When did it become ok to say pussy on broadcast tv?
Adam Goldman
only because he was refering to a cat.
I had never seen that word used as a noun thought. On Blind Date on WWOR
on Friday Feb 1st on Blind Date(which is shown at 11:00 PM Eastern
time), the greesy biker type dude (that was on the date with the hot
blonde with the 43 DDD breasts) actually said the word and it wasn't
edited or bleeped out.
Will the FCC fine WWOR for this, or have the rules changed?
Anyway, those of you that have Blind Date on WWOR from Friday evening on
your PVRs can verify that it actually happened, and that I didn't just
imagine it.
Involuntary
decision to post this message on Fri, 1 Feb 2002 23:27:37 -0500 (EST):
> I do realize that Tweety Bird has been saying it for years, but that's
> only because he was refering to a cat.
> I had never seen that word used as a noun thought. On Blind Date on WWOR
> on Friday Feb 1st on Blind Date(which is shown at 11:00 PM Eastern
> time), the greesy biker type dude (that was on the date with the hot
> blonde with the 43 DDD breasts) actually said the word and it wasn't
> edited or bleeped out.
They're trying to compete with HBO?
I was listening to Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell -- an overnight radio
program. One of his guests who is also a good friend of Art's, apparently
forgot that he was talking on the radio. He goes on and on and then says
something like, "...and you know me, Art. I mean, I felt like shit... ... Can
you say that on the radio?"
"...Yyyeah," Art replied. Apparently Art didn't have his finger on the
little button. Radio broadcasts are delayed by about three seconds so if
somebody says something the host doesn't want on the air, he can push this
button and block it out. He uses it when people try to give their e-mail
addresses or full names over the air. He sure didn't block it out that time.
And to me, saying "shit" on TV and radio is no big deal. I mean, it's
just another word as far as I'm concerned, but what makes it so funny is that
I know that some old woman was coming unglued and reaching for her Nitro pills
when they heard him say that.
Involuntary
--
Do you watch TNN (The National Network)? Do you hate the
black bar across the bottom of the screen? If you do, go to
http://www.tnnonline.com and tell them you're sick of that
stupid black bar because it serves absolutely no purpose at all!
AftonOkla
>program. One of his guests who is also a good friend of Art's, apparently
>forgot that he was talking on the radio. He goes on and on and then says
>something like, "...and you know me, Art. I mean, I felt like shit... ...
>Can
>you say that on the radio?"
> "...Yyyeah," Art replied. Apparently Art didn't have his finger on the
>little button. Radio broadcasts are delayed by about three seconds so if
>somebody says something the host doesn't want on the air, he can push this
>button and block it out. He uses it when people try to give their e-mail
>addresses or full names over the air. He sure didn't block it out that time.
> And to me, saying "shit" on TV and radio is no big deal. I mean, it's
>just another word as far as I'm concerned, but what makes it so funny is that
>I know that some old woman was coming unglued and reaching for her Nitro
>pills
>when they heard him say that.
>
>Involuntary
>
>
>
Jim
@storefull-238.iap.bryant.webtv.net:
I saw parts of that show but missed what you are talking about. Got a phone
call. BTW, it's on at noon in Atlanta. Man, she was hot too, don't ya
think?
I think the rules change after a certain hour. That would be why the WWF
actually splits their Monday night show in two parts. One at 9pm and the
other at 10pm. And without a doubt, they do go further with the violence
and language after 10pm.
Jim
BobaBird
news:15474-3C...@storefull-238.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> I do realize that Tweety Bird has been saying it for years, but that's
> only because he was refering to a cat.
I think it became OK when Johnny Carson reached across the desk and asked
permission to pet the "cat" on Raquel Welch's lap. Seems she wasn't nearly
as amused as I was. That moment still makes me laugh.
--
Charles
TNGTony
"BobaBird" <Boba...@aol.spam.com.free> wrote in message
news:u5o81na...@corp.supernews.com...
Errr.....Did you actually see this with your own two eyes? I have yet to
talk to ANYONE who has seen this aleged clip with their own eyes and heard
it with their own ears.
In a Tonight show with Rachel and Johnny during the last weeks of the show
with Johnny, there was a very funny moment when, I think is was, Rackel was
telling Johnny how her son had told her the story of Zsa Zsa Gabor on the
Carson show in the 60's and the cat on her lap and how Eva had asked Johnny
if he wanted to pet her pussy. To which Johnny was supposed to have
responded, "I'd be happy to, if you'd remove the damend cat!" The audience
was laughing well before the punch line since this was a wide spread story.
Johnny's response was, "I think I would remember that." The latter clip is
available on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson tapes being sold on TV now.
Also see http://www.snopes2.com/radiotv/tv/zsazsa.htm
It's still a funny story. But apparently fiction.
See ya
Tony
TNGTony
"TNGTony" <tng...@remove2reply.one.net> wrote in message
news:u5ob2vs...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "BobaBird" <Boba...@aol.spam.com.free> wrote in message
> news:u5o81na...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Adam Goldman" <Shaq...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > news:15474-3C...@storefull-238.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > > I do realize that Tweety Bird has been saying it for years, but that's
> > > only because he was refering to a cat.
> >
> > I think it became OK when Johnny Carson reached across the desk and
asked
> > permission to pet the "cat" on Raquel Welch's lap. Seems she wasn't
> nearly
> > as amused as I was. That moment still makes me laugh.
Correcting myself here...it was Jane Fonda, not Rachel who asked Johnny
about the Zsa Zsa cat story.
David E. Bath
You missed the recent South Park episode on Comedy Central. They not
only said "shit", they said it about 160 times and had a counter
on-screen counting each time it was said. Interestingly it has not
been repeated.
Thomas Tornblom
This appears to be an urban legend:
http://www.snopes2.com/radiotv/tv/zsazsa.htm
> --
> Charles
>
>
Lerch
nudity but the uptight religious sheep in this country find something evil
about breasts or the word FUCK. Have you ever watched a series on HBO? They
are 1000% better than any network show (except Buffy The Vampire Slayer)
because they can say and do whatever they like.
"BobaBird" <Boba...@aol.spam.com.free> wrote in message
news:u5o81na...@corp.supernews.com...
KW
news:15474-3C...@storefull-238.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Didn't see the show, but yeah, would've surprised me too. But times are
changing. I remember last year on The Job when Elizabeth Hurley asked the
star if he wanted to her tits. The look on the characters face could've been
mine. I don't know if they were ever prohibited from saying it before, but I
know I had never heard it used in such an upfront way before. Of course,
they still didn't show them to us. :(
KW
Steve Sheldon
"Adam Goldman" <Shaq...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15474-3C...@storefull-238.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> only because he was refering to a cat.
For the past two years whenever I turn on the news they keep saying "bush."
So the FCC must have relaxed some requirements lately, and the media is
going for better ratings.
AftonOkla
>nudity but the uptight religious sheep in this country find something evil
>about breasts or the word FUCK.
I dont think most Americans want to hear "fuck, bitch and hoe" on network TV
during prime time. If they want to hear that, they can tune in the local rap
station.
>Have you ever watched a series on HBO? They
>are 1000% better than any network show (except Buffy The Vampire Slayer)
>because they can say and do whatever they like.
They are not better than NYPD Blue, Boston Public, ER or other shows and those
shows don't say "fuck" but they are still excellent TV shows. The only thing
HBO has is no stinking commercials.
Involuntary
wise decision to post this message on 2 Feb 2002 18:46:12 GMT:
> You missed the recent South Park episode on Comedy Central. They not
> only said "shit", they said it about 160 times and had a counter
> on-screen counting each time it was said. Interestingly it has not
> been repeated.
I haven't seen Southpark in a long time. I believed the rumor that the show
was not being made anymore, but apparently it is.
Rjsaint1
block R, MA etc. from my kids viewing.
I'm not a prude but the other night the wife and I were watching Buffy for the
1st time in a long time and there was Buffy outside
a hamburger joint getting some guys woody spike being plunged into her! ( AT
least it looked that way to me ) :0.We just looked at each other and it was WOW
is this OTA broadcast TV.
I think we were watching it through are basic basic cable setup so I don't know
if it would have been unlocked to be viewed or not.
Dennis' Newsgroups
the F-bomb dropped 3 times accidentally. They once had a poem reading that
they did on a Sunday night I believe, they were warned by the FCC not to
broadcast it, but felt it was too important not to (don't remember what the
poem was or who it was), but that was filled with swearing.
Dennis
"Involuntary" <invol...@go.com> wrote in message
news:n9bn5uglsdivckf2b...@creamy.legs...
Kevin
"Lerch" <lyo...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:a3hi8e$o6r$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> I think it should be allowed to say whatever you want on TV and even have
> nudity but the uptight religious sheep in this country find something evil
> about breasts or the word FUCK. Have you ever watched a series on HBO?
They
> are 1000% better than any network show (except Buffy The Vampire Slayer)
> because they can say and do whatever they like.
It has nothing to do with "uptight religious sheep". It has everything to do
with a disproportionately large number of children who are left home alone
in this country.
I'm not saying that the solution is for moms (or dads) to stay at home. I'm
just saying that young kids don't need to be exposed to graphic programming.
With DBS systems, and some digital cable systems, you can block access. You
can't easily do that with OTA channels.
Have I watched a series on HBO? Hell yes. That's the whole reason I swiched
from cable, so many years ago. "They have FIVE HBO channels!" (Well, when I
switched, that's all USSB carried) I love Oz, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under,
and America Undercover. But I'd be one of the first people screaming, if I
saw Oz unedited on ABC during prime time.
Personally, I'd like to see us gravitate more towards Canadian programming
standards. After midnight, just about anything that isn't porno or
gratuitous goes. It'd sure beat the hell out of 150 channels of infomercials
we get every night.
AftonOkla
>the F-bomb dropped 3 times
Must be one of those 100 watt jobs down between 87 and 90 Mhz on the dial.
AftonOkla
>standards. After midnight, just about anything that isn't porno or
>gratuitous goes. It'd sure beat the hell out of 150 channels of infomercials
>we get every night.
Have you ever seen Sex TV on CITY TV out of Toronto? You'd certainly not see
that OTA in the USA!
Kevin
It pains me just hearing "CityTV". For a very short period of time, there
was a website that was broadcasting a live CityTV feed.
We'll never see it OTA here in the States. Damn FCC.
"AftonOkla" <afto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020203152221...@mb-md.aol.com...
austinsho
"Kevin" <n...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:Y6h78.6845$wZ.9...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
> Oooooh....sweet, sweet CityTV.
>
>
> We'll never see it OTA here in the States. Damn FCC.
AftonOkla
>
>It pains me just hearing "CityTV". For a very short period of time, there
>was a website that was broadcasting a live CityTV feed.
You can get a Bell ExpressVu unit and get it anywhere in the USA for about $10
a month US (plus networks from Boston, Seattle and a whole bunch of other
Canadian TV channels) that is less than you pay for 2 network feeds here)
Matt
>
> "Lerch" <lyo...@iwon.com> wrote in message
> news:a3hi8e$o6r$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > I think it should be allowed to say whatever you want on TV and even
have
> > nudity but the uptight religious sheep in this country find something
evil
> > about breasts or the word FUCK. Have you ever watched a series on HBO?
> They
> > are 1000% better than any network show (except Buffy The Vampire Slayer)
> > because they can say and do whatever they like.
>
> It has nothing to do with "uptight religious sheep". It has everything to
do
> with a disproportionately large number of children who are left home alone
> in this country.
>
> I'm not saying that the solution is for moms (or dads) to stay at home.
I'm
> just saying that young kids don't need to be exposed to graphic
programming.
> With DBS systems, and some digital cable systems, you can block access.
You
> can't easily do that with OTA channels.
Ever hear of the V-chip. Chances are, if you purchased your TV in the last
3 years or so, then it probably has a V-chip built in.
John Oliver
> It has nothing to do with "uptight religious sheep". It has everything to do
> with a disproportionately large number of children who are left home alone
> in this country.
I would love to see some corroboration for your hypothesis. Doubt
you'll find any, though...
> I'm not saying that the solution is for moms (or dads) to stay at home. I'm
> just saying that young kids don't need to be exposed to graphic programming.
Oh, God forbid we should ask someone to stay home with the kids! And by
all means, give them free run of the TV and everything else while
nobody's around to watch them...
This is one of the biggest problems in the world today... nobody is
willing to accept responsibility for their own choices and actions any
more. Sure, you've got kids, but so what? You have a right to your
career, right? Just give Johnny and Janie a key. But please forgive me
if I say <cough>hipocrite<cough> when you then stand up on your pedestal
and tell us "Won't somebody *please* think of the children!"
You're right when you say "young kids don't need to be exposed to
graphic programming". But you prevent that by being a parent, not by
trying to eliminate "graphic programming".
--
John Oliver
System Administrator
hosting.com, an Allegiance Telecom company
mailto:john....@hosting.com
(858) 637-3600
http://www.hosting.com/
Steve Christie
town ran a broadcast of WWF. At some point during the broadcast singnals got
mixed and 'porno' was broadcast. There was much outrage by some parents that
their children got to see naked bodies. What kind of wacky idea is that
violence is OK, but naked bodies will somehow damage the minds of children.
rs...@excite.com
an actress used the word "Pussy". She would sar "He kept stairing
at my pussy" refering to her cat.
In the Denver newspaper their was an article that said the
tv writers were going to try and get more four letter
words into sitcoms.
Mike H
news:LzD78.18775$_J3.10...@news20.bellglobal.com:
> ...What kind
> of wacky idea is that violence is OK, but naked bodies will somehow
> damage the minds of children.
From the way many other "free" societies view nudity, one would have to say
it's simply an "American" idea.
As though watching a Panties & Bras match on the WWF isn't enough
partial nudity to be an issue, let alone the degrading way that many women
are treated on the show.
Lerch
children. The TV is a great babysitter for most parents.
"Evil Wizard Glick" <evilwiz...@moscowmail.com> wrote in message
news:nnvs5ugtfomhj16e9...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:15:24 GMT, "Kevin" <n...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lerch" <lyo...@iwon.com> wrote in message
> >news:a3hi8e$o6r$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >> I think it should be allowed to say whatever you want on TV and even
have
> >> nudity but the uptight religious sheep in this country find something
evil
> >> about breasts or the word FUCK. Have you ever watched a series on HBO?
> >They
> >> are 1000% better than any network show (except Buffy The Vampire
Slayer)
> >> because they can say and do whatever they like.
> >
> >It has nothing to do with "uptight religious sheep". It has everything to
do
> >with a disproportionately large number of children who are left home
alone
> >in this country.
>
> these days, use the damn thing.
> Personally, I watch movies with my son, they swear and there is nudity
> in some. He watches anime, that frequently contains violence, and
> nudity. BUT, the anime treats its audience as reasoning beings. It
> doesn't pander.
> And, I prefer being there for any questions instead of him learning
> things at school from peers, which are mis-informed.
>
>
>
> >
> >I'm not saying that the solution is for moms (or dads) to stay at home.
I'm
> >just saying that young kids don't need to be exposed to graphic
programming.
> >With DBS systems, and some digital cable systems, you can block access.
You
> >can't easily do that with OTA channels.
>
> BRAINS! The problem is parents want to pawn off their responsibility
> to someone else. I know the games my son plays, I know the movies and
> tv shows he watches. I watch many of them with him.
>
>
> >
> >Have I watched a series on HBO? Hell yes. That's the whole reason I
swiched
> >from cable, so many years ago. "They have FIVE HBO channels!" (Well, when
I
> >switched, that's all USSB carried) I love Oz, The Sopranos, Six Feet
Under,
> >and America Undercover. But I'd be one of the first people screaming, if
I
> >saw Oz unedited on ABC during prime time.
>
> or 9?
> Face facts, the demographics for OZ won't attract children. A fifteen
> or sixteen year old maybe be attracted to something like OZ. BUT, by
> then they should be mature enough to handle it.
>
>
>
> >
> >Personally, I'd like to see us gravitate more towards Canadian
programming
> >standards. After midnight, just about anything that isn't porno or
> >gratuitous goes. It'd sure beat the hell out of 150 channels of
infomercials
> >we get every night.
> >
>
> carries it. So we have to suffer.
>
> >
>
> Again, the root of the whole problem is parents. They want to give up
> their responsibility to children. Why should my viewing interests be
> censored, because some adult lacking parenting skills wants tv to
> babysit their kids? Why do I want my 12 years old NOT to mature as he
> should, so that some silly ass parent wants their child to devolve?
> Historically, at the turn of the century 1800-1900, a fifteen year old
> had lived half their lifetime. THEY WERE ADULTS. They had
> responsibilities. They matured because they were not denied access to
> the life around them. The median age in Mexico is fifteen, and Vietnam
> is 22. These people are young adults. They are thinking reasoning
> beings. They make choices everyday that spoiled insulated american
> children don't have too.
> MAYBE, it is time to start treating our children as if they have minds
> AND can think for themselves. That they will make their own choices no
> matter what adults do.
> The question is, would you rather be the one explaining and guiding,
> or would rather haver his mis-informed peers do that?
> And finally, why should my content be censored? Two tv's, one for the
> kids, one for you. If you don't want them watching OZ on ABC at 8pm (
> theoretically) turn their tv to cartoon network. Or better yet, MAKE
> THEM READ! BUT, never assume that I WANT MY CONTENT CENSORED!
>
> !
> Neglect of industry, conservatism and lack of innovative thinking cast
their shadow over learning;
> and it is little surprise that the twelve centuries of Rome produced no
scientist to whom posterity is in serious debt.
> Romans And Barbarians
> Four Views From the Empire's Edge 1st Century AD
> By
> Derek Williams
> !
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Kevin
"Evil Wizard Glick" <evilwiz...@moscowmail.com> wrote in message
news:nnvs5ugtfomhj16e9...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 20:15:24 GMT, "Kevin" <n...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >news:a3hi8e$o6r$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >> I think it should be allowed to say whatever you want on TV and even
have
> >> nudity but the uptight religious sheep in this country find something
evil
> >> about breasts or the word FUCK. Have you ever watched a series on HBO?
> >They
> >> are 1000% better than any network show (except Buffy The Vampire
Slayer)
> >> because they can say and do whatever they like.
> >
> >It has nothing to do with "uptight religious sheep". It has everything to
do
> >with a disproportionately large number of children who are left home
alone
> >in this country.
>
> these days, use the damn thing.
> Personally, I watch movies with my son, they swear and there is nudity
> in some. He watches anime, that frequently contains violence, and
> nudity. BUT, the anime treats its audience as reasoning beings. It
> doesn't pander.
> And, I prefer being there for any questions instead of him learning
> things at school from peers, which are mis-informed.
>
I don't necessarily disagree with you. In theory, adding the V-Chip should
equate to networks being allowed to broadcast hardcore porn, if they want.
However, the common arguement is that people with lower incomes are more
likely to have an older television, which doesn't have a V-Chip. And, said
families are more likely to have both parents working - ergo, less likely
to monitor what their kids watch.
While you may prefer that your son asks you questions about what he sees on
television, there are parents out there who want to shield their children,
or who want to control when and where their kids get exposed to various
content. Whether these things are possible is an entirely different topic.
The fact is, that's what a substantial portion of people seem to want. It's
the same reason that you'll get an "opt-out" form when sex-ed time rolls
around in your son's school. (If that hasn't happened already)
> >I'm not saying that the solution is for moms (or dads) to stay at home.
I'm
> >just saying that young kids don't need to be exposed to graphic
programming.
> >With DBS systems, and some digital cable systems, you can block access.
You
> >can't easily do that with OTA channels.
>
> Crap again. Maybe parents should treat their children as if they HAVE
> BRAINS! The problem is parents want to pawn off their responsibility
> to someone else. I know the games my son plays, I know the movies and
> tv shows he watches. I watch many of them with him.
>
That's very commendable of you. However, not all parents are willing to be
that involved in their child's life. More importantly, some parents are not
able to be that involved in their child's life. Certainly, there are parents
who neglect their children. But, there are also parents who are working two
jobs, or who have to trust a babysitter or daycare worker to police what
they see. I can't berate them for trying to make ends meet.
> >
> >Have I watched a series on HBO? Hell yes. That's the whole reason I
swiched
> >from cable, so many years ago. "They have FIVE HBO channels!" (Well, when
I
> >switched, that's all USSB carried) I love Oz, The Sopranos, Six Feet
Under,
> >and America Undercover. But I'd be one of the first people screaming, if
I
> >saw Oz unedited on ABC during prime time.
>
> Why? Do you think your 12 year old wants to watch OZ, at 10 pm? At 8
> or 9?
> Face facts, the demographics for OZ won't attract children. A fifteen
> or sixteen year old maybe be attracted to something like OZ. BUT, by
> then they should be mature enough to handle it.
>
Hmmm....I think I would have watched Oz at 12. I was pretty heavily in to
Cops by then. I seriously doubt my parents would have objected to much,
short of the full-frontal nudity. If nothing else, I think the language,
violence, and nudity would *attract* someone that age. I don't think Oz
would attract a fan base of adolescents, but I don't believe for a moment
that the average 12 year old boy wouldn't be attracted to the violence, and
that a 12 year old girl wouldn't have her curiosity piqued by the male
nudity.
And again, though a sixteen year old *should* be able to handle Oz, there
are some who haven't matured to that point. Honestly, I'd be taken aback if
my 16 year old sister listed Oz as one of her favorite shows. And, at 16,
your parents still have a legal right to determine what you will, and will
not see. Some parents won't want their 16 year old watching that.
Considering the content, I can't really blame them.
You can't really go on demographics for Oz, when you consider the fact that
it comes on "late", and on a pay channel. There's no way of knowing who'd
watch it if they ran it on ABC at 8:00.
> >
> >Personally, I'd like to see us gravitate more towards Canadian
programming
> >standards. After midnight, just about anything that isn't porno or
> >gratuitous goes. It'd sure beat the hell out of 150 channels of
infomercials
> >we get every night.
> >
>
> Can't pick up the Canadian stuff over big dish any more. No dbs
> carries it. So we have to suffer.
>
When I subscribed to Dish last year, they said Canada was going to be one of
the countries added to international programming. Silly me, I listened ;)
> Again, the root of the whole problem is parents. They want to give up
> their responsibility to children. Why should my viewing interests be
> censored, because some adult lacking parenting skills wants tv to
Whoa there, tiger. Your viewing interests are NOT being censored.
There's nothing in the constitution that gives you an inalienable right to
television.
If you want to watch Oz, or porno, or who knows what else, there's nothing
stopping you. (Read: it's not censored)
You have to pay a premium for it, and that's no different from buying a
ticket to a movie, or getting bottled water instead of tap water.
> babysit their kids? Why do I want my 12 years old NOT to mature as he
> should, so that some silly ass parent wants their child to devolve?
> Historically, at the turn of the century 1800-1900, a fifteen year old
> had lived half their lifetime. THEY WERE ADULTS. They had
> responsibilities. They matured because they were not denied access to
That's totally irrelevant.
They were adults because they were nearly middle-aged. They were adults by
circumstance, not by maturity.
> the life around them. The median age in Mexico is fifteen, and Vietnam
> is 22. These people are young adults. They are thinking reasoning
> beings. They make choices everyday that spoiled insulated american
> children don't have too.
> MAYBE, it is time to start treating our children as if they have minds
> AND can think for themselves. That they will make their own choices no
> matter what adults do.
Again, that's completely irrelevant. Mexican and Vietnamese cultures are
completely different.
If you want to do a comparison, pick Canada, Austrailia, or Eastern Europe.
Comparing an economic superpower to borderline third-world countries is as
silly as comparing apples to oranges.
I think you'll find that other countries with similar socio-economics tend
to produce similar children.
> The question is, would you rather be the one explaining and guiding,
> or would rather haver his mis-informed peers do that?
I don't have children. If I did, I would hope that my kid would know about
sex, nudity, profanity, etc. long before they could have peers or television
introduce them. But honestly, I don't see peer misinformation as a terrible
thing. Most kids will ask their parents for verification.
> And finally, why should my content be censored? Two tv's, one for the
> kids, one for you. If you don't want them watching OZ on ABC at 8pm (
> theoretically) turn their tv to cartoon network. Or better yet, MAKE
> THEM READ! BUT, never assume that I WANT MY CONTENT CENSORED!
>
YOUR CONTENT IS NOT CENSORED!
If you flip on HBO this Sunday, and see black bars over men in the showers,
and over the mouths of people who use harsh language, AND those bars were
Federally mandaded, THEN you can cry about censorship. Believe me, I
absolutely despise censorship, but you're seeing it where it doesn't exist.
Kevin
"Steve Christie" <s9_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LzD78.18775$_J3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
It's a lot easier explaining hulking men rolling around in tights, than the
birds and the bees.
Oh wait... ;-)
Kevin
"Matt" <mengel...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3mc90$2...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
> Ever hear of the V-chip. Chances are, if you purchased your TV in the
last
> 3 years or so, then it probably has a V-chip built in.
>
Chances are, people in lower economic brackets (read: people who are more
likely to leave their children at home, or with babysitters) haven't
purchased a TV in the last three years.
Kevin
"John Oliver" <john....@hosting.com> wrote in message
news:3C5EB725...@hosting.com...
> Kevin wrote:
>
> > It has nothing to do with "uptight religious sheep". It has everything
to do
> > with a disproportionately large number of children who are left home
alone
> > in this country.
>
> I would love to see some corroboration for your hypothesis. Doubt
> you'll find any, though...
>
Trust me, it's far easier to corroborate than blaming it on "uptight
religious sheep".
> > I'm not saying that the solution is for moms (or dads) to stay at home.
I'm
> > just saying that young kids don't need to be exposed to graphic
programming.
>
> Oh, God forbid we should ask someone to stay home with the kids! And by
> all means, give them free run of the TV and everything else while
> nobody's around to watch them...
I agree, to an extent. Look around, though. It's very, very common for both
parents to work. I don't know about you, but I work from 9:00 to 6:00 every
school day. And I'd estimate that school gets out somewhere between 2:00 and
4:00. That leaves between two and four hours a day where kids are going to
be left alone. If I had kids, I'd certainly demand that they don't have free
reign over the television, but I wouldn't sincerely expect them to abide.
Kids are curious. They're going to see what else is on. They're going to see
how far they can push the envelope.
The only legitimate alternative is hiring a baby sitter, or putting your
kids in a latchkey program. More often than not, the costs take a
substantial (more than 50%) portion of a parent's take-home pay. Who's going
to pay for that? You? I'm sure as hell not going to support another tax
hike.
> This is one of the biggest problems in the world today... nobody is
> willing to accept responsibility for their own choices and actions any
> more. Sure, you've got kids, but so what? You have a right to your
> career, right? Just give Johnny and Janie a key. But please forgive me
> if I say <cough>hipocrite<cough> when you then stand up on your pedestal
> and tell us "Won't somebody *please* think of the children!"
>
"hypocrite"
And, no, I don't have children. Sorry.
I'm not suggesting that television should be watered down for kids. Take a
look around, and you'll see that it's not. OTA networks have to cater to
everyone...from Oz and Sopranos fans like me, to the lady down the street
who only leaves her house to go to church, to somebody's kids.
I think that the battlecry "Think of the children!" is heavily overused,
especially by the networks. I used it as an example, because everyone's
familiar with it. However, it's no less true than legions of grannies who
will round up the AARP and boycott any channel that broacasts the term "God
damn!" (Ever notice that "God" is the only portion bleeped from that
phrase?) It's no less true than legions of Democrats who will shriek at an
exposed butt corrupting their kids, and form their own sort of boycott.
> You're right when you say "young kids don't need to be exposed to
> graphic programming". But you prevent that by being a parent, not by
> trying to eliminate "graphic programming".
>
I'm not trying to eliminate it. Not at all.
Personally, I see it as a premium service, which is why I subscribe to
pay-tv.
The moment HBO starts bleeping out words, or fuzzing out nudity, I'll jump
on your bandwagon. Until then, OTA and pay-tv programming are different
things, and should be held to different standards.
TNGTony
<rs...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:pb3u5u8rk562u2af0...@4ax.com...
> Their was an English show on PBS "Am I being served" where
> an actress used the word "Pussy". She would sar "He kept stairing
> at my pussy" refering to her cat.
For the record, the name of the show is "Are You Being Served?"
It ran in England from 1972-1985. The pilot episode was in black and white.
The very funny Mollie Sugden played "Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Jennifer Rachel
Yiddell Abergavenny Slocombe" Or "Mrs Slocombe"
Anyway, the double-entendre dealing with her cat was always a mainstay in
the show. The first time I heard something about Mrs. Slocombe's pussy, I
nearly pasteurized a gallon of milk through my nostrils! She also had a tag
line whenever she was emphatic about something, "I am unanimous in this."
This show also had the first openly gay (sort of) character I can recall.
John Inman played Wilberforce Humphries (Mr. Humphries). There were quite
a few underhanded jokes about his sexuality in that series as well.
This series is still playing in reruns on many local PBS stations as well as
BBC America. Some PBS Stations are also showing "Are You Being Served
Again" from 1992. This was a lifeless attempt to reinvent the old series
with a change of setting (an old country inn) with most of the original
cast. Same jokes, just not funny this time around.
Heywood Jablowme
> And? Take the cable box, unplug the tv, make the kids read. If both
> parents are working, who is watching the kids? Babysitter? Lay down
> the law to that person. If the kids are old enough to be home alone,
> then they are old enough to watch " adult" oriented programming ( not
> necessarily porn) but at least r-rated stuff. You can not say I trust
> you to be alone and care for yourself, BUT, I can't trust you to watch
> a movie. If they are not old enough to be alone, then the parents
> don't give a damn anyway leaving their children unattended.
> That is a false argument.
>
You're missing the point, and throwing in a red herring. The topic is OTA
channels, so taking the cable box away is a nonissue.
"Laying down the law" to a fifteen year old babysitter might sound like a
perfectly rational concept to you, but it's hardly effective. I can't be the
only person who remembers visiting his girlfriend in high school when she
was "babysitting". Am I saying all babysitters are like that? Of course not.
But you'd be naive to think that "laying down the law" is very effective.
In most places around Michigan (where I live), it's perfectly legal to leave
a twelve-year old home alone. Ergo, 12 is "old enough" to be left home
alone. I'm sorry, but I do NOT think that there are any twelve year old kids
that are old enough to watch "Bikini Carwash", or any of the R-rated
softcore porn on Cinemax/Showtime.
> >While you may prefer that your son asks you questions about what he sees
on
> >television, there are parents out there who want to shield their
children,
> >or who want to control when and where their kids get exposed to various
> >content. Whether these things are possible is an entirely different
topic.
> >The fact is, that's what a substantial portion of people seem to want.
It's
> >the same reason that you'll get an "opt-out" form when sex-ed time rolls
> >around in your son's school. (If that hasn't happened already)
>
>
> Clearly they can not. Mom and dad don't want johnny to play gore
> killer x. Johnny goes to dave's house and plays it there.
> Essentially you are talking about foolish people. They don't realize
> that their control is only as far as their vision is.
> Add to that when you make something forbidden it becomes even more
> tempting. And boom, those parents are screwed.
>
I was rather clear in saying that prevention isn't very plausible. ("Whether
these things are possible...")
However, that doesn't invalidate a parent's right to try.
> >That's very commendable of you. However, not all parents are willing to
be
> >that involved in their child's life.
>
> Then WHY THE FUCK HAVE KIDS? Maybe we should starting license
> breeding?
>
Let's play a game. You can be the preacher, and I'll be the choir. ;-)
> >More importantly, some parents are not
> >able to be that involved in their child's life.
>
> Bullshit again. If it is a choice between a childs well being, and
> your need for a new car, kid should win.
> I covered the other options above. No need to restate the obvious.
>
That's not necessarily so. If you're talking about the soccermom culture of
working 12 hours a day for a new Navigator to slap a "My Child Is An Honor
Student" sticker on, I'll totally agree with you.
But if Dad got laid off and had to take a job that paid less, and Mom had to
work overtime to pay for repairs on their 1989 Cavalier, that takes
precidence. Putting a roof over your kid's head takes precidence over
everything else. Putting cathedral ceilings over your kid's head doesn't.
> >Certainly, there are parents
> >who neglect their children. But, there are also parents who are working
two
> >jobs, or who have to trust a babysitter or daycare worker to police what
> >they see. I can't berate them for trying to make ends meet.
>
> I stated those options above.
Which are rather asinine and impractical.
> >And again, though a sixteen year old *should* be able to handle Oz, there
> >are some who haven't matured to that point. Honestly, I'd be taken aback
if
> >my 16 year old sister listed Oz as one of her favorite shows. And, at 16,
> >your parents still have a legal right to determine what you will, and
will
> >not see. Some parents won't want their 16 year old watching that.
> >Considering the content, I can't really blame them.
>
> Again crap. At 16 you trust your kids to drive, and essentially MAKE
> ADULT CHOICES. They know what clothes they like, what music they like,
> what movies they want to see.
Those are adult choices? Damn. I wish my life was as easy as yours.
I trust any 7 year-old to ride a bike, and know what cartoons they like.
That sure as hell doesn't mean that they're close to being adults. Try as
you may, there's nothing inherently different between that, and the "adult
choices" you apply to kids who are 16.
> Also, you are basically stating that something like a soap opera is
> better than something like OZ for a young adult to watch. Other than a
> few obscenities they HAVE THE SAME CONTENT! THE SAME ACTIVITIES!
Really? I guess I missed the all-male gang rape on General Hospital.
> But, because a few words are missing, or there is no nudity, the soap
> is better in your opinion. At least OZ has a message.
> CRAP!
Oh please. The message Oz has is "Don't go to jail." It's a good program,
and I'm certainly a fan. But it's hardly Masterpiece Theatre.
I have to wonder if you've ever seen Oz or a soap opera. Trying to draw
parallels is absurd.
> >> Again, the root of the whole problem is parents. They want to give up
> >> their responsibility to children. Why should my viewing interests be
> >> censored, because some adult lacking parenting skills wants tv to
> >
> >Whoa there, tiger. Your viewing interests are NOT being censored.
> >There's nothing in the constitution that gives you an inalienable right
to
> >television.
>
> And? I watch a lot of tv. It is becoming more adult oriented. I will
> not watch MOVIES on the networks, due to the censorship.
That's a vastly different statement than "my viewing interests are being
censored." Yes, the networks censor movies. They have every right to do so.
When you buy yourself a network, you'll have a right to censor what you
want, too.
> Only a fool does that. Why ruin a perfectly good movie to pander?
Because, there are people who want edited movies. Understand? THEY WANT
THEM. That's what networks are for. People like you and I don't want edited
movies. That's why we subscribe to pay-tv.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
> Actually, the constitution gives me ALL the rights I can grab for
> myself before the government takes them away through false arguments.
Aaah...so you're a Libertarian. I should have guessed. ;-)
> Better read it.
I have, thanks.
> >> Historically, at the turn of the century 1800-1900, a fifteen year old
> >> had lived half their lifetime. THEY WERE ADULTS. They had
> >> responsibilities. They matured because they were not denied access to
> >
> >That's totally irrelevant.
>
> Why? Has evolution changed all that much in a hundred years? No, only
> certain SOCIAL standards.
Which is a substantial part of evolution, genius. By living in to our 70's,
80's, 90's, we are a testament to evolution. We've adapted to our
environment to such a degree, that we're able to survive until our bodies
are literally "spent".
Think about it like this: the average college student gets a Master's Degree
around the time s/he turns 25. Would this have been remotely practical in
the 1800's? I don't think so.
> >They were adults because they were nearly middle-aged. They were adults
by
> >circumstance, not by maturity.
>
> And, that is the key here. IT IS DIFFERENT FOR EACH CHILD! There is no
> steady state of maturity. Add to this that todays children are more
> informed than ever before. They are better prepared to make reasoned
> decisions. Maturity IS the ability to REASON your decisions. Nothing
> more.
This contradicts your previous assertions that sixteen year old children are
old enough to make "adult decisions".
> Romeo and Juliet were 14 and 15. Think on that. Jane Gray was 13 when
I hate to tell you this, but Romeo and Juliet was a work of fiction. You
know? Made up? As in: not real?
> she was made queen of England. Tell me, why you can trust a 13 year
She wasn't exactly voted in as Queen, you know. When you're the eldest
Princess, and the King and Queen are both dead, you kind of become the
Queen. That's how it works.
> old actor to spend his money on what he wants, but you can't trust a
> 13 year old child to make the right decision about what he wants to
> watch on tv? Why is it alright to let children watch wrestling, but
I wouldn't really trust either 13 year old.
> not an r-rated movie? Why football, but not a lesbian kiss?
> Why is VIOLENCE more acceptable for children to watch, than nudity?
>
Because as Americans, we live in a culture where it's not acceptable. You
could just as easily ask why we don't eat horses or dogs. That's just how it
is.
> >Again, that's completely irrelevant. Mexican and Vietnamese cultures are
> >completely different.
>
> Bullshit. 1. genetics, and 2. culture. If US children are better
> informed than their mexican cousins, by logic they are BETTER prepared
> to make reasoned decisions. And, genetics hasn't changed all that much
> in 100 years, or by 3,000 miles.
Uh...I didn't say anything about genetics. And your logic is so flawed, it
would take pages of text to explain it to you.
> >If you want to do a comparison, pick Canada, Austrailia, or Eastern
Europe.
> >Comparing an economic superpower to borderline third-world countries is
as
> >silly as comparing apples to oranges.
>
> And, their children are allowed to SEE NUDITY ON TELEVISION and hear
> OBSCENITIES on television. They can buy LIQUER from vending machines.
> They are treated as if they CAN REASON. Watch some anime sometime.
>
Uh...no, they're not. CBC doesn't broadcast any nudity before midnight. And
there are not liquor machines in Canada. (At least, not where children can
easily access them)
I think you may be watching too much anime, chief. Japan isn't exactly the
Neo-Tokyo portrayed. And the Akira / 8 Man After / Ninja Scroll stuff isn't
aimed at kids.
> >I think you'll find that other countries with similar socio-economics
tend
> >to produce similar children.
>
> Again, look at european standards. They are more mature toward their
> children. As are the Japanese.
>
Your point? There are a lot of different factors that go in to it. You can't
pick and choose what aspects of European culture appeal to you, and expect
them to work as well in the United States.
> >I don't have children. If I did, I would hope that my kid would know
about
> >sex, nudity, profanity, etc. long before they could have peers or
television
> >introduce them. But honestly, I don't see peer misinformation as a
terrible
> >thing. Most kids will ask their parents for verification.
>
> Never heard of BLUE BALLS I guess. Or, not getting pregnant the first
> time. Or a virgin can't get aids.
> Get real.
If you raise children who are foolish enough to believe those at
face-value...well...that says a lot about your parenting.
> >> And finally, why should my content be censored? Two tv's, one for the
> >> kids, one for you. If you don't want them watching OZ on ABC at 8pm (
> >> theoretically) turn their tv to cartoon network. Or better yet, MAKE
> >> THEM READ! BUT, never assume that I WANT MY CONTENT CENSORED!
> >>
> >
> >YOUR CONTENT IS NOT CENSORED!
>
> Sure it is every time they censor a movie.
>
By the networks who have a legal right to do so.
> >If you flip on HBO this Sunday, and see black bars over men in the
showers,
> >and over the mouths of people who use harsh language, AND those bars were
> >Federally mandaded, THEN you can cry about censorship. Believe me, I
> >absolutely despise censorship, but you're seeing it where it doesn't
exist.
>
>
> So, we have someone who lost every point he made. Someone without any
> children offering advice. Someone who doesn't seem to know his ass
> from a hole in the ground, making commentary about things he has no
> idea of.
Oh Christ, the standard parental battlecry. What's next? The Jerry Springer
"You don't know me!" defense?
It doesn't take having a kid to know how kids are. Trust me, I've "raised" a
couple.
It doesn't take having a kid to know the difference between the government
imposing censorship, and businesses censoring things for business reasons.
> TV is censored all the time. Language and Nudity are prime examples.
For business reasons. It's profitable. Major advertisers aren't going to
touch Oz or Shannon Tweed movies uncensored.
> As I said look to our european cousins. They have that on tv. Movies
> are censored when they hit the networks here.
For business reasons. It's profitable. Major advertisers aren't going to
touch Oz or Shannon Tweed movies uncensored.
European OTA television is almost always owned and operated by the
government. They don't have to answer to advertisers the same way American
networks do.
> The government even PAYS to have certain messages promoted over
> others. While that isn't censorship, it definitely is propagandizing.
> Which is also wrong.
Dear moron:
Who do you think owns CBC, BBC, and a plethora of OTA channels in more
"enlightened" countries? Could it be their governments?
Sorry, I'd rather have capitalism in action, where the government has to
pony up for propaganda just like the Charmin man.
> The essence is, why should I be penalized for lackluster parents? Why
You shouldn't, and aren't. You are free to pay for channels that offer the
content you're looking for.
> should anyone be penalized for the lack of interest of said parents?
They shouldn't, and aren't. They're free to pay for channels that offer the
content they're looking for.
> And, why should networks be censored at ALL..The claim is protecting
For business reasons. It's profitable. Major advertisers aren't going to
touch Oz or Shannon Tweed movies uncensored.
> the children. But what target audience do they aim at? CHILDREN? Why?
> That is where the money is at.
It's capitalism in motion.
> Isn't that being two faced? Aren't their subtle messages of sex more
> devious than the outright ones? Ever wonder why they draw nipples on
> women in comic books? Have you ever seen the way they draw women? Hell
> men for that matter.
You're losing me...what the hell does this have to do with comic books?
> Maybe you should take a good hard look at our world, before posting
> again. Especially, if you are posting mis-information.
>
Sorry, but I think I have a far more rational grasp on the goings-on of the
world, than your uberlibertarian ranting.
You've been completely unable to disprove anything I've said, short of
saying "crap" or "bullshit". I'm sorry, but your fecal fetish doesn't make
what I've posted any less true. And, it certainly doesn't give you much
credibility.
Heywood Jablowme
> I responded to two points. What the trend was becoming, was a big
> whine on how powerless the parent is. That is crap.
No, you rambled on and on, but said nothing. Nice to see you're keeping in
standard form with fecal references.
Anyway, if anyone was whining, it was your incessant yammering about
censorship, and obscure references to how things were 200 years ago, and in
third-world countries.
Tell me again what on earth that has to do with OTA programming. Well...if
you're able.
> ANY parent who assumes that someone else, including the child, has
> MORE POWER over the child is a poor parent. The parent is the guide,
> the end all and be all when it comes to responsibility for children.
> End of story.
I'd sure love for you to point out where I stated otherwise.
> Face facts if you can't manage to control the BABYSITTER YOU PAY to
> watch your kids, HTF will you control your kids? If you are such a
> loser that the babysitter can sneak her bf in for a roll on the couch,
> your kids will wind up BUILDING BOMBS IN YOUR GARAGE!
No...that's not a knee-jerk reaction. Not at all.
Wake up and smell the espresso. You don't know what your babysitter is
doing, unless you set up a camera. Some babysitters are good, and don't need
monitoring. Some are mediocre, and others are just plain bad.
> And then your sorry ass will piss and moan, how you didn't moan.
> No wonder you post under a fake e-mail. Your too scared to take
> responsibility for your actions. Your brats must be monsters, assuming
> some chick would ever breed with you.
>
Please. I post with a fake e-mail address, because I don't like spam, and
e-mail harvesters are advanced enough to remove "nospam", or just about
anything else from your posted address. Of course, and exception would be to
misspell your domain name, and put corrections in your sig file. But I just
don't have the inclination. If you've got something to say to me, say it
here. That's far braver than taking it to e-mail.
And how many times did I say that I didn't have kids? Three? Four? Hell, you
berated me for not having kids, and now you turn around and accuse my
nonexistant kids of being monsters, excepting for my alleged inability to
find a breeding partner. (Incidentally, I have no children, and I have a
girlfriend, thanks.)
Are you truly as delusional as your posts indicate? Are you seriously that
white-trash? Or are you playing some sort of devil's advocate, and I'm just
not getting the joke?
Marc and/or Teresa Sparks
Goldman) wrote:
>I do realize that Tweety Bird has been saying it for years, but that's
>only because he was refering to a cat.
>I had never seen that word used as a noun thought. On Blind Date on WWOR
>on Friday Feb 1st on Blind Date(which is shown at 11:00 PM Eastern
>time), the greesy biker type dude (that was on the date with the hot
>blonde with the 43 DDD breasts) actually said the word and it wasn't
>edited or bleeped out.
>Will the FCC fine WWOR for this, or have the rules changed?
>Anyway, those of you that have Blind Date on WWOR from Friday evening on
>your PVRs can verify that it actually happened, and that I didn't just
>imagine it.
>
Since it was on after 10, it's OK- as long as it's not legally
obscene. Networks crack down far harder than the FCC because they
don't like controversy. Conan, Dave & Craig could get away with all
kinds of stuff legally, but the networks wont let them. Network
policies have a lot more to do with what's shown on TV than the FCC.
Take a look at the difference between Buffy The Vampire Slayer on the
WB and on UPN. It is bordering on R-rated this season- mainly because
UPN has NO Standards and Practices department.
Also, context is important. "Get some..." is probably OK, "Eat
some..." is not.
Sometimes they just slip by. My station used to air "Talk Or Walk" in
the afternoons. One time an episode fed where they blanked out the
guy's mic track, but you could still hear it on the audience mic. They
sent out a fax and we had to bleep it ourselves.
Marc and/or Teresa Sparks
<tng...@remove2reply.one.net> wrote:
>
><rs...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:pb3u5u8rk562u2af0...@4ax.com...
>> Their was an English show on PBS "Am I being served" where
>> an actress used the word "Pussy". She would sar "He kept stairing
>> at my pussy" refering to her cat.
>
>For the record, the name of the show is "Are You Being Served?"
>It ran in England from 1972-1985. The pilot episode was in black and white.
>The very funny Mollie Sugden played "Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Jennifer Rachel
>Yiddell Abergavenny Slocombe" Or "Mrs Slocombe"
>
>Anyway, the double-entendre dealing with her cat was always a mainstay in
>the show. The first time I heard something about Mrs. Slocombe's pussy, I
>nearly pasteurized a gallon of milk through my nostrils!
I also heard a rap song that said something along the lines of "I'm
always looking for pussy like Mrs Slocombe." Don't know who it was.
Topcoder
rs...@excite.com wrote in message ...
>Their was an English show on PBS "Am I being served" where
>an actress used the word "Pussy". She would sar "He kept stairing
>at my pussy" refering to her cat.
She said a lot more than that....
http://www.the-snu.co.uk/slocombe.html
BGregg
> >Their was an English show on PBS "Am I being served" where
> >an actress used the word "Pussy". She would sar "He kept stairing
> >at my pussy" refering to her cat.
>
used to describe an older, matronly woman. I like to read Agatha Christie,
and I've seen it used in this way several times.
Slipslope
JohnB
tv, such that if someone says "pussy" and there isn't a cat in the room, or
they're talking about someone being cowardly {in context} then it will be
bleeped out. However, on cable, satellite, etc, it might be a different
matter. I'm presuming that "pussy" in this case means "pussycat" and not the
other, more common meaning of "pussy"
jb
Paul Ménard
up here!
"JohnB" <joh...@powersurfr.com> wrote in message
news:B88EDF69.6FD7%joh...@powersurfr.com...
Joseph Phillips
> In news:alt.dbs.echostar, Shaq...@webtv.net (Adam Goldman) did make a wise
> decision to post this message on Fri, 1 Feb 2002 23:27:37 -0500 (EST):
>
> > I do realize that Tweety Bird has been saying it for years, but that's
> > only because he was refering to a cat.
> > I had never seen that word used as a noun thought. On Blind Date on WWOR
> > on Friday Feb 1st on Blind Date(which is shown at 11:00 PM Eastern
> > time), the greesy biker type dude (that was on the date with the hot
> > blonde with the 43 DDD breasts) actually said the word and it wasn't
> > edited or bleeped out.
>
>
> I was listening to Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell -- an overnight radio
> program. One of his guests who is also a good friend of Art's, apparently
> forgot that he was talking on the radio. He goes on and on and then says
> something like, "...and you know me, Art. I mean, I felt like shit... ... Can
> you say that on the radio?"
> "...Yyyeah," Art replied. Apparently Art didn't have his finger on the
> little button. Radio broadcasts are delayed by about three seconds so if
> somebody says something the host doesn't want on the air, he can push this
> button and block it out. He uses it when people try to give their e-mail
> addresses or full names over the air. He sure didn't block it out that time.
> And to me, saying "shit" on TV and radio is no big deal. I mean, it's
> just another word as far as I'm concerned, but what makes it so funny is that
> I know that some old woman was coming unglued and reaching for her Nitro pills
> when they heard him say that.
>
> Involuntary
Actually it's a 9-second delay not 3. Three seconds wouldn't be
enough time to dump a caller. The only broadcast medium with that
short a delay is tv and that's due to transmition time from the
source. What you're hearing on the radio now really happened nine
seconds ago in realtime if the station was in delay. Many people who
listen and call radio stations don't even realize this and it causes a
lot of confusion if they've left their radios up when the host takes
their call and they still here him talking to someone else from 9
seconds ago in the background. That's why we keep telling listeners
to turn off their radios when they call in to talk with the hosts.
When the Dump button is pressed the station is taken immediately out
of "pre-delay" into realtime-realtime and then returnd to its 9-second
delay mode over a matter of minutes. A good indication this is
happening is the audio pitch on your radio will speed up/slow down.
That's how we're able to dump bad language or problem callers before
they are broadcast on the air. In radio its sort of an art form to be
able to do a perfect dump without the callers realizing that its even
happened.
Topcoder
Joseph Phillips wrote in message <38d8430.02021...@posting.google.com>...
>In radio its sort of an art form to be able to do a perfect dump
>without the callers realizing that its even happened.
And you will keep it that way, won't you...........
headrebel
Joseph Phillips
Oops! "callers" should have been "listeners" in that sentence. You'll
have to refraise your response Topcoader because I'm not sure what
your're implying by "And you will keep it that way, won't
you...........". I assume you mean we try out best to make the
broadcast sound as professional as possible, and not run it like
romper room, then perfecting the art of dumping callers will always be
a necessity for us.
Adam Goldman
on the WB last night. I think the words "dick" and "asshole" were also
used on Dawson's Creek.
I think Dawson's Creek is probably on the cutting edge as far as pushing
the envelope as far as you can go on broadcast tv.
Howard Stern's CBS show didn't even push the envelope as far as Dawson's
Creek does because the FCC was probably watching Stern like a Hawk.
They've even said the F work on Dawson's Creek, by spelling it
differnetly, but it was obvious to anyone that they were saying the F
word. Words like pussy and dickhead are not unusual on Dawson's Creek
even though it's on broadcast tv. You guys should check your PVRS to see
it for yourself if you don't believe me.
Lerch
OPIE & ANTHONY from 3-7 in the afternoon they are 1000 times better than
Stern is.
"Adam Goldman" <Shaq...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1729-3C6...@storefull-234.iap.bryant.webtv.net...