The One and Only True God: Television
Hellhammer
In the short span, of less than a hundred years, God has been transformed into a
strange electronic device, known as a television. There is *nothing* that is more
pervasive as a distributor of mindless stupidity. As each of us comes home from work
each night, this Holiest of Hosts tells us what most concerns us, which politicians
to vote for, what products we ought to buy, how to behave, what is cool, what is not.
No part of our lives does it forget.
Thousands of psychologists, psychiatrists, and others in field of the mind, have been
brought into the fray with no other purpose but to discover what motivates you, and
how to motivate you. These experts of mind manipulation spend their workaday weeks
doing nothing but devising new ways to further deaden your senses.
Brainwash has never been so easy. When you disguise the method as pleasurable
leisure time, you can never fail. Opium and alcoholic beverages have also been
used -- historically and *presently* -- for similar purposes; namely that of keeping
your mouth shut, and your mind off. If you want the masses under control, just
giv'em some fucking Quaaludes! Kills two birds with one stone -- keeps'em happy and
shuts'em up!
And, of course, what makes religion any different? Not a damned thing. It, too, has
been utilized by various tyrants throughout the ages for the same purposes.
What I find to be particularly scary about television is the fact that people will
vehemently defend it without even knowing why. The usual defense is the various
educational programs, and other stuff of like nature. What kind of a defense is
that!? Read a fucking book, or a newspaper, or a good magazine on whatever subject
it is that you might be interested in! People have existed and survived for
thousands of years without this piece of shit in our living rooms!
(Special side note: I don't, personally, object to computers and the Internet,
because there is an *interaction*, and some thought involved with them; whereas, with
a television the only interaction is with the remote control and changing the
channels. There is no thought -- the thoughts are, instead, beamed at you. I also,
do not object to movies, which, in my opinion, are an art form worthy of one's time.
*However, that certainly would not apply to all film!*)
I happen to own one of these pieces of shit, as well. Why, I am not exactly certain.
I've contemplated throwing it out the window, from time to time. For the most part,
it just sits there taking up space, while I will occasionally put in a good video
(film) to watch. You'd have to torture me to get me to watch a sitcom, or any other
lame series that happens to be the thing, at the moment. Nor would I ever watch
those sickening "reality shows", or the WWF, or a regular station's news program. (I
do watch the 'News Hour w/ Jim Lehrer', occasionally.)
I think the only worthwhile series that *commercial* television ever produced was
'The Twilight Zone'. KCET has had some good shows, as well. But, again, there are
plenty of good books out there that would cover any of these subjects, and more -- in
much more depth, and more creatively and artistically.
My main beef with television is that it seems to pervade every aspect of our lives.
I can't go *anywhere*, or talk to *anyone* without there being some mention of
something that someone saw on television. Just as someone that doesn't drink can
readily smell the alcohol on one's breath, so it is with the person that doesn't
watch a whole lot of TV, when encountering those that do -- there is an unmistakable
reek.
Here are some highly recommended books that relate, both directly and indirectly, to
this rant:
Ray Bradbury, 'Fahrenheit 451'
George Orwell, '1984'
Machiavelli, 'The Prince'
Jerry Mander, 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television'
Vance Packard, 'The Hidden Persuaders'
Any other book on the manipulation and control of crowds would be good, as well.
Perhaps, 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' would be appropriate, too.
--
/ H e l l h a m m e r \
a n t i - t h e i s t 1 8 7 6
http://home.earthlink.net/~noir333
"Madness is rare in individuals --
but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."
-- Nietzsche, 'Beyond Good & Evil'
still...@my-deja.com
"Hellhammer" <noi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> In the short span, of less than a hundred years, God has been
> transformed into a strange electronic device, known as a television.
> There is *nothing* that is more pervasive as a distributor of mindless
> stupidity. As each of us comes home from work each night, this
> Holiest of Hosts tells us what most concerns us, which politicians
> to vote for, what products we ought to buy, how to behave, what is
> cool, what is not. No part of our lives does it forget.
<remainder of great post snipped>
<standing on chair>
Hear, hear! Well said!
We cut our cable off three years ago. I got sick of watching my kids
turn into mindless zombies in front of garbage programs, and I got sick
of a screen that told me what and how to think.
I remember a long time ago hearing a story about some Russian ambassador
who was being given a tour of a major city (I can't, obviously, vouch
for this story, but it stuck with me). As they drove through a slum
area, and he was told that this was where the poor lived, he refused to
believe it, because he saw all the television antennae.
It's bread and circuses.
And I loved Bradbury's book, too.
Sunny
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
The Owen
>
<snip>
> Brainwash has never been so easy. When you disguise the method as pleasurable
> leisure time, you can never fail. Opium and alcoholic beverages have also been
> used -- historically and *presently* -- for similar purposes; namely that of keeping
> your mouth shut, and your mind off. If you want the masses under control, just
> giv'em some fucking Quaaludes! Kills two birds with one stone -- keeps'em happy and
> shuts'em up!
Free drugs?
Where?
(Don't forget, Opium alchoholic beverages and TV are all voluntary. If
the people didn't want brainwashing, they wouldn't watch TV.)
> And, of course, what makes religion any different? Not a damned thing. It, too, has
> been utilized by various tyrants throughout the ages for the same purposes.
At least TV has good science fiction.
> What I find to be particularly scary about television is the fact that people will
> vehemently defend it without even knowing why. The usual defense is the various
> educational programs, and other stuff of like nature. What kind of a defense is
> that!? Read a fucking book, or a newspaper, or a good magazine on whatever subject
> it is that you might be interested in! People have existed and survived for
> thousands of years without this piece of shit in our living rooms!
A lot of TV is trashy and mind numbing. That's why I like it.
> (Special side note: I don't, personally, object to computers and the Internet,
> because there is an *interaction*, and some thought involved with them; whereas, with
> a television the only interaction is with the remote control and changing the
> channels. There is no thought -- the thoughts are, instead, beamed at you. I also,
> do not object to movies, which, in my opinion, are an art form worthy of one's time.
> *However, that certainly would not apply to all film!*)
Some TV probably falls into the "art" category. Admitedly, I don't
imagine you get to see a lot of it in America, but...
> I happen to own one of these pieces of shit, as well. Why, I am not exactly certain.
> I've contemplated throwing it out the window, from time to time. For the most part,
> it just sits there taking up space, while I will occasionally put in a good video
> (film) to watch. You'd have to torture me to get me to watch a sitcom, or any other
> lame series that happens to be the thing, at the moment. Nor would I ever watch
> those sickening "reality shows", or the WWF, or a regular station's news program. (I
> do watch the 'News Hour w/ Jim Lehrer', occasionally.)
I got digital. In one week on my favourite film channel were "Resevoir
Dogs", "The Third Man", "Blade Runner" and "Videodrome".
> I think the only worthwhile series that *commercial* television ever produced was
> 'The Twilight Zone'. KCET has had some good shows, as well. But, again, there are
> plenty of good books out there that would cover any of these subjects, and more -- in
> much more depth, and more creatively and artistically.
The Sopranos?
So far as recent TV goes, I thought that was good and "artistic".
> My main beef with television is that it seems to pervade every aspect of our lives.
> I can't go *anywhere*, or talk to *anyone* without there being some mention of
> something that someone saw on television. Just as someone that doesn't drink can
> readily smell the alcohol on one's breath, so it is with the person that doesn't
> watch a whole lot of TV, when encountering those that do -- there is an unmistakable
> reek.
I agree with you on this. They marketed "Temptation Island" as "The show
everybody'll be talking about tomorrow."
> Here are some highly recommended books that relate, both directly and indirectly, to
> this rant:
>
> Ray Bradbury, 'Fahrenheit 451'
> George Orwell, '1984'
> Machiavelli, 'The Prince'
> Jerry Mander, 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television'
> Vance Packard, 'The Hidden Persuaders'
You forgot "Brave New World".
> Any other book on the manipulation and control of crowds would be good, as well.
> Perhaps, 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' would be appropriate, too.
What is it you imagine we'd all be doing with the time and energy we'd
save by not watching TV?
> --
> / H e l l h a m m e r \
> a n t i - t h e i s t 1 8 7 6
> http://home.earthlink.net/~noir333
--
"The" Owen
a/a #1883
Chris Brown
Hellhammer <noi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Brainwash has never been so easy. When you disguise the method as pleasurable
>leisure time, you can never fail.
Bread and circuses.
--
/* _ */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA"
/* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m>>7?k=1<<m+
/* | */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j--;printf(" \0_/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]);}
/* \_,hris Brown -- Any top-posted replies will be ignored. */
Elroy Willis
> In the short span, of less than a hundred years, God has been transformed into a
> strange electronic device, known as a television. There is *nothing* that is more
> pervasive as a distributor of mindless stupidity. As each of us comes home from work
> each night, this Holiest of Hosts tells us what most concerns us, which politicians
> to vote for, what products we ought to buy, how to behave, what is cool, what is not.
> No part of our lives does it forget.
> Thousands of psychologists, psychiatrists, and others in field of the mind, have been
> brought into the fray with no other purpose but to discover what motivates you, and
> how to motivate you. These experts of mind manipulation spend their workaday weeks
> doing nothing but devising new ways to further deaden your senses.
> Brainwash has never been so easy.
At least subliminal messaging has been outlawed, we think. Muuahaha!
> When you disguise the method as pleasurable
> leisure time, you can never fail. Opium and alcoholic beverages have also been
> used -- historically and *presently* -- for similar purposes; namely that of keeping
> your mouth shut, and your mind off. If you want the masses under control, just
> giv'em some fucking Quaaludes! Kills two birds with one stone -- keeps'em happy and
> shuts'em up!
Hey! You're mocking the couch potatoes who like to swill beer and
watch the tube!! How dare you!! :-)
> And, of course, what makes religion any different? Not a damned thing. It, too, has
> been utilized by various tyrants throughout the ages for the same purposes.
> What I find to be particularly scary about television is the fact that people will
> vehemently defend it without even knowing why. The usual defense is the various
> educational programs, and other stuff of like nature.
Don't forget to watch PBS tonight at 8:00 CST for an excellent series
on evolution. Part four of six I think. I missed last weeks, but the
first two were impressive.
> What kind of a defense is that!?
A pretty good one I think.
> Read a fucking book, or a newspaper, or a good magazine on whatever subject
> it is that you might be interested in! People have existed and survived for
> thousands of years without this piece of shit in our living rooms!
> (Special side note: I don't, personally, object to computers and the Internet,
> because there is an *interaction*, and some thought involved with them; whereas, with
> a television the only interaction is with the remote control and changing the
> channels. There is no thought -- the thoughts are, instead, beamed at you.
I watch a lot less TV than I used to, thanks to the internet. I agree
with you about the interaction thing. It beats vegging out in front
of the TV most of the time, but I still watch TV when there's
something I consider worthwhile on.
One thing that bothers me is advertising on TV, sitting through
commercials, and even now it's a problem on the internet. Somebody
trying to sell one thing or another, junk emails and banner ads out
the wazoo. I dunno which is worse, TV commercials or internet spam.
--
Sir Elroy - BAAWA Knight
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
One man's absurdity is another man's religion.
Alex
"Hellhammer" <noi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JErh6.1660$rE2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> In the short span, of less than a hundred years, God has been transformed
into a
> strange electronic device, known as a television. There is *nothing* that
is more
> pervasive as a distributor of mindless stupidity. As each of us comes
home from work
> each night, this Holiest of Hosts tells us what most concerns us, which
politicians
> to vote for, what products we ought to buy, how to behave, what is cool,
what is not.
> No part of our lives does it forget.
Excellent post. I agree with most of it - that's why I only watch
approximately 5 hours of TV per week. Whenever I find I'm watching too much
(6+ hours/wk), I raise my standards a bit and drop the worst shows on my
list.
So far my list only has three shows that will always be immune from being
dropped (they're just too good): The Simpsons, Futurama, and This Hour Has
22 Minutes (Canadian political satire comedy program).
Alex
"Elroy Willis" <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:55B98B7B928EB3EA.010832E7...@lp.airnews.net...
> One thing that bothers me is advertising on TV, sitting through
> commercials, and even now it's a problem on the internet. Somebody
> trying to sell one thing or another, junk emails and banner ads out
> the wazoo. I dunno which is worse, TV commercials or internet spam.
What bothers me more is advertising that targets children. I believe Sweden
has banned ads that target children. So commercials for, harmless stuff
like, furniture aren't allowed cartoon characters and other child-attracting
gimmicks.
Actually, "[t]he United States is one of the few industrialized nations in
the world that thinks that children are legitimate targets for advertisers.
Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Canadian province of Quebec ban all
advertising to children on television and radio, and Sweden and Greece are
pushing for an end to all advertising aimed at children throughout the
European Union. An effort to pass similar legislation in the United States
in the 1970s was squelched by a coalition of food and toy companies,
broadcasters, and ad agencies."
http://www.cnn.com/books/beginnings/9911/deadly.persuasion/
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>> One thing that bothers me is advertising on TV, sitting through
>> commercials, and even now it's a problem on the internet. Somebody
>> trying to sell one thing or another, junk emails and banner ads out
>> the wazoo. I dunno which is worse, TV commercials or internet spam.
> What bothers me more is advertising that targets children. I believe Sweden
> has banned ads that target children. So commercials for, harmless stuff
> like, furniture aren't allowed cartoon characters and other child-attracting
> gimmicks.
> Actually, "[t]he United States is one of the few industrialized nations in
> the world that thinks that children are legitimate targets for advertisers.
> Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Canadian province of Quebec ban all
> advertising to children on television and radio, and Sweden and Greece are
> pushing for an end to all advertising aimed at children throughout the
> European Union. An effort to pass similar legislation in the United States
> in the 1970s was squelched by a coalition of food and toy companies,
> broadcasters, and ad agencies."
Here in the US, it seems that fads created by advertisers geared
towards kids have the kids ruling their parents in many cases. Disney
has teamed up with fast food places, and to get some action figures
from the latest movie, come to McDonalds and eat their food and
make your kids happy with a Happy Meal containing the latest
plastic action figure or stuffed doll or whatever.
I haven't really thought that much about the advertising to children
issue, but I have to agree that I think it seems to be a problem, and
I'd vote for some type of ban or restrictions of some kind, but don't
know how far I'd go exactly.
> http://www.cnn.com/books/beginnings/9911/deadly.persuasion/
"(CNN) -- The average American views three thousand ads in one
day. Yet remarkably, most of us believe we are not influenced by
advertising."
Three thousand ads in one day? I never thought it was that high.
DarkAngel
> So far my list only has three shows that will always be immune from being
> dropped (they're just too good): The Simpsons, Futurama, and This Hour Has
> 22 Minutes (Canadian political satire comedy program).
It's time for another edition of "Talking with Americans". :)
--
a.a atheist #1172 Anarchy & Peace
"We can break these chains, we make them up ourselves"
- False Prophets, "Baghdad Stomp"
The Anarchism FAQ
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/
Xaonon
"Hellhammer" <noi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Here are some highly recommended books that relate, both directly and
> indirectly, to this rant:
>
> Ray Bradbury, 'Fahrenheit 451'
> George Orwell, '1984'
> Machiavelli, 'The Prince'
> Jerry Mander, 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television'
> Vance Packard, 'The Hidden Persuaders'
And on a slightly different tack, William Gibson's "Virtual Light". One
character is a member of a cult which believes that God appears through
television, and its members may only watch 'approved' shows.
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
"Is the surface of a planet the right place for an expanding industrial
civilisation?" -- Gerard K. O'Neill
Animeg3282
>What I find to be particularly scary about television is the fact that people
>will
>vehemently defend it without even knowing why. The usual defense is the
>various
>educational programs, and other stuff of like nature. What kind of a defense
>is
>that!? Read a fucking book, or a newspaper, or a good magazine on whatever
>subject
>it is that you might be interested in! People have existed and survived for
>thousands of years without this piece of shit in our living rooms!
>
I don't really like TV, but for a different reason. I would watch the shows if
they were on say video or dvd, because then I choose when to watch the shows.
With TV you have to see what time it's on, etc. (The way I watch TV is much
different than how others do it. I select a show. I watch it. Icut the TV off.)
People think I'm weird because I've mostly tuned out TV and ignore music
mostly. Tv doesn't fit into my lifestyle. My time isn't blocked off into
'activity blocks'. There's some light scheduling but that's it. I don't have
the kind of life for radio, either. It's really hard to listen to who is a
liar, a cheater or whatever when you're starting a weaving project, it's
embarrassing to hear about what sex acts folks want to do with other folks when
you're trying to cook a meal with your mom. Also, I don't like how the songs
are all picked out. If there was a way to try out songs yet still reemburse the
artist(I hate retail jobs, you see) I'd do that...
Hana no Kaitou
This sig sucks. Bear with me.
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282 <---Fancy Lala Club!
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282/dic.html <--1 kid and a dictionary-
translating....
Animeg3282
>What is it you imagine we'd all be doing with the time and energy we'd
>save by not watching TV?
I don't know what he would do, but I'm learning Japanese and taking up weaving.
:D
Alex
"DarkAngel" <drkan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A86CB13...@hotmail.com...
> Alex wrote:
>
> > So far my list only has three shows that will always be immune from
being
> > dropped (they're just too good): The Simpsons, Futurama, and This Hour
Has
> > 22 Minutes (Canadian political satire comedy program).
>
> It's time for another edition of "Talking with Americans". :)
Those segments can get really brutal :).
Frank Wustner
...a post blasting tv.
While I agree with it all on a purely factual level, I fail to see how
it is really a problem. It's not like this mind-numbing began with the
invention of the broadcast. You yourself pointed out that there have
been other forms of the same thing (i.e. god-belief).
If it weren't tv doing the job, then it would be something else. More
religion. Or drugs. Or flower arranging. Or scratching your butt. Or
some other piece of culture that gains such importance.
The human race lasted through religion, and it will last through this as
well. And if we lose a few twits and jerks along the way, fine. Fuck
'em. The gene pool needs some cleaning out.
BTW, I don't have cable, as I don't consider it important enough to pay
for. Even when I had it way back when I still lived with my parents, I
never watched it more than one or two hours a week anyway. I am one of
those apparently rare people who had better things to do.
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
|it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------|
Meteorite Debris
deja.com> did eloquently compose:
> In article <JErh6.1660$rE2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Hellhammer" <noi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > In the short span, of less than a hundred years, God has been
> > transformed into a strange electronic device, known as a television.
> > There is *nothing* that is more pervasive as a distributor of mindless
> > stupidity. As each of us comes home from work each night, this
> > Holiest of Hosts tells us what most concerns us, which politicians
> > to vote for, what products we ought to buy, how to behave, what is
> > cool, what is not. No part of our lives does it forget.
>
> <remainder of great post snipped>
>
> <standing on chair>
>
> Hear, hear! Well said!
>
> We cut our cable off three years ago. I got sick of watching my kids
> turn into mindless zombies in front of garbage programs, and I got sick
> of a screen that told me what and how to think.
I do not have pay-TV and do not plan on having it connected. My
brother has pay-TV and having watched some of it I am not impressed.
The set in his place on most of the time blaring out crap.
Of 5 free to air channels I have my TVs tuned into only 2 of them -
ABC* and SBS. I do not miss the commercial channels at all. Even the
other 2 remaining channels can be annoying. The ABC is getting dumber
and SBS now has advertising. It is possible that I will cease viewing
TV altogether at some time. Maybe 2008.
In 2008 analogue TV broadcasting ceases for ever in favour of digital
broadcasting. A digital set is not, and never will be, on my shopping
list, not only because of cost but all sorts of other reasons as well.
I think that digital TV may well be an electronic Edsel.
*ABC is an Aussie public broadcasting service like the BBC. Nothing to
do the the US ABC.
--
alt.atheism #1417 rot-13 on email reply
Head of the EAC Decryption Squad -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~meteorite/eac.htm
"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the
politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." - Lucretius (99 - 55 B.C.E.)
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~meteorite/key1.htm
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 196D 0C35 95C9 BFD2 0677 C238 8FDE 0133 86E9 7B89
Meteorite Debris
eloquently compose:
1 every 28.8 seconds 24 hours a day. Can't be that high.
Kerry
Interesting exchange. I have had both cables available to date - Telstra
and Optus, bribed on to try their cable tv and in the first I forgot them
after three months and sacked them at six. With optus I don't think I even
got past a month, and sacked them in three. Both have been instrumental in
'curing' me of tv. It has the allure of a jack chick tract nowadays it is
so bloody banal. I am on cable internet though - less than the price of a
schooner per day, and hereabouts cost more than the $2-40 per day I'm paying
for internet 24 hours, no phone, no delays (100x faster) and that's just
one of the cables. TV is McDonalds level information - nothing at all.
Kerry
aa #1773
Hellhammer
> > / H e l l h a m m e r \ wrote:
[. . .]
> > Thousands of psychologists, psychiatrists, and others in field of the mind, have
> > been brought into the fray with no other purpose but to discover what motivates
> > you, and how to motivate you. These experts of mind manipulation spend their
> > workaday weeks doing nothing but devising new ways to further deaden your
> > senses.
>
> > Brainwash has never been so easy.
>
> At least subliminal messaging has been outlawed, we think. Muuahaha!
Yeah. Problem is, the way many people seem to "watch" television, is they just leave
the damned thing on, when nobody is really watching anything. That's *VERY*
subliminal.
> > When you disguise the method as pleasurable
> > leisure time, you can never fail. Opium and alcoholic beverages have also been
> > used -- historically and *presently* -- for similar purposes; namely that of
> > keeping your mouth shut, and your mind off. If you want the masses under
> > control, just giv'em some fucking Quaaludes! Kills two birds with one stone --
> > keeps'em happy and shuts'em up!
>
> Hey! You're mocking the couch potatoes who like to swill beer and
> watch the tube!! How dare you!! :-)
I used to be one of those. . . With more emphasis on the beer swilling, however.
> > And, of course, what makes religion any different? Not a damned thing. It, too,
> > has been utilized by various tyrants throughout the ages for the same purposes.
>
> > What I find to be particularly scary about television is the fact that people
> > will vehemently defend it without even knowing why. The usual defense is the
> > various educational programs, and other stuff of like nature.
>
> Don't forget to watch PBS tonight at 8:00 CST for an excellent series
> on evolution. Part four of six I think. I missed last weeks, but the
> first two were impressive.
>
> > What kind of a defense is that!?
>
> A pretty good one I think.
Ah well, maybe for the discerning adult it is. . . to a certain degree.
> > Read a fucking book, or a newspaper, or a good magazine on whatever subject
> > it is that you might be interested in! People have existed and survived for
> > thousands of years without this piece of shit in our living rooms!
>
> > (Special side note: I don't, personally, object to computers and the Internet,
> > because there is an *interaction*, and some thought involved with them; whereas,
> > with a television the only interaction is with the remote control and changing
> > the channels. There is no thought -- the thoughts are, instead, beamed at you.
>
> I watch a lot less TV than I used to, thanks to the internet. I agree
> with you about the interaction thing. It beats vegging out in front
> of the TV most of the time, but I still watch TV when there's
> something I consider worthwhile on.
>
> One thing that bothers me is advertising on TV, sitting through
> commercials, and even now it's a problem on the internet. Somebody
> trying to sell one thing or another, junk emails and banner ads out
> the wazoo. I dunno which is worse, TV commercials or internet spam.
I'd vote for the television commercial. Spam is easy -- just delete it. A pain in
the ass, yes, but easier than trying to watch something with fucking commercials
on every five minutes!
I've got a great program that virtually eliminates *all* ads on the Internet. It's
called WebWasher -- *it's great*! Best thing since pizza!
Note: this is not an ad, but you can get it, here:
> Sir Elroy - BAAWA Knight
> EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
> http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
> One man's absurdity is another man's religion.
--
Hellhammer
> > / H e l l h a m m e r \ wrote:
[. . .]
> >Brainwash has never been so easy. When you disguise the method as pleasurable
> >leisure time, you can never fail.
>
> Bread and circuses.
Not even that. . .
Hellhammer
> > / H e l l h a m m e r \ wrote:
[. . .]
> > Brainwash has never been so easy. When you disguise the method as pleasurable
> > leisure time, you can never fail. Opium and alcoholic beverages have also been
> > used -- historically and *presently* -- for similar purposes; namely that of
> > keeping your mouth shut, and your mind off. If you want the masses under
> > control, just giv'em some fucking Quaaludes! Kills two birds with one stone --
> > keeps'em happy and shuts'em up!
>
> Free drugs?
>
> Where?
Everywhere you look.
> (Don't forget, Opium alchoholic beverages and TV are all voluntary. If
> the people didn't want brainwashing, they wouldn't watch TV.)
Good point. ;-)
> > And, of course, what makes religion any different? Not a damned thing. It, too,
> > has been utilized by various tyrants throughout the ages for the same purposes.
>
> At least TV has good science fiction.
That's arguable.
> > What I find to be particularly scary about television is the fact that people
> > will vehemently defend it without even knowing why. The usual defense is the
> > various educational programs, and other stuff of like nature. What kind of a
> > defense is that!? Read a fucking book, or a newspaper, or a good magazine on
> > whatever subject it is that you might be interested in! People have existed and
> > survived for thousands of years without this piece of shit in our living rooms!
>
> A lot of TV is trashy and mind numbing. That's why I like it.
"Morality" aside (wasn't my point, *at all*), why would you want your mind numbed?
I understand the need for escapism, but, *for myself*, commercial television is the
exact opposite of that. It would "numb my mind" in an entirely different kind of
way. . . like someone pounding on my head, repeatedly, with a sledge hammer.
> > (Special side note: I don't, personally, object to computers and the Internet,
> > because there is an *interaction*, and some thought involved with them; whereas,
> > with a television the only interaction is with the remote control and changing
> > the channels. There is no thought -- the thoughts are, instead, beamed at you.
> > I also, do not object to movies, which, in my opinion, are an art form worthy of
> > one's time. *However, that certainly would not apply to all film!*)
>
> Some TV probably falls into the "art" category. Admitedly, I don't
> imagine you get to see a lot of it in America, but...
I haven't the faintest idea what kind of shows you've got there, in the UK, and I'll
not presume, but I think this is missing the broader point that I was trying to make.
> > I happen to own one of these pieces of shit, as well. Why, I am not exactly
> > certain. I've contemplated throwing it out the window, from time to time. For
> > the most part, it just sits there taking up space, while I will occasionally put
> > in a good video (film) to watch. You'd have to torture me to get me to watch a
> > sitcom, or any other lame series that happens to be the thing, at the moment.
> > Nor would I ever watch those sickening "reality shows", or the WWF, or a regular
> > station's news program. (I do watch the 'News Hour w/ Jim Lehrer',
> > occasionally.)
>
> I got digital. In one week on my favourite film channel were "Resevoir
> Dogs", "The Third Man", "Blade Runner" and "Videodrome".
Well, I *did* say that I've no objection to movies. I've got 'The Third Man' and
'Blade Runner' on tape, BTW.
> > I think the only worthwhile series that *commercial* television ever produced was
> > 'The Twilight Zone'. KCET has had some good shows, as well. But, again, there
> > are plenty of good books out there that would cover any of these subjects, and
> > more -- in much more depth, and more creatively and artistically.
>
> The Sopranos?
Never saw it. Nor do I really want to. That's part of my point, here -- I've got
better things to do with my time, than check out every hit show that comes down the
pike.
People are *always* saying, "Oh! Did you see such and such, and so and so?"
My usual reply, "NO!!!"
> So far as recent TV goes, I thought that was good and "artistic".
Very possibly so, but life is short. . .
> > My main beef with television is that it seems to pervade every aspect of our
> > lives. I can't go *anywhere*, or talk to *anyone* without there being some
> > mention of something that someone saw on television. Just as someone that
> > doesn't drink can readily smell the alcohol on one's breath, so it is with the
> > person that doesn't watch a whole lot of TV, when encountering those that do
> > -- there is an unmistakable reek.
>
> I agree with you on this. They marketed "Temptation Island" as "The show
> everybody'll be talking about tomorrow."
That's no exaggeration, either. . . *whatever* lame program it might be.
> > Here are some highly recommended books that relate, both directly and indirectly,
> > to this rant:
> >
> > Ray Bradbury, 'Fahrenheit 451'
> > George Orwell, '1984'
> > Machiavelli, 'The Prince'
> > Jerry Mander, 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television'
> > Vance Packard, 'The Hidden Persuaders'
>
> You forgot "Brave New World".
Nah. I didn't forget it. Didn't put it down, here -- but I didn't forget it. ;-)
> > Any other book on the manipulation and control of crowds would be good, as well.
> > Perhaps, 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' would be appropriate, too.
>
> What is it you imagine we'd all be doing with the time and energy we'd
> save by not watching TV?
Reading, writing, fucking, sucking -- you name it. *Life* -- *living* -- there's a
lot to be done. (Not much time to do it in, either.)
> "The" Owen
> a/a #1883
--
/ H e l l h a m m e r \
a n t i - t h e i s t 1 8 7 6
http://home.earthlink.net/~noir333
"Madness is rare in individuals --
Hellhammer
I'll have to get back to the rest of you that replied to me, in this thread, later.
Gotta get some sleep!
Rob M
news:JErh6.1660$rE2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
into a
> strange electronic device, known as a television. There is *nothing* that
is more
> pervasive as a distributor of mindless stupidity. As each of us comes
home from work
> each night, this Holiest of Hosts tells us what most concerns us, which
politicians
> to vote for, what products we ought to buy, how to behave, what is cool,
what is not.
> No part of our lives does it forget.
Enjoy :)
--
Rob M
aa #1870
The Owen
>
> > "The Owen" <spm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > / H e l l h a m m e r \ wrote:
>
> [. . .]
>
> > > Brainwash has never been so easy. When you disguise the method as pleasurable
> > > leisure time, you can never fail. Opium and alcoholic beverages have also been
> > > used -- historically and *presently* -- for similar purposes; namely that of
> > > keeping your mouth shut, and your mind off. If you want the masses under
> > > control, just giv'em some fucking Quaaludes! Kills two birds with one stone --
> > > keeps'em happy and shuts'em up!
> >
> > Free drugs?
> >
> > Where?
>
> Everywhere you look.
*Looking around*
Nah, I gotta pay for all mine.
> > (Don't forget, Opium alchoholic beverages and TV are all voluntary. If
> > the people didn't want brainwashing, they wouldn't watch TV.)
>
> Good point. ;-)
No really.
Culture is pretty close to voluntary brainwashing.
> > > And, of course, what makes religion any different? Not a damned thing. It, too,
> > > has been utilized by various tyrants throughout the ages for the same purposes.
> >
> > At least TV has good science fiction.
>
> That's arguable.
You are talking to a "Dark Angel" addict.
Admitedly, nothing recently has matched the good moments of B5, but I
live in hope.
> > > What I find to be particularly scary about television is the fact that people
> > > will vehemently defend it without even knowing why. The usual defense is the
> > > various educational programs, and other stuff of like nature. What kind of a
> > > defense is that!? Read a fucking book, or a newspaper, or a good magazine on
> > > whatever subject it is that you might be interested in! People have existed and
> > > survived for thousands of years without this piece of shit in our living rooms!
> >
> > A lot of TV is trashy and mind numbing. That's why I like it.
>
> "Morality" aside (wasn't my point, *at all*), why would you want your mind numbed?
What you class as cons, others may see as pros, was my point.
I want my mind numbed by TV for the same reasons as I drink and whatever
else.
It's nice to slouch in front of the one-eyed god for an hour or two
every so often and just switch off.
> I understand the need for escapism, but, *for myself*, commercial television is the
> exact opposite of that. It would "numb my mind" in an entirely different kind of
> way. . . like someone pounding on my head, repeatedly, with a sledge hammer.
I find a place for both.
Haruki Murakami /and/ Josh Whedon. Pathetically 90's of me, I know.
> > > (Special side note: I don't, personally, object to computers and the Internet,
> > > because there is an *interaction*, and some thought involved with them; whereas,
> > > with a television the only interaction is with the remote control and changing
> > > the channels. There is no thought -- the thoughts are, instead, beamed at you.
> > > I also, do not object to movies, which, in my opinion, are an art form worthy of
> > > one's time. *However, that certainly would not apply to all film!*)
> >
> > Some TV probably falls into the "art" category. Admitedly, I don't
> > imagine you get to see a lot of it in America, but...
>
> I haven't the faintest idea what kind of shows you've got there, in the UK, and I'll
> not presume, but I think this is missing the broader point that I was trying to make.
As I saw it, the point you were making was that TV was a waste of time
and was turning us into fat lazy complacent whatevers. I was just
pointing out that you might have been too quick to write it off.
> > > I happen to own one of these pieces of shit, as well. Why, I am not exactly
> > > certain. I've contemplated throwing it out the window, from time to time. For
> > > the most part, it just sits there taking up space, while I will occasionally put
> > > in a good video (film) to watch. You'd have to torture me to get me to watch a
> > > sitcom, or any other lame series that happens to be the thing, at the moment.
> > > Nor would I ever watch those sickening "reality shows", or the WWF, or a regular
> > > station's news program. (I do watch the 'News Hour w/ Jim Lehrer',
> > > occasionally.)
> >
> > I got digital. In one week on my favourite film channel were "Resevoir
> > Dogs", "The Third Man", "Blade Runner" and "Videodrome".
>
> Well, I *did* say that I've no objection to movies. I've got 'The Third Man' and
> 'Blade Runner' on tape, BTW.
My point was "not everything on TV is trash". There /is/ an alternative
to WWF or whatever.
> > > I think the only worthwhile series that *commercial* television ever produced was
> > > 'The Twilight Zone'. KCET has had some good shows, as well. But, again, there
> > > are plenty of good books out there that would cover any of these subjects, and
> > > more -- in much more depth, and more creatively and artistically.
> >
> > The Sopranos?
>
> Never saw it. Nor do I really want to. That's part of my point, here -- I've got
> better things to do with my time, than check out every hit show that comes down the
> pike.
>
> People are *always* saying, "Oh! Did you see such and such, and so and so?"
>
> My usual reply, "NO!!!"
>
> > So far as recent TV goes, I thought that was good and "artistic".
>
> Very possibly so, but life is short. . .
By the time "people" catch onto something, it has usually gone crap.
Friends, Frasier (for a while there), The Sopranos.
I think there is a "magic number" of people that can watch a show before
it starts to suck ;-)
> > > My main beef with television is that it seems to pervade every aspect of our
> > > lives. I can't go *anywhere*, or talk to *anyone* without there being some
> > > mention of something that someone saw on television. Just as someone that
> > > doesn't drink can readily smell the alcohol on one's breath, so it is with the
> > > person that doesn't watch a whole lot of TV, when encountering those that do
> > > -- there is an unmistakable reek.
> >
> > I agree with you on this. They marketed "Temptation Island" as "The show
> > everybody'll be talking about tomorrow."
>
> That's no exaggeration, either. . . *whatever* lame program it might be.
Exaggeration?
That's a quote from the trailer.
> > > Here are some highly recommended books that relate, both directly and indirectly,
> > > to this rant:
> > >
> > > Ray Bradbury, 'Fahrenheit 451'
> > > George Orwell, '1984'
> > > Machiavelli, 'The Prince'
> > > Jerry Mander, 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television'
> > > Vance Packard, 'The Hidden Persuaders'
> >
> > You forgot "Brave New World".
>
> Nah. I didn't forget it. Didn't put it down, here -- but I didn't forget it. ;-)
Soma==TV?
> > > Any other book on the manipulation and control of crowds would be good, as well.
> > > Perhaps, 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' would be appropriate, too.
> >
> > What is it you imagine we'd all be doing with the time and energy we'd
> > save by not watching TV?
>
> Reading, writing, fucking, sucking -- you name it. *Life* -- *living* -- there's a
> lot to be done. (Not much time to do it in, either.)
You might. Not everybody has that kind of energy, though.
> --
> / H e l l h a m m e r \
> a n t i - t h e i s t 1 8 7 6
> http://home.earthlink.net/~noir333
>
> "Madness is rare in individuals --
> but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."
> -- Nietzsche, 'Beyond Good & Evil'
--
"The" Owen
a/a #1883
DarkAngel
> Hellhammer wrote:
> >
> > > "The Owen" <spm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > At least TV has good science fiction.
> >
> > That's arguable.
>
> You are talking to a "Dark Angel" addict.
Oh man, and I thought I was the only one. :)
I often wondered if James Cameron happened to see one of my posts on cyberpunk sci-fi and
thought I had a cool nick that he could use as a name for his cyberpunkish project. The
coincidence is just too weird to be just that. LOL.
Martin Crisp
(in message
<36E12C5B82289043.E0D13032...@lp.airnews.net>):
Ditto Australia.
I live within a (slow) 5 minute walk of:
2 'traditional' fish & chip shops (corner shops with a fryer out the
back; cheap but greasy)
1 'upmarket' fish & chip shop "Chish & Fips" (expensive, but nice)
1 Pizza Haven [only had one pizza from here, was throwing up within
30 minutes]
1 McDonalds
1 KFC
1 pizza/hamburger joint "Valentino's" [burgers the diameter of dinner
plates, yum, pizzas are a bit ordinary]
1 barbecue chicken outlet "Legs 'n' Breasts"
1 stuffed roast potato place "Praties"
1 Chinese fast food place "The China Diner"
[I think that's all]
My daughters always want McD's [foul muck] or KFC [fowl muck];
entirely based on advertising and peer pressure [the parental
pressure ain't enough, gotta find some urban legends for them to read
:-)].
They might get one or the other once a fortnight.
> I haven't really thought that much about the advertising to children
> issue, but I have to agree that I think it seems to be a problem, and
> I'd vote for some type of ban or restrictions of some kind, but don't
> know how far I'd go exactly.
Ditto. But what exactly is 'advertising' anyway? Does half an hour of
Pokemon cartoon qualify as an "ad"?
>> http://www.cnn.com/books/beginnings/9911/deadly.persuasion/
>
> "(CNN) -- The average American views three thousand ads in one
> day. Yet remarkably, most of us believe we are not influenced by
> advertising."
>
> Three thousand ads in one day? I never thought it was that high.
How do they define an ad?
Have Fun
Martin
--
Kinky:
What I do that you wouldn't
Perverted:
What you do that I wouldn't
Chris Brown
Hellhammer <noi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Bread and circuses.
>
>
>Not even that. . .
Oh, it's exactly that. As long as "the masses" are kept "entertained",
they won't realise how pathetic their tragic little lives are and be
tempted to do something about the situation.
The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com
>In article <maOh6.1812$kG2.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>Hellhammer <noi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> Bread and circuses.
>>
>>
>>Not even that. . .
>
>Oh, it's exactly that. As long as "the masses" are kept "entertained",
>they won't realise how pathetic their tragic little lives are and be
>tempted to do something about the situation.
Sorry if this has already been posted:
Zappa / over-nite sensation / I'm the slime:
I am gross and perverted, I'm obsessed and deranged,
I have existed for years, but very little has changed.
I'm the tool of the government and industry too,
For I am destined to rule and regulate you.
I may be vile and pernicious, but you can't look away,
I make you think I'm delicious with the stuff that I say.
I'm the best you can get.
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozing out from your TV set.
You will obey me while I lead you
With the garbage that I feed you,
Till the day that we don't need you.
Don't go for help, no-one will heed you!
Your mind is totally controlled,
It has been stuffed into my mould.
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold.
"That's right folks, don't touch that dial"
Well I am the slime from your video, oozing along on your
living room floor.
I am the slime from your video, can't stop the slime people
look at me go.
--
Remove 'wakawaka' and 'invalid' to e-mail me. You can thank spammers for this
inconvenience.
I didn't do it! Nobody saw anything! You can't prove anything! -- bart
Alex
"Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:01HW.B6AEAD120...@newsroom.tassie.net.au...
> > Three thousand ads in one day? I never thought it was that high.
>
> How do they define an ad?
They probably count all the ads you drive by on placards and billboards.
Meteorite Debris
Crisp<Spam....@tesseract.com.au> did eloquently compose:
> Ditto. But what exactly is 'advertising' anyway? Does half an hour of
> Pokemon cartoon qualify as an "ad"?
The boundary between entertainment and advertising can become blurred.
Movies use brand names as props, sporting venues displays billboards,
GP drivers wear "Cannon" caps during interviews and drive in ad
blazoned F1 vehicles, golf players wear Nike T shirts etc. And as for
Pokemon with the cartoon advertising the game, advertising the video,
advertising the toys that is a chain of advertising/entertainment. In
a softer form normal TV programs can be seen a general advertisement
for a particular set of social cultural values.
Advertising has become a form of scent marking by corporations to mark
their territory. If you damage or write over the top a billboard the
police and lawyers representing a corporate gang will drag you through
the courts for damaging their tag writing. You must pay a cartel for
protection if you want to vandalise public space with tagging - oppps
I mean place a billboard.
Corporate dogs are pissing everywhere, in public space, in printed
magazines and papers, on the air waves and in cyber space. The bigger
the impact, the bigger the dog.
Hellhammer
[. . .]
> While I agree with it all on a purely factual level, I fail to see how
> it is really a problem. It's not like this mind-numbing began with the
> invention of the broadcast. You yourself pointed out that there have
> been other forms of the same thing (i.e. god-belief).
Yeah. I wanted the similarities to be evident. Yet, I don't think anything else has
ever had the quite same impact as television, and I honestly don't think anything
ever will, again. The Internet could never surpass television as a means of
manipulation, because there is thought and interaction involved -- and over
six-billion individual websites, all with their own points of view, etc.; not to
mention the millions of ideas expressed via e-mail, newsgroups, etc. When you have
so many different ideas and opinions floating around, it's kind of hard to dictate
anything.
Television, on the other hand, is dictated by only a few networks -- and it reaches
far more people. (The Internet isn't quite "mainstream", yet.) In certain countries
the programming is dictated even further by your more traditional dictator.
Perhaps religion has come close to television's level of all-reaching mindwash, but,
if so, it is has only been *through* television that this was made possible. How
else could you speak to millions of people, at the same time?
> If it weren't tv doing the job, then it would be something else. More
> religion. Or drugs. Or flower arranging. Or scratching your butt. Or
> some other piece of culture that gains such importance.
Refer to the above.
> The human race lasted through religion, and it will last through this as
> well. And if we lose a few twits and jerks along the way, fine. Fuck
> 'em. The gene pool needs some cleaning out.
Well, last I heard, TV hasn't killed anyone. Remember -- *these people vote*.
> BTW, I don't have cable, as I don't consider it important enough to pay
> for. Even when I had it way back when I still lived with my parents, I
> never watched it more than one or two hours a week anyway. I am one of
> those apparently rare people who had better things to do.
That *is* a rarity. Unfortunately, for me, my "better thing to do" was drink -- a
lot. Nevertheless, I learned more doing that than I ever could have sitting around
watching TV all fucking day! . . . Less brain damage, too.
> The Deadly Nightshade
> http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
> http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/
>
> |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
> |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
> |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
> |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
> |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
> |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
> |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------|
> |-----------------------------------|
Hellhammer
> > / H e l l h a m m e r \ wrote:
> >> "Chris Brown" <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
[. . .]
> >> Bread and circuses.
> >
> >
> >Not even that. . .
>
> Oh, it's exactly that. As long as "the masses" are kept "entertained",
> they won't realise how pathetic their tragic little lives are and be
> tempted to do something about the situation.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. That was an intentional, literal interpretation of
"bread and circuses", w/ emphasis on the fact that bread and circuses are, by far,
better than television. A sort of abstract sarcasm -- or something like that. :-)
Hellhammer
[. . .]
> I don't really like TV, but for a different reason. I would watch the shows if
> they were on say video or dvd, because then I choose when to watch the shows.
> With TV you have to see what time it's on, etc. (The way I watch TV is much
> different than how others do it. I select a show. I watch it. Icut the TV off.)
> People think I'm weird because I've mostly tuned out TV and ignore music
> mostly. Tv doesn't fit into my lifestyle. My time isn't blocked off into
> 'activity blocks'. There's some light scheduling but that's it. I don't have
> the kind of life for radio, either. It's really hard to listen to who is a
> liar, a cheater or whatever when you're starting a weaving project, it's
> embarrassing to hear about what sex acts folks want to do with other folks when
> you're trying to cook a meal with your mom. Also, I don't like how the songs
> are all picked out. If there was a way to try out songs yet still reemburse the
> artist(I hate retail jobs, you see) I'd do that...
I'm pretty much the same way with TV. I mean I will watch, what I want to watch,
when I want to watch it -- mostly just videos that I own. I watch commercial TV,
maybe two or three times a year.
Music, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. However, I don't listen to
commercial radio, *at all*. I've got quite a collection of my own stuff.
> Hana no Kaitou
> This sig sucks. Bear with me.
> http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282 <---Fancy Lala Club!
> http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282/dic.html <--1 kid and a dictionary-
> translating....
Hellhammer
[. . .]
> Excellent post.
Thanx. :-)
> I agree with most of it - that's why I only watch
> approximately 5 hours of TV per week. Whenever I find I'm watching too much
> (6+ hours/wk), I raise my standards a bit and drop the worst shows on my
> list.
>
> So far my list only has three shows that will always be immune from being
> dropped (they're just too good): The Simpsons, Futurama, and This Hour Has
> 22 Minutes (Canadian political satire comedy program).
Yeah, as I said, I haven't cut it off completely -- but damned close. There is
*some* value to be found, therein -- not much, mind you, but some.
Hellhammer
> > / H e l l h a m m e r \ wrote:
[. . .]
> > Here are some highly recommended books that relate, both directly and
> > indirectly, to this rant:
> >
> > Ray Bradbury, 'Fahrenheit 451'
> > George Orwell, '1984'
> > Machiavelli, 'The Prince'
> > Jerry Mander, 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television'
> > Vance Packard, 'The Hidden Persuaders'
>
> And on a slightly different tack, William Gibson's "Virtual Light". One
> character is a member of a cult which believes that God appears through
> television, and its members may only watch 'approved' shows.
Sounds interesting. I got about half way through 'Neuromancer', but I lost the book,
somewhere, and never got around to buying another. :-|
> Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
> Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
> "Is the surface of a planet the right place for an expanding industrial
> civilisation?" -- Gerard K. O'Neill
Hellhammer
[big fucking *temporary* snippage]
I'll get back to you on this one, later. Time for me to call it a night.
> "The" Owen
> a/a #1883
Hellhammer
[. . .]
> http://www.tvgohome.com/
>
> Enjoy :)
Interesting. Thanx.
> Rob M
> aa #1870
The Owen
>
> The Owen wrote:
>
> > Hellhammer wrote:
> > >
> > > > "The Owen" <spm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > At least TV has good science fiction.
> > >
> > > That's arguable.
> >
> > You are talking to a "Dark Angel" addict.
>
> Oh man, and I thought I was the only one. :)
>
> I often wondered if James Cameron happened to see one of my posts on cyberpunk sci-fi and
> thought I had a cool nick that he could use as a name for his cyberpunkish project. The
> coincidence is just too weird to be just that. LOL.
CyberpunkISH being the operative word. The show is just so engineered.
Gotta love it.
It's like a big grab-bag of dystopian post-PKD sci-fi.
a GENETICALLY ENGINEERED, COURIER in a POST-APOCOLYPTIC, URBAN SPRAWL
etc. etc. etc.
Still, Cameron makes it plausible as only he can. Not quite enough guns
to be proper CP.
I wonder how much of it is offensive to fundies?
Offensive Stuff Checklist:
[] Lesbianism (dunno how offensive yer average "moral" type finds
lesbians. Maybe they're OK, considering their services to the porn
industry?)
[] Genetics (Supports evolution...)
[] Genetic Engineering (Tampering with God's work)
[] Dystopianism (Bad vibes. Gets in way of Happy-Think.)
Anything I missed?
> --
> a.a atheist #1172 Anarchy & Peace
>
> "We can break these chains, we make them up ourselves"
> - False Prophets, "Baghdad Stomp"
--
"The" Owen
a/a #1883
np:
Spacek / Eve
Animeg3282
>I'm pretty much the same way with TV. I mean I will watch, what I want to
>watch,
>when I want to watch it -- mostly just videos that I own. I watch commercial
>TV,
>maybe two or three times a year.
Yea, and sometimes you can't avoid it like when you're hanging out and they
want to watch something, but most of the time, there's something better to do.
>
>Music, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. However, I don't
>listen to
>commercial radio, *at all*. I've got quite a collection of my own stuff.
>
>
Cool, what do you listen to?
Frank Wustner
> > "Frank Wustner" <see...@for.email.org> wrote:
> > While I agree with it all on a purely factual level, I fail to see how
> > it is really a problem. It's not like this mind-numbing began with the
> > invention of the broadcast. You yourself pointed out that there have
> > been other forms of the same thing (i.e. god-belief).
> Yeah. I wanted the similarities to be evident. Yet, I don't think
anything else has
> ever had the quite same impact as television, and I honestly don't think
anything
> ever will, again. The Internet could never surpass television as a means of
> manipulation, because there is thought and interaction involved -- and over
> six-billion individual websites, all with their own points of view,
etc.; not to
> mention the millions of ideas expressed via e-mail, newsgroups, etc.
When you have
> so many different ideas and opinions floating around, it's kind of hard
to dictate
> anything.
To a lesser degree, tv does the same thing. That's what all the
different channels are for. Just switch to the next channel and you'll
find someone else preaching the opposite of what you were just hearing.
> Television, on the other hand, is dictated by only a few networks -- and
it reaches
> far more people. (The Internet isn't quite "mainstream", yet.) In
certain countries
> the programming is dictated even further by your more traditional dictator.
Dictators did quite well long before tv came about. They just used a
hierarchy of people to enforce their rule. Much like religion as
described below.
> Perhaps religion has come close to television's level of all-reaching
mindwash, but,
> if so, it is has only been *through* television that this was made
possible. How
> else could you speak to millions of people, at the same time?
Religious leaders did not *need* to do that. They had their hierarchy
to do the job for them. Really, I must strongly disagree that the
impact of tv is any greater than various monotheistic religions. They
may not have been nearly as direct, but they were just as effective at
keeping people in line with so-called "prevailing" opinions (read:
*their* opinions).
While I certainly don't deny that tv does the same thing, I don't think
it is any more or less effective than the old-time religious hierarchies.
It is just a new-fangled way to do the same old trick.
> > If it weren't tv doing the job, then it would be something else. More
> > religion. Or drugs. Or flower arranging. Or scratching your butt. Or
> > some other piece of culture that gains such importance.
> Refer to the above.
Ditto.
> > The human race lasted through religion, and it will last through this as
> > well. And if we lose a few twits and jerks along the way, fine. Fuck
> > 'em. The gene pool needs some cleaning out.
> Well, last I heard, TV hasn't killed anyone. Remember -- *these people vote*.
Tv hasn't, but things people heard on tv and believed have. And twits
and jerks have *always* voted (or else exercised what power they did
have in any way they could).
> > BTW, I don't have cable, as I don't consider it important enough to pay
> > for. Even when I had it way back when I still lived with my parents, I
> > never watched it more than one or two hours a week anyway. I am one of
> > those apparently rare people who had better things to do.
> That *is* a rarity. Unfortunately, for me, my "better thing to do" was
drink -- a
> lot. Nevertheless, I learned more doing that than I ever could have
sitting around
> watching TV all fucking day! . . . Less brain damage, too.
Myself, all I did was watch cartoons, and I *knew* they were just fluff
and entertainment, certainly not anything to take seriously. A college
roommate of mine (who is still a good friend) was absolutely astounded
when I said I had never watched _The Dukes of Hazzard_ or _Bonanza_. I
never watched them because they weren't animated.
--
Hellhammer
> > / H e l l h a m m e r \ wrote:
> > > "Frank Wustner" <see...@for.email.org> wrote:
[. . .]
> > > While I agree with it all on a purely factual level, I fail to see how
> > > it is really a problem. It's not like this mind-numbing began with the
> > > invention of the broadcast. You yourself pointed out that there have
> > > been other forms of the same thing (i.e. god-belief).
>
> > Yeah. I wanted the similarities to be evident. Yet, I don't think
> > anything else has ever had the quite same impact as television, and I
> > honestly don't think anything ever will, again. The Internet could never
> > surpass television as a means of manipulation, because there is
> > thought and interaction involved -- and over six-billion individual
> > websites, all with their own points of view, etc.; not to mention the
> > millions of ideas expressed via e-mail, newsgroups, etc. When you
> > have so many different ideas and opinions floating around, it's kind of
> > hard to dictate anything.
>
> To a lesser degree, tv does the same thing.
A *VERY* lesser degree. The "choice" is pretty slim -- even with 200 or 300
channels. That ain't shit compared to over six-billion websites.
> That's what all the different channels are for. Just switch to the next
> channel and you'll find someone else preaching the opposite of what
> you were just hearing.
I don't watch enough TV, these days, to really know; but I think most commercial TV
preaches pretty much the same thing: buy this or buy that.
> > Television, on the other hand, is dictated by only a few networks -- and
> > it reaches far more people. (The Internet isn't quite "mainstream", yet.)
> > In certain countries the programming is dictated even further by your
> > more traditional dictator.
>
> Dictators did quite well long before tv came about. They just used a
> hierarchy of people to enforce their rule. Much like religion as
> described below.
I agree, but they've never had such a powerful and all encompassing tool within their
greedy little hands.
> > Perhaps religion has come close to television's level of all-reaching
> > mindwash, but, if so, it is has only been *through* television that this
> > was made possible. How else could you speak to millions of people, at
> > the same time?
>
> Religious leaders did not *need* to do that. They had their hierarchy
> to do the job for them.
Yeah, but has the hierarchy ever had the living room access that television does?
Maybe, the access, but certainly not ever enough to go around and hang out in
everybody's living room on a nightly basis!
> Really, I must strongly disagree that the
> impact of tv is any greater than various monotheistic religions.
Well, that's fine. I think it's a lot worse. We'll have to agree to disagree, on
this.
> They may not have been nearly as direct, but they were just as
> effective at keeping people in line with so-called "prevailing" opinions
> (read: *their* opinions).
Keeping people in line, possibly so -- *but not always so willingly*.
Most adamant television nuts would never even begin to question their devotion to the
thing. Whereas, with human dictators and such, there was -- and is -- often an
underground of rebels, heretics, etc. Outwardly, they would/will fallow and do as
was/is expected of them, while inwardly hating it. Such is, and never has been the
case w/ television.
> While I certainly don't deny that tv does the same thing, I don't think
> it is any more or less effective than the old-time religious hierarchies.
> It is just a new-fangled way to do the same old trick.
Well, again, we'll have to agree to disagree. My stance isn't going to change on
this. (That is, unless, I am given some concrete evidence to the contrary.)
> > > If it weren't tv doing the job, then it would be something else. More
> > > religion. Or drugs. Or flower arranging. Or scratching your butt. Or
> > > some other piece of culture that gains such importance.
>
> > Refer to the above.
>
> Ditto.
>
> > > The human race lasted through religion, and it will last through this as
> > > well. And if we lose a few twits and jerks along the way, fine. Fuck
> > > 'em. The gene pool needs some cleaning out.
>
> > Well, last I heard, TV hasn't killed anyone. Remember -- *these people vote*.
>
> Tv hasn't, but things people heard on tv and believed have.
Certainly no argument, there!
> And twits and jerks have *always* voted (or else exercised what power they
> did have in any way they could).
I'd rather that they watch less television, however. . . They might actually
discover that they've got a brain, capable of thinking on its own. (And we my not
end up w/ cocksuckers like Bush.)
> > > BTW, I don't have cable, as I don't consider it important enough to pay
> > > for. Even when I had it way back when I still lived with my parents, I
> > > never watched it more than one or two hours a week anyway. I am one of
> > > those apparently rare people who had better things to do.
>
> > That *is* a rarity. Unfortunately, for me, my "better thing to do" was
> > drink -- a lot. Nevertheless, I learned more doing that than I ever could
> > have sitting around watching TV all fucking day! . . . Less brain damage,
> > too.
>
> Myself, all I did was watch cartoons, and I *knew* they were just fluff
> and entertainment, certainly not anything to take seriously. A college
> roommate of mine (who is still a good friend) was absolutely astounded
> when I said I had never watched _The Dukes of Hazzard_ or _Bonanza_. I
> never watched them because they weren't animated.
My favorite was Bugs Bunny. (Had to watch it across the street, though. We didn't
have a television in our house.)
> The Deadly Nightshade
> http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
> http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/
>
> |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
> |"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
> |Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
> |past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
> |off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
> |and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
> |it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------|
> |-----------------------------------|
--
Hellhammer
> > / H e l l h a m m e r \ wrote:
> > > "The Owen" <spm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > / H e l l h a m m e r \ wrote:
> >
> > [. . .]
> >
> > > > Brainwash has never been so easy. When you disguise the method as
> > > > pleasurable leisure time, you can never fail. Opium and alcoholic
> > > > beverages have also been used -- historically and *presently* -- for
> > > > similar purposes; namely that of keeping your mouth shut, and your
> > > > mind off. If you want the masses under control, just giv'em some
> > > > fucking Quaaludes! Kills two birds with one stone -- keeps'em happy
> > > > and shuts'em up!
> > >
> > > Free drugs?
> > >
> > > Where?
> >
> > Everywhere you look.
>
> *Looking around*
>
> Nah, I gotta pay for all mine.
I didn't mean it literally. I meant it, as in:
". . . petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and, above all, gambling
filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult." --
George Orwell, '1984'
Not all "drugs" are the kind that you smoke, inject, snort, drink, or whatever.
> > > (Don't forget, Opium alchoholic beverages and TV are all voluntary. If
> > > the people didn't want brainwashing, they wouldn't watch TV.)
> >
> > Good point. ;-)
>
> No really.
I meant really.
> Culture is pretty close to voluntary brainwashing.
I guess that would depend on one's definition of "culture". In my book, television
ain't.
> > > > And, of course, what makes religion any different? Not a damned thing. It,
> > > > too, has been utilized by various tyrants throughout the ages for the same
> > > > purposes.
> > >
> > > At least TV has good science fiction.
> >
> > That's arguable.
>
> You are talking to a "Dark Angel" addict.
>
> Admitedly, nothing recently has matched the good moments of B5, but I
> live in hope.
Keep on hoping! (I haven't the foggiest notion what 'B5' is, however.)
> > > > What I find to be particularly scary about television is the fact that people
> > > > will vehemently defend it without even knowing why. The usual defense is the
> > > > various educational programs, and other stuff of like nature. What kind of a
> > > > defense is that!? Read a fucking book, or a newspaper, or a good magazine on
> > > > whatever subject it is that you might be interested in! People have existed
> > > > and survived for thousands of years without this piece of shit in our living
> > > > rooms!
> > >
> > > A lot of TV is trashy and mind numbing. That's why I like it.
> >
> > "Morality" aside (wasn't my point, *at all*), why would you want your mind
> > numbed?
>
> What you class as cons, others may see as pros, was my point.
No need to argue that.
> I want my mind numbed by TV for the same reasons as I drink and whatever
> else.
>
> It's nice to slouch in front of the one-eyed god for an hour or two
> every so often and just switch off.
Okay. It wasn't my intention to preach, here. I just wanted to state why *I* think
TV sucks. Naturally, I knew some would disagree.
> > I understand the need for escapism, but, *for myself*, commercial television is
> > the exact opposite of that. It would "numb my mind" in an entirely different
> > kind of way. . . like someone pounding on my head, repeatedly, with a sledge
> > hammer.
>
> I find a place for both.
>
> Haruki Murakami /and/ Josh Whedon. Pathetically 90's of me, I know.
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with either of these people. I suppose that I'm
pathetically '80's: punk rock.
> > > > (Special side note: I don't, personally, object to computers and the
> > > > Internet, because there is an *interaction*, and some thought involved
> > > > with them; whereas, with a television the only interaction is with the
> > > > remote control and changing the channels. There is no thought -- the
> > > > thoughts are, instead, beamed at you. I also, do not object to movies,
> > > > which, in my opinion, are an art form worthy of one's time. *However,
> > > > that certainly would not apply to all film!*)
> > >
> > > Some TV probably falls into the "art" category. Admitedly, I don't
> > > imagine you get to see a lot of it in America, but...
> >
> > I haven't the faintest idea what kind of shows you've got there, in the UK, and
> > I'll not presume, but I think this is missing the broader point that I was trying
> > to make.
>
> As I saw it, the point you were making was that TV was a waste of time
> and was turning us into fat lazy complacent whatevers. I was just
> pointing out that you might have been too quick to write it off.
Well, I didn't, initially, have any objections to television. I think it wasn't
until I was about 15 or 16 that I began to have doubts about the thing. Between then
and now, are, approximately, 15 to 16 years (I'm 31). My dislike for television has
only grown stronger.
Nevertheless, I *haven't* written it off, completely. . . Just mostly.
> > > > I happen to own one of these pieces of shit, as well. Why, I am not exactly
> > > > certain. I've contemplated throwing it out the window, from time to time.
> > > > For the most part, it just sits there taking up space, while I will
> > > > occasionally put in a good video (film) to watch. You'd have to torture me
> > > > to get me to watch a sitcom, or any other lame series that happens to be
> > > > the thing, at the moment. Nor would I ever watch those sickening "reality
> > > > shows", or the WWF, or a regular station's news program. (I do watch the
> > > > 'News Hour w/ Jim Lehrer', occasionally.)
> > >
> > > I got digital. In one week on my favourite film channel were "Resevoir
> > > Dogs", "The Third Man", "Blade Runner" and "Videodrome".
> >
> > Well, I *did* say that I've no objection to movies. I've got 'The Third Man' and
> > 'Blade Runner' on tape, BTW.
>
> My point was "not everything on TV is trash". There /is/ an alternative
> to WWF or whatever.
This is true. However, I think watching the WWF (even for a minute or two) would be
worse than smoking pure angel dust (PCP), every single day, for three years straight!
*I* don't classify a good film -- such as the ones you mention, above -- as "true
television", anyway.
> > > > I think the only worthwhile series that *commercial* television ever produced
> > > > was 'The Twilight Zone'. KCET has had some good shows, as well. But,
> > > > again, there are plenty of good books out there that would cover any of
> > > > these subjects, and more -- in much more depth, and more creatively and
> > > > artistically.
> > >
> > > The Sopranos?
> >
> > Never saw it. Nor do I really want to. That's part of my point, here -- I've
> > got better things to do with my time, than check out every hit show that
> > comes down the pike.
> >
> > People are *always* saying, "Oh! Did you see such and such, and so and so?"
> >
> > My usual reply, "NO!!!"
> >
> > > So far as recent TV goes, I thought that was good and "artistic".
> >
> > Very possibly so, but life is short. . .
>
> By the time "people" catch onto something, it has usually gone crap.
Quite often, it is just the opposite. 'Blade Runner', for instance, didn't get much
applause from the critics, etc., when it was first released. Fact of the matter is,
it's a fucking masterpiece!
> Friends, Frasier (for a while there), The Sopranos.
>
> I think there is a "magic number" of people that can watch a show before
> it starts to suck ;-)
Hmmm. . . I don't know about that. Maybe that's true for the ones you mention,
above (I wouldn't know -- I've never seen any of them), but it certainly isn't true
of 'The Twilight Zone'.
> > > > My main beef with television is that it seems to pervade every aspect of our
> > > > lives. I can't go *anywhere*, or talk to *anyone* without there being some
> > > > mention of something that someone saw on television. Just as someone that
> > > > doesn't drink can readily smell the alcohol on one's breath, so it is with
> > > > the person that doesn't watch a whole lot of TV, when encountering those
> > > > that do -- there is an unmistakable reek.
> > >
> > > I agree with you on this. They marketed "Temptation Island" as "The show
> > > everybody'll be talking about tomorrow."
> >
> > That's no exaggeration, either. . . *whatever* lame program it might be.
>
> Exaggeration?
>
> That's a quote from the trailer.
Yes. I understood that. My point was that *every* hit TV show is just the same --
everybody and their mothers, too, has to talk about the damn things. Drives me nuts.
> > > > Here are some highly recommended books that relate, both directly and
> > > > indirectly, to this rant:
> > > >
> > > > Ray Bradbury, 'Fahrenheit 451'
> > > > George Orwell, '1984'
> > > > Machiavelli, 'The Prince'
> > > > Jerry Mander, 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television'
> > > > Vance Packard, 'The Hidden Persuaders'
> > >
> > > You forgot "Brave New World".
> >
> > Nah. I didn't forget it. Didn't put it down, here -- but I didn't forget it.
> > ;-)
>
> Soma==TV?
Yeah.
> > > > Any other book on the manipulation and control of crowds would be good, as
> > > > well. Perhaps, 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' would be appropriate,
> > > > too.
> > >
> > > What is it you imagine we'd all be doing with the time and energy we'd
> > > save by not watching TV?
> >
> > Reading, writing, fucking, sucking -- you name it. *Life* -- *living* -- there's
> > a lot to be done. (Not much time to do it in, either.)
>
> You might. Not everybody has that kind of energy, though.
I used to do construction, and other various hard labor kinds of jobs. I'd come
home, lift weights, practice my Karate, practice my guitar, cook my own dinner, do
other chores and what not, do some reading and writing, fuck my girlfriend (or
girlfriends) silly, stay up 'till two or three in the morning, get up at around 6 or
7, and then do it all over again. . . and I'm a chain smoker!
You'd be amazed at the energy you could summon up, if you gave it a shot. It's all
in the mind.
> "The" Owen
> a/a #1883
Hellhammer
> > / H e l l h a m m e r \ said:
[. . .]
> >I'm pretty much the same way with TV. I mean I will watch, what I want to
> >watch, when I want to watch it -- mostly just videos that I own. I watch
> >commercial TV, maybe two or three times a year.
>
> Yea, and sometimes you can't avoid it like when you're hanging out and they
> want to watch something,
I'll leave -- if I can.
> but most of the time, there's something better to do.
You can say that, again! :-)
> >Music, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. However, I don't
> >listen to commercial radio, *at all*. I've got quite a collection of my own
> >stuff.
> >
> >
>
> Cool, what do you listen to?
Ah, well, I listen to quite a variety of stuff: punk rock, electro-industrial, some
heavy metal, some jazz, techno, classical, and a few other kinds of music. My
collection consists of anything from Mozart to Motörhead.
> Hana no Kaitou
> This sig sucks. Bear with me.
> http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282 <---Fancy Lala Club!
> http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282/dic.html <--1 kid and a dictionary-
> translating....
The Owen
>
> > "The Owen" <spm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > / H e l l h a m m e r \ wrote:
>
> > > > "The Owen" <spm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > / H e l l h a m m e r \ wrote:
> > >
> > > [. . .]
> > >
> > > > Free drugs?
> > > >
> > > > Where?
> > >
> > > Everywhere you look.
> >
> > *Looking around*
> >
> > Nah, I gotta pay for all mine.
>
> I didn't mean it literally. I meant it, as in:
>
> ". . . petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and, above all, gambling
> filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult." --
> George Orwell, '1984'
>
> Not all "drugs" are the kind that you smoke, inject, snort, drink, or whatever.
I have always felt that dismissing other people's lives as trivial
illusions designed to keep them in check was a condescending thing to
do.
Some of us actually like petty quarrels, films, gambling etc.
Doesn't matter what important persuit you dedicate your life to, in the
end you are just as dead.
> > > > (Don't forget, Opium alchoholic beverages and TV are all voluntary. If
> > > > the people didn't want brainwashing, they wouldn't watch TV.)
> > >
> > > Good point. ;-)
> >
> > No really.
>
> I meant really.
Sorry.
One of those "Lack of NVC's" situations.
> > Culture is pretty close to voluntary brainwashing.
>
> I guess that would depend on one's definition of "culture". In my book, television
> ain't.
It's like pack behaviour or something. Everybody watching the same TV
shows (within their chosen subculture) is simply an extension of shaking
hands when you meet people or wearing clothes.
> > > > > And, of course, what makes religion any different? Not a damned thing. It,
> > > > > too, has been utilized by various tyrants throughout the ages for the same
> > > > > purposes.
> > > >
> > > > At least TV has good science fiction.
> > >
> > > That's arguable.
> >
> > You are talking to a "Dark Angel" addict.
> >
> > Admitedly, nothing recently has matched the good moments of B5, but I
> > live in hope.
>
> Keep on hoping! (I haven't the foggiest notion what 'B5' is, however.)
Babylon 5. One of the more interesting Science Fiction shows of recent
years.
<snip>
> > I want my mind numbed by TV for the same reasons as I drink and whatever
> > else.
> >
> > It's nice to slouch in front of the one-eyed god for an hour or two
> > every so often and just switch off.
>
> Okay. It wasn't my intention to preach, here. I just wanted to state why *I* think
> TV sucks. Naturally, I knew some would disagree.
Fair enough.
> > > I understand the need for escapism, but, *for myself*, commercial television is
> > > the exact opposite of that. It would "numb my mind" in an entirely different
> > > kind of way. . . like someone pounding on my head, repeatedly, with a sledge
> > > hammer.
> >
> > I find a place for both.
> >
> > Haruki Murakami /and/ Josh Whedon. Pathetically 90's of me, I know.
>
> I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with either of these people. I suppose that I'm
> pathetically '80's: punk rock.
Haruki Murakami is an author. "Wind-Up Bird Chronicles". One of the best
books I have ever read.
Josh Whedon is the producer of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer". One of the
more pleasantly idiotic TV shows I have encountered.
I like Punk Rock, too.
<snip>
> > > > > I think the only worthwhile series that *commercial* television ever produced
> > > > > was 'The Twilight Zone'. KCET has had some good shows, as well. But,
> > > > > again, there are plenty of good books out there that would cover any of
> > > > > these subjects, and more -- in much more depth, and more creatively and
> > > > > artistically.
> > > >
> > > > The Sopranos?
> > >
> > > Never saw it. Nor do I really want to. That's part of my point, here -- I've
> > > got better things to do with my time, than check out every hit show that
> > > comes down the pike.
> > >
> > > People are *always* saying, "Oh! Did you see such and such, and so and so?"
> > >
> > > My usual reply, "NO!!!"
> > >
> > > > So far as recent TV goes, I thought that was good and "artistic".
> > >
> > > Very possibly so, but life is short. . .
> >
> > By the time "people" catch onto something, it has usually gone crap.
>
> Quite often, it is just the opposite. 'Blade Runner', for instance, didn't get much
> applause from the critics, etc., when it was first released. Fact of the matter is,
> it's a fucking masterpiece!
Ah. I meant TV. And Blade Runner wasn't nearly as good as the Directors
Cut when it got it's full release.
> > Friends, Frasier (for a while there), The Sopranos.
> >
> > I think there is a "magic number" of people that can watch a show before
> > it starts to suck ;-)
>
> Hmmm. . . I don't know about that. Maybe that's true for the ones you mention,
> above (I wouldn't know -- I've never seen any of them), but it certainly isn't true
> of 'The Twilight Zone'.
Never saw much of that.
> > > > > My main beef with television is that it seems to pervade every aspect of our
> > > > > lives. I can't go *anywhere*, or talk to *anyone* without there being some
> > > > > mention of something that someone saw on television. Just as someone that
> > > > > doesn't drink can readily smell the alcohol on one's breath, so it is with
> > > > > the person that doesn't watch a whole lot of TV, when encountering those
> > > > > that do -- there is an unmistakable reek.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you on this. They marketed "Temptation Island" as "The show
> > > > everybody'll be talking about tomorrow."
> > >
> > > That's no exaggeration, either. . . *whatever* lame program it might be.
> >
> > Exaggeration?
> >
> > That's a quote from the trailer.
>
> Yes. I understood that. My point was that *every* hit TV show is just the same --
> everybody and their mothers, too, has to talk about the damn things. Drives me nuts.
What else would they be talking about?
I imagine any other topic they could come up with would bore you just as
much.
<snip>
> > > > > Any other book on the manipulation and control of crowds would be good, as
> > > > > well. Perhaps, 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' would be appropriate,
> > > > > too.
> > > >
> > > > What is it you imagine we'd all be doing with the time and energy we'd
> > > > save by not watching TV?
> > >
> > > Reading, writing, fucking, sucking -- you name it. *Life* -- *living* -- there's
> > > a lot to be done. (Not much time to do it in, either.)
> >
> > You might. Not everybody has that kind of energy, though.
>
> I used to do construction, and other various hard labor kinds of jobs. I'd come
> home, lift weights, practice my Karate, practice my guitar, cook my own dinner, do
> other chores and what not, do some reading and writing, fuck my girlfriend (or
> girlfriends) silly, stay up 'till two or three in the morning, get up at around 6 or
> 7, and then do it all over again. . . and I'm a chain smoker!
>
> You'd be amazed at the energy you could summon up, if you gave it a shot. It's all
> in the mind.
Or in my case, the brain-chemistry.
2 - 7 = 5 hours sleep.
I need my 8 hours plus.
> > "The" Owen
> > a/a #1883
>
> --
> / H e l l h a m m e r \
> a n t i - t h e i s t 1 8 7 6
> http://home.earthlink.net/~noir333
>
> "Madness is rare in individuals --
> but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."
> -- Nietzsche, 'Beyond Good & Evil'
--
"The" Owen
a/a #1883
Martin Crisp
(in message <3A8C6C70...@my-deja.com>):
> Hellhammer wrote:
>>
>>> "The Owen" <spm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>> Culture is pretty close to voluntary brainwashing.
>>
>> I guess that would depend on one's definition of "culture". In
>> my book, television ain't.
>
> It's like pack behaviour or something. Everybody watching the same TV
> shows (within their chosen subculture) is simply an extension of shaking
> hands when you meet people or wearing clothes.
True! I had to give up the drug subculture because of a programming
clash with the country music channel.
[No, not really]
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
I never post (intentionally) with an invalid address.
Frank Wustner
> Most adamant television nuts would never even begin to question their
devotion to the
> thing. Whereas, with human dictators and such, there was -- and is --
often an
> underground of rebels, heretics, etc. Outwardly, they would/will fallow
and do as
> was/is expected of them, while inwardly hating it. Such is, and never
has been the
> case w/ television.
The adamant devoted of anything have always been like that. Whether
of religion or tv or Dune novels. And there is an anti-tv group; *we*
are part of that.
People have always been willing to enslave themselves to a thing, a
system of thought, or whatever else have you. Most people don't want
to think for themselves, so they let something else do it for them. I
do not believe that this has changed in any way over many millenia,
either for better or worse.
*That* is why I think tv is no worse. These kinds of things are
effective because people let them be, not because of any real innate
effectiveness on their part.
> My favorite was Bugs Bunny. (Had to watch it across the street,
though. We didn't
> have a television in our house.)
I particularly liked Wily E. Cayote (suuuuuper geeeeenius). Though I
could enjoy anything animated. I even liked GI Joe, despite the very
obvious pro-America-Military slant.
--