have a right to be upset about it.

>
> > That children were watching, and perhaps, parents may not want their
> > children to watch that?
>
> I don't recall many children complaining.
>
> > Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people are not happy with the
> > general direction entertainment is going in?
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people **are** happy with the
> general direction entertainment is going in?

Maybe some are, who knows...maybe one day you'll get blow jobs being
done on commercials!!
I bet you would like that.

[Dreamer In Colore]

You've got a problem with a nipple? And you say nothing about shows
that glorify violence?

That's just plain weird, sir.

Sex is NORMAL. Bodies are beautiful. Being ashamed of them is stupid.
If children see a nipple, they're not going to turn into psychopaths.

Networks are desperate to get ratings because people aren't watching
network tv any more. I can hardly believe that they'd orchestrate a
nipple slip when they can do so much more...

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

How can you not love Hannibal? It's magnificent. Mads Mikkelsen is
better than Anthony Hopkins: Hugh Dancy's Will Graham is so good that
I watch each episode twice just to look at the way he portrays
"tormented"; guest stars like Eddie Izzard and Gillian Anderson (who,
holy smokes, looks absolutely amazing with the Veronica Lake blonde
do... and talk about great restrained performance)...

Yes, it's gory. Yes, it's a tiny bit elitist... but so what? It's
filmed impeccably, the performances are tour-de-force, and there's
just an inexorable pull to the story arc. Blows away Season 1 of
American Horror, and that was the pinnacle of the last 18 months of
tv.

As for waiting until next year, I recommend the Jack Taylor series
from Britain, Prime Suspect, and digging up old Cracker episodes (the
UK original, not the truly abysmal American retread).

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Mitchell Holman]

Robert H <cra...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:edb0e2f3-4728-4a21...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 15, 12:05 am, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le 2013-06-14 22:49, Robert H a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 14, 10:19 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> >> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote

>> >> innews:sscnr8hsc84r5urk999gfc4tnu9513b5v6

Why? Why makes seeing an adult woman's
nipple so catastrophic? Museums are full
of topless art, all European beaches are
topless, most tribal societies are topless,
all resulting in NO harm to anyone, much
less children.

Why the outrage?

[June G]

"Dreamer In Colore" <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jslor857k995ra4hr...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:49:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert H
> <cra...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 14, 10:19 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote
>>> innews:sscnr8hsc84r5urk9...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > ( no comment by me is necessary )
>>>
>>> >http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against-m
>>> > ore-nudity-and-profanity-on-network-televison/
>>>

[snip]

> You've got a problem with a nipple? And you say nothing about shows
> that glorify violence?
>
> That's just plain weird, sir.
>
> Sex is NORMAL. Bodies are beautiful. Being ashamed of them is stupid.
> If children see a nipple, they're not going to turn into psychopaths.

Well said. J thinks that the sight of a female breast, which hurts no-one,
is indecent, yet watching a video of a cat suffering pain and terror as a
dog kills it is fine. That's more than weird, it's downright perverted.
Seeing that video _could_ turn children into psychopaths.
--
June G
# 364

[Robert H]

On Jun 15, 9:18 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

I never said it was "catastrophic".

Museums are full
> of topless art,

Yes, and when people go to the museums, they go knowing what to
expect.

all European beaches are
> topless, most tribal societies are topless,
> all resulting in NO harm to anyone, much
> less children.
>
>      Why the outrage?

Seems like the only one outraged is you.

[Father Haskell]

On Jun 15, 8:01 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> You've got a problem with a nipple? And you say nothing about shows
> that glorify violence?
>
> That's just plain weird, sir.
>
> Sex is NORMAL. Bodies are beautiful. Being ashamed of them is stupid.
> If children see a nipple, they're not going to turn into psychopaths.

Children, no. Fundies, yes.

[%]

can i see yer boobs

[%]

more boobs , yay

[%]

quit the yammering let see some boob

[Barb May]

J wrote:
> The Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing
> indecency standards for broadcast television. These proposed changes

> would allow "isolated" episodes of nudity and obscene language to be

> included in network television programming, so long as they are not
> repetitive. This change would result in a major ramping up of
> sexually explicit and profane content in daytime television
> programming.

Another "The Sky is Falling" claim by the religious right that is
contradicted by the facts:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/8/thousands-slam-proposal-to-relax-fcc-decency-stand/
The proposal would change this policy to clarify that networks are
liable for "deliberate and repetitive" profanities, but not when a
random curse word slips out. Similarly isolated, nonsexual nudity would
also no longer be actionable - meaning that a "wardrobe malfunction"
during a Super Bowl halftime show would not result in a fine.

Not punishing accidental and non-repetitive profanities or isolated and
nonsexual nudity will not result in "a major ramping up of sexually
explicit and profane content in daytime television programming." Such
claims are part of a campaign of disinformation by the religious right
in pursuit of a political goal.

> Honesty. Decency. Integrity

How ironic.

--
Barb

[Mason Barge]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:02:17 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jun 14, 7:24 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> [...]

>> The Federal Communications Commission is considering
>> relaxing indecency standards for broadcast television.
>
>

>Let's eliminate the religious liars and frauds.

Why do you limit that to "religious"?

[Tom]

On Jun 14, 11:26 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Again, as I keep saying, just ONE more reason for PHYSICAL ownership
> of media products like TV shows and movies. Otherwise, they can
> censor, ban, remove whatever they LIKE.  Of course, if they enact
> anything, new TV programs are doomed, but at least we can preserve old
> ones if we OWN copies.  F--- censorship and the morons leading us to a
> "cloud-steaming" HELL!
>

> http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against...


Who is "they?"

Tom

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 00:49:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

I read an article that said 2016 as the probable release date for the
next book.

2016...

I feel like Ramsey Bolton's working me over.

[oneeyedjerry]

[snip]

> But a three second shot of Janet
> Jackson's left nipple sends them to the roof screaming
> about.....(gasp)......NUDITY!

It WASN'T 3 seconds, it was more like 3 milliseconds!! I've seen that clip
more than once, & I don't know what the fuss was all about. I didn't see a
damned thing...

[June G]

"%" <per...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wf2dnauqet_RHCHM...@giganews.com...

Well, you'd have to be extremely long-sighted - at least 5,000 miles - to
aspire to that ... and even then: no chance.

[RichA]

Religions fanatics, censorship promoters, left-wing P.C. scum,
terrified corporate lawyers, take your pick.

[Father Haskell]

http://tinyurl.com/lu8wduq

[%]

i don't know what that is

[Devils Advocaat]

On 15 June, 01:24, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> ( no comment by me is necessary )
>

> http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against...
>
> by Guest Author

>
> The Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing

> indecency standards for broadcast television. These proposed changes
> would allow “isolated” episodes of nudity and obscene language to be
> included in network television programming, so long as they are not
> repetitive.  This change would result in a major ramping up of
> sexually explicit and profane content in daytime television
> programming.
>

> We appreciate the tremendous response from so many of you who wanted
> to register your objections with the FCC.  (The public comment period
> ends next Wednesday, June 19th.) Here is a simple way for you to share
> your thoughts with the Federal Communications Commission. Click the
> link below this article. It will take you to the FCC’s public comment
> page. On that page click the item that reads “submit a filing
> (express).”  That will take you to a page with cases on the FCC
> docket.  Choose Proceeding #13-86, which should be the first one on
> the page.  There you will find an easily understandable form in which
> to share your comments.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to speak out in support of retaining
> existing decency standards on television.  The time is long overdue to
> put the brakes on the foul and filthy nature of television
> programming.  We certainly don’t need to give broadcast executives
> even more license to take television content even more tawdry and
> trashy.  In all of our efforts to clean up our environment, there is
> no place more polluted than our entertainment environment.
>
> by Missouri Family Policy Council
>
> J Young
> jdyou...@ymail.com
>
> Honesty. Decency. Integrity

Is nudity actually wrong?

[Tom]

Exactly the bullshit answer I expected.

You are bereft of original thought.

Tom

[%]

oh now i get it you're a dickhead to everybody

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <p86pr8tmkth1dp6b3...@6ax.com>,

<sob>

> I feel like Ramsey Bolton's working me over.

Indeed.

Martin's going to be 65 later this year and he really doesn't seem to be
in very good shape, so I worry about never seeing the end of the story.

I mean, seriously, how can we even be 1/2-way through the story?

[David Johnston]

Because if he didn't, J might think the insult was directed at someone
else.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <h9nor8hp4iou4ceth...@4ax.com>,

Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 00:49:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <rhunr8pev9ab20803...@4ax.com>,
> > Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:04:45 -0500, Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 6/14/2013 7:47 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> If you don't like it, don't watch it.
> >> >>
> >> >> You have free will, no?
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> Dreamer
> >> >> AA 2306
> >> >>
> >> >Yeah, but he'd have the horror of knowing that someone, somewhere, was
> >> >having a good time. He'd hate that.
> >>
> >> Sorry, what? I was too busy watching Game of Thrones and Hannibal...
> >
> >Oh, another "Hannibal" fan, eh? Very odd show for network tv; I really
> >don't know how they got it on there, even at 10pm; there's been some
> >really gruesome stuff.
> >
> >As for "GoT", how the hell do I wait another year for more? But I do
> >have hopes that Martin will finally get the next book out.
>
>
> How can you not love Hannibal?

If I didn't love it, I wouldn't be watching it, now would I?

> It's magnificent. Mads Mikkelsen is
> better than Anthony Hopkins: Hugh Dancy's Will Graham is so good that
> I watch each episode twice just to look at the way he portrays
> "tormented"; guest stars like Eddie Izzard and Gillian Anderson (who,
> holy smokes, looks absolutely amazing with the Veronica Lake blonde
> do... and talk about great restrained performance)...
>
> Yes, it's gory. Yes, it's a tiny bit elitist... but so what? It's
> filmed impeccably, the performances are tour-de-force, and there's
> just an inexorable pull to the story arc. Blows away Season 1 of
> American Horror, and that was the pinnacle of the last 18 months of
> tv.

I wasn't criticizing the show. I'm just amazed at the things Standards &
Practices have approved for a network show.

> As for waiting until next year, I recommend the Jack Taylor series
> from Britain, Prime Suspect, and digging up old Cracker episodes (the
> UK original, not the truly abysmal American retread).

I saw the 1st 3 (I think) series of "Prime Suspect" so I still have
unseen ones. It's on one of my queues (Netflix? amazon? Hulu? can't
remember) and I plan to start at the beginning and watch them all in a
row. And "Cracker" is already on my Netflix queue, which is up over 200
items now. My amazon queue is over 100.

In 2 nights last week, I watched all 10 episodes of Season 2 of "Falling
Skies" so I could watch the Season 3 debut from last Sunday. And last
night I watched the last 2 episodes of season 1 of "Copper" in advance
of Season 2 next Sunday. I had episodes of both on my old Time Warner
DVR when I switched to U-verse and neither one was On Demand so I lost
them, until I found them again. Thanks be to Roku!

I'm also working my way through "Farscape". I'd forgotten how much of
what happened, including the introduction of major characters, actually
happened in season 1.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <sO1vt.61600$on6....@newsfe18.iad>,

Me, neither.

[BTR1701]

"June G" <june...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> "Dreamer In Colore" <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> Sex is NORMAL. Bodies are beautiful. Being ashamed of them is stupid.
>> If children see a nipple, they're not going to turn into psychopaths.

> Well said. J thinks that the sight of a female breast, which hurts no-one,
> is indecent, yet watching a video of a cat suffering pain and terror as a
> dog kills it is fine. That's more than weird, it's downright perverted.
> Seeing that video _could_ turn children into psychopaths.

No one is 'turned' into a psychopath. Psychopathy is an innate brain
disorder that is biological in nature. No treatment or drugs can cure it
and no one who starts out normal can be turned into a psychopath by
watching a video.

[Smiler]

I'm much nearer...
:-)

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Dakota]

Helen Mirren rocks in Prime Suspect. And in everything else she does.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <kpj0c0$uvi$1...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

Indeed!

[RichA]

A typical sour, old man.

[Tom]

I'm neither.

Tom

[%]

i mistook you for tim , i apologize

[calvin]

Right, neither typical nor man.

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 22:09:41 -0700 (PDT), calvin put forth the notion
that:

Are... are you saying he's still sour and old?

--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright © 2012
all rights reserved


I'm Checkmate, and I approve this message...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpZhZAr1cQU

and this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyBYSuqQBQ&feature=youtu.be


Read what others are saying about Checkmate!
_____________________________________________________________________

"I keep forgetting you've been doing this for so long that it's easy
for you. I can't wait to piss on your grave."

Uncle Steve

Message-ID: <b18ab6cb2c...@gmail.com>
_____________________________________________________________________

"Did... did you just tell someone to attempt to ROT-13 *numbers*, you
Clueless Newbie of the Month candidate?"

Paul Derbyshire, socked-up as [tor] Phoenix

Message-ID: <k3ae35$prb$1...@news.mixmin.net>
_____________________________________________________________________

"Nov. 1 can't come quickly enough for me. I really, REALLY want to put
that little + in the box for your Creepy Candy Coating on the ballot,
so badly my hand is twitching. And I'm sorely tempted to rustle up a
couple dozen sockpuppets and stuff the ballot box just to make
absolutely sure you "win" it, you fucking lech!"

Paul Derbyshire, socked up as Andrew Wilson

Message-ID: <9870030e-6c49-4f16-af9e-
070a57...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
_____________________________________________________________________

"You can sit there all you want and spit out all the denial you can
muster, it still doesn't change the fact that you are the current
king shit of the puppeteers in this group."

-Ragnar
_____________________________________________________________________

"You have got to be the biggest butt fucking moron in this place.
You use socks and then admit to it? What the fuck is the point?"

-Ragnar, socked-up as "Wildhare"
_____________________________________________________________________

[Olrik]

Le 2013-06-15 07:52, Robert H a écrit :
> On Jun 15, 12:05 am, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Le 2013-06-14 22:49, Robert H a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 14, 10:19 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>>>> J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote innews:sscnr8hsc84r5urk9...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>> ( no comment by me is necessary )
>>
>>>>> http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against-m
>>>>> ore-nudity-and-profanity-on-network-televison/
>>

>>>>> by Guest Author

>>
>>>>> The Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing

>>>>> indecency standards for broadcast television. These proposed changes
>>>>> would allow “isolated” episodes of nudity
>>

>>>> Funny how "Christians" don't complain about nudity
>>>> in National Geographic shows about pygmies or Zulus
>>>> or Borneo natives. But a three second shot of Janet

>>>> Jackson's left nipple sends them to the roof screaming
>>>> about.....(gasp)......NUDITY!
>>

>>>> Do explain.
>>
>>> First - How do you know what "Christian's" complain about?
>>
>> They're quite vocal about those things.
>
> They are??? All of them???
> Wow, tell me more about what "Christians" do.
>
>>
>>> Have you talked to all Christians?
>>
>> ?
>>
>>> Second - Do you think it was only "Christians" who got upset over that
>>> episode with Janet Jackson?
>>
>> Well, I'm pretty sure your muslim friends were not happy about it.
>
> My Muslim friends?
>
>>
>>> Has it ever occurred to you that people from all sides got upset due
>>> to the fact that this was during prime time and it appeared
>>> intentional?
>>
>> And?
>
> And people have a right to be upset about it.

It's not a *right*, it's just an opinion.

>>
>>> That children were watching, and perhaps, parents may not want their
>>> children to watch that?
>>
>> I don't recall many children complaining.
>>
>>> Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people are not happy with the
>>> general direction entertainment is going in?
>>
>> Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people **are** happy with the
>> general direction entertainment is going in?
>
> Maybe some are, who knows...maybe one day you'll get blow jobs being
> done on commercials!!
> I bet you would like that.

Ah, the slippery slope argument.

You know, here in Canada, French-Canadian public TV has been showing
nudity in prime time since the early seventies. Still no blow job.

Maybe you're just immature.

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Alex W]

Am I sick for thinking she's sexy?

She is my mother's age, after all....

[Alex W]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:31:09 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote:

>
> How can you not love Hannibal? It's magnificent. Mads Mikkelsen is

> better than Anthony Hopkins: Hugh Dancy's Will Graham is so good that
> I watch each episode twice just to look at the way he portrays
> "tormented"; guest stars like Eddie Izzard and Gillian Anderson (who,
> holy smokes, looks absolutely amazing with the Veronica Lake blonde
> do... and talk about great restrained performance)...

You just put a finger on onee big reason why this show is so
good: with the exception of Anderson they are all foreign
actors, and even the delectable Gillian is half-British in
upbringing and work. How long ould you have to think before
you could drag up half a dozen American actors who could be
capable and credible in these roles?

BTW, for any Anderson fans, I cannot recommend highly enough
her latest outing on British TV, "The Fall". Wikipedia says
it's available on Netflix. The ratings were excellent, and
the critics/reviewers had a collective trouser accident.

>
> Yes, it's gory. Yes, it's a tiny bit elitist... but so what? It's
> filmed impeccably, the performances are tour-de-force, and there's
> just an inexorable pull to the story arc. Blows away Season 1 of
> American Horror, and that was the pinnacle of the last 18 months of
> tv.
>

> As for waiting until next year, I recommend the Jack Taylor series
> from Britain, Prime Suspect, and digging up old Cracker episodes (the
> UK original, not the truly abysmal American retread).

Ditto "Wire in the Blood".

[Alex W]

I'm giving up on it for the time being.
Yes, I love the series and I am willing to wait a year or
even two for a new instalment, but this pace is just
ridiculous. Not only do I have to re-read the entire series
in order to fully appreciate the latest work, but I will
have to do so in the full knowledge that by the end he will
just leave me dangling for another X years. Heck, at this
pace *I* will die befor the end.

>
>
>> I feel like Ramsey Bolton's working me over.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Martin's going to be 65 later this year and he really doesn't seem to be
> in very good shape, so I worry about never seeing the end of the story.
>
> I mean, seriously, how can we even be 1/2-way through the story?

We will see the end of the story, and Martin's survival is
now irrelevant to its progress. This is a hugely successful
franchise, so if he dies before it is finished, his estate
will hire some hack writer, hand him whatever notes Martin
left and get him to churn out the rest of the series.

[Alex W]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Robert H wrote:

> On Jun 15, 9:18 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:


>>
>>      Why? Why makes seeing an adult woman's
>> nipple so catastrophic?
>
> I never said it was "catastrophic".
>
> Museums are full
>> of topless art,
>
> Yes, and when people go to the museums, they go knowing what to
> expect.

So are churches. Baroque churches are a paedophile's
delight, filled as they are with small chubby nekkid boys.
Depictions of topless female saints are common. The Madonna
breastfeeding the baby Jesus was quite a popular motif in
Renaissance art and such pictures still grace many a church
without a murmur of complaint.

[Alex W]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:04:00 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
wrote:



>
> Is nudity actually wrong?

It can be.

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x296/gweilgi/sexy5.jpg

[Father Haskell]

I take that back. Real boobs are useful and nurturing.

[Father Haskell]

He wants to share his happiness.

[Tom]

Fuck you 'calvin.'

You wouldn't know what it takes to be a man if some one gave you a
picture book and explained each picture in detail.

On this Father's Day, I'll reflect on what a great man my dad was and
what a great dad I am to my daughter.

OTOH, you'll be alone with your cats, wondering if Honey Boo Boo will
ever call...

Tom

[calvin]

On Jun 16, 11:02 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 12:09 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 12:12 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 15, 9:52 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > A typical sour, old man.
> > > I'm neither.
> > Right, neither typical nor man.
>
> Fuck you 'calvin.'
> You wouldn't know what it takes to be a man if some one gave you a
> picture book and explained each picture in detail.
> On this Father's Day, I'll reflect on what a great man my dad was and
> what a great dad I am to my daughter.

> ...
Did he proclaim what a great dad he was, just as you
proclaim what a great dad you are? In any case, I
hope your daughter turns out better than you.

[June G]

"BTR1701" <addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:829654982393033441.458432...@news.giganews.com...

Yes, you're right - a bit of hyperbole was used. However, people can be
brutalised to the point where they feel no empathy for their selected
victims, be it animals, Jews, gays, African Americans or women, and children
are more easily brainwashed than adults.
--
June G
# 364

[June G]

"Smiler" <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2013.06.16....@JoeKing.com...

:)
Nonetheless, Pinky and Perky will remain undercover!

[Tom]

You persist in insulting my parents... does that make you feel better,
knowing you came from some unholy hillbilly union?

My daughter is 29 and has turned out better than I could ever dream,
but most importantly, she turned out better than you.

Honey Boo Boo call yet, you miserable, toothless fucking hillbilly?

Tom

[calvin]

On Jun 16, 11:58 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 10:42 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 11:02 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:

> > > ... On this Father's Day, I'll reflect on what a great man my
> > > dad was andwhat a great dad I am to my daughter.

> > > ...
>
> > Did he proclaim what a great dad he was, just as you
> > proclaim what a great dad you are?  In any case, I
> > hope your daughter turns out better than you.
>
> You persist in insulting my parents... does that make you feel better,
> knowing you came from some unholy hillbilly union?
> My daughter is 29 and has turned out better than I could ever dream,
> but most importantly, she turned out better than you.

> ...

I hope she didn't inherit your lack of originality.
Otherwise you only got a pair of socks for Father's Day.

[trotsky]

He claims to know nothing about HBB, but I claim he's like Sarah Palin
in that he thinks he has something to say because he can see her place
from his house.


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

[Tom McDonald]

This is a thing that is possible to know. Perhaps he does, and is.

> In any case, I
> hope your daughter turns out better than you.
>

That's the hope and wish of every father. Didn't you know that?

[trotsky]

Interesting--did you get the deluxe cat litter you were looking for
today, calvin? You know, the one with corn, wheat and pine?

[Tom]

On Jun 16, 11:46 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:

> On 6/16/13 10:02 AM, Tom wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 12:09 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 12:12 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 15, 9:52 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> A typical sour, old man.
>
> >>> I'm neither.
>
> >> Right, neither typical nor man.
>
> > Fuck you 'calvin.'
>
> > You wouldn't know what it takes to be a man if some one gave you a
> > picture book and explained each picture in detail.
>

> > On this Father's Day, I'll reflect on what a great man my dad was and
> > what a great dad I am to my daughter.
>

> > OTOH, you'll be alone with your cats, wondering if Honey Boo Boo will
> > ever call...
>
> He claims to know nothing about HBB, but I claim he's like Sarah Palin
> in that he thinks he has something to say because he can see her place
> from his house.
>

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

Or in the case of pig shit covered hillbillies from Georgia, he can
smell her house from his...

Tom

[trotsky]

He's definitely the most low tech dude I've ever come across. Otoh, I
do like the sound of Victrolas.

[calvin]

On Jun 16, 1:02 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/13 11:49 AM, Tom wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 11:46 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/16/13 10:02 AM, Tom wrote:
> >>> On Jun 16, 12:09 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 16, 12:12 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 15, 9:52 pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> A typical sour, old man.
>
> >>>>> I'm neither.
>
> >>>> Right, neither typical nor man.
>
> >>> Fuck you 'calvin.'
>
> >>> You wouldn't know what it takes to be a man if some one gave you a
> >>> picture book and explained each picture in detail.
>
> >>> On this Father's Day, I'll reflect on what a great man my dad was and
> >>> what a great dad I am to my daughter.
>
> >>> OTOH, you'll be alone with your cats, wondering if Honey Boo Boo will
> >>> ever call...
>
> >> He claims to know nothing about HBB, but I claim he's like Sarah Palin
> >> in that he thinks he has something to say because he can see her place
> >> from his house.
>

> > Or in the case of pig shit covered hillbillies from Georgia, he can
> > smell her house from his...
>
> He's definitely the most low tech dude I've ever come across.  Otoh, I
> do like the sound of Victrolas.

If that includes the wind-up kind, and if you haven't
read it, you might like to read the one thing that 'Tom'
and I agree on, 'The Portable Phonograph', by Walter
Van Tilberg Clark.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:21:53 +0100, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:31:09 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>
>>
>> How can you not love Hannibal? It's magnificent. Mads Mikkelsen is
>> better than Anthony Hopkins: Hugh Dancy's Will Graham is so good that
>> I watch each episode twice just to look at the way he portrays
>> "tormented"; guest stars like Eddie Izzard and Gillian Anderson (who,
>> holy smokes, looks absolutely amazing with the Veronica Lake blonde
>> do... and talk about great restrained performance)...
>
>You just put a finger on onee big reason why this show is so
>good: with the exception of Anderson they are all foreign
>actors, and even the delectable Gillian is half-British in
>upbringing and work. How long ould you have to think before
>you could drag up half a dozen American actors who could be
>capable and credible in these roles?
>

Now that I have seen Kelsey Grammer in Boss, I think he might make a
pretty good Lecter. I would have loved to have seen a Robert Mitchum
interpretation, though he'd been typecast for so long it would be
difficult.

I know Malkovich doesn't necessarily qualify for American any more,
but he can do ANYTHING. William Hurt could have pulled off Lecter too,
IMNSHO. Forgive the obvious pun, but Giancarlo Esposito is in the
running as a dark horse Lecter.

Laurence Fishburne is good as Jack Crawford. I might have cast Zeljko
Ivanek in that role.

Allison Janney in the Anderson role?

Joshua Malina as Will Graham?

John Spencer or Richard Schiff as Crawford?

How about Martin Sheen as Lecter? Don Cheadle?

If Robert Downey could be trusted not to smirk, he'd be fantastic. The
only other huge American star capable of doing Lecter redux is Johnny
Depp.... I tried to picture DiCaprio in it, but failed miserably.

[Dreamer In Colore]

You know, I should have known better. I should have thought before I
clicked. And now, I will be haunted forever, ya mad bastid.

I curse you to an eternity of English food as penance.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:21:53 +0100, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:31:09 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>
>>
>> How can you not love Hannibal? It's magnificent. Mads Mikkelsen is
>> better than Anthony Hopkins: Hugh Dancy's Will Graham is so good that
>> I watch each episode twice just to look at the way he portrays
>> "tormented"; guest stars like Eddie Izzard and Gillian Anderson (who,
>> holy smokes, looks absolutely amazing with the Veronica Lake blonde
>> do... and talk about great restrained performance)...
>
>You just put a finger on onee big reason why this show is so
>good: with the exception of Anderson they are all foreign
>actors, and even the delectable Gillian is half-British in
>upbringing and work. How long ould you have to think before
>you could drag up half a dozen American actors who could be
>capable and credible in these roles?
>

>BTW, for any Anderson fans, I cannot recommend highly enough
>her latest outing on British TV, "The Fall". Wikipedia says
>it's available on Netflix. The ratings were excellent, and
>the critics/reviewers had a collective trouser accident.
>
>
>>
>> Yes, it's gory. Yes, it's a tiny bit elitist... but so what? It's
>> filmed impeccably, the performances are tour-de-force, and there's
>> just an inexorable pull to the story arc. Blows away Season 1 of
>> American Horror, and that was the pinnacle of the last 18 months of
>> tv.
>>
>> As for waiting until next year, I recommend the Jack Taylor series
>> from Britain, Prime Suspect, and digging up old Cracker episodes (the
>> UK original, not the truly abysmal American retread).
>
>Ditto "Wire in the Blood".

Oh man... Wire in the Blood was pretty good. Not as good as the books,
but Robson Greene did a fairly creditable job.

Did you happen to catch Zen with Rufus Sewell?

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:11:56 +0100, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:03:49 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>> In article <kpj0c0$uvi$1...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/15/2013 5:58 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> In article <h9nor8hp4iou4ceth...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 00:49:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>>>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <rhunr8pev9ab20803...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:04:45 -0500, Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2013 7:47 PM, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you don't like it, don't watch it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have free will, no?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Dreamer
>>>>>>>>> AA 2306
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, but he'd have the horror of knowing that someone, somewhere, was
>>>>>>>> having a good time. He'd hate that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, what? I was too busy watching Game of Thrones and Hannibal...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, another "Hannibal" fan, eh? Very odd show for network tv; I really
>>>>>> don't know how they got it on there, even at 10pm; there's been some
>>>>>> really gruesome stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for "GoT", how the hell do I wait another year for more? But I do
>>>>>> have hopes that Martin will finally get the next book out.

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How can you not love Hannibal?
>>>>

>>>> If I didn't love it, I wouldn't be watching it, now would I?

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's magnificent. Mads Mikkelsen is
>>>>> better than Anthony Hopkins: Hugh Dancy's Will Graham is so good that
>>>>> I watch each episode twice just to look at the way he portrays
>>>>> "tormented"; guest stars like Eddie Izzard and Gillian Anderson (who,
>>>>> holy smokes, looks absolutely amazing with the Veronica Lake blonde
>>>>> do... and talk about great restrained performance)...
>>>>>

>>>>> Yes, it's gory. Yes, it's a tiny bit elitist... but so what? It's
>>>>> filmed impeccably, the performances are tour-de-force, and there's
>>>>> just an inexorable pull to the story arc. Blows away Season 1 of
>>>>> American Horror, and that was the pinnacle of the last 18 months of
>>>>> tv.
>>>>

>>>> I wasn't criticizing the show. I'm just amazed at the things Standards &
>>>> Practices have approved for a network show.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As for waiting until next year, I recommend the Jack Taylor series
>>>>> from Britain, Prime Suspect, and digging up old Cracker episodes (the
>>>>> UK original, not the truly abysmal American retread).
>>>>

>>>> I saw the 1st 3 (I think) series of "Prime Suspect" so I still have
>>>> unseen ones. It's on one of my queues (Netflix? amazon? Hulu? can't
>>>> remember) and I plan to start at the beginning and watch them all in a
>>>> row. And "Cracker" is already on my Netflix queue, which is up over 200
>>>> items now. My amazon queue is over 100.
>>>>
>>>> In 2 nights last week, I watched all 10 episodes of Season 2 of "Falling
>>>> Skies" so I could watch the Season 3 debut from last Sunday. And last
>>>> night I watched the last 2 episodes of season 1 of "Copper" in advance
>>>> of Season 2 next Sunday. I had episodes of both on my old Time Warner
>>>> DVR when I switched to U-verse and neither one was On Demand so I lost
>>>> them, until I found them again. Thanks be to Roku!
>>>>
>>>> I'm also working my way through "Farscape". I'd forgotten how much of
>>>> what happened, including the introduction of major characters, actually
>>>> happened in season 1.
>>>>
>>> Helen Mirren rocks in Prime Suspect. And in everything else she does.
>>
>> Indeed!
>
>Am I sick for thinking she's sexy?
>
>She is my mother's age, after all....

A little bit. But only as sick as thinking that Raquel Welch is still
sexy.

[Hunter]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:51:02 -0700 (PDT), Robert H
<cra...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Jun 14, 8:24=A0pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> ( no comment by me is necessary )
>>

>> http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/06/14/commentary-take-a-stand-against...
>>
>> by Guest Author
>>
>> The Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing
>> indecency standards for broadcast television. These proposed changes
>> would allow =93isolated=94 episodes of nudity and obscene language to be
>> included in network television programming, so long as they are not
>> repetitive. =A0This change would result in a major ramping up of
>> sexually explicit and profane content in daytime television
>> programming.
>>
>> We appreciate the tremendous response from so many of you who wanted
>> to register your objections with the FCC. =A0(The public comment period
>> ends next Wednesday, June 19th.) Here is a simple way for you to share
>> your thoughts with the Federal Communications Commission. Click the
>> link below this article. It will take you to the FCC=92s public comment
>> page. On that page click the item that reads =93submit a filing
>> (express).=94 =A0That will take you to a page with cases on the FCC
>> docket. =A0Choose Proceeding #13-86, which should be the first one on
>> the page. =A0There you will find an easily understandable form in which
>> to share your comments.
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to speak out in support of retaining
>> existing decency standards on television. =A0The time is long overdue to
>> put the brakes on the foul and filthy nature of television
>> programming. =A0We certainly don=92t need to give broadcast executives
>> even more license to take television content even more tawdry and
>> trashy. =A0In all of our efforts to clean up our environment, there is
>> no place more polluted than our entertainment environment.
>>
>> by Missouri Family Policy Council
>>
>> J Young
>> jdyou...@ymail.com
>>
>> Honesty. Decency. Integrity
>
>Just do what my wife and I did. Cut off all cable and satellite
>television. We have just Netflix, and to be honest..besides a HUGE cut
>in our payments and saving money to where we can go out as a family
>and take more trips, we are happy with Netflix.
-----
No offense the FCC doesn't govern cable or direct sattelite TV. Inothe
words networks like HBO, Starz, Showtime aren't under FCC
jurisdiction.

For that matter neither are basic cable FX, AMC, A&E, History, etc.
but they have a more stringent nudity and profanity police than say
HBO and the other prenium channels but just the same they are more lax
than the broadcast networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, the CW are.

It is THEY who have to listen to the FCC as well as advertisers who in
turn are afraid of the general public even if it is a minority of the
public (if you know your sales are going to take a 15% hit more likely
than not you are going to stop sponsoring a program even if the other
85% either like or don't care what they saw).

But even then I think say NBC or ABC can show full frontal nudity if
it wanted to after 10PM but for the aformentioned reasons they dare
not.

Incidently basic cable channels like TNT if they wanted to can go
almost as far as the prenium channes because the basic cable channels
FXM and Sundance both regularly show movies uncut that have tons of
dialog with "Fuck" in it along with at least topless if not full
frontal nudity, even in the middle of the afternoon so the reason that
say AMC doesn't so nudity is policy born out of the fear of
advertisers, not the FCC.

------>Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

[Hunter]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:33:42 -0700, "Barb May"
<bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:

>J wrote:
>> The Federal Communications Commission is considering relaxing
>> indecency standards for broadcast television. These proposed changes

>> would allow "isolated" episodes of nudity and obscene language to be

>> included in network television programming, so long as they are not

>> repetitive. This change would result in a major ramping up of

>> sexually explicit and profane content in daytime television
>> programming.
>

>Another "The Sky is Falling" claim by the religious right that is
>contradicted by the facts:
>
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/8/thousands-slam-proposal-to-relax-fcc-decency-stand/
>The proposal would change this policy to clarify that networks are
>liable for "deliberate and repetitive" profanities, but not when a
>random curse word slips out. Similarly isolated, nonsexual nudity would
>also no longer be actionable - meaning that a "wardrobe malfunction"
>during a Super Bowl halftime show would not result in a fine.
>
>Not punishing accidental and non-repetitive profanities or isolated and
>nonsexual nudity will not result in "a major ramping up of sexually
>explicit and profane content in daytime television programming." Such
>claims are part of a campaign of disinformation by the religious right
>in pursuit of a political goal.
-----
Perfectly reasonable even if you are for FCC fines against stations.
No need to punish a station for something unforeseen.

[BTR1701]

Dreamer In Colore <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:21:53 +0100, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:31:09 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How can you not love Hannibal? It's magnificent. Mads Mikkelsen is
>>> better than Anthony Hopkins: Hugh Dancy's Will Graham is so good that
>>> I watch each episode twice just to look at the way he portrays
>>> "tormented"; guest stars like Eddie Izzard and Gillian Anderson (who,
>>> holy smokes, looks absolutely amazing with the Veronica Lake blonde
>>> do... and talk about great restrained performance)...
>>
>> You just put a finger on onee big reason why this show is so
>> good: with the exception of Anderson they are all foreign
>> actors, and even the delectable Gillian is half-British in
>> upbringing and work. How long ould you have to think before
>> you could drag up half a dozen American actors who could be
>> capable and credible in these roles?
>>
>
> Now that I have seen Kelsey Grammer in Boss, I think he might make a
> pretty good Lecter.

I think he'd do a great job in the role. So would John Lithgow if he hadn't
already just got done playing a psychopathic killer on DEXTER. Either would
be better than the wooden, expressionless actor they have playing him now.