It's a compliment! Really!
Elf M. Sternberg
I chose not to cross-post this, but I figured you guys deserved an
ego-stroke:
In rec.arts.sf.written, Re: So How Do I Write A Story, Elf Sternberg
(e...@drizzle.com) wrote:
> (As an aside, I've often been entertained by the difference
> between alt.sex.stories.d and rec.arts.sf.composition. The latter is
> full of high-minded theory and grousing about the publishing industry;
> the former, on the other hand, has spent the last week discussing the
> difference between a dependent and an independent clause, rules for the
> usage of a comma, practical advice on how and when to capitalize terms
> for nobility, the use of plosive alliteration, and the formula for
> making a romantic heroine seem sympathetic. While writing smut may not
> be your thing, the instant feedback provided by the a.s.s.* readership
> shows that the serious hobbyists on a.s.s.d ("d" for "discussion") have
> a greater personal interest in the craft than many of the wannabe
> professionals.)
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/ (under construction)
As he lay dozing beside me, a little voice said, "Relax. You're not the
first doctor to sleep with a patient." Then another little voice said,
"But Rebecca, you're a veterinarian."
spd3432
Katie McN
spd3432 <spd...@hotmail.com>,
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:02:00 -0700 I noticed your interesting post:
We really have been doing a good job of discussing writing recently. The
occasional diversion happens, but for the most part ...
I've been in touch with some of my favorite authors for a project I'm
working on. They're people who've written books on how to write fiction.
All three of them wrote fiction best sellers and have other industry
credentials in addition to their non-fiction writing. Their fiction and
other industry experience is probably why their writings books make so
much sense, at least to me. They are Lawrence Block (several mystery
series, workshop leader), Sol Stein (publisher, editor, main stream
author, program developer) and Evan Marshall (literary agent, mystery
writer and author of "The Marshall Plan" which not only outlines a
novel, but lays out the scenes and covers what should be in each one!)
During the conversations I found out that each one had some tie in to
porn. Block supported himself writing a porn novel every month for many
months until he started selling. Sol Stein developed a computer program
on writing (ah, the "I would never outline" people must be cringing
right about now) and included two modules on erotica in it. Marshall is
a literary agent in addition to his authoring and reps a woman who is
very successful in our genre with various novel length erotica sales to
include Black Lace among others. Not one of the three found it confusing
that I'm writing porn to learn fiction.
BTW did you notice that some US Federal Representative is wasting no
time after the last Fed Porn bill got thrown out by the Supreme Court
with a new approach. As usual she includes something that people might
feel okay about which in this case is a prohibition against video taping
someone with out their knowledge while the person is participating in a
sexual or personal activity. This seems plausible I guess until one
discovers that she also wants to include a part two where anything on
the internet having a sexual content would have to be in a special
domain with an extension of .prn to make it easier to avoid these
horrible places.
Those of us who live in the US are familiar with the motion picture
rating system where film that doesn't comply with whatever standards are
popular that day end up with an NC-17 rating or no rating. While this is
supposed to prevent people under 17 from attending, in fact it actually
is used by those who like to repress everything as a focal point for
such things as boycotting newspapers or television stations that allow
advertising for this type of film. They've been pretty successful. I'm
unaware of any television station that allows advertising for NC-17 or
unrated films and don't know of any newspapers that do, although I
assume there are some somewhere. There are only a handful of theaters
that show NC-17 or unrated films and these tend to be in big cities
while I continue to live in the country.
The advertising problem has a serous downside for me. I've been trying
to put together a picture deal based on my Katie R stories. I figure
that Bijou Phillips would be perfect as Katie R and Sarah Michelle
Geller a good choice for Claudette of the North. Since I can't develop
an advertising program for what would be an NC-17 or unrated film, I
doubt if I could attract these two actors. Once again the world loses
out on a masterpiece because of censorship. And, I lose the chance to
see what those babes would be willing to do to get a juicy part in a
Katie McN Film. I've never written fan fiction, unless Dr Zherkov and
Willy counts, but this might be an exception. "Sarah try to restrain
yourself. As soon as Bijou is finished, you can crawl in between my legs
and ... "
--
It's Me Katie McN
Read My Stories at:
www.asstr.org/~Katie_McN/
Nick
wrote:
Interesting.
I don't subscribe to that group, but I do to afo
(alt.fiction.original), and although I'm pretty dormant there these
days, I note the number of posts that come through daily.
It varies a lot of course, but today afo got 167 and assd got a mere
19 and this seems to reflect a recent trend. It could be repressive
influences on my newsfeed, (and I am filtering for curlies), but there
was a time when the situation was pretty much reversed. It's got to
the point when I actually have the time ot read everything posted
here!
So what is it all about? Is assd dying?
Nick
Nick
wrote:
>
>Those of us who live in the US are familiar with the motion picture
>rating system where film that doesn't comply with whatever standards are
>popular that day end up with an NC-17 rating or no rating. While this is
>supposed to prevent people under 17 from attending, in fact it actually
>is used by those who like to repress everything as a focal point for
>such things as boycotting newspapers or television stations that allow
>advertising for this type of film. They've been pretty successful. I'm
>unaware of any television station that allows advertising for NC-17 or
>unrated films and don't know of any newspapers that do, although I
>assume there are some somewhere. There are only a handful of theaters
>that show NC-17 or unrated films and these tend to be in big cities
>while I continue to live in the country.
>
Odd.
Here in the UK we have a similar rating system - '18' meaning that it
is considered unsuitable for anyone under that age (corresponding to
the old 'X' certificate), but that doesn't seem to have much downside
on the cinemas that show such films. It certainly doesnt scare the
punters!
They can be advertised on our TV (albeit with a 'U' trailer, or after
9.00pm), but they are certainly reviewed in magazines and TV/radio
programs. I guess if they weren't that might be a bit of a stopper,
but then the review features would be seen as 'tame' and people would
switch off.
In fact sometimes getting an '18' or 'X' certificate has been viewed
as desirable, since it attracts people who like to see something
'forbidden'.
Yet many of these films have come from Hollywood or elsewhere in the
US (e.g. Natural Born Killers), so what's that all about? Are they
made for the export market?
I've never lived in the US, so I cant' say anything authoritative
about it, but sometimes I get the distinct impression that there is a
huge cultural difference in this respect.
Or have I missed the point?
Nick
oosh
news:3cbf45dd...@supernews.surfanytime.co.uk:
> It varies a lot of course, but today afo got 167 and assd got a mere
> 19 and this seems to reflect a recent trend. It could be repressive
> influences on my newsfeed, (and I am filtering for curlies), but there
> was a time when the situation was pretty much reversed. It's got to
> the point when I actually have the time ot read everything posted
> here!
>
> So what is it all about? Is assd dying?
I think it's a case of quality -v- quantity. It's rather nice to be able to
read everything posted here.
I'm not dying. You're not dying. Is anyone else dying?
I don't think ASSD is dying.
O.
Katie McN
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:40:13 GMT I noticed your interesting post:
>On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:26:14 GMT, Katie McN <ka...@katiemcn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Those of us who live in the US are familiar with the motion picture
>>rating system where film that doesn't comply with whatever standards are
>>popular that day end up with an NC-17 rating or no rating. While this is
>>supposed to prevent people under 17 from attending, in fact it actually
>>is used by those who like to repress everything as a focal point for
>>such things as boycotting newspapers or television stations that allow
>>advertising for this type of film. They've been pretty successful. I'm
>>unaware of any television station that allows advertising for NC-17 or
>>unrated films and don't know of any newspapers that do, although I
>>assume there are some somewhere. There are only a handful of theaters
>>that show NC-17 or unrated films and these tend to be in big cities
>>while I continue to live in the country.
>>
>Odd.
>
>Here in the UK we have a similar rating system - '18' meaning that it
>is considered unsuitable for anyone under that age (corresponding to
>the old 'X' certificate), but that doesn't seem to have much downside
>on the cinemas that show such films. It certainly doesnt scare the
>punters!
>
This would seem to be similar to NC-17 here and this type of film is not
seen in too many theaters. The lack of advertising opportunities is one
reason and the pressure from a variety of groups who want to impose
their morality on the rest of us is another.
>They can be advertised on our TV (albeit with a 'U' trailer, or after
>9.00pm), but they are certainly reviewed in magazines and TV/radio
>programs. I guess if they weren't that might be a bit of a stopper,
>but then the review features would be seen as 'tame' and people would
>switch off.
>
>In fact sometimes getting an '18' or 'X' certificate has been viewed
>as desirable, since it attracts people who like to see something
>'forbidden'.
>
NC-17 here is almost the kiss of death according to some studio
executives I know. This is not always true, but provides a very high
barrier to success.
>Yet many of these films have come from Hollywood or elsewhere in the
>US (e.g. Natural Born Killers), so what's that all about? Are they
>made for the export market?
>
Yes, this has been a practice that has gone on for many years. The
studio people refer to the domestic market version and the European
version. The version for you folks often has added sex or violence.
>I've never lived in the US, so I cant' say anything authoritative
>about it, but sometimes I get the distinct impression that there is a
>huge cultural difference in this respect.
>
>Or have I missed the point?
>
We have convoluted laws and a mixture of federal and state government
responsibilities along with a conceptually independent court system.
This mix prevents massive abuse from occurring, but it also allows for
all sorts of short term repression. There is no theater within 15 miles
of where I live that has shown an NC-17 film to my knowledge. The outcry
would be too much for any theater owner to even think about trying to do
it. Yet, 20 miles away is another place where this sort of thing is
shown all the time along with all sorts of unrated art films and other
stuff that must be somehow subversive and yet the gov can't stop it.
A few days ago our high court threw out the law which made it illegal to
buy or sell porn where any of the actors was portraying someone under
age. While everyone knew the law was stupid and would be thrown out, it
took six years for it to happen.
The next day one of the Federal Representatives was already coming up
with a replacement. This is the one that makes it illegal to video tape
someone in a sex act where they don't know they are being taped. Plus,
it will force porn to be segregated to websites with an extension of
.prn. Once again all this will be thrown out, but it will take six years
for it to happen. One wonders how long it would take for the people here
who pretty much wiped out NC-17 films to do the same to .prn websites?
Our highest federal law enforcement person is Ascroft who is a religious
bigot. He is determined to force his will on the rest of us. So far he's
done a shit job on terrorism, but during all the problems after the
September thing, he was able to tell his prosecutors to make sure and
look at the providers of abortions. They are legal here and yet he is
still trying to stop them while acting like a fool when it comes to
terrorism.
The rating system here is nominally to provide parents a means to
determine if their children should go to a film or not. It concentrates
on sex so violence can be very extreme and the rating does not
necessarily max out with the occasional violent act. Show a man's penis
fex and it's a certain R rating and more than likely NC-17. The
homophobes in the government and their minions who do the ratings are
afraid that a whopper might be sneaking up on them. A few bare breasts
might only garner the PG-13 for some reason.
NC-17 is a difficult film product to market due to the advertising
limits mentioned earlier. Now the has gov decided to enforce the R
rating which means under 17 needs a parent. Previously theaters didn't
seem to enforce this very much. Now they are doing so which results in
people buying tickets for a lesser rated film and sneaking into the R
film. The studios that used to produce many R films are now producing
PG13 films which is the rating for people 13 and under to be accompanied
by their parents. Imagine a Kung Fu Ninja film with content suitable for
13 and above. Uh, huh.
Soon the only kind of film we'll be able to see here is whatever fetish
Ascroft has. I can't wait to find out. Hope it's not child molestation.
oosh
news:mipubu475qrnh8cl6...@4ax.com:
> Yes, this has been a practice that has gone on for many years. The
> studio people refer to the domestic market version and the European
> version. The version for you folks often has added sex or violence.
I'd hope, unsubtracted sex and less violence!
My knowledge of TV is very limited, but during a short business trip to the
USA a few years ago I was amazed at the amount of violence on US
television. On my hotel TV I saw someone being machine-gunned, and there
was no warning whatsoever. On the other hand, there were dire warnings
about nudity before a film in which a woman was shown (tasteful rear view)
walking into a shower. I felt that the priorities were all wrong.
"Puerile" was the word that came to mind. But one is always cautious about
criticizing cultures one doesn't properly understand.
O.
Conjugate
news:mipubu475qrnh8cl6...@4ax.com...
> Hi nick_ca...@yahoo.co.uk (Nick),
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:40:13 GMT I noticed your interesting post:
>
> >On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:26:14 GMT, Katie McN <ka...@katiemcn.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> executives I know. This is not always true, but provides a very high
> barrier to success.
One reason is that "Showgirls" did abominably poorly in the box office. I
think many decisions are made for irrational reasons. Hollywood sees the
film "Showgirls" do badly. What did it do wrong that we can avoid, they ask
themselves. Obviously, it must have been the NC-17 content, and not the
repulsive plot or iffy acting, right? There haven't been that many NC-17
films that even tried for big theater releases; I recall "Henry and June,"
and "Showgirls," and that's about it.
> >Yet many of these films have come from Hollywood or elsewhere in the
> >US (e.g. Natural Born Killers), so what's that all about? Are they
> >made for the export market?
I think Natural Born Killers was rated R in the United States. It may be
that UK ratings standards are less open than ours? I don't know.
> Yes, this has been a practice that has gone on for many years. The
> studio people refer to the domestic market version and the European
> version. The version for you folks often has added sex or violence.
I haven't seen the overseas version of Natural Born Killers. Obviously.
Snip to get to:
> A few days ago our high court threw out the law which made it illegal to
> buy or sell porn where any of the actors was portraying someone under
> age. While everyone knew the law was stupid and would be thrown out, it
> took six years for it to happen.
>
> The next day one of the Federal Representatives was already coming up
> with a replacement. This is the one that makes it illegal to video tape
> someone in a sex act where they don't know they are being taped. Plus,
> it will force porn to be segregated to websites with an extension of
> .prn. Once again all this will be thrown out, but it will take six years
> for it to happen. One wonders how long it would take for the people here
> who pretty much wiped out NC-17 films to do the same to .prn websites?
I'm not sure how long the .prn idea will be taken seriously. I know that
they are working on (maybe have completed?) a complementary notation; domain
names that are kid-safe. That seems to me to be a safer way of going about
it.
> The rating system here is nominally to provide parents a means to
> determine if their children should go to a film or not. It concentrates
> on sex so violence can be very extreme and the rating does not
> necessarily max out with the occasional violent act. Show a man's penis
I saw Blade II, which was rated R despite scenes including a smiling nude
woman, lying on her stomach, being fed on by a couple of vampires who were
digging tasty bits out from between her ribs, which had been exposed by
peeling the skin back. Some of the people in the theater had small children
with them. They didn't look to be more than about 10 or 11 y.o. I wonder
about people like that.
> fex and it's a certain R rating and more than likely NC-17. The
> homophobes in the government and their minions who do the ratings are
> afraid that a whopper might be sneaking up on them. A few bare breasts
> might only garner the PG-13 for some reason.
Female pubic hair = R; male pubic hair = Eeeek!
> Soon the only kind of film we'll be able to see here is whatever fetish
> Ascroft has. I can't wait to find out. Hope it's not child molestation.
I'm a trifle more optimistic. Indeed, I hope that Bush and co. try to get a
law passed restricting all kinds of sexual behaviors. There's no surer way
of ensuring that a liberal will be elected president in 2004. As it stands,
if GWB is careful, it will be hard for the Dems to pry him out of there, and
I'm afraid we may need more supreme court justices before 2008. Ick.
Conjugate
wishes the first amendment had been truncated to its first five words.
Conjugate
news:Xns91F5191EEE...@212.134.15.212...
Americans can be understood when you carefully consider two principles:
1) There is nothing worse than other people being affected by scenes of sex
and/or violence in movies, TV shows, books, or other places.
2) There is nothing worse than having nothing to watch/read/listen to than
movies, TV shows, books, music, etc., from which the sexual content and/or
violence has been removed.
Now, the careful reader will observe that these two principles are
fundamentally inconsistent. Hence, instead of trying to live by both
simultaneously, we alternate. Sometimes, it is wrong for other people to
see/hear/read violence, and sex takes its place. Other times, it's wrong
for them to see/hear/read about sex, so lots of violence takes its place.
Still other times, we try to ban both, and the economy tanks as nobody
watches TV, sees movies, buys books, or listens to music (because it's all
so boring). Right now, oddly enough, even though the economy has tanked,
violence is OK, and sex is still fairly present (though not to the degree it
was a few years ago). This is clearly an unstable situation, and it appears
that a loss of sexual openness will be first to go. Why sex instead of
violence? Well, I think it was more or less random. If the nutcases that
the President appointed to office were crazy about violence in the schools
and workplaces, we would have decided that depictions of violence in the
media were the cause of all of our problems, and be moving to eliminate
that, with the result that the evening news would probably include money
shots to compensate. But, what with all our troops going overseas to kill a
bunch of people we don't like, banning violence seemed dangerous. After
all, how will our Pres. keep his high approval rating if we can't see
pictures of all the dead foreigners his term in office is producing? So, we
can't ban violence on TV, hence all that's left is to ban sex.
This is my best understanding of the situation. Other Americans may feel
free to correct, amend, or vilify my remarks as they see fit.
Conjugate
Cynical? I am not!
Conjugate
news:3cbf45dd...@supernews.surfanytime.co.uk...
>
> It varies a lot of course, but today afo got 167 and assd got a mere
> 19 and this seems to reflect a recent trend. It could be repressive
> influences on my newsfeed, (and I am filtering for curlies), but there
> was a time when the situation was pretty much reversed. It's got to
> the point when I actually have the time ot read everything posted
> here!
>
> So what is it all about? Is assd dying?
>
> Nick
I don't think so. To some degree, there's been a drop in non-spam posts; I
remember days when I would have to cope with over a hundred new messages
before I could log off. But I'm still seeing more than you, it seems to me.
Tonight, there were 35 posts after I skimmed for spam that missed my
upstream filter (my ISP claims to have a filter; it's hard to believe).
Other nights, there've been at least 20 (or at least I don't remember seeing
fewer--the least I remember is about 27) so perhaps your feed is unreliable?
ICOCBW.
Good luck.
Conjugate
Frank Downey
Criticize away, Oosh, because you've got it right. Guns are good. Sex is
bad. Welcome to (a huge part of) the USA.
--Frank
Jacques LeBlanc
celia batau
"Katie McN" <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote in message
news:mipubu475qrnh8cl6...@4ax.com...
> >>Those of us who live in the US are familiar with the motion picture
> >>rating system where film that doesn't comply with whatever standards are
> >>popular that day end up with an NC-17 rating or no rating. While this is
> >>supposed to prevent people under 17 from attending, in fact it actually
> >>is used by those who like to repress everything as a focal point for
> >>such things as boycotting newspapers or television stations that allow
> >>advertising for this type of film. They've been pretty successful. I'm
> >>unaware of any television station that allows advertising for NC-17 or
> >>unrated films and don't know of any newspapers that do, although I
> >>assume there are some somewhere. There are only a handful of theaters
> >>that show NC-17 or unrated films and these tend to be in big cities
> >>while I continue to live in the country.
we don't know about America, but in california (we live in los angeles about
20 minutes from Hollywood) we don't have a problem finding things. we don't
usually notice the ratings but down the street there are newspaper boxes
with free porn periodicals. there are also lots of alternative papers that
have listings and there's lots of stuff pasted on walls. one of the radio
stations we listen to has almost non-stop sex songs in it. and there's this
adult store in Pasadena that's right in the middle of the popular part where
all the tourists go. :)
-celia the disintegrated core girl
--
celia batau's story site: http://www.myplanet.net/pinataheart/stories.htm.
thank u terror,
thank u disillusionment
thank u frailty,
thank u consequence,
thank u, thank u silence.
-Alanis Morisette
Jacques LeBlanc
> > Yes, this has been a practice that has gone on for many years. The
> > studio people refer to the domestic market version and the European
> > version. The version for you folks often has added sex or violence.
>
> I'd hope, unsubtracted sex and less violence!
I don't know about the violence being reduced for European versions,
but they definitely tend to include sex scenes and related content
that are cut from the American versions. We sometimes get to see the
European version as a "Director's Cut" or "Special Edition" released
on video; examples include "Natural Born Killers," "Color of Night,"
and "Leon" (originally released in the U.S. as "The Professional").
In that one the content wasn't sexual activity, but the admission of
sexual feelings by a twelve-year-old girl for her hit-man protector,
as well as scenes in which the girl plays Russian Roulette as a way of
proving her commitment ("If I win, you keep me with you forever") and
accompanies her mentor on hit jobs. The Russian Roulette scene, in
particular, may be the single most emotionally intense moment in any
movie I've ever scene; cutting it was a crime against art.
> My knowledge of TV is very limited, but during a short business trip to the
> USA a few years ago I was amazed at the amount of violence on US
> television. On my hotel TV I saw someone being machine-gunned, and there
> was no warning whatsoever. On the other hand, there were dire warnings
> about nudity before a film in which a woman was shown (tasteful rear view)
> walking into a shower. I felt that the priorities were all wrong.
>
> "Puerile" was the word that came to mind. But one is always cautious about
> criticizing cultures one doesn't properly understand.
Speaking as one who was born and raised in that culture, your
criticism of it is dead-on.
Later,
Jacques
--
"You can show a dozen guys murdering each other on TV, but you can't
ever show two people making love. A naked blade is reckoned less
obscene than a naked woman. Isn't it about time we started trying to
get a handle on love, *from any and all directions?*" -----Jake
Stonebender
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
forth, saying:
>Our highest federal law enforcement person is Ascroft who is a religious
>bigot.
Katie and I don't always see eye-to-eye; but we share a common
contempt for Attorney General John Ashcroft. For those outside the
US--can we trade him to you? We'll take a lame dog... (of course
Ashcroft is rather lame)
--
-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor
Never try to outstubborn a cat. - Lazarus Long
Vershnyk
wrote in news:p1pvbuo1tomgd2qnd...@4ax.com:
> Katie and I don't always see eye-to-eye; but we share a common
> contempt for Attorney General John Ashcroft. For those outside
> the US--can we trade him to you? We'll take a lame dog... (of
> course Ashcroft is rather lame)
Anytime!!!
Really, if I understand it right, Attorney General in USA is equivalent
to Prosecutor General in Ukraine. Our Prosecutor General is one of the
stupidiest and nastiest people in our government, which, btw, has more
than sufficient choice of those. However, he's good at covering the
dirty deeds of those loayl to President and coming up with lamest
charges againt those who disagree or disobey President. You can import
him without worries: whatever he comes up with will be laughed at in
any decent court; and anyway, word 'sex' is probably too long for him
to learn what it is and to try to ban it. And Ashcroft wouldn't damage
our legal system, because he wouldn't be able to propose any laws, or
enforce his wierd ideas, besides, the level of corruption would leave
him speechless with awe for several months <g>.
Looks like good deal to me :)
--
Vershnyk
Frank Downey
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:p1pvbuo1tomgd2qnd...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:06:48 GMT, Katie McN <ka...@katiemcn.com> held
> forth, saying:
>
> >Our highest federal law enforcement person is Ascroft who is a religious
> >bigot.
>
> Katie and I don't always see eye-to-eye; but we share a common
> contempt for Attorney General John Ashcroft.
The latest edition of Atlantic Monthly is out in the store I work at. I
haven't grabbed it yet--I read Atlantic Monthly pretty regularly, and this
one has a Robert Kaplan article in it, and I *always* get the ones with
Kaplan in them--but apparently there's an interview with Ashcroft in it. The
cover blurb says that Ashcroft talks about "terrorism, civil liberties, and
the future."
I'm dreading the 'future' part, as this cover blurb is accompanied by the
single scariest headline I have ever seen:
"President Ashcroft?"
*shudder*vomit*.
--Frank
who will now prepare for a possible Ashcroft presidency:
<singing>
Oh Canada
Our home and native land
<G>
Katie McN
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:26:00 GMT I noticed your interesting post:
Amazing isn't it.
Many politicians here pander to a minority 'religious' constituency by
passing oppressive laws such as the one making it illegal for an adult
actor to portray an underage person in a sex act. However, since they
don't pass similar laws about violence, we must assume it is just fine
to have the same person portray a child who is tortured, multilated,
killed and so on. In fact a child could play the part without a problem.
This does not seem to cause the politicians or bigots to lose sleep at
night.
Of course the 'religious' bigots are the same people who want to force
12 yo girls who've gotten pregnant from a rape to bear the child. They
also feel no one should be on welfare so the girl from the previous
sentence not only would have to raise the child, even though a child
herself, she would do so without the ability to make an income or with
assistance from the government who forced her to have the child.
These people make inroads here on a daily basis. One hopes politicians
like our Attorney General Ascroft will eventually be seen to be
oppressive fascists who would be much happier teleported to an earlier
time and different country. Sadly, the trends don't seem to support my
hope.
Katie McN
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:16:44 -0400 I noticed your interesting post:
>"Katie McN" <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote in message
>news:mipubu475qrnh8cl6...@4ax.com...
>>One wonders how long it would take for the people here
>> who pretty much wiped out NC-17 films to do the same to .prn websites?
>
>I'm not sure how long the .prn idea will be taken seriously. I know that
>they are working on (maybe have completed?) a complementary notation; domain
>names that are kid-safe. That seems to me to be a safer way of going about
>it.
>
I have it.
All the people who are for censorship and have a moral direction they
would like to jam down our throats could build their websites using some
randomly selected extension like .bigot or something like that. They
would then be able to enjoy themselves with the type of content they
feel is warm and wholesome.
I can imagine a whole plethora of exciting concepts to include videos of
mobs of them outside abortions clinics where the terrified women who are
trying to enter are blocked by these freaks who scream at them about
killing babies.
No doubt there would be many scenes where gay men were beaten to death
by some of these same people who are afraid they might also be gay so
demonstrate their hetness through these horrid acts.
Perhaps they would have websites where dark skinned people are dragged
behind pickup trucks to show that the Christian white men behind the
wheel of the vehicle is as superior in the temporal world as he is in
the eyes of some god he has imagined exists in a heaven filled with only
a certain type of white person.
There could be a head of household website where we find men beating
their wives and children as is their right at least in their minds. A
few of them might even show some molestation and rape as these stalwarts
take full possession and advantage of everything they know they own.
We no doubt would find many websites devoted to religious people who use
their office to take advantage of children and anyone else who thought
it might be a good idea to come to them for help. This could be
augmented with descriptions of how clever the various churches are in
hiding all of this and pretending it doesn't exist.
The list is endless and I can see why these people want to have a place
for all the wonderful things they bring us.
[ ... ]
>
>I'm a trifle more optimistic. Indeed, I hope that Bush and co. try to get a
>law passed restricting all kinds of sexual behaviors. There's no surer way
>of ensuring that a liberal will be elected president in 2004. As it stands,
>if GWB is careful, it will be hard for the Dems to pry him out of there, and
>I'm afraid we may need more supreme court justices before 2008. Ick.
>
Have you been listening to Bush regarding the Middle East? He is back to
his old ways and it won't be long before we start the low IQ jokes
again. The problem the Dems have is a lack of anyone interesting to
support. We see Gore is starting up again and just as silly as ever if
you ask me. The fact that he got as close as he did indicates that the
country is ready for something other than right wing pseudo-religious
bigots to run things, it's just that the Dems haven't come up with
anything better yet.
Katie McN
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:44:36 -0700 I noticed your interesting post:
[ ... ]
>
>we don't know about America, but in california (we live in los angeles about
>20 minutes from Hollywood) we don't have a problem finding things. we don't
>usually notice the ratings but down the street there are newspaper boxes
>with free porn periodicals. there are also lots of alternative papers that
>have listings and there's lots of stuff pasted on walls. one of the radio
>stations we listen to has almost non-stop sex songs in it. and there's this
>adult store in Pasadena that's right in the middle of the popular part where
>all the tourists go. :)
>
>-celia the disintegrated core girl
Where I live everything you mention above is on someone's check list of
things to root out and destroy.
There is a lot of diversity in the States. Sadly, some of it has to do
with how much or little freedom one is going to allowed to have.
Around here is the home of the free as long as the free are white people
who have no problems, are capable of working and do work every day, go
to a Christian church one or more times a week, don't have any lifestyle
issues (read are just like all the rest of them) and in general qualify
for a role in the remake of Leave It to Beaver.
Katie McN
On 19 Apr 2002 00:40:57 -0700 I noticed your interesting post:
[ ... ]
> We sometimes get to see the
>European version as a "Director's Cut" or "Special Edition" released
>on video; examples include "Natural Born Killers," "Color of Night,"
>and "Leon" (originally released in the U.S. as "The Professional").
>In that one the content wasn't sexual activity, but the admission of
>sexual feelings by a twelve-year-old girl for her hit-man protector,
>as well as scenes in which the girl plays Russian Roulette as a way of
>proving her commitment ("If I win, you keep me with you forever") and
>accompanies her mentor on hit jobs. The Russian Roulette scene, in
>particular, may be the single most emotionally intense moment in any
>movie I've ever scene; cutting it was a crime against art.
>
I stumbled across the film on cable. It was never shown in a theater
around here even in it's R incarnation. I knew nothing about the film,
but thought at one point it was going to go in the direction of the
older man and the young girl having an affair. The age difference was
great, but I thought that they were handling it in a good way so it
might be an interesting exploration. Nope, moved away from that into
seeing how many people could be killed. Not a bad film, but it could
have been so much better. The scene you mention is another aspect of art
being destroyed on behalf of ... ?
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
held forth, saying:
>... "Leon" (originally released in the U.S. as "The Professional").
>In that one the content wasn't sexual activity, but the admission of
>sexual feelings by a twelve-year-old girl for her hit-man protector,
>as well as scenes in which the girl plays Russian Roulette as a way of
>proving her commitment ("If I win, you keep me with you forever") and
>accompanies her mentor on hit jobs. The Russian Roulette scene, in
>particular, may be the single most emotionally intense moment in any
>movie I've ever scene; cutting it was a crime against art.
And I'm sure your feelings have *nothing* to do with the identity of
the girl actress. <weg>
Jacques LeBlanc
> >Our highest federal law enforcement person is Ascroft who is a religious
> >bigot.
>
> Katie and I don't always see eye-to-eye; but we share a common
> contempt for Attorney General John Ashcroft. For those outside the
> US--can we trade him to you? We'll take a lame dog... (of course
> Ashcroft is rather lame)
I think a poisonous toad would be a fairer trade.
Later,
Jacques
Vershnyk
wrote in news:3cbf45dd...@supernews.surfanytime.co.uk:
> It varies a lot of course, but today afo got 167 and assd got a
> mere 19 and this seems to reflect a recent trend. It could be
> repressive influences on my newsfeed, (and I am filtering for
> curlies), but there was a time when the situation was pretty much
> reversed. It's got to the point when I actually have the time ot
> read everything posted here!
>
> So what is it all about? Is assd dying?
No, I don't think so. I got 21 posts in yesterday's 24-hour period, and
32 - day before yesterday. Today there's already 35 posts (13:00 EEST
+0300). My counts include both curlified and non-curlified posts, but
no spam.
There was one time in past 2 years that I read here, when there were no
more than 10 posts per 24 hours, and most of them were concerned with
the dearth of posts itself :)
But the true reason why ASSD can't be considered dying is that there's
serious discussions going on. It just we don't see flame and pun
threads lately (knocking wood <g>), which essentially have near-zero
informative value and whopping article counts.
--
Vershnyk
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
forth, saying:
Now how can we arrange this? Your guy sounds like he's even dumber
than Dubya. hmm...
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
<fabfo...@verizon.net> held forth, saying:
>I'm dreading the 'future' part, as this cover blurb is accompanied by the
>single scariest headline I have ever seen:
>
>"President Ashcroft?"
>
>*shudder*vomit*.
On first glance, my reaction is that he might do less harm as Prez
than as AG. However, I doubt that's the office he aspires to. He'd
much prefer to be head of the (American) Gestapo or KGB.
aka the Thought Police.
Jacques LeBlanc
> But, what with all our troops going overseas to kill a bunch of people we
> don't like, banning violence seemed dangerous. After all, how will our Pres.
> keep his high approval rating if we can't see pictures of all the dead
> foreigners his term in office is producing? So, we can't ban violence on TV,
> hence all that's left is to ban sex.
This reminds me of a joke:
President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell are sitting in a bar.
A guy walks in and asks the bartender, "Isn't that Bush, Rumsfeld and
Powell sitting over there?" Bartender says, "Yep, that's them." So
the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor. What are you
guys doing in here?" Bush says, "We're planning a nuclear war." And
the guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?" Rumsfeld says, "Well,
we're going to kill 25 million Iraqis and a bicycle repairman." The
guy exclaims, "A bicycle repairman? Why kill a bicycle repairman?"
Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says, "See,
smart guy! I told you no one would worry about the 25 million Iraqis!"
Of course, it would be funnier if it wasn't so close to the truth.
Later,
Jacques
oosh
news:2002041913402...@nym.alias.net:
> Really, if I understand it right, Attorney General in USA is equivalent
> to Prosecutor General in Ukraine. Our Prosecutor General is one of the
> stupidiest and nastiest people in our government, which, btw, has more
> than sufficient choice of those....
Vershnyk, you have the right attitude to government. Every healthy nation
should have a free press which can fearlessly voice its citizens' disquiet
about the idiots in power.
I hope this bodes well for the Ukraine!
Vershnyk for President!
O.
Nick
>nick_ca...@yahoo.co.uk (Nick) wrote in
>news:3cbf45dd...@supernews.surfanytime.co.uk:
>
>> It varies a lot of course, but today afo got 167 and assd got a mere
>> 19 and this seems to reflect a recent trend. It could be repressive
>> influences on my newsfeed, (and I am filtering for curlies), but there
>> was a time when the situation was pretty much reversed. It's got to
>> the point when I actually have the time ot read everything posted
>> here!
>>
>> So what is it all about? Is assd dying?
>
>I think it's a case of quality -v- quantity. It's rather nice to be able to
>read everything posted here.
>
I agree. 167 posts is a big turn off for me.
>I'm not dying. You're not dying. Is anyone else dying?
>
Perfectly healthy individuals move on - the group dies.
But I don't really think its dying, I was just being provocative.
Today, for example, we have 55 assd vs 67 afo.
Nick
Nick
den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.invalid wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:06:48 GMT, Katie McN <ka...@katiemcn.com> held
>forth, saying:
>
>>Our highest federal law enforcement person is Ascroft who is a religious
>>bigot.
>
>Katie and I don't always see eye-to-eye; but we share a common
>contempt for Attorney General John Ashcroft. For those outside the
>US--can we trade him to you? We'll take a lame dog... (of course
>Ashcroft is rather lame)
>
Well, who would you want? What would we make of John Ashcroft if he
was, oh I don't know, Home Secretary? (I think that would be roughly
equivalent). Michael Howard (Conservative ex-home secretary) is a bit
of a c*nt, but even he doesn't have quite the terrifying religious
zeal that seems to emanate from some of the most powerful men in the
world (i.e. US politicians).
We seem to have more freedom over here, because the extreme religious
right simply doesn't exist as a political force of any significance,
but if so I don't know how long it will last. We seem to like
emulating you lot!
Nick
Nick
<pinat...@bigplanet.com> wrote:
>hi Katie!
>
>"Katie McN" <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote in message
>news:mipubu475qrnh8cl6...@4ax.com...
>> >>Those of us who live in the US are familiar with the motion picture
>> >>rating system where film that doesn't comply with whatever standards are
>> >>popular that day end up with an NC-17 rating or no rating. While this is
>> >>supposed to prevent people under 17 from attending, in fact it actually
>> >>is used by those who like to repress everything as a focal point for
>> >>such things as boycotting newspapers or television stations that allow
>> >>advertising for this type of film. They've been pretty successful. I'm
>> >>unaware of any television station that allows advertising for NC-17 or
>> >>unrated films and don't know of any newspapers that do, although I
>> >>assume there are some somewhere. There are only a handful of theaters
>> >>that show NC-17 or unrated films and these tend to be in big cities
>> >>while I continue to live in the country.
>
>we don't know about America, but in california (we live in los angeles about
>20 minutes from Hollywood) we don't have a problem finding things.
Do you mean the 'rest' of america, or do you see yourself as seperate?
Nick
Nick
There's an idea for a story here - a post-cold war political thriller.
We need a credible plot first (preferebly involving lots of semi-naked
girls), then we can think about making it reality.
Any takers?
Nick
Katie McN
On 19 Apr 2002 19:50:09 -0000 I noticed your interesting post:
[ ...]
>
>But the true reason why ASSD can't be considered dying is that there's
>serious discussions going on. It just we don't see flame and pun
>threads lately (knocking wood <g>), which essentially have near-zero
>informative value and whopping article counts.
You had to mention these two areas, didn't you. Next thing you'll be
encouraging the pro and con reviewer fans, religious spokes people, and
the copyright army. Yep, the skies would be filled with posts if all of
these things got started.
celia batau
"Katie McN" <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote in message
news:dho0cu0n7lub0pv6k...@4ax.com...
> Where I live everything you mention above is on someone's check list of
> things to root out and destroy.
yeah. in rural areas it's prolly more conservative. :) but the different
states do have different ideals, and that's ok maybe. it's good to have
different ppls. but from what we've read and seen it seems more like
conservative ppl do it more out of fear than just out of a choice to live a
certain way, you know. :(
we just watched this program about hostesses in Japan. this one Canadian
woman was getting like jewelry and money from these guys just by talking
with them. wow. this one yakuza was giving one woman basically millions of
yen in gifts. she did have sex with him once, well, bc he _was_ yakuza. :)
we could totally imagine hanging out with tattoed guys, doing karaoke,
eating at neat restaurants. :) could you imagine? if we slept with a yakuza?
it'd be like telling people we'd swam with sharks or something fun like
that. :)
better than sleeping with the middle-age salery man for a new gucci bag. :)
andale pues,
-cb
--
celia batau's story site: http://www.myplanet.net/pinataheart/stories.htm.
thank u terror,
thank u disillusionment
thank u frailty,
thank u consequence,
thank u, thank u silence.
-Alanis Morisette
>
celia batau
"Nick" <nick_ca...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3cc19574...@supernews.surfanytime.co.uk...
> Do you mean the 'rest' of america, or do you see yourself as seperate?
hmm. don't let those white european-descended invaders fool you. when the
spanish found california, they thought it was an island and put it on their
maps. it's still separate. we believe in california independence. we like
some of the ppl who think it was not-such-a-good-idea to absorb all those
other states 150 years ago. :)
so, yeah, America's a different country. :)
-celia the aztlan revolutionary girl
Conjugate
> >adult store in Pasadena that's right in the middle of the popular part
where
> >all the tourists go. :)
And that's why the tourists go there. They just hope their spouses don't
catch them.
> >-celia the disintegrated core girl
Now, cb needs to study math. They'd learn how to integrate. :-)
> Where I live everything you mention above is on someone's check list of
> things to root out and destroy.
>
> There is a lot of diversity in the States.
This gives me the opportunity to say: Yes, the longer you live here,
"diverse" it gets!
I know, that was a rude remark, and I don't really believe it, but it's rare
that I get the opportunity to deliver a Dilbert line like that.
> Around here is the home of the free as long as the free are white people
> who have no problems, are capable of working and do work every day, go
> to a Christian church one or more times a week, don't have any lifestyle
> issues (read are just like all the rest of them) and in general qualify
> for a role in the remake of Leave It to Beaver.
Katie! How could you??! That's a terrible thing to say. You should say,
"...white MALE people who have no problems,..." and so forth. :-)
Conjugate
just teasing, as usual
Katie McN
>hi Nick!
>
>"Nick" <nick_ca...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3cc19574...@supernews.surfanytime.co.uk...
>> Do you mean the 'rest' of america, or do you see yourself as seperate?
>
>hmm. don't let those white european-descended invaders fool you. when the
>spanish found california, they thought it was an island and put it on their
>maps. it's still separate. we believe in california independence. we like
>some of the ppl who think it was not-such-a-good-idea to absorb all those
>other states 150 years ago. :)
>
>so, yeah, America's a different country. :)
>
There are a lot of people in the US that consider those from California
different enough to almost consider them to be from a different country.
I lived in Los Angeles for quite awhile when I was in grad school and
then for some years when I worked for a major entertainment conglom. I
wouldn't know how to start telling someone who'd spent all his or her
life in West Texas about the things I experienced in Los Angeles.
sue
>
> On first glance, my reaction is that he might do less harm as Prez
> than as AG. However, I doubt that's the office he aspires to. He'd
> much prefer to be head of the (American) Gestapo or KGB.
> aka the Thought Police.
Or maybe the Office of Homeland Security? Oh right, it's the same thing....
sue
a reader
Aren't these the same people that want to restrict access to birth
control and provide no sex education? But they say everyone has a
right to carry a gun. Do they say you should have gun education or
just pick it up from friends? I know! You learn by watching TV and
movies where you can see many fine examples of outstanding citizens
exercising this right. Maybe you guys need another amendment to your
constitution. Something like government has no business in the
bedrooms of the nation. Everyone has the right to the free expression
of their sexuality. Nah ... never happen.
Katie McN
Notice to Souvie and Virago Blue. There's some stuff further on in the
post that the rest of the folks may need some Texans to help them
understand. You might want to hang around and help.
<editing wildly throughout>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:58:33 -0400 I noticed your interesting post:
>> There is a lot of diversity in the States.
>
>This gives me the opportunity to say: Yes, the longer you live here,
>"diverse" it gets!
I told Vershynk this would happen and sure enough ... On some other post
you mentioned the person should get into math so she could learn how to
integrate after she mention something about disintegratation.
Fortunately the rest of the punster don't stay up this late so maybe
nothing more will happen.
>I know, that was a rude remark, and I don't really believe it, but it's rare
>that I get the opportunity to deliver a Dilbert line like that.
>
>> Around here is the home of the free as long as the free are white people
>> who have no problems, are capable of working and do work every day, go
>> to a Christian church one or more times a week, don't have any lifestyle
>> issues (read are just like all the rest of them) and in general qualify
>> for a role in the remake of Leave It to Beaver.
>
>Katie! How could you??! That's a terrible thing to say. You should say,
>"...white MALE people who have no problems,..." and so forth. :-)
>
Yep, screwed up again and got slapped down by the white man to boot. I'm
so used to the way things are that I sometimes assume people will
automatically know I meant white male with red neck when I say something
like the above.
Since I know you'll be heading on back to your deep South roots in the
near future, I figure I'll ease you into it with a few things you won't
be hearing' much when you get here:
---
We don't keep firearms in this house.
Has anybody seen the sideburn trimmer?
You can't feed that to the dog.
I thought Graceland was tacky.
No kids in the back of the pick-up, it's not safe.
Wrasslin's fake.
Honey, did you mail that donation to Greenpeace?
We're vegetarians.
Do you think my hair is too big?
I'll have grapefruit instead of a bowl of gravy.
Honey, these bonsai trees need watering?
Give me the SMALL bag of pork rinds.
Deer heads detract from the decor.
Spitting is such a nasty habit.
I just couldn't find a thing at Wal-Mart today.
Trim the fat off that steak.
Cappuccino tastes better than espresso.
The tires on that truck are too big.
I'll have the arugula and radicchio salad.
I've got it all on a floppy disk.
Unsweetened tea tastes better.
Would you like your fish poached or broiled?
My fiancee, Paula Jo, is registered at Tiffany's.
Little Debbie snack cakes have too many fat grams.
Checkmate.
Does the salad bar have bean sprouts?
Hey, here's an episode of "Hee Haw" that we haven't seen.
I don't have a favorite college team. (Hook 'em Horns!)
I believe you cooked those green beans too long.
Elvis who?
Be sure to bring my salad dressing on the side.
---
Now if you're real lucky you'll end up in Texas and you'll know you're
there when ...
---
You discover that in July, it takes only 2 fingers to drive your car
You no longer associate bridges (or rivers) with water
You can say 110 degrees without fainting
You eat hot chili to cool your mouth off
You can make sun tea instantly
You learn that a seat belt makes a pretty good branding iron
You notice the best parking place is determined by shade instead of
distance
Hotter water comes from the cold water tap than the hot one
It's noon in July, kids are on summer vacation, and not one person is
moving on the streets
You actually burn your hand opening the car door
Sunscreen is sold year round, kept at the front of the checkout counter
A formula less than 30 SPF is a joke and you only wear that to go to the
corner store
Hot air balloons can't go (at all)
No one would dream of putting vinyl upholstery in a car
Your biggest bicycle wreck fear, "what if I get knocked out and lay on
the pavement and cook to death"?
You realize that asphalt has a liquid state.
---
After you lived in Texas for awhile you'll settle in, you'll join in
with the rest of us when you think all this is natural:
---
You measure distance in hours. (like Lubbock is 8 hours from Houston -
who knows how many miles it is)
You had to switch from "heat" to "A/C" in the same day.
Stores don't have bags; they have sacks.
Stores don't have shopping carts; they have buggies.
You see a car running in the parking lot at the store with no one in it,
no matter what time of the year.
You use "fix" as a verb. Example: I am fixing to go to the store.
All the festivals across the state are named after a fruit, vegetable,
grain, or animal.
You install security lights on your house and garage and leave both
unlocked.
You carry jumper cables in your car ..for your OWN car.
You know what "cow tipping" and "snipe hunting" are.
You only own four spices: salt, pepper, ketchup, and Tabasco.
You think everyone from a bigger city has an accent.
You think sexy lingerie is a tee shirt and boxer shorts.
The local paper covers national and international news on one page but
requires 6 pages for sports.(high school football is of utmost
importance)
You think that the first day of deer, duck, dove, or quail season are
State holidays.
You know which leaves make good toilet paper.
You find 90 degrees F "a little warm."
You know all four seasons: Almost Summer, Summer, Still Summer, and
Christmas.
You know whether another Texan is from southern, middle, or northern
Texas as soon as they open their mouth.
There is a Dairy Queen in every town with a population of 1000 or more.
Going to Wal-Mart is a favorite past-time known as "goin wal-martin" or
off to "Wally World."
You describe the first cool snap (below 70 degrees) as good chili
weather.
A carbonated soft drink isn't a soda, cola, or pop ... it's a Coke,
regardless of brand or flavor.
You understood and laughed at these jokes.
---
Now that I got all the furriners fussin' about me postin' stuff only us
Stars and Bars people understand, I better do something to make it up to
them, so I offer this:
---
"A couple of Texans got off a plane in Sydney. The one who had been
there before was briefing the other one on what to expect: "They're OK,
these Aussies, but you'll find they take themselves a bit too seriously
sometimes, so you'll have to humor them.
"For instance, if they say that Australia is bigger than Texas, you just
make out you believe 'em!"
---
Course here's what people from the South really think.
---
When a man in Macon, Ga., came upon a wild dog attacking a young boy, he
quickly grabbed the animal and throttled it with his two hands. A
reporter saw the incident, congratulated the man and told him the
headline the following day would read, "Local Man Saves Child by Killing
Vicious Animal."
The hero, however, told the journalist that he wasn't from Macon.
"Well, then," the reporter said, "the headline will probably say,
'Georgia Man Saves Child by Killing Dog.'"
"Actually," the man said, "I'm from Connecticut."
"In that case," the reporter said in a huff, "the headline will read,
'Yankee Kills Family Pet'."
---
Now if anyone thinks I've been wastin' bandwidth by not entering into
some big time literary discursion, just remember:
---
There's two theories to arguin' with a woman. Neither one works.
---
a reader
I've long tried to imagine a world where we trade politicians like
hockey players. But, as my nym, I'm just a reader, not a writer.
BTW, if we trade for him do we have to play him, or could we just
bench him, or play him in a different position? We could make him
ambassador to the US. Or stick him in our senate.
Katie McN
>hi Katie!
>
>"Katie McN" <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote in message
>news:dho0cu0n7lub0pv6k...@4ax.com...
>> Where I live everything you mention above is on someone's check list of
>> things to root out and destroy.
>
>yeah. in rural areas it's prolly more conservative. :) but the different
>states do have different ideals, and that's ok maybe. it's good to have
>different ppls. but from what we've read and seen it seems more like
>conservative ppl do it more out of fear than just out of a choice to live a
>certain way, you know. :(
>
Actually, it's likely they don't know any better. Fex a group of 80 of
us took a charter flight to Las Vegas from here. Someone decided it
would be fun to ask group questions. Here's two examples. "How many
people have never been out of the State? Almost half. How many were on
their first place trip. 15.
>we just watched this program about hostesses in Japan. this one Canadian
>woman was getting like jewelry and money from these guys just by talking
>with them. wow. this one yakuza was giving one woman basically millions of
>yen in gifts. she did have sex with him once, well, bc he _was_ yakuza. :)
>we could totally imagine hanging out with tattoed guys, doing karaoke,
>eating at neat restaurants. :) could you imagine? if we slept with a yakuza?
>it'd be like telling people we'd swam with sharks or something fun like
>that. :)
>
Well, if I had to do it with a man, I'd go for a cowboy myself. Most of
'em speak English and you just never see one wearing a three piece suit
to go two steppin' and other things that seemed to be happening when I
visited the Land of the Rising Sun a few years back.
Far as those tattooed guys go, notice that a bunch of them was missing
fingers. Yep, they're so bad at foreplay that their girlfriends cross
their legs, roll over and go to sleep. Very painful for the guy to have
his finger ripped off like that, but a good lesson on manners.
>better than sleeping with the middle-age salery man for a new gucci bag. :)
>
My current roommate is a middle-aged guy. We never have slept together
and it's unlikely we ever will. Good thing I can afford my own Gucci
bags and stuff. Actually, if I ever decided to try the sex alternative
again it probably would be with him cause he's so nice he'd give me a
Gucci bag and I wouldn't even have to give him a blow job or anything.
;-)
>andale pues,
Later chica,
Katie McN
Conjugate
news:9805f48.02041...@posting.google.com...
And misnamed, to boot. I think it's more a sign of Homeland Insecurity that
the silly office exists at all.
Conjugate
wants to send Linus's blanket to the entire Administrative Branch.
Frank Downey
> Hi "celia batau" <pinat...@bigplanet.com>,
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:43:50 -0700 I noticed your interesting post:
>
> >hi Nick!
> >
> >"Nick" <nick_ca...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3cc19574...@supernews.surfanytime.co.uk...
> >> Do you mean the 'rest' of america, or do you see yourself as seperate?
> >
> >hmm. don't let those white european-descended invaders fool you. when the
> >spanish found california, they thought it was an island and put it on
their
> >maps. it's still separate. we believe in california independence. we like
> >some of the ppl who think it was not-such-a-good-idea to absorb all those
> >other states 150 years ago. :)
> >
> >so, yeah, America's a different country. :)
> >
> There are a lot of people in the US that consider those from California
> different enough to almost consider them to be from a different country.
There's lots of places in the US that are "different".
My brother, sister, and I grew up in Boston. Besides Boston, sis has lived
in NYC and LA, bro has lived in Baltimore, LA, and SF, and I have lived in
St Louis.
For a Bostonian, the "different" place in that list was St. Louis! Baltimore
would be second. LA? NYC? SF? No problem. <G>
--Frank
who--no disrespect to Katie intended--wouldn't live in Texas if my life
depended on it <G>
Jacques LeBlanc
> I stumbled across the film on cable. It was never shown in a theater
> around here even in it's R incarnation. I knew nothing about the film,
> but thought at one point it was going to go in the direction of the
> older man and the young girl having an affair. The age difference was
> great, but I thought that they were handling it in a good way so it
> might be an interesting exploration. Nope, moved away from that into
> seeing how many people could be killed. Not a bad film, but it could
> have been so much better.
It's one of my favorites, actually. I think given the characters'
personalities, a sexual relationship between them when Matilda was
that young could not have been healthy. She wasn't as mature as she
thought she was, and her psychological state was delicate, to say the
least. Also, had the plot included a sexual relationship, they
wouldn't have had Natalie Portman as Matilda; she turned down the lead
roles in "Lolita" and "Romeo + Juliet" for precisely that reason.
> The scene you mention is another aspect of art being destroyed on behalf
> of...?
I don't know... possibly fear that kids would imitate the girl's
action? Anyway, it's a hell of a scene; downloading an avi file of it
was what convinced me that I had to get my hands on the uncut version.
I actually picked up a pirate tape of it off E-bay before the DVD
came out. (I then bought the DVD; the only moral justification for
getting the pirate copy was that the c*p*r*ght owners had chosen not
to make that version available for sale, and thus were losing nothing
through my purchase of a copy. As soon as they did make it available,
I was obligated to buy it. This is probably going to start another
freakin' c*p*r*ght thread, but what the hell.)
Later,
Jacques
Jacques LeBlanc
> >... "Leon" (originally released in the U.S. as "The Professional").
> >In that one the content wasn't sexual activity, but the admission of
> >sexual feelings by a twelve-year-old girl for her hit-man protector,
> >as well as scenes in which the girl plays Russian Roulette as a way of
> >proving her commitment ("If I win, you keep me with you forever") and
> >accompanies her mentor on hit jobs. The Russian Roulette scene, in
> >particular, may be the single most emotionally intense moment in any
> >movie I've ever scene; cutting it was a crime against art.
>
> And I'm sure your feelings have *nothing* to do with the identity of
> the girl actress. <weg>
Actually, it's more the other way around; that movie, along with
"Beautiful Girls," has everything to do with my feelings about the
actress in question. After all, it's not as if I know her personally.
Later,
Jacques
Jacques LeBlanc
> These people make inroads here on a daily basis. One hopes politicians
> like our Attorney General Ascroft will eventually be seen to be
> oppressive fascists who would be much happier teleported to an earlier
> time and different country. Sadly, the trends don't seem to support my
> hope.
I don't think it would have to be a different country; they'd fit
right in here about a century ago. I maintain that Ashcroft is just
the reincarnation of that infamous bully, bigot, censor, perjurer,
vandal, and thief Anthony Comstock. (For those who haven't heard of
him, Comstock was the leader of a vigilante organization called the
New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, which, in addition to
lobbying for flagrantly unconstitutional laws against "obscenity" and
"indecency," harassed individuals who produced or distributed
contraceptives or literature pertaining to sexuality, seized and
destroyed their products, and provided false evidence to convict them
or providing their materials to minors.)
Later,
Jacques
Valen Thyan
news:e6ac712b.02041...@posting.google.com...
> I was obligated to buy it. This is probably going to start another
> freakin' c*p*r*ght thread, but what the hell.)
I know I'm new, and naive, but why is it that everybody seems scared of
copyrights?
Valen
valen...@hotmail.com
http://www.asstr.org/~valen/
Jacques LeBlanc
> "President Ashcroft?"
>
> *shudder*vomit*.
I wish the Republicans were dumb enough to nominate that loon; he
wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning. Gore would beat him...
Dukakis would beat him... hell, MONDALE would have won against
Ashcroft.
Later,
Jacques
Gary Jordan
>I know I'm new, and naive, but why is it that everybody seems scared of
copyrights?
Nobody is afraid of copyrights. Many posters are afraid of the several hundred
posts in a thread devoted to copyrights, arguing the several sides.
In short:
Copyright Law states that the person who publishes a work owns the copyright
for their lifetime plus a rather lengthy period beyond, including works
published electronically (on the internet or usenet, fex.) There is no need to
publish a copyright notice, or any restrictions. ALL rights to making copies
belong to the owner. This is fact and law.
A group of scofflaws argue that once it is on the internet, it is public
property, and they may do with it what they will.
Another group claims that unless the copyright owner both states that it is
copyrighted AND prohibits the making of copies, the work may be treated as
public domain.
Another group (aka thieves) doesn't care. They strip the notices and publish
it elsewhere, copyright be damned.
Another group takes exception to the restrictions placed on copying by the
owners, and asks that the site owners (ASSTR, for instance) loosen the
restriction, as though it were within the site owners' rights to do so.
All the groups who disagree with the law will argue vociferously for their
point of view either from total ignorance of the law or from the point of view
that it can't be enforced, and therefor isn't important.
Flames will occur. Personalities will get personal. Much bandwidth will be
consumed. The law will not be changed one whit by arguing, nor will the
*opinions* of the posters. All will breathe a sigh of relief when the thread
dies away.
Gary Jordan
"Old submariners never die. It's not within their scope."
I have *never* done that before.
I didn't do it this time.
And I'll never do it again.
(And this time, I mean it!)
celia batau
"Katie McN" <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote in message
news:4bk1cugohef52nk7m...@4ax.com...
> I wouldn't know how to start telling someone who'd spent all his or her
> life in West Texas about the things I experienced in Los Angeles.
:)
on a lot of the papers we get help filling out, there are always lots of
lines for english, spanish, chinese, japanese, vietnamese, and armenian. oh,
and korean. :) prolly most of what happens here would confuse west texas. :)
that's why our freeways have big signs that say "airport" and "theme park."
;)
west texas is pretty. :) we've been through the top and down to ciudad
juarez. :)
-cb (who would sponsor Katie as an honorary Californian if she ever came
back. :)
celia batau
"Conjugate" <conj...@butter.toast.net> wrote in message
news:uc1iqja...@corp.supernews.com...
> Now, cb needs to study math. They'd learn how to integrate. :-)
yuck. even the thought of integration scares us. almost as much as the
thought of math. :)
-cb
Father Ignatius
> I'm not sure how long the .prn idea will be taken seriously. I know that
> they are working on (maybe have completed?) a complementary notation;
domain
> names that are kid-safe. That seems to me to be a safer way of going
about
> it.
Huh? Please explain, as to an idiot, what is "a domain name that is
kid-safe."
> Conjugate
> wishes the first amendment had been truncated to its first five words.
For the benefit of other benighted foreigners, I advise, after some
homework, that this turns out to mean Conjugate wishes that the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the USA said, "Congress shall make no law."
--
"Father Ignatius" <Father Ignatius at hot mail dot com>
http://www.asstr.org/~FatherIgnatius/Stories.html
The Web's Best Illustrated Adult Fiction is at http://www.ruthiesclub.com/
Katie McN
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 05:58:58 GMT I noticed your interesting post:
<edited out the useless stuff for this>
>--Frank
>who--no disrespect to Katie intended--wouldn't live in Texas if my life
>depended on it <G>
>
Well, I can change that right now.
Did you know that every year we hold the Luckenbach Olympics. Yep, not
some once every four year thing like the wimpy event you see on Yankee
television.
I figure you might like to join in and could be a star if you play your
cards right. Well, you probably wouldn't do well in the impromptu boob
flashin' contest, so that's out. Now, most guys do all right in the "I
drank a case of long necks in under an hour' contest (Texas for bottled
beer, partner), but the prize for that one's not that good (usually a
case of Lone Star beer you have to buy yourself), plus most of the guys
forget they were in it so it's not really the kind of thing you could
write home about.
No, I figure you for a cowboy who'd do real good in the cow pie throwin'
contest. Yep, it's probably the highlight of the Olympics here and
something you boys from the East seem so good at. The winner gets a
bronzed cow pie suitable for display on the mantle, right there under
the stuffed deer head.
Once you find out how much fun you'll be having here in Texas, I bet
you'll never want to leave.
Katie McN
<trimmed out some other stuff about Jacques ripping off some poor
Hollywood studio and what not. He's probably the reason Vivendi
Universal is going down the toilet even though all their films seem to
do doing okay. All you French folks should get ready to kick some ass
cause he's the reason that your most interesting station, Canal Plus,
will now have to start showing "Leave It To Beaver" reruns since that's
Universal's number one program in syndication and they'll be calling all
the shots from now on.>
> I actually picked up a pirate tape of it off E-bay before the DVD
>came out. (I then bought the DVD; the only moral justification for
>getting the pirate copy was that the c*p*r*ght owners had chosen not
>to make that version available for sale, and thus were losing nothing
>through my purchase of a copy. As soon as they did make it available,
>I was obligated to buy it. This is probably going to start another
>freakin' c*p*r*ght thread, but what the hell.)
Yah, and wait till we find out that the c*p*r*ght holder is some right
wing church affiliated with the US Federal Government. Plus, you did
review it to some extent so we have that risk, too. I wouldn't be
surprised to see Conjugate jump in with a pun and maybe Souvie add a
list of things people in Texas do.
This could turn out to be a disaster thread and you have no one to blame
but yourself, Jacques!!
Jeff Zephyr
<conj...@butter.toast.net> wrote:
>"Katie McN" <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote in message
>news:mipubu475qrnh8cl6...@4ax.com...
>> Hi nick_ca...@yahoo.co.uk (Nick),
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:40:13 GMT I noticed your interesting post:
>>
>> >On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:26:14 GMT, Katie McN <ka...@katiemcn.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> NC-17 here is almost the kiss of death according to some studio
>> executives I know. This is not always true, but provides a very high
>> barrier to success.
>
>One reason is that "Showgirls" did abominably poorly in the box office. I
>think many decisions are made for irrational reasons. Hollywood sees the
>film "Showgirls" do badly. What did it do wrong that we can avoid, they ask
>themselves. Obviously, it must have been the NC-17 content, and not the
>repulsive plot or iffy acting, right? There haven't been that many NC-17
>films that even tried for big theater releases; I recall "Henry and June,"
>and "Showgirls," and that's about it.
NC-17 as a deliberate rating makes it hard to get into most
theaters. It is equated with "X" rating (which is actually unrated;
NC-17 is what such movies would get *if* they were rated) as far as
the advertising and public impressions go.
The impression that such movies have poor acting quality might also
be justified sometimes. But *lots* of movies suffer from that
problem, not just NC-17. But I could see an issue with it, that the
movie used such content to cover up a lack of quality. If it was
really good, they could have stuck with an R rating, which shows
enough to make USA'n movie goers happy.
NR - not rated -- has a better chance of being shown in independent
art sort of theaters than NC-17. If the movie bypassed the ratings
people entirely, that means it has class. Or at least, *may* have the
classiness that foreign films are reputed to have over here.
>> >Yet many of these films have come from Hollywood or elsewhere in the
>> >US (e.g. Natural Born Killers), so what's that all about? Are they
>> >made for the export market?
>
>I think Natural Born Killers was rated R in the United States. It may be
>that UK ratings standards are less open than ours? I don't know.
R in the USA, yes. I don't know if there was a change in content
between the two versions.
A lot of movies shot in the USA, especially made for TV/cable/video
releases, have shots done which aren't put into the USA release. The
standards for sexual content and nudity in the USA are very
restrictive.
Conversely, violence alone sans sex is a lot less restrictive here.
It doesn't have to make sense -- it is OK for teens to see extreme
violence which we hope they aren't seeing in real life, but *not* OK
to see sex, which I figure that many of them *are* seeing in real
life, and should be seeing.
At least, as long as I think in empathic memory mode about what I
liked when I was a teenager. Violence was unreal, sex was real.
There was violence, of course. But it wasn't something that I wanted
to see or be involved in. Sex was entirely different.
>> Yes, this has been a practice that has gone on for many years. The
>> studio people refer to the domestic market version and the European
>> version. The version for you folks often has added sex or violence.
>
>I haven't seen the overseas version of Natural Born Killers. Obviously.
>
>Snip to get to:
>
>> A few days ago our high court threw out the law which made it illegal to
>> buy or sell porn where any of the actors was portraying someone under
>> age. While everyone knew the law was stupid and would be thrown out, it
>> took six years for it to happen.
>>
>> The next day one of the Federal Representatives was already coming up
>> with a replacement. This is the one that makes it illegal to video tape
>> someone in a sex act where they don't know they are being taped. Plus,
>> it will force porn to be segregated to websites with an extension of
>> .prn. Once again all this will be thrown out, but it will take six years
>> for it to happen. One wonders how long it would take for the people here
>> who pretty much wiped out NC-17 films to do the same to .prn websites?
>
>I'm not sure how long the .prn idea will be taken seriously. I know that
>they are working on (maybe have completed?) a complementary notation; domain
>names that are kid-safe. That seems to me to be a safer way of going about
>it.
Seriously? It is hard to tell. A member of Congress can propose
any law, regardless of how stupid, illogical, or unconstitutional it
may be. I'd hope that *both* suggestions would get tossed out.
The secret taping thing shouldn't require new laws, not for that.
There are already provisions for requiring permission to use pictures
and film of real people.
There are entirely, 100% valid reasons constitutionally to allow
taping of people for documentary or investigative purposes.
Distributing that material to the public has its own legal problems,
but making it illegal to tape such things has more serious
implications. I think that the sex part of it is overreaching.
Privacy issues apply, sex per se should not.
But a *lot* of USA'ns have big sexual hangups. It makes me wonder
what other nations think of our sexual peccadillos that way, such as
Ashcroft's unwillingness to be photographed in front of classically
formed semi-nude statues.
>> The rating system here is nominally to provide parents a means to
>> determine if their children should go to a film or not. It concentrates
>> on sex so violence can be very extreme and the rating does not
>> necessarily max out with the occasional violent act. Show a man's penis
>
>I saw Blade II, which was rated R despite scenes including a smiling nude
>woman, lying on her stomach, being fed on by a couple of vampires who were
>digging tasty bits out from between her ribs, which had been exposed by
>peeling the skin back. Some of the people in the theater had small children
>with them. They didn't look to be more than about 10 or 11 y.o. I wonder
>about people like that.
That is violence, not sex. No movie with mere violence of any sort
is going to get worse than an R rating in the USA. A bit of nudity
plus violence might combine to make it, but in practice it requires
sex in order to get R, not just limited nudity.
>> fex and it's a certain R rating and more than likely NC-17. The
>> homophobes in the government and their minions who do the ratings are
>> afraid that a whopper might be sneaking up on them. A few bare breasts
>> might only garner the PG-13 for some reason.
>
>Female pubic hair = R; male pubic hair = Eeeek!
Yes, it is a strange thing. Bare breasts don't hardly count.
>> Soon the only kind of film we'll be able to see here is whatever fetish
>> Ascroft has. I can't wait to find out. Hope it's not child molestation.
>
>I'm a trifle more optimistic. Indeed, I hope that Bush and co. try to get a
>law passed restricting all kinds of sexual behaviors. There's no surer way
>of ensuring that a liberal will be elected president in 2004. As it stands,
>if GWB is careful, it will be hard for the Dems to pry him out of there, and
>I'm afraid we may need more supreme court justices before 2008. Ick.
Witch burning, that is the next big thing I'm sure :-)
>Conjugate
>wishes the first amendment had been truncated to its first five words.
No, then you'd have everything worked out via Presidential fiat and
bureaucracy. They could have made it harder to pass laws, though.
--
Jeff
Web site at http://www.asstr.org/~jeffzephyr/
For FTP, ftp://ftp.asstr.org/pub/Authors/jeffzephyr/
There is nothing more important than petting the cat.
Jeff Zephyr
wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:02:00 -0700, spd3432 <spd...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Adding curlies
>>
>>On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:01:25 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg"
>><e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I chose not to cross-post this, but I figured you guys deserved an
>>>ego-stroke:
>>>
>>>In rec.arts.sf.written, Re: So How Do I Write A Story, Elf Sternberg
>>>(e...@drizzle.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>> (As an aside, I've often been entertained by the difference
>>>> between alt.sex.stories.d and rec.arts.sf.composition. The latter is
>>>> full of high-minded theory and grousing about the publishing industry;
>>>> the former, on the other hand, has spent the last week discussing the
>>>> difference between a dependent and an independent clause, rules for the
>>>> usage of a comma, practical advice on how and when to capitalize terms
>>>> for nobility, the use of plosive alliteration, and the formula for
>>>> making a romantic heroine seem sympathetic. While writing smut may not
>>>> be your thing, the instant feedback provided by the a.s.s.* readership
>>>> shows that the serious hobbyists on a.s.s.d ("d" for "discussion") have
>>>> a greater personal interest in the craft than many of the wannabe
>>>> professionals.)
>>>
>Interesting.
>
>I don't subscribe to that group, but I do to afo
>(alt.fiction.original), and although I'm pretty dormant there these
>days, I note the number of posts that come through daily.
>
>It varies a lot of course, but today afo got 167 and assd got a mere
>19 and this seems to reflect a recent trend. It could be repressive
>influences on my newsfeed, (and I am filtering for curlies), but there
>was a time when the situation was pretty much reversed. It's got to
>the point when I actually have the time ot read everything posted
>here!
>
>So what is it all about? Is assd dying?
I think we might be a little quieter, but I see more posts here.
Not a lot more for the 17th, but a few. Other days will see more
activity.
Maybe it was just a quiet time for us.
Also, recent posts have a strong element of on-topic-icity. That
isn't always the case on a lot of newsgroups. Part of what makes a
lot of traffic is off-topic stuff, you know?
Jeff Zephyr
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:26:14 GMT, Katie McN <ka...@katiemcn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Those of us who live in the US are familiar with the motion picture
>>rating system where film that doesn't comply with whatever standards are
>>popular that day end up with an NC-17 rating or no rating. While this is
>>supposed to prevent people under 17 from attending, in fact it actually
>>is used by those who like to repress everything as a focal point for
>>such things as boycotting newspapers or television stations that allow
>>advertising for this type of film. They've been pretty successful. I'm
>>unaware of any television station that allows advertising for NC-17 or
>>unrated films and don't know of any newspapers that do, although I
>>assume there are some somewhere. There are only a handful of theaters
>>that show NC-17 or unrated films and these tend to be in big cities
>>while I continue to live in the country.
>>
>Odd.
>
>Here in the UK we have a similar rating system - '18' meaning that it
>is considered unsuitable for anyone under that age (corresponding to
>the old 'X' certificate), but that doesn't seem to have much downside
>on the cinemas that show such films. It certainly doesnt scare the
>punters!
But in the UK, shows which would get a PG-13 or R rating in the USA
get shown on broadcast TV. In the USA, such programs must be heavily
edited in order to make it on the air.
Not, BTW, primarily for legal restrictions, though those play a
part. Any broadcaster which seriously tried to challenge that rule
would face a barrage of legal and economic attacks, making such things
unacceptable to management.
Besides, in the USA we have satellite and cable TV to divert such
content. But even so, for the most part both avoid the hard-X rated
stuff, running NC-17 and the softer unrated material primarily. You
still need to go to video (if you can find a rental/sale place
locally) in order to get some programs.
>They can be advertised on our TV (albeit with a 'U' trailer, or after
>9.00pm), but they are certainly reviewed in magazines and TV/radio
>programs. I guess if they weren't that might be a bit of a stopper,
>but then the review features would be seen as 'tame' and people would
>switch off.
In the USA, you simply don't see them at all on broadcast TV.
Newspapers can list NC-17 movie showings. The classic X-rated theater
places which show *only* such films are almost dead; video has killed
them off. There are some, but ads tend to be in
alternative/underground sorts of newspapers and services, not the
mainstream press.
>In fact sometimes getting an '18' or 'X' certificate has been viewed
>as desirable, since it attracts people who like to see something
>'forbidden'.
>
>Yet many of these films have come from Hollywood or elsewhere in the
>US (e.g. Natural Born Killers), so what's that all about? Are they
>made for the export market?
>
>I've never lived in the US, so I cant' say anything authoritative
>about it, but sometimes I get the distinct impression that there is a
>huge cultural difference in this respect.
>
>Or have I missed the point?
No, you haven't. A lot of the movies *were* made in the USA, for a
US market, but some content does get changed for export. Most
especially, sex. Things which could give it the disastrous NC-17
rating by USA standards get dropped -- which are almost always sexual
content, turning it into the safer R rating.
I suspect that in the UK, the violent content alone might kick it up
to the adult-only level. Whereas in the USA, a purely violent movie
with no sexual content might be left with a PG-13 rating (13-17 can
watch it without an adult), rather than R (under 17 requires an
adult).
USA standards tend to rank NC-17 with X -- movies about sex, and
therefore "perverted," so that ordinary movie-going citizens won't see
them. And they rarely share theater space (in the same building) with
other shows. You have to go to theaters which show them, or else go
only to late night shows when all the kids should be in bed (right) :P
Jeff Zephyr
>Katie McN <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote in
>news:mipubu475qrnh8cl6...@4ax.com:
>
>> Yes, this has been a practice that has gone on for many years. The
>> studio people refer to the domestic market version and the European
>> version. The version for you folks often has added sex or violence.
>
>I'd hope, unsubtracted sex and less violence!
I don't know if violence gets cut out, but usually sex and nudity
get added.
>My knowledge of TV is very limited, but during a short business trip to the
>USA a few years ago I was amazed at the amount of violence on US
>television. On my hotel TV I saw someone being machine-gunned, and there
>was no warning whatsoever. On the other hand, there were dire warnings
>about nudity before a film in which a woman was shown (tasteful rear view)
>walking into a shower. I felt that the priorities were all wrong.
Violence is entirely acceptable on broadcast TV. No warnings are
needed. Nudity, even slightly, makes a warning necessary. Even then,
on broadcast TV the nudity is rarely shown clearly, often masked or
cut even with the warning of "mature content" while much of the
violence remains unchanged.
Certain words, though, get cut. Which can make the situation rather
surreal. You see the guy massacring a bunch of people, and his
language is rather polite, of the "darn commies" sort of style, rather
than what he most obviously said -- you can still read the lips -- in
the theater.
>"Puerile" was the word that came to mind. But one is always cautious about
>criticizing cultures one doesn't properly understand.
Well, I live there and I don't understand it, so go right ahead.
Joyce Melton
>IMO the problem is really that many shows & movies are pathetically poor, and
>rely on violence to hook interest. So indeed when you remove that part you
>realize how terrible the show is. One is just plain bored in front of it.
>
>The problem is that it is just as terribly poor & boring with the violence, but
>the watcher is not just bored, he/she has other emotions going on: disgust,
>fear, revulsion, morbid curiosity, you name it.
There is a legitimate point here, but it can be stretched to cover
illegitimate aims.
The problem with this argument is that removing story points from any
story can destroy the story, be the story points based on violent
conflict, erotic encounter, or political agitation. Once an artists
story has been eviscerated, for whatever reason, saying that the
worthlessness of the remainder proves the worthlessness of the whole
is like saying that since the removal of a heart leaves a corpse, the
person was not alive to begin with.
Joyce
-- What was I thinking?
-- http://www.beastlythoughts.com
Joyce Melton
>Huh? Please explain, as to an idiot, what is "a domain name that is
>kid-safe."
The idea is to have a high-level domain name like .kids or .teen (or
some other distinguishing characteristic) that will have a strict
content code. Censored content to be sure, but no different than the
children's section in many libraries. Then parents can supposedly set
up their computers so the kids can access only that part of the web.
Joyce Melton
>They could have made it harder to pass laws, though.
I like Ben Franklin's idea of having one house of congress just for
repealing laws. :)
Valen Thyan
"Gary Jordan" <pjc...@aol.come.to.bed> wrote in message
news:20020420040324...@mb-ms.aol.com...
> Valen asks:
>
> >I know I'm new, and naive, but why is it that everybody seems scared of
> copyrights?
>
> Nobody is afraid of copyrights. Many posters are afraid of the several
hundred
> posts in a thread devoted to copyrights, arguing the several sides.
>
> In short:
I see! Thanks for clearing that up- and in such an informative manner.
Valen
valen...@hotmail.com
http://www.asstr.org/~valen/
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
held forth, saying:
>>Conjugate
>>wishes the first amendment had been truncated to its first five words.
>
> No, then you'd have everything worked out via Presidential fiat and
>bureaucracy. They could have made it harder to pass laws, though.
I like the suggestion Heinlein had Prof. de la Paz make in
TMiaHM--bicameral legislature: House 1 makes laws, and they require a
2/3 majority to pass.
House 2 reviews and rejects laws from House 1--and it takes only about
a 25% 'reject' vote in order to kill a new law.
(this from my notoriously unreliable memory--all my RAH books still
packed and stored)
--
-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor
Never try to outstubborn a cat. - Lazarus Long
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
forth, saying:
> maybe Souvie add a
>list of things people in Texas do.
<g>
Did you leave her any to list first?
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
(Always Horny) held forth, saying:
>But no risk. The constitution protects the rights of those people to make money
>by poisoning our children. And it will for a long time: see how slow the
>progress on much more obvious issues like the tobacco-trafficking industry.
>
>
>
>Now, I get down from the soapbox and turn it over to the auto-McCarthic crowd.
>Denny, Frank, Stasya, it's all yours. Blast off my gagging of Robocop XXIII.
But the problem isn't the people in Hollywood/TV-land making
brainlessly pathetic product--the problem is that folk pay money to
see it. Or, in the case of TV, watch it, and report same to the
Nielsen etc folks. I mean, people watch Jerry Springer and Geraldo.
<gag> And "Survivor" and its ilk. There are *info-mercials* with
more and better content.
I (obviously) can't speak for Frank(McCoy? where is he lately?) or
Stasya--but that last two lines of AH's suggests he (nothing new) has
no clue about my attitudes.
Should we censor sex and/or violence? Hell, no. We bloody shouldn't
censor anything. Should we instead refuse to support shoddy,
tasteless programming? IMO, yes.
As to tobacco & alcohol--not gonna go there. (my views tend toward
laissez-faire, though)
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
held forth, saying:
Hell, if she were still alive, Barbara Jordan would beat him.
(of course, I'd vote for her against almost anyone...)
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
<pinat...@bigplanet.com> held forth, saying:
>hi Conjugate!
>
>"Conjugate" <conj...@butter.toast.net> wrote in message
>news:uc1iqja...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Now, cb needs to study math. They'd learn how to integrate. :-)
>
>yuck. even the thought of integration scares us. almost as much as the
>thought of math. :)
What? You think non-Californians should go to the back of the bus?
Jeff Zephyr
<pinat...@bigplanet.com> wrote:
>hi Katie!
>
>"Katie McN" <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote in message
>news:mipubu475qrnh8cl6...@4ax.com...
>> >>Those of us who live in the US are familiar with the motion picture
>> >>rating system where film that doesn't comply with whatever standards are
>> >>popular that day end up with an NC-17 rating or no rating. While this is
>> >>supposed to prevent people under 17 from attending, in fact it actually
>> >>is used by those who like to repress everything as a focal point for
>> >>such things as boycotting newspapers or television stations that allow
>> >>advertising for this type of film. They've been pretty successful. I'm
>> >>unaware of any television station that allows advertising for NC-17 or
>> >>unrated films and don't know of any newspapers that do, although I
>> >>assume there are some somewhere. There are only a handful of theaters
>> >>that show NC-17 or unrated films and these tend to be in big cities
>> >>while I continue to live in the country.
>
>we don't know about America, but in california (we live in los angeles about
>20 minutes from Hollywood) we don't have a problem finding things. we don't
>usually notice the ratings but down the street there are newspaper boxes
>with free porn periodicals. there are also lots of alternative papers that
>have listings and there's lots of stuff pasted on walls. one of the radio
>stations we listen to has almost non-stop sex songs in it. and there's this
>adult store in Pasadena that's right in the middle of the popular part where
>all the tourists go. :)
California is a bit different for the average America area (a
foreign country practically).
Big cities have such things, smaller cities -- and much of Texas :-)
even in bigger cities -- tend to have less. The rules for what is
allowed and what isn't are strange. Utah (a state with a strong
church-government connection) has rather restrictive laws. Nevada --
right next to it -- is terribly open by comparison.
Still, what about broadcast TV and mainstream papers? Those tend to
ignore NC-17 stuff, and show a really weird attitude about sex.
Don't get me started on daytime talk shows either. They
sensationalize sex, in effect advertising it, while showing shock and
condemnation for those who enjoy sexuality. There are some
exceptions, but there is an awful lot of righteous indignation
regarding the activities of young people (and not so young) regarding
sex.
>-celia the disintegrated core girl
LA is a good place to be around then, I'd guess. You can fit in
more or less just fine?
oosh
> Far as those tattooed guys go, notice that a bunch of them was missing
> fingers. Yep, they're so bad at foreplay that their girlfriends cross
> their legs, roll over and go to sleep. Very painful for the guy to have
> his finger ripped off like that, but a good lesson on manners.
Katie, you seem to be on a roll today! (Or is this the wrong moment to point
that out...?)
O.
Katie McN
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:59:02 -0700 I noticed your interesting post:
>"Father Ignatius" <FatherI...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Huh? Please explain, as to an idiot, what is "a domain name that is
>>kid-safe."
>
>The idea is to have a high-level domain name like .kids or .teen (or
>some other distinguishing characteristic) that will have a strict
>content code. Censored content to be sure, but no different than the
>children's section in many libraries. Then parents can supposedly set
>up their computers so the kids can access only that part of the web.
>
I'm all for it. I figure in no time at all law enforcement and the
pedophiles will be there talking to each other and doing what they like
to do best which of course is to sit on their asses and bullshit people.
Kids of course won't want to hang out on a 'kids' group. That would be
tacky for them. Soon as any one of them can type they are trying to be
more adult. How do I know this? I had a computer when I was a kid.
My neighbors are into religion and home school their children to make
sure they stay structured and so forth. Their second oldest daughter is
into soccer and pretty good at it. She is also 5' 9" (1.75 m) and very
aggressive. I figure the home schooling may have cost her a scholarship
for soccer (football in the UK, futball in Germany, that fucking poofter
sport in Oz and so forth).
Anyhow, I was showing her how to use the new computer her family got her
for her birthday. She is 14. It seems they decided to use a right wing
religious ISP. Yes world people, they are everywhere as I've mentioned
in other places in the group. Well, of course that comes with a filter
that blocks out "evil' content.
The girl loves the US women's soccer team as all girl soccer players
here in the US do. Well, one cannot access the home page the US Team and
most of their players including all the girls who are 1.75 m and taller.
My young lady was depressed since these are her role models. A young
girl of 14 who is that tall is bigger than almost any boy she knows and
so looks for other girls to show her she has a chance to fit in later
when the boys her age finally grow up.
Any how, I called up this place to find out why most of the soccer team
was blocked to include the US Soccer team home page. The reason? I
should have realizes.
It seems that when Brandy Chastain ripped off her shirt and showed the
world her standard woman's sports bra when the US girls won the World
Cup, many religious fanatics decided she was sinful. Apparently the
incredibly sexy look of a Nike Sports Bra was too much for them. They
filed complaints against her with this ISP and so any web site where her
name shows up is blocked. I assume this is how all of these groups work.
A few bigots get to set the scene for the rest of them and eventually
all they'll have is violence against children, spousal abuse and all the
other things these people think is okay as long as it's the head of the
household doing it.
Well I told the girl she could use one of my accounts and set up an
internet connection for herself that bypassed this ISP. She is such a
good girl that she didn't want to use it and even though it provided her
with what she wanted, she asked me to take it off her computer.
Later on I got together with her father and told him that his idea of
censorship was hurting his daughter and even though she knew he was
wrong, she wouldn't let me help her get around it. I mentioned that she
was doing a good job as a child and he sucked as a father. My opinion of
course, but ...
He saw the light and got her an account of her own with a regular ISP
and told her no one would every be allowed to look at her computer or
what she had on it because he trusted her and felt she knew right from
wrong. The girl thought this was the most wonderful thing that ever
happened to her and told me how great it was to be able to have private
conversations with her girl friends and know that no one would ever know
their secrets. Those of us who've been 14 yo girls know what these
secrets are and later on realize that most people wouldn't care and yet
I understand the feeling.
oosh
news:10192977...@news2.bigplanet.com:
> yuck. even the thought of integration scares us. almost as much as the
> thought of math. :)
There speaks one who has turned disintegration into a thing of beauty!
O.
Conjugate
news:JU8w8.64764$Kq4.2...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Oh, Lord, he has Opened The Forbidden Door. Okay, lookie here. Once, many
years ago, somebody posted to ASSM a story to which he/she/it did not own
the copyright. This person was taken to task (PLEASE don't pop off with any
opinions until you've read the whole sad story, or you may start the war
again!) for violating the poster's copyright. That person then incorrectly
claimed that the story was in public domain because it had been posted to a
newsgroup. He/she/it was corrected, but refused to acknowledge the
correction, claiming to have checked with an attorney to discover that
he/she/it was right w/regard to copyrights.
Well, several attorneys responded, pointing out many sources and links to
statements of law, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(hereinafter DMCA). To this the Original Poster (hereinafter OP) replied,
roughly, so what? It was pointed out that OP had claimed the works were in
public domain, and they weren't. OP responded, saying that he'd never
claimed that. Others answered, saying, Oh yes, OP had too claimed that, to
which OP replied by changing the subject; it didn't matter whether the works
were under copyright or not, since nobody would ever catch OP or be able to
bring suit. It was again observed that this was irrelevant; we were making
statements of law, not of practicality.
During this long-drawn-out process, other posters, perhaps because they were
stupid, perhaps because they felt OP was being bullied by the rest of ASSD
for no better reason than that we were right and OP was clearly wrong,
jumped in on OP's side, for a number of reasons. These reasons included,
but were not limited to, approximately:
"I like seeing stories so if the author doesn't want them reposted my
enjoyment should take precendence."
"I don't care about other peoples' rights, and if those people didn't want
their stories stolen they shouldn't have posted them to a public newsgroup."
"I don't care what you say, it's still public domain even if the law and all
the courts say different."
"Obscene material isn't copyrightable, so there!"
All of these objections were answered, and as they were answered, more
people (possibly OP's sock puppets, possibly troublemakers, possibly real
jerks who believed the crap they were posting) jumped in to defend the
idiots who were defending OP. During all this, several authors, feeling
understandably hurt that their wishes were being blatantly ignored, and not
appreciating the long threads in which OP and his friends and sock puppets
were essentially telling them that they shouldn't post their stories, up and
quit writing. After all, why write if all that you'll get in return is
abuse for posting your stories?
Things quieted down for a while, and we carried on, until, one day, somebody
else came along, and asked if we could repost a story from an author who had
quit. We said NO, and explained, trying to be patient, about copyright.
That new poster (hereinafter NP) said, in essence, what's the big deal since
all this stuff is in public domain anyway, isn't it? We said NO, and began
the whole long explanation over again. In the process, NP changed his story
several times ("I never said it was in public domain! I said it couldn't be
copyrighted!" "I never said it couldn't be copyrighted! I said there's no
way of enforcing it!" "If you people don't want your stories copied, why do
you post them to the net? How stupid is that?") The whole mess began
again, with a whole new generation of friends, morons, and sockpuppets
trotting out the whole bloody argument.
Again, a small flock of writers quit in disgust. During this process,
strong feelings arose, feelings were hurt, and people who'd been great
on-line friends stopped being so friendly. Not, necessarily, because they
were on opposite sides of The Great Copyright War, but because everybody was
a little bit more sensitive and irritable for long afterwards. It was
pretty ugly.
So, now whenever the C-word rears its ugly head, people here flinch. We
don't want the wars to start again. We see no point in trying to correct
the incorrigible ignoramuses, and starting fights, and getting long,
150+-message-threads going that will make us sick to look at them when we
log on, and we don't want to see more authors becoming discouraged and
quitting, and we don't want the level of tension and unfriendliness raised
to where we all have a harder time getting along with one another than a
Jehovah's Witness has of getting along at a Hell's Angels meeting.
So, that's why. Now, it's not that we're scared of copyrights; it's just
that we are tired of fighting the good fight and being hurt by it. But when
some moron says something, we feel obliged to correct said moron, because we
have the simple childlike faith of writers that says words can make a
difference.
Conjugate
begging you, please, please, don't suggest anybody's stories are public
domain unless that author has so released them.
Conjugate
news:a9rfr5$1as1$1...@news.adamastor.ac.za...
> "Conjugate" <conj...@butter.toast.net> wrote in message
> news:ubv3166...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > I'm not sure how long the .prn idea will be taken seriously. I know
that
> > they are working on (maybe have completed?) a complementary notation;
> domain
> > names that are kid-safe. That seems to me to be a safer way of going
> about
> > it.
>
> Huh? Please explain, as to an idiot, what is "a domain name that is
> kid-safe."
As I understand it, the domain .kids is to be used solely and wholly for
wholesome, clean-cut, healthy, sparkly-eyed, cheerful entertainment with no
naughty bits, bad words, or other less-than-pure content. I mean, we're
talking about _Leave it to Beaver_ except they'd probably have to use a
different name for the kid. Now, I'm not sure what happens if you defy the
rule and post streaming video of some chick giving a blow job to a well-hung
porn star, and keep it in, say, Nauru or someplace. But presumably the only
people who could get official permission to use a .kids domain name would be
someplace where the gov't could come down on them hard. And I should have
said "notion" instead of "notation," in my original post above; just noticed
that now.
> > Conjugate
> > wishes the first amendment had been truncated to its first five words.
>
> For the benefit of other benighted foreigners, I advise, after some
> homework, that this turns out to mean Conjugate wishes that the First
> Amendment to the Constitution of the USA said, "Congress shall make no
law."
Thank you. That kind of crack is one I have trouble with. I don't want to
make it too obvious what I'm saying, but I also don't want to leave people
mystified.
Conjugate
Conjugate
news:d6h3cu8g200sabdr3...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 02:04:10 -0700, "celia batau"
> <pinat...@bigplanet.com> held forth, saying:
>
> >hi Conjugate!
> >
> >"Conjugate" <conj...@butter.toast.net> wrote in message
> >news:uc1iqja...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Now, cb needs to study math. They'd learn how to integrate. :-)
> >
> >yuck. even the thought of integration scares us. almost as much as the
> >thought of math. :)
>
> What? You think non-Californians should go to the back of the bus?
Now, it's not integration that scares me, it's DIS-integration. There's
nothing worse than having Marvin the Martian come up to you with that scary
ray gun of his and ---
Sorry! What were we talking about again? Math? Never mind.
Conjugate
Conjugate
news:e6ac712b.02041...@posting.google.com...
>
> > "President Ashcroft?"
> >
> > *shudder*vomit*.
>
> I wish the Republicans were dumb enough to nominate that loon; he
> wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning. Gore would beat him...
> Dukakis would beat him... hell, MONDALE would have won against
> Ashcroft.
> Jacques
Well, it would be nice. Consider that he can borrow some appropriate
campaign material from another, similar source:
"Ashcroft: When you're tired of voting for the LESSER of two evils."
ia! ftagn!
Conjugate
Nick
<pinat...@bigplanet.com> wrote:
>hi Nick!
>
>"Nick" <nick_ca...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3cc19574...@supernews.surfanytime.co.uk...
>> Do you mean the 'rest' of america, or do you see yourself as seperate?
>
>hmm. don't let those white european-descended invaders fool you. when the
>spanish found california, they thought it was an island and put it on their
>maps. it's still separate. we believe in california independence. we like
>some of the ppl who think it was not-such-a-good-idea to absorb all those
>other states 150 years ago. :)
>
Interesting. Someone told me years ago about a book whose premise was
the secession of California from the rest of the Union. I don't wish
to stir things, or anything, but doesn't California generate most of
the wealth of the US?
Nick
Nicholas Urfe
copyright threads, I, too, am loathe to open this door again. But I
must point out that the story is at once more complex and simpler than
has been presented, and that there are more than two sides to every
story, even one as muddled as this one.
I have greatly resisted the urge to point to such recent bills as the
proposed Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, also
known as the Hollings-Disney Act, and cry out like a mad prophet,
"See! I told you! They will use the power of copyright for evil! Do
not let them!" --Mostly because I look horrible in sackcloth. But also
because--though I still stand by a great deal of the manifesto I
posted to ASSD in the summer of 2000, helping more than a little
thereby to turn a minor copyright skirmish into a donnybrook that
lasted well into October and blasted the heath of ASSD into a desolate
desert for too long (snaps available at Father Nat's Gallery--
(http://www.asstr.org/~FatherIgnatius/Images.html
(--scroll all the way down to the bottom to see)--where was I?
--Though I don't repudiate that manifesto in the slightest, I do
regret the damage and misunderstanding it has caused, and anyway, one
is always thinking. Conversations with Lisala, for inst, sparked some
reading into the French and European ideal of copyright, which hold
that the author has a moral right to his or her work that can never be
sold or transferred to anyone else, and were it not for the fact that
no American corporation would take it seriously, and anyway,
work-made-for-hire pretty much trumps that idea of moral rights by
naming the corporation as the author--oh, anyway. Feh. I am, as ever,
more ambivalent than I perhaps let on.
Still: I am driven to post a link to my essay, which I've maintained,
because the "good fight" that has been described is not the only fight
fought, and not the only side taken, and--while a valid description of
a lot of interaction regarding copyright on this board--is far from
the whole story. If you are so inclined, you may read it here,
mawkish, digressive, and outdated though it may be:
http://www.asstr.org/~nickurfe/fripperies/property.html
Also therein is a link to Google's archive of the two-year-old thread
to which it was posted, and the responses that resulted. A history
lesson, then. (I would ask, if you are inclined to respond to what
I've said, that you try to keep the Fish Tank's ideals in mind: try to
balance the negative with the positive, and scan that thread to make
sure you don't repeat any of what was already said.)
--But copyright is a touchy topic. Feelings run perhaps too high for
rational discussion to occur (on every side of the table, mind). And I
want to stress once again that I'm not disputing what Conjugate and
Gary have said, and I want to make it clear that I do not and never
have in any way advocated posting something someone else has written
without their permission. That is wrong, and my hobnailed boots stand
at the ready to leap on the neck of someone who does it along with the
most rabid of copyright cops. (Caesar's wife, after all.) It's just
that I also think the dark side, the negative aspect of the idea of
owning ideas must be considered; that the alternatives must be looked
at; that a rational and clear-headed inspection of what is lost, what
is gained, and most of all where the money really is and how one goes
about getting it--I think all of that is a worthwhile endeavor. It's
led me to the idea that harnessing the power of the internet, giving
my stuff away for free, as it were, and abrogating copyright for
myself and my works, is the smartest way to go about building a career
as Nicholas Urfe; as an eroticist and pornographer.
Certainly, I'm making more money now as Nicholas than I was two years
ago. Not enough to write home about yet, but slowly and surely, eh?
But your mileage may vary. Oh, yes.
Best,
--n.
"A spiteful scar crossed his face: an ash-colored and nearly perfect
arc that creased his temple at one tip and his cheek at the other. His
real name is of no importance; everyone in Tacuarembo called him the
'Englishman from La Colorada.'"
well--not English, no, per se:
http://www.asstr.org/~nickurfe/ift/
http://www.ruthiesclub.com/
Frank Downey
What happened to the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering
kaboom!
--Frank
who does a dead-on Marvin the Martian impersonation <G>
Valen Thyan
news:5a5d3dd2.02042...@posting.google.com...
> As one of the flame-broiled warriors in more than my share of
> copyright threads, I, too, am loathe to open this door again. But I
With all the embarrassment of a guest at the Legion innocently asking,
"Which war?" I humbly apologize to the vets. Now- with a tone of finality-
thanks to M. Urfe and Conjugate for curing my ignorance.
Valen
valen...@hotmail.com
http://www.asstr.org/~valen/
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
forth, saying:
>Later on I got together with her father and told him that his idea of
>censorship was hurting his daughter and even though she knew he was
>wrong, she wouldn't let me help her get around it. I mentioned that she
>was doing a good job as a child and he sucked as a father. My opinion of
>course, but ...
>
>He saw the light and got her an account of her own with a regular ISP
>and told her no one would every be allowed to look at her computer or
>what she had on it because he trusted her and felt she knew right from
>wrong. The girl thought this was the most wonderful thing that ever
>happened to her and told me how great it was to be able to have private
>conversations with her girl friends and know that no one would ever know
>their secrets. Those of us who've been 14 yo girls know what these
>secrets are and later on realize that most people wouldn't care and yet
>I understand the feeling.
Kudos to Katie--and even more so to the father, who had to admit he'd
been doing wrong.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> You had to mention these two areas, didn't you. Next thing you'll be
> encouraging the pro and con reviewer fans, religious spokes people, and
> the copyright army.
Army? I'm more like a lone gunman.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
forth, saying:
>I have greatly resisted the urge to point to such recent bills as the
>proposed Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, also
>known as the Hollings-Disney Act, and cry out like a mad prophet,
>"See! I told you! They will use the power of copyright for evil! Do
>not let them!"
I doubt there's anyone here, who, upon reading the CDDTPA, would
defend it. At least, I sure the hell hope not. That Act is not about
copyright--it's purely about corporate greed.
And the damn thing is draconian.
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net.invalid
held forth, saying:
Might kinda-sorta dpend on defining 'wealth,' there. Fex, the oil
from Alaska's North Slope, or the software from Microsoft (in Redmond,
WA), or the money generated by the NYSE (guess where?) and the NASDAQ
(in Chicago), or...
(yes, you in the other states--I know I didn't mention Texas,
etc--mostly lack of space and time, ok?)
But California *might* generate more wealth than any other state,
based on movies and TV, minerals, etc etc.
Gary Jordan
>On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:17:35 GMT, Katie McN <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> You had to mention these two areas, didn't you. Next thing you'll be
>> encouraging the pro and con reviewer fans, religious spokes people, and
>> the copyright army.
>
>Army? I'm more like a lone gunman.
Yay Reviewers!
Yay Copyrights!
Yay freedom of religion!
Gary Jordan
"Old submariners never die. It's not within their scope."
I have *never* done that before.
I didn't do it this time.
And I'll never do it again.
(And this time, I mean it!)
Katie McN
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 16:51:40 -0700 I noticed your interesting post:
Thanks Denny. I only had to think back to when I was a girl her age. My
sport was barrel riding (girl's jr. rodeo), but the principle was the
same. If I knew of some websites that my heroines put up on the net and
couldn't get to them for some dumb reason, I'd fell bad and not
understand as well as this girl did. He didn't waste a minute before he
decided to let her have her own account. I think the part where she
wouldn't let me set her up on mine showed him how trustworthy she is on
the net and elsewhere.
Katie McN
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:21:32 -0700 I noticed your interesting post:
Many people are unaware that California is the number one cash crop
state in addition to all you say above. It also has far more knowledge
workers than any other state. The value of computer products shipped is
much larger than anywhere else. Yep, but it takes a crowd of people to
do all that and so there are traffic jams on the Freeway at 1 AM (and
every other time of day as well.)
Katie McN
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 08:36:54 GMT I noticed your interesting post:
>On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:17:35 GMT, Katie McN <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> You had to mention these two areas, didn't you. Next thing you'll be
>> encouraging the pro and con reviewer fans, religious spokes people, and
>> the copyright army.
>
>Army? I'm more like a lone gunman.
Hahaha, I was wondering when you'd show up Platy! Well, you make up for
your lack of numbers by your persistence and vigor. Looks like we're
ready to have a copyright thread, boys. Let's kick back, open a few long
necks and go for it. ;-)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
[...]
> All the groups who disagree with the law will argue vociferously for their
> point of view either from total ignorance of the law or from the point of view
> that it can't be enforced, and therefor isn't important.
Please do not over generalise.
Nick
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:40:13 GMT, nick_ca...@yahoo.co.uk (Nick)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:26:14 GMT, Katie McN <ka...@katiemcn.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Those of us who live in the US are familiar with the motion picture
>>>rating system where film that doesn't comply with whatever standards are
>>>popular that day end up with an NC-17 rating or no rating. While this is
>>>supposed to prevent people under 17 from attending, in fact it actually
>>>is used by those who like to repress everything as a focal point for
>>>such things as boycotting newspapers or television stations that allow
>>>advertising for this type of film. They've been pretty successful. I'm
>>>unaware of any television station that allows advertising for NC-17 or
>>>unrated films and don't know of any newspapers that do, although I
>>>assume there are some somewhere. There are only a handful of theaters
>>>that show NC-17 or unrated films and these tend to be in big cities
>>>while I continue to live in the country.
>>>
>>Odd.
>>
>>Here in the UK we have a similar rating system - '18' meaning that it
>>is considered unsuitable for anyone under that age (corresponding to
>>the old 'X' certificate), but that doesn't seem to have much downside
>>on the cinemas that show such films. It certainly doesnt scare the
>>punters!
>
> But in the UK, shows which would get a PG-13 or R rating in the USA
>get shown on broadcast TV. In the USA, such programs must be heavily
>edited in order to make it on the air.
>
> Not, BTW, primarily for legal restrictions, though those play a
>part. Any broadcaster which seriously tried to challenge that rule
>would face a barrage of legal and economic attacks, making such things
>unacceptable to management.
>
I suppose we have a greater tradition of public service broadcasting
here. There are two PS channels on terresrtial TV (BBC1 and 2) and 3
commercials. ITV is mainstream, Channel4 mainly for 'arty' programs,
and C5 which is slightly downmarket. There are digital and satellite
broadcasts of course, but these are very market lead, concentrating on
Sport and Blockbuster movies. I don't subscribe to these, so i can't
really comment.
The upshot is that the advertisers, tend to follow viewing trends,
rather than dictate them. They are more interested in selling their
product than dictating morality. I have the impression that in the US
a lot of the influence of the religious right is achieved through
their business interests.
> Besides, in the USA we have satellite and cable TV to divert such
>content. But even so, for the most part both avoid the hard-X rated
>stuff, running NC-17 and the softer unrated material primarily. You
>still need to go to video (if you can find a rental/sale place
>locally) in order to get some programs.
>
Now paradoxacally, what is available on video seems to be far more
restricted. This follows the killing of the infant Jamie Bulger which
was supposed to have been a copycat of the film... oh God, I've
forgotten its name... but we have really 'cleaned up' our video act.
>
> I suspect that in the UK, the violent content alone might kick it up
>to the adult-only level. Whereas in the USA, a purely violent movie
>with no sexual content might be left with a PG-13 rating (13-17 can
>watch it without an adult), rather than R (under 17 requires an
>adult).
>
Yes, as oosh suggests we tend to treat censorship of violence in the
same way as sex. Sex and violence combined being a real hot button.
Not to say we don't permit these things. I think films rarely get
declassified for any reason.
'Crash' - a David Cronenburg film, which is about the sexual aspect of
traffic accidents and which got a hammering over here on its release,
is being shown on TV this week sometime (it may even be tonight). The
reviewers have given it a 5 star rating (ie 'must see'). This is an
American film of a British book, and I'm curoius to know what form it
was shown in over there and what reception it had. Surely it was rated
NC-17 at least!
Nick
Nicholas Urfe
> With all the embarrassment of a guest at the Legion innocently asking,
> "Which war?" I humbly apologize to the vets.
Oh, piffle. We (thankfully) don't go around boring people by telling
over and over again the long and unutterably dull story about how,
exactly, we got that limp in our left leg (Jerry shrapnel, always the
sharpest, don't you know) (um, my post of yesterday excepted), so how
on Earth could you have realized? Embarrassment, schmembarrassment.
den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.invalid wrote in message news:<07t4cu8vbpgpj5fh8...@4ax.com>...
> I doubt there's anyone here, who, upon reading the CDDTPA, would
> defend it. At least, I sure the hell hope not. That Act is not about
> copyright--it's purely about corporate greed. And the damn thing is
> draconian.
While I agree that no one with a shred of sanity and without a herd of
lawyers at their beck and call would possibly think the CBDTPA is a
good idea, or defend it (the Senate has yet to receive a single email,
letter, or fax in favor of it, out of the thousands upon thousands
sent thus far), it does, indeed, have everything to do with protecting
what some see as their property--under copyright--from the threat of
unlimited, perfect digital copies. --Certainly, it has little to do
with copyright as many understand it: the idea that "I make all my
money from selling limited copies of my work, so I have a right to
protection from the law from others selling copies of my work or
claiming it as their own." But it has everything to do with how
copyright--in its unholy mixture with patent law and trademark law and
their joint extrapolations--has been extended and twisted and
distorted by some, today: the idea that "I own this idea, this
sequence of thoughts, and you can't do anything to it or with it
without my permission."
For those (Yanks) interested in staking out a middle ground between my
extremism and that of Michael Eisner, et al (and there's oodles and
oodles of middle ground out there), I'd highly recommend checking out
DigitalConsumer.org--
http://www.digitalconsumer.org/
Specifically, their proposed Consumer Technology Bill of Rights, an
eminently sane document that deserves your attention and support. (The
Yanks, that is. Though you furriners could read it, too, and talk to
your governments about it, if you liked.)
But the road to hell is beckoning, and I really should get off it.
Best,
--n.
"But someone has to strike a pose and bear the weight of well-tailored
clothes! And that is why the Lord created men."
it's unhealthy, I know:
http://www.asstr.org/~nickurfe/ift/
http://www.ruthiesclub.com/
Katie McN
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:44:09 GMT I noticed your interesting post:
[ ... ]
>I suppose we have a greater tradition of public service broadcasting
>here. There are two PS channels on terresrtial TV (BBC1 and 2) and 3
>commercials. ITV is mainstream, Channel4 mainly for 'arty' programs,
>and C5 which is slightly downmarket. There are digital and satellite
>broadcasts of course, but these are very market lead, concentrating on
>Sport and Blockbuster movies. I don't subscribe to these, so i can't
>really comment.
>
The Federal government forces the cable companies to carry at least one,
but possibly two stations that show programs that somehow are related to
the Federal government to include showing boring hearings, speeches of a
supposed non-partisan nature, book reviews (who knows how these fit but
since they're boring they show up a lot), and other stuff that hardly
anyone watches. There is one program that does get some interest. This
is where your Prime Ministers Questions is shown. You lot seem to have
more fun with government that we do.
In addition to the above, the cable licensing process usually requires
the company to have what is called local access where pretty much anyone
can put a program on television as long as they know someone in local
government. In the smaller markets these will be things like a video of
the local high school game or some people getting together to hold a
tuba recital. In the large markets the program sometimes are more
interesting to include programs where hard core porn is shown. No
commercials allowed.
Since the local government has a lot to say about who gets to provide
cable service, we are now seeing a local government station added as
part of the mix. These show the local government meeting on boring
subject and pictures of city hall when they meet to divide up the
proceeds of their graft and corruption.
There are two or three so called educational channels. Someone puts on
programming that is supposed to be related to k-12 (elementary to high
school) education on one station. Another is from the local community
college. (First two years of college for those who may not have done
well enough to go to a regular college or university.) And if it happens
that there is a college or university in the vicinity, then they would
get at least one station, but see below about public broadcasting. The
programming here seems to be a random selection of classroom activities
interspersed with very slides of public service announcements such as
the schedule for trash collection during some holiday week.
We also have something called the Public Broadcast Station. This is run
by some local organization, in smaller markets this is often a college
or University. They can purchase a selection of programming from the
nation PBS, but are free to do what they want. Often we have programs of
a local nature that extol the virtues of prominent citizens who donate
money to the station to keep it running. A lot of other locally biased
stuff shows up with some interesting nation fare mixed in. This is a hit
or miss thing, but run so badly in the smaller markets that people lose
interest and give looking for the better programs. In the larger
markets, though, these stations sometimes shine and show so truly
interesting programs.
Finally. the cable providers have to add a certain amount of public
service television. This would include something that we have in my city
called the science channel. I would love it if this was really what it
was. Instead it gives our space agency, NASA, the opportunity to put on
any sort of program they deem wonderful. This means that people who
actually watch the station can see the command center where all the NASA
people sit during the blast off of the rockets putting satellites into
orbit. The actual rocket is never shown since they often contain spy
satellites and the government wouldn't want us to see this sort of
thing. Typical programming would be a blast off of a rocket, followed by
ten hours of one picture from the Hubble telescope. this would then be
followed by some NASA official explaining a bureaucratic concept in
monotone prior to showing ten hours of a single picture from the Hubble
telescope. This station actually has a schedule which shows up in the
listing where they state they are going to show a picture for ten hours.
Yet, the government feels this is helpful.
There are different variations of this in other markets, but the idea is
the same. Governments at every level from local to Federal collect money
from the cable companies which of course is paid by the cable viewers.
Since our governments consider the hypocritic act a good way to cover up
when they waddle up to the dining table of taxpayer money, they force
the cable providers to carry shit programs so they can point out the
wonders of the governing process , science channels, public access, full
disclosure of government at all levels, and, etc. None of this is worth
a shit for the most part, but they pretend they have forced the will of
the people on the cable providers.
We also have two or three channels on cable where nothing but
advertising occurs 24/7. One is local and two are national where time is
rented out for infomercials or whatever the traffic will bear. The cable
providers also cut in on the other channels they broadcast and spice in
their own commercials. This can provide some interesting results.
I often find myself working very late at might and like to watch re-runs
of a program called Law and Order as part of a wind down process. For
those of you who don't know about it, the first part has the police
attempting to solve a crime and the second part is how the prosecution
of the crime is handled in criminal court. This is an interesting twist
to the typical murder mystery since the guilty are sometimes freed when
the case goes to court even though the viewer knows the person is
guilty. Every program is a cliff hanger where even if one figures out
what is going to happen in the traditional mystery sense, the result can
still be changed by the legal outcome.
Imagine then my unhappiness when I'd spent almost an hour watching a
cliff hanger with the expectation of learning what happened only to have
a commercial spliced in in-place of the outcome of the criminal case. I
called my cable company only to find that viewer issues are handled in
one place in the country which is not where I live. They took my name
and said someone would get back to me although that never happened.
There are four or five stations devoted to news and stuff that might be
considered news such as court cases shown live and commented on by
analysts. How someone gets a fair trail in one of these alludes me. It
used to be that all of this was dominated by CNN and that outlet doesn't
appear to believe in controversy. Rupert Murdoch's Fox outlet is
changing things as he allows his readers to have opinions and say things
that show partisan positions. The number one rated news program is one
where the announcer has guests on, asks them questions, and then
interrupts them with sarcasm should they try not to answer.
Another absurdity is the local station rule. The cable companies must
cover the local stations, but the local stations don't have to allow
them to do it. This gives the locals an opportunity to blackmail the
cable company. However, the cable people never give up profits and
instead offer the local stations various deals such as cutting off the
last five minutes of the continuous Headline News program in favor of a
local version of the news with plenty of commercials. While this may
seem like a "good thing" to some, where I live the news could be handled
on a weekly basis with the majority of coverage being high school
sports.
Did I forget to mention that religious broadcasters show up on the
public access stations? Of course, but they also show up on many other
channels as well where they buy time and replace regular programming.
The cable providers get "credit" from the government when this happens.
It's win-win-win for the cable people. They get paid for putting the
channel on the air, they splice in their own commercials and then get
paid again when they don't show the program that's supposed to be on and
replace it with a paid religious broadcast and the public service credit
from the government to offset the manu abuses they perpetrate on a
regular basis.
We are all equal here. It's just that the pigs are more equal - by quite
a lot. Good thing George Orwell wasn't an American. Imagine how long
1984 would have been if he had to cover all the crap that goes on here.
Who needs BBC1 when we have all of the above going on?
<and now for something completely different>
>'Crash' - a David Cronenburg film, which is about the sexual aspect of
>traffic accidents and which got a hammering over here on its release,
>is being shown on TV this week sometime (it may even be tonight). The
>reviewers have given it a 5 star rating (ie 'must see'). This is an
>American film of a British book, and I'm curoius to know what form it
>was shown in over there and what reception it had. Surely it was rated
>NC-17 at least!
>
I bought the video from Amazon when it became available because I like
Rosanna Arquette who has a small, but interesting role in the film. I
had to do this because it is rated NC-17 and so was not seen in the
theaters around here. I wasn't able to see it on premium cable either. I
think it was shown, but can't say for sure. The local video outlets
didn't carry it either. My market is dominated by the major video
rental/sales companies and they don't stock NC-17 or Unrated video. The
beauty of rural America.
The Amazon.com rating is very high for the film and many of the film
reviewers here in the States give it high ratings as well including the
thumbs up people who thought it was wonderful film making.
The film is a good example of something we talked about in another
thread. It's a well made film. The cast is exceptional. The story is
ground breaking. Many of the reviews are very good and almost all point
out that the film provides some new directions for film making.
One would expect that it would be available in every market appearing at
least in art houses and probably in other outlets as well. Not the case.
It was not possible to advertise it in markets like mine. The venues
where it might be available such as video stores, didn't carry it as
they are afraid of the backlash from the religious bigots. So we have a
good film that is of interest to some, yet destroyed by the censorship
of the minority religious people.
Yes, it was made since Chronenberg was a strong enough director at the
time to make the film. It cost him for doing it and the studios observed
it not making money and so have more reasons to only make films starring
some violent person who kicks the shit out of everyone as the total
premise of the movie with the anticipation that they can get it rated
PG-13 even though the violence is extreme
Let us know what you think of Crash when you see it.
celia batau
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:3dt4cucjf0b7mn0l7...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:02:48 GMT, nick_ca...@yahoo.co.uk (Nick)
> held forth, saying:
> >Interesting. Someone told me years ago about a book whose premise was
> >the secession of California from the rest of the Union. I don't wish
> >to stir things, or anything, but doesn't California generate most of
> >the wealth of the US?
>
> But California *might* generate more wealth than any other state,
> based on movies and TV, minerals, etc etc.
some advertisement said that California had the seventh largest economy on
this planet. :)
if it's true then that means more and more nipple clamps for us maybe? ;)
or maybe hot steaming lesbian videos (not sure what we'd do with them. maybe
have a hot steaming lesbian karaoke party with our friends maybe?) :)
-cb (karaoke yay!)
--
celia batau's story site: http://www.myplanet.net/pinataheart/stories.htm.
thank u terror,
thank u disillusionment
thank u frailty,
thank u consequence,
thank u, thank u silence.
-Alanis Morisette
Starhawk
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:42:10 -0500, Jeff Zephyr <jeff...@hotmail.com>
> held forth, saying:
>
> >>Conjugate
> >>wishes the first amendment had been truncated to its first five words.
> >
> > No, then you'd have everything worked out via Presidential fiat and
> >bureaucracy. They could have made it harder to pass laws, though.
>
> I like the suggestion Heinlein had Prof. de la Paz make in
> TMiaHM--bicameral legislature: House 1 makes laws, and they require a
> 2/3 majority to pass.
> House 2 reviews and rejects laws from House 1--and it takes only about
> a 25% 'reject' vote in order to kill a new law.
> (this from my notoriously unreliable memory--all my RAH books still
> packed and stored)
That sounds about right... the argument was that if a law could not gain the
support of 2/3's of the people it shouldn't be created. The second part was
for the repeal of a law IIRC, not to kill a bill for a new law.
Conjugate
"Nicholas Urfe" <nick...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5a5d3dd2.02042...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> --But copyright is a touchy topic. Feelings run perhaps too high for
> rational discussion to occur (on every side of the table, mind). And I
> want to stress once again that I'm not disputing what Conjugate and
> Gary have said, and I want to make it clear that I do not and never
> have in any way advocated posting something someone else has written
> without their permission. That is wrong, and my hobnailed boots stand
> at the ready to leap on the neck of someone who does it along with the
> most rabid of copyright cops. (Caesar's wife, after all.) It's just
I oversimplified my description of the great wars and arguments by leaving
out several well-reasoned, albeit unpopular, sound criticisms of the current
idea of copyright. I herewith apologize to Platypus and to Urfe for my
characterizations of some of the arguers in those debates as "morons" or
"stupid." Neither is. I had quite forgotten many of the details, and my
words of oppobrium and scorn (I *love* the word "oppobrium." I think it's
just terrific! Where was I?) were not aimed at them, but at the individuals
who kept conflating the terms "Public Domain" and "What I want to do."
(Another good word: "conflating." It makes me sound so smart when I use
it.)
> that I also think the dark side, the negative aspect of the idea of
> owning ideas must be considered; that the alternatives must be looked
Are you aware that it is now possible to patent a number? Or so I
understand. Large prime numbers, in particular, have commercial value. It
seems silly to me, but I've been told that it can be done.
Conjugate
who wants to patent Springtime as a treatment for depression and an aid to
Agriculture. Everybody else has to stay inside and eat fungus or send me a
cut!
Conjugate
"Oh! You are making me very, very angry!" :-)
Conjugate
who thinks he does a not-half-bad Marvin himself
Conjugate
> 'Crash' - a David Cronenburg film, which is about the sexual aspect of
> traffic accidents and which got a hammering over here on its release,
> is being shown on TV this week sometime (it may even be tonight). The
> reviewers have given it a 5 star rating (ie 'must see'). This is an
> American film of a British book, and I'm curoius to know what form it
> was shown in over there and what reception it had. Surely it was rated
> NC-17 at least!
>
> Nick
I saw it in the video store, but did not rent or buy it. I believe it was
not rated, but could be mistaken.
Conjugate
Conjugate
"Katie McN" <ka...@katiemcn.com> wrote in message
news:18p5cuoikic5d6cl6...@4ax.com...
> Hi nick_ca...@yahoo.co.uk (Nick),
>
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:44:09 GMT I noticed your interesting post:
>
> [ ... ]
> You lot seem to have
> more fun with government that we do.
That's because they've got a more amusing government (IMHO). And of course
you've seen the various Monty Python episodes where they make fun of
government figures on television. Graham Chapman, playing a minister of
housing and urban development: "Hmm, yes, I'd like to answer that question
in two ways if I may: First in my regular voice, and then in a strange,
silly high-pitched voice." He is wearing a dress, pumps, and pearl necklace
as he says this. So perhaps their government isn't more fun, but is easier
to make fun of? Or is there a difference?
> I often find myself working very late at might and like to watch re-runs
> of a program called Law and Order as part of a wind down process. For
> those of you who don't know about it, the first part has the police
> attempting to solve a crime and the second part is how the prosecution
> of the crime is handled in criminal court. This is an interesting twist
> to the typical murder mystery since the guilty are sometimes freed when
> the case goes to court even though the viewer knows the person is
> guilty. Every program is a cliff hanger where even if one figures out
> what is going to happen in the traditional mystery sense, the result can
> still be changed by the legal outcome.
>
> Imagine then my unhappiness when I'd spent almost an hour watching a
> cliff hanger with the expectation of learning what happened only to have
> a commercial spliced in in-place of the outcome of the criminal case. I
> called my cable company only to find that viewer issues are handled in
> one place in the country which is not where I live. They took my name
> and said someone would get back to me although that never happened.
On the Discovery channel, there's a show, "The New Detectives," about the
role of forensic science in the solution of many crimes. It's useful in two
or three ways. Since it comes on at ungodly late (or early) hours, it's a
good way to avoid sleep. Also, by showing me the fine details of how
murderers slip up and leave traces behind, I realize how difficult it would
be for anybody to murder me and get away with it. Finally, I now know what
to do if I should decide to... Never mind. I never said that. Nope, never.
Not at all. I take the fifth.
Conjugate
carefully wiping the knife