PTC Urges CW Stations Not to Air 'Gossip Girl'
J
episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and good taste.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56694
Group Urges CW Stations Not to Air 'Gossip Girl'
New York - On-air promos for a sexual threesome on an upcoming episode of
"Gossip Girl" have spurred the Parents Television Council to ask affiliates
of the CW network to pre-empt the show.
Airing the teen tryst, which is being teased in an ad as a "3SOME," is
"reckless and irresponsible," said PTC president Tim Winter in a statement
Wednesday. The threesome involves three main characters in the show but they
are not identified in the promos.
The PTC has urged CW affiliate stations not to air the episode, scheduled
for Nov. 9.
In a letter to the affiliates, Winter asked: "Will you now be complicit in
establishing a precedent and expectation that teenagers should engage in
behaviors heretofore associated primarily with adult films?"
This is not the first time the PTC has complained about the sexy prep-school
soap, which Winter said is "expressly targeted to impressionable teenagers."
In July 2008, the organization spoke out against a racy marketing campaign
for its new season. Ads showed intimate moments between the show's
characters (on a couch, in the sack or apparently skinny-dipping),
accompanied by headlines like "A Nasty Piece of Work" and "Mind-Blowingly
Inappropriate."
"CW has been defending graphic content on 'Gossip Girl' by asserting that
they don't target teenagers," Winters said Wednesday. "Such a claim doesn't
even pass the 'laugh test.'"
CW spokesman Paul McGuire said the target audience for "Gossip Girl" is 18-
to 34-year-old women, with a median viewer age of 27 years old. The network
had no comment on PTC's complaint, he said.
The Parents Television Council describes itself as a nonpartisan education
group advocating responsible entertainment.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" <Jvis...@live.com> PARROTED:
> New York - On-air promos for a sexual threesome on an upcoming episode
> of "Gossip Girl" have spurred the Parents Television Council to ask affiliates
> of the CW network to pre-empt the show.
Hey!! PTC!! ---
....................../��/)
....................,/�../
.................../..../
............./��/'...'/���`��
........../'/.../..../......./��\
........('(...�...�.... �~/'...') **SCREW** censorship!!!
.........\.................'.~./
..........\............... _.��
............\..............(
..............\.............\..
Uncle Vic
> PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
> heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
> good taste.
PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television decency.
"Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with your concept of
decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We have a right to watch
what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Pat Magroyne
>
> > New York - On-air promos for a sexual threesome on an upcoming episode
> > of "Gossip Girl" have spurred the Parents Television Council to ask affiliates
> > of the CW network to pre-empt the show.
>
> Hey!! PTC!! ---
>
> ....................../´¯/)
> ....................,/¯../
> .................../..../
> ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
> ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
> ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') **SCREW** censorship!!!
> .........\.................'.~./
> ..........\............... _.·´
> ............\..............(
> ..............\.............\..
Exactly!
J
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBCE1D...@216.196.97.131...
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
>> heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
>> good taste.
>
> PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television decency.
> "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with your concept of
> decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We have a right to watch
> what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".
>
What about the children? If it were only adults with access to television,
I'd agree with you 100%.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Uncle Vic
>
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBCE1D...@216.196.97.131...
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
>>> heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
>>> good taste.
>>
>> PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television
>> decency. "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with
>> your concept of decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We
>> have a right to watch what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".
>>
>
>
> What about the children? If it were only adults with access to
> television, I'd agree with you 100%.
>
BS, you'd probably rather go drink a sixpack in the basement, leaving the
children to fend for themselves, wouldn't you? Do you even have
children? Adults are responsible for what their children watch on TV,
and if they can't monitor their own kids they deserve what they get.
BTW, I'll join you in the basement, if you have enough beer for both of
us.
Me? I prefer to allow my kids to watch whatever they want. Why shelter
them from what they'll learn later on in adulthood anyway? At least mine
are ready for it. I say, you might as well give them an early start on
the real world. With this outlook, you also tend to get very realistic,
first hand movie reviews!
Well, maybe I'm just about out of the picture anyhoo. My eldest is 24,
and my younger is 17. But I've held fast to this opinion since that
first Big O...
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
>> heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
>> good taste.
>
>PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television decency.
>"Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with your concept of
>decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We have a right to watch
>what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".
I always wondered why the V-chip didn't give non-Christians the option
of blocking Christian crap.
Pat Magroyne
> "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CBCE1D...@216.196.97.131...
>
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
> >> heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
> >> good taste.
>
> > PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television decency.
> > "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with your concept of
> > decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We have a right to watch
> > what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".
>
> What about the children?
Ah, the old conservative mantra. A screech, really. "WHAT ABOUT THE
CHILDREN!?!???!??!??!?!??!?"
They'll survive, just as they survive everything else you kooks think
will wipe them off the face of the earth.
How many children died when Janet Jackson showed her tit on TV?
Zero. How many were maimed for life? Zero. How many were
temporarily disabled as a result? Zero. How many had attacks of
nerves so severe that they had to be institutionalized? Zero. It's
the adults who have the problem. Quit using kids in your arguments.
Uncle Vic
wrote:
That's OK. We know how to use the remote.
J
I wasn't referring to 17 year olds; more the 11-14 range, when kids are more
impressionable to what they see. Are you really looking to promote this type
of behaviour, which is much different than asking people to acccept it. Kids
have enough problems at that age; they can find out thressomes when they're
a little older.
Despite what you may think, I know kids aren't stupid. I give them enough
credit to figure out how to watch a television show even if their parents
strictly forbid it.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Uncle Vic
Then you're not against censorship. Yet you post articles that are
against censorship and make out like you support this.
WTF?
Uncle Vic
> Ah, the old conservative mantra. A screech, really. "WHAT ABOUT THE
> CHILDREN!?!???!??!??!?!??!?"
>
> They'll survive, just as they survive everything else you kooks think
> will wipe them off the face of the earth.
>
> How many children died when Janet Jackson showed her tit on TV?
> Zero. How many were maimed for life? Zero. How many were
> temporarily disabled as a result? Zero. How many had attacks of
> nerves so severe that they had to be institutionalized? Zero. It's
> the adults who have the problem. Quit using kids in your arguments.
<Golf Clap>
Uncle Vic
>
> Then you're not against censorship. Yet you post articles that are
> against censorship and make out like you support this.
>
> WTF?
>
Oops...
Let me try that again.
Then you're against censorship. Yet you post articles that are pro-
censorship and make out like you support this. WFT?
...dang...
Lord Calvert
>
> news:Xns9CBCE1D...@216.196.97.131...
>
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
> >> heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
> >> good taste.
>
> > PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television decency.
> > "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with your concept of
> > decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We have a right to watch
> > what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".
>
> What about the children? If it were only adults with access to television,
> I'd agree with you 100%.
So you think parental rights should be stripped and television content
should be controlled by the government, just as it was in the Soviet
Union or as it currently is in our ideological enemies in Iran and the
PRC?
Could you possibly be any more communist, J? As any real conservative
will tell you, big-government simply doesn't have the competence or
the legal authority to dictate television watching content to all
Americans. The market will decide. If enough people like it,
advertisers will too and they will make money. If not enough people
like it, it will be canceled and replaced with something else. Commies
like you, J, simply don't have any genuine belief in America or
American principles. You always run to the state.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography
"We apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that
freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary
will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism
will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and
spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering
estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have
intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we
owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity
and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the
State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But
freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much.
That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is
the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing
order. **If there is any fixed star in our constitutional
constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe
what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other
matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their
faith therein.** If there are any circumstances which permit an
exception, they do not now occur to us." - US Supreme Court, West
Virginia v. Barnette (1943)
J
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Then you're not against censorship. Yet you post articles that are
>> against censorship and make out like you support this.
>>
>> WTF?
>>
>
> Oops...
>
> Let me try that again.
>
> Then you're against censorship. Yet you post articles that are pro-
> censorship and make out like you support this. WFT?
>
> ...dang...
>
It's not censorship, the PTC holds no such power. All they've done is
request the CW not to broadcast the show. It's the CW's decision All I did
was make you aware of it.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Smiler
In the UK, that would have been laughed of as an 'unfortunte incident'.
As for children, don't they see their mother's tits when they're suckling?
Mine boys certainly did. My wife was often topless in front of them, until
THEY were old enough to be embarassed by it.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Pat Magroyne
> Pat Magroyne wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 12:20 am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:Xns9CBCE1D...@216.196.97.131...
>
> >>> One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
> >>>> heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency
> >>>> and good taste.
>
> >>> PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television
> >>> decency. "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with
> >>> your concept of decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We
> >>> have a right to watch what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".
>
> >> What about the children?
>
> > Ah, the old conservative mantra. A screech, really. "WHAT ABOUT THE
> > CHILDREN!?!???!??!??!?!??!?"
>
> > They'll survive, just as they survive everything else you kooks think
> > will wipe them off the face of the earth.
>
> > How many children died when Janet Jackson showed her tit on TV?
> > Zero. How many were maimed for life? Zero. How many were
> > temporarily disabled as a result? Zero. How many had attacks of
> > nerves so severe that they had to be institutionalized? Zero. It's
> > the adults who have the problem. Quit using kids in your arguments.
>
> In the UK, that would have been laughed of as an 'unfortunte incident'.
Ah. In the U.S., a fabulous PR firm called it a "wardrobe
malfunction", which, I have to say, is the most delicious attempt at
damage control I've ever seen!
> As for children, don't they see their mother's tits when they're suckling?
> Mine boys certainly did. My wife was often topless in front of them, until
> THEY were old enough to be embarassed by it.
Yep. Any kids watching the incident weren't offended by it. Maybe
embarrassed by it, but only if they were in the company of adults at
the time. If alone, the younger ones would have laughed, the older
ones might have made lewd comments. Nobody died, nobody was injured.
It wasn't the prettiest boob in town, but nobody went blind looking at
it.
Pat Magroyne
> "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CBCEAFB...@216.196.97.131...
>
>
>
>
>
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
> >> Then you're not against censorship. Yet you post articles that are
> >> against censorship and make out like you support this.
>
> >> WTF?
>
> > Oops...
>
> > Let me try that again.
>
> > Then you're against censorship. Yet you post articles that are pro-
> > censorship and make out like you support this. WFT?
>
> > ...dang...
>
> It's not censorship, the PTC holds no such power.
They've just given the show promotion that no amount of money can
buy.
> All they've done is
> request the CW not to broadcast the show. It's the CW's decision All I did
> was make you aware of it.
All you did was run out of stories about homosexuals today, but, being
still in the mood to troll, decided to find something about sex and
kids to complement your earlier story about a man fucking a horse.
The Chief Instigator
> PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be heeded. The
> episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and good taste.
>
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56694
>
> Group Urges CW Stations Not to Air 'Gossip Girl'
>
> New York - On-air promos for a sexual threesome on an upcoming episode of
> "Gossip Girl" have spurred the Parents Television Council to ask affiliates
> of the CW network to pre-empt the show.
>
> Airing the teen tryst, which is being teased in an ad as a "3SOME," is
> "reckless and irresponsible," said PTC president Tim Winter in a statement
> Wednesday. The threesome involves three main characters in the show but they
> are not identified in the promos.
>
> The PTC has urged CW affiliate stations not to air the episode, scheduled
> for Nov. 9.
...and apparently, they're so full of their rotten egos that they can't even
figure out to pull their heads out of their fat asses and *not watch*. (I
don't watch the CW affiliate here very often.) Tell the PTC to grow up, for
once in their farce of a life.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, San Antonio 2 (November 7)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 13 at Lake Erie, 6:35
panam...@hotmail.com
snippy
> What about the children?
Perhaps the *parents* should actually worry about them, instead of
letting someone else do the parenting?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
The Chief Instigator
Free clue, Junked Young: we don't have children in our residence, for
obvious reasons. (As in, we're in middle age, and the child and
grandchildren are likely closer to you, but you'll never know the
difference.)
Syd M.
> PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be heeded. The
> episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and good taste.
>
So, don't fucking watch it, Junkie Young.
> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56694
>
> Group Urges CW Stations Not to Air 'Gossip Girl'
>
And America Tells Group To "Mind It's Own Fucking Business."
PDW
Syd M.
>
> news:Xns9CBCE1D...@216.196.97.131...
>
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
> >> heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
> >> good taste.
>
> > PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television decency.
> > "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with your concept of
> > decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We have a right to watch
> > what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".
>
> What about the children? If it were only adults with access to television,
> I'd agree with you 100%.
>
>
Let the goddamn parents deal with the children, asshole.
Just stop trying to tell us what to watch.
PDW
Syd M.
> "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CBCE5B4...@216.196.97.131...
>
>
>
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> >>news:Xns9CBCE1D...@216.196.97.131...
Oh, stuff your propaganda, Junkie Young.
> Despite what you may think, I know kids aren't stupid. I give them enough
> credit to figure out how to watch a television show even if their parents
> strictly forbid it.
>
But you think their stupid enough to let it influence them.
PDW
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> I always wondered why the V-chip didn't give [people] the option
> of blocking [RRR-Cult] crap.
It DOESNT?!? I didn't realize that! I thought the V-chip would
enable people to block ANY channel(s).
Well -- if you're right, then the V-chip is TOTALLY worthless!
Lord Calvert
J and the PTC don't want parents to have parenting authority over
their children. They want the State to have that power. The PTC is
acting like a Communist front organization or even a branch of Al-
Qaeda. Even if they're not in their pay, they're certainly expending a
great deal of effort trying to enforce their doctrine of state control
of media.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography
"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say
to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you may not see, this
you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression,
no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to
control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount
of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the
rack, not fission bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man;
the most you can do is kill him." - Robert A. Heinlein
Smiler
"Don't do *that*. It'll make you go blind."
"Can I do it just a little and wear glasses?"
BE-VA
Of course they will deny it but that's the age range that many male
homosexuals focus on. One need only look at the number of homosexuals
among Catholic priests (who have raped tens of thousands of boys and
young men) or why there have been so many homosexuals attempting to
become associated with Boy Scouts to verify that fact. On a per capita
basis sexual molestation of male children by male homosexuals far
exceeds that of heterosexuals males of female children
Ray Fischer
BE-VA
(in article <4b02e52e$0$1586$742e...@news.sonic.net>):
I didn't.. In your usual homosexual dishonesty you deleted my reference
to it made in my original post. Of course that sort of dishonest behavior
is typical of all homosexuals.