The sacred laws of Barneyism, Chapter I, "Everyone's A Winner" by Radagast
CarlK14
Fingon aka Radagast wrote:
>A concept endorsed by barney, one the ones most disturbing to
>me, is the idea of "everyone's a winner".
Gee, sounds like Earth Games to me. Cooperative games in which people
work together to achieve a goal, rather than trying to destroy each other.
I guess we will see Barney wearing tie-dyed shirts next.
Or perhaps he will be wearing khaki or three-button suits. The confidence
courses that the military use and corporate america are designed to
develop team-building skills. Groups of people work together to
accomplish a task, demonstrating that together things can be accomplished
that would be more difficult for an individual.
>This concept has grown into various "games" for children, for
>instance a certain Thomas the Tank Engine "game". There is one piece,
>Thomas, and the children move him along the track, where they encounter
>various "obstacles", and decide which of Thomas's friends will move it.
You mean that this game is ACTUALLY teaching problem solving? GASP.
Yes, the game does sound insipid to us, certainly not as exciting as Doom
or the battle simulation games in Enders Game. Then again, I don't want
my three year older to be playing Doom. A game is designed for a specific
age group, A Thomas Game would be designed probably for ages 3-5. A lot
of games for that age group are very basic to us, yet adored by their
target group. My sons favorite game is Barnyard Bingo, somewhat of a
yawner for me, but one he can play over and over.
Why don't we just lock the bastards in dark rooms and beat them with
cudgels. Then we would really be preparing them to face the harsh
realities of life.
Timothy Geier
CarlK14 (car...@aol.com) wrote:
: Fingon aka Radagast wrote:
: >A concept endorsed by barney, one the ones most disturbing to
: >me, is the idea of "everyone's a winner".
: Gee, sounds like Earth Games to me. Cooperative games in which people
: work together to achieve a goal, rather than trying to destroy each other.
: I guess we will see Barney wearing tie-dyed shirts next.
You overstate your point. The point that Radagast was trying to make was
that if there are no losers in a game, what's the point of winning?
What makes it desirable if you get what every one else gets? And he
was referring to real-life games and sports, not
kill-everything-that-moves computer games...I didn't see the Utah Jazz get
executed after they lost in the NBA Finals to the Bulls...
: Or perhaps he will be wearing khaki or three-button suits. The confidence
: courses that the military use and corporate america are designed to
: develop team-building skills. Groups of people work together to
: accomplish a task, demonstrating that together things can be accomplished
: that would be more difficult for an individual.
Groups, however, make poorer decisions than individuals.
: >This concept has grown into various "games" for children, for
: >instance a certain Thomas the Tank Engine "game". There is one piece,
: >Thomas, and the children move him along the track, where they encounter
: >various "obstacles", and decide which of Thomas's friends will move it.
: You mean that this game is ACTUALLY teaching problem solving? GASP.
: Yes, the game does sound insipid to us, certainly not as exciting as Doom
: or the battle simulation games in Enders Game. Then again, I don't want
: my three year older to be playing Doom. A game is designed for a specific
: age group, A Thomas Game would be designed probably for ages 3-5. A lot
: of games for that age group are very basic to us, yet adored by their
: target group. My sons favorite game is Barnyard Bingo, somewhat of a
: yawner for me, but one he can play over and over.
Point?
: Why don't we just lock the bastards in dark rooms and beat them with
: cudgels. Then we would really be preparing them to face the harsh
: realities of life.
No, why don't we let children compete in honest games where there is a
winner and loser. Why don't we let children realize that they're not
always going to win, but if they work hard and prepare for the next
contest, they stand a better chance of winning that time. That's life.
Beating children is a horrible suggestion, even if you were just kidding,
and referring to them as "bastards" betrays your ture feelings about them.
You are sick and perverted and should have nothing to do with children
whatsoever.
--
Sir Timothy
Captain, TRES Corps, XO of Omega Squad
Sergeant in M.A.U.L.
Special Forces Operative, LoD Intelligence
Keeper of the Jihad Codes[tm]
SirTim on IRC.
sir...@jpj.net
http://sirtim.home.ml.org/
"B'harnie must DIE. All else is irrelevent."
"The rain comes down, cold wind blows
The plans we made are back up on the road
Turn up my collar, welcome the unknown
Remember that you said
`One day you'll walk alone'"
Visit the TRES Corps web pages....
http://w3.one.net/~deadlock/Jihad/TRES/
Jihad Code Block 3.010
B---- SPG---- F++++ R&D++ ND TIJ+ ODD+++ MAG PSI
IRC+++ JW+++ ABD4+++
MST+++ RPG+++ GF+++ GG+++ GM+++ GMO+++ !VECH
CarlK14
Taniara XIII Wrote:
>Now you're talking! (In case you couldn't tell, I was being _sarcastic_)
How About that, so was I.
The point still remains that what is an appropriate game for a 3-5 year
older is not an appropriate game for an adult and though competition is
not inherently bad, at that age it is as important for a child to work and
play with (not against) others.
Taniara XIII
CarlK14 wrote:
>
> Taniara XIII Wrote:
>
> >Now you're talking! (In case you couldn't tell, I was being _sarcastic_)
>
> How About that, so was I.
Naw DUH.
> The point still remains that what is an appropriate game for a 3-5 year
> older is not an appropriate game for an adult
That's pretty much a given. Moving onward. . . .
> and though competition is
> not inherently bad, at that age it is as important for a child to work and
> play with (not against) others.
So giving them a little bubble to sit and play "games" in to shelter
them from REAL LIFE is okay? Everyone has to learn that they won't
always get a break from reality--
that particular principle taught to me by being raised by TV screwed up
my life. I'm crusading to keep it from happening to another person.
--
Lt. j.g. Taniara XIII, Alpha Squad, TRES Corps
Death to Barney and AOL
Middleton High School's Resident Weirdo and PROUD OF IT!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jihad Codes 3.10
Begin codes:
B---- SPG---- F++++ R&D+++ !ND TIJ ODD+++++ MAG+++++ PSI+++++
IRC+ JW+++ AB4D +++++
!MST !RPG GF+++++ GG++++ GM+++++ GMO++ VECH++++
End Codes
RPacktor
[begin snip]
Naw DUH.
[end snip]
"Everyone has to learn that they won't always get a break from reality--"
This from someone involved in a 'Jihad' against Barney. Who's getting a
break from reality.......
Rens Houben
In <01bc943f$6fc89c80$0b61afce@chrisbly> "Chris" <cbbl...@sprynet.com> writes:
>Fingon aka Radagast <fin...@earthlink.no.smeg.net> wrote in article
><33D046...@earthlink.no.smeg.net>...
<my $.05 on the subject>
There's one thing we're overlooking.
There are games where all 'players' are winners. For instance, multiplayer
doom/quake/descent/diablo in cooperative mode all are very entertaining
while still everyone wins (if it's played well).
Another group of games with this principle is Hero Quest and role playing
games in general. The players each control on or more characters, and a
person usually called the 'Dungeon Master' or 'Game master' supplies the
world and controls any opposing creatures/monsters. These games usually
have either very loosely-defined goals or none at all other than the single
critical one:
"Have fun"
And because of the nature of these games, no one wins unless everyone does.
</my $.05>
Now back to the thread....
*snippage*
>It sounds like work. Let them enjoy their childhood until they
>reach school age. THAT is the place for competition---that is where
>excellence should be rewarded. But unfortunately our academic system holds
>the advanced back with the rest of the herd who just plod through the
>lessons.
Which says something tragic about your educational system in general, but
what does this point have to do with Barney?
*Really old text snipped*
>> > What did they really lose?
Umm, the NBA championship? </obvious>
>> > Are they losers? They look like millionaires
>> > to me, I'd say they're winners.
>> So the goal is making money then? Bill Gate$ has a lot of cash, but I
>> wouldn't call his company's crapware winning.
>What other form of success is there in a capitalist society? Who's more
>respected and influential--the millionaire athlete who couldn't get into
>college or the biochemist working on a cure for a disease? Sure we can take
>pleasure and feel successful for many other accomplishments, but
>overwhelmingly people associate wealth with success--and therefore with
>"winning" in the game of life.
Let's keep to the point here, please... we're not discussing the virtues and
flaws of capitalism or the US society, we're discussing 'everyone wins' games
here.
>I'll admit that I'm no fan of barney...but my 11 month old likes the
>singing and dancing. I'd rather she watch discovery or CNN, but it just
>doesn't hold her interest.
>*Finally a discussion group that has some brains. I'm enjoying this.
Always glad to hear back from a satisfied customer.. }8=P
>I know that this is a specific newsgroup, but are there any other shows
>that you readers see that are as offensive as barney? Just curious.
*WHACK* Please, do everyone a favor and unask this question before anyone
restarts *that* all over again....
>~Chris
Sincerely,
Initiate Shadur t'Kharn . , Captain Houben of TRES Corps,
of the Chosen of Khorne . ,`o--Y Zeta squad
____.....------.' .,' ,,~'' `,------.....____
''''` `---.:: ,': ; ,' ;`. ;;.---' '````
Last of the ` `:__`-._ `.`., _,-'__;' ' BUFH, BPFHre
Shadow dragons ` `---`---'`'`---'---' ' and general Bastard
__________________________ \`--'/`,,___________
``` '''
Begin jihad code block:
-------------------------------------------------------
B---- SPG--- F++++ R&D+++ ND---- TIJ+ ODD++ MAG PSI++++
IRC++++ JW++ ABD4+++
!MST !RPG GF++ GG+++ GM++++ GMO+++ VECH-AS
-------------------------------------------------------
Fingon aka Radagast
Chris wrote:
>
> Rens Houben <re...@sci.kun.nl> wrote in article
>
> > Which says something tragic about your educational system in general, but
>
> > what does this point have to do with Barney?
>
> want it spelled out I will but you should be able to piece it together from
> stuff already written (basically people blaming 'no losers' games for the
> moral decay in the US).
>
<Turns on Megaphone>
HELLOOOOOOOOO! IF I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE ABOUNDING CORRUPTION IN THE
UNITED STATES I WOULD HAVE WENT TO A POLITICS NG. I SUGGEST YOU READ MY
POST AGAIN. YOU DIDN'T SEEM TO QUITE GRASP THE POINT.
</Megaphone>
> > Let's keep to the point here, please... we're not discussing the virtues
> and
> > flaws of capitalism or the US society, we're discussing 'everyone wins'
> games
> > here.
Ditto.
>
> You should take this up with the person who equated childhood games with
> adult struggles. I also think this is off the subject since the 2 are
> tenuously related, but I respond to what people are saying.
>
> ~Chris
<Turns on the megaphone again>
I DID NOT TAKE IT INTO THE FOUL-SMELLING POLITICS!!!!
THE THREAD STARTED WITH MY ESSAY ABOUT BARNEY'S CONCEPT OF "EVERYONE'S A
WINNER"!!!
<Turns it off>
Read my post again. You didn't seem to understand a single word of it.
--
fin...@earthlink.net | remove no.smeg. to reply
http://home.earthlink.net/~fingon/index.html
***Carpe Noctem***
RPacktor
>Subject: Re: The sacred laws of Barneyism, Chapter I, "Everyone's A
Winner"
>by Radagast
>From: "Chris" <cbbl...@sprynet.com>
>Date: 19 Jul 1997 01:37:39 GMT
>Message-ID: <01bc93e4$3aad6540$9df4aec7@chrisbly>
>
> > : Gee, sounds like Earth Games to me. Cooperative games in which
people
>> : work together to achieve a goal, rather than trying to destroy each
>other.
>> : I guess we will see Barney wearing tie-dyed shirts next.
>>
>> You overstate your point. The point that Radagast was trying to make
was
>> that if there are no losers in a game, what's the point of winning?
>> What makes it desirable if you get what every one else gets? And he
>> was referring to real-life games and sports, not
>> kill-everything-that-moves computer games...I didn't see the Utah Jazz
>get
>> executed after they lost in the NBA Finals to the Bulls...
>
>
>cut winner and loser for you? Didn't you ever do something just because
it
>was fun? You overlook the fact that toddler games are intended to teach
>socialization, cooperation, following rules of play and confidence
>building.
>
>Maybe some adults need to gloat about being the best killer in a 3D
>shooter, but the kids I've seen get their enjoyment by just playing. As
far
>as your point about the Jazz not getting executed when they lost....well,
>that helps my point. They cash their paychecks too, just like the Bulls.
>What did they really lose? Are they losers? They look like millionaires
to
>me, I'd say they're winners.
>
>make-or-break struggles that we adults face in our lives.
>
>~Chris
>
I'd have to agree with you, Chris. I guess it's adults without kids who
fail to see the point. I was never a fan of Barney until I had my
daughter (she loves the show, as well as Sesame Street, and the whole host
of other PBS kids-shows). Not that I was ever part of this Jihad stuff, I
just did not like him and consequently ignored all things Barney. I never
sought to 'destroy' him, nor did I participate in and RPG-type stuff about
him.
My daughter has fun dancing and singing with Barney and all of the other
characters and kids on the show.
It almost seems like some adults are so frustrated or worn down by life
and it's myriad struggles that they want to deprive kids of the simple joy
of being a kid.
One of my favorite lines for my friends goes something like this: 'If I
can't find pleasure in flying a kite, going to a circus, splashing in a
pool, etc, then it's either time for me to check out or sit down and
seriously reevaluate my life.'
Maybe some of us have lost our 'inner child.'????
Keep the faith, Chris.
Robert
Chris
Fingon aka Radagast <fin...@earthlink.no.smeg.net> wrote in article
<33D28A...@earthlink.no.smeg.net>...
> You don't seem to be grasping my point here... I'm not saying we should
> pressure children into winning. I'm saying that there should be
> something FOR them to win.
> I'm not saying that the point of games is winning. I'm saying the point
> of games is using one's mind.
I see your point, but I don't think that it's necessary to have a winner in
order to expand one's mind. I agree true 'games' must have winners and
losers, so perhaps Barney calling his activities games is just an example
of bad syntax on his writer's parts. The positive effects of socialization
is present in his activites (which is good) but the competition is
non-existant (which may be bad--I'm still not convinced). I guess I'm just
missing the point in your focused attacks upon this one show...I see the
same types of things on alot of shows. The mindnumbing crap adults watch is
far more offensive to me than the non-competitive games on barney.
Besides, if this stuff bothers you, DON'T let your kids watch. Where is the
pro-active parenting in this arguement? This crap is on, and no number of
ng posts will make it go away. Your pleas shouldn't be for the death of
barney but for parents to watch with their children and discuss what they
see.. Besides, should the big purple bastard get cancelled some other moron
will take his place. Sadly enough most parents are happy to sit their kids
in front of the ole electronic babysitter and take a break.
> So who do you respect more? Some millionaire bastard who murdered his
> wife or someone with a cure for cancer?
>
> And let's not get into the numerous inadequacies of capitalism.
Well, who do I see more? Who do kids see more? Who do they know more about?
My personal feelings have very little impact on the schedulers of the major
networks. Let's face it...people watch sports, they like to be entertained.
Of course you're going to see athletes more. It's hard for kids to respect
people that the network bigshots have determined to be 'too boring for good
ratings'. But at least we now have the Women's Basketball
Association--aaacckk, did I just write that?
~Chris
Hegemonize me, I like it
RPacktor
Sorry.
Did not realize that the e-mail sent to me was also being posted by it's
author.
If nothing else the double post will serve to balance the scales against
spam somewhat.
Robert
Taniara XIII
RPacktor wrote:
> I'd have to agree with you, Chris. I guess it's adults without kids who
> fail to see the point.
What point? All I see is a dull edge. I guess it's adults and me who
don't see the point--since it's not there. Get your eyes checked,
buddy.
> I was never a fan of Barney until I had my
> daughter (she loves the show, as well as Sesame Street, and the whole host
> of other PBS kids-shows). Not that I was ever part of this Jihad stuff, I
> just did not like him and consequently ignored all things Barney. I never
> sought to 'destroy' him, nor did I participate in and RPG-type stuff about
> him.
>
> My daughter has fun dancing and singing with Barney and all of the other
> characters and kids on the show.
She can have fun freebasing cocaine too, but does that make it good for
her? No . . .
> It almost seems like some adults are so frustrated or worn down by life
> and it's myriad struggles that they want to deprive kids of the simple joy
> of being a kid.
What does being a kid have to do with Barney? And you spelled "its"
wrong.
> One of my favorite lines for my friends goes something like this: 'If I
> can't find pleasure in flying a kite, going to a circus, splashing in a
> pool, etc, then it's either time for me to check out or sit down and
> seriously reevaluate my life.'
>
> Maybe some of us have lost our 'inner child.'????
---------ovvvo
I have _*>NOT<*_ lost touch with my inner child! It and I are still
attached!
---------o^^^o
> Keep the faith, Chris.
>
> Robert
Yeah, keep this live grenade for me, would ya? Thanks so much.
And if you have any comments on this, Robster, feel free to email me.
--
------------------------------------------------------
| Lt.j.g. Taniara XIII | Alpha Squadron | TRES Corps |
|----------------------|-----------------------------|
| No Doubt Rules | Death to Barney and AOL |
|----------------------|-----------------------------|
| alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die |
| alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork |
| alt.cows.moo.moo.moo |
| (I got a thing for word.word.word NG's :^) |
------------------------------------------------------
ChrisFan04
WHy can'[t the Spice Girls appear on barney.They sing better.
Fingon aka Radagast
Chris wrote:
> The mindnumbing crap adults watch is
> far more offensive to me than the non-competitive games on barney.
>
> Besides, if this stuff bothers you, DON'T let your kids watch. Where is the
> pro-active parenting in this arguement?
I don't have children. If I did, I'd keep them off the damn television
altogether, with a few exceptions.
> This crap is on, and no number of
> ng posts will make it go away.
My ranting is for a cause. I hope to spread the word against barney.
I've written in to local news stations, asking them to do a report on
it. But it appears that something which invades millions of homes daily
and poisons the minds of millions of children can't be shown because it
isn't worth $$$ like bloody wars in africa and eastern euorope.
> Your pleas shouldn't be for the death of
> barney but for parents to watch with their children and discuss what they
> see..
I'm pleading for both. I hope that meanwhile(whilst we're trying to get
it cancelled) parents will tune into sanity FM and say no to barney.
> Besides, should the big purple bastard get cancelled some other moron
> will take his place.
<Sarcasm mode>
If this life comes to an end, why should I waste time doing something
with it?
<Sarcasm mode cancel>
> It's hard for kids to respect
> people that the network bigshots have determined to be 'too boring for good
> ratings'.
That must be changed now, shouldn't it?
Taniara XIII
RPac...@aol.com wrote:
I snip for brevity. You might try it sometime, Robmeister.
> Usually these replies are posted to the news group for all to share in your
> great wisdom.
It was. I even cross-posted it to alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die for
good measure.
> Lets see:
>
> 1. Like 'Sir Tim' you seem to have a need to degrade your sparring partner in
> these discussions.
You were doing it too. Let's see: stereotyping Jihaddi and other
anti-barney people as adults (I'm living proof they are NOT). There are
other places below, but I won't bother marking them since you seem to be
intelligent enough to recognize them yourself. And leave Sir Timothy out
of this.
> Stick to real points and the discussion can go further.
Geez, you haven't.
> Heck you might even convince me.
Excuse my laughing. *laughing*
> Personal slams just won't do it. Anyway,
> I think Chris's point was that people need to let kids be kids.
And I said the Fuchsia Freak has nothing to do with letting kids be kids
because--*gasp*--HE DOESN'T!
> 2. The 'free basing' cocaine argument is a straw man.
It's perfectly legitimate and you know it.
> If you do not know
> what that is, get a book on logic and philosophy. Straw men are meant to be
> so absurd as to kill reasoned discussion. They have no point in and of
> themselves.
Don't take me for an idiot. I know what a straw man is in figurative
speech as well as literally.
> Cocaine is proven medically and historically to have generally
> detrimental effects on its users.
Just like barney, ha! What _are_ the odds?
> Despits what you jihaddites think, there's
> no conclusive, accepted proof as to the 'negative effects' of the purple guy,
> Barney.
*SLAP* Yes, there is. And there's a URL that I know, can't remember it
off the bat but I _think_ it's owned by FC Samhain of the DE, someone
help me out here . . .
And good for you, you didn't make any juvenile comments above on Jihaddi
"actually thinking!".
> 3. What's being a kid have to do with Barney, you ask? Well, it seems as if
> the show was aimed at that particulat market segment of the viewing
> population, but I might be wrong.
You know what I meant. I don't take you for an idiot, so stop doing
that with me!
The way you were saying it, it was "let kids be kids". What is the
Jihad doing to deny that? NOTHING. Simply protecting vulnerable
children from a potentially harmful influence, that's what the Jihad is
doing.
> 4. I'll cave on the spelling thing. My mistake. Heck, there are probably
> other spelling errors in here, too, but such is life......
I'm kind of a spelling and geography freak :^)
> 5. I'm glad you still have contact with your inner child. If this
> jihad-stuff is just a past time, enjoy it for all it's worth. I wish you
> well, and will continue spirited debates on the subject as my time permits.
Let's just say my inner child and I are still quite close in age, among
other things.
> 6. The grenade line..... tsk tsk..... personal attacks and wishing harm on
> someone else does not really lead to lively, logical debate.
<sarcastic>Yes, Daddy.</sarcastic>
> Take care.
>
> I'll post this back to the group.
And so shall I post this.
> robert
CarlK14
sir...@blues.jpj.net wrote:
>I have nothing against kids having fun. But I have something >against
kids who are only seemingly having fun, but are being >exploited and
shaped into cookie-cutter clones with no trace of >individuality.
An unsupported generalization, and one very untrue based on my observation
of my children. My eldest at 3 is a true individual, a lover of
adventure, a social being and has a vivid imagination. He has been
watching Barney since he was in foster care at 7 months.
It is a shame that you have to resort to profanity to support your
position. It raises the question as to the individuality of the
Anti-Barney forces as the only profanity and name calling I have seen in
this discussion are by (self proclaimed) Jihad members.
Fingon aka Radagast
Chris wrote:
>
> Fine, his games suck. I agree. He has no redeeming social value and should
> be shot. Blah, blah blah---happy now?
>
(nods) mmmm-hmm.
> ~Chris
ChrisFan04
>Subject: Re: The sacred laws of Barneyism, Chapter I, "Everyone's A
Winner"
>by Radagast
>Date: 22 Jul 1997 17:10:20 GMT
>Message-ID: <19970722171...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>
>Sesame Street has had lots of guests on it (Garth Brooks comes to mind
>first).
>
>
>
>
>
ANYTHJING but that pretentious artiste!Just shows they don't care about
someone like Spices,they'd rathe rhave an "artist".Of course Spices are
self stylerd conservatives,Garth is liberal,and so is the show.
Timothy Geier
Chris (cbbl...@sprynet.com) wrote:
: Timothy Geier <sir...@blues.jpj.net> wrote in article
: <5r04h5$8...@news.monad.net>...
: >
: > But you seem intent on shielding children from the (cliche) of defeat
: > as well as the (cliche) of victory. Life's hard. Sugarcoating it does
: > nothing.
: You're right, let's get our children used to losing at an early age...one
: or two years old should suffice. What do they need self-confidence for
: anyway? Why let them experience winning for awhile before showing them
: losing...hell, let's just staple a card that says "born loser" to their
: foreheads. That way, nothing in life can scar them any further than we
: already have.
You missed the point. You're making it sound like I'm saying "Kids
*should* lose." What I am saying is "Win or lose, let kids learn how to
handle victory and defeat. Don't cheat them by devauling victory."
: >
: > You have *no* idea what they went through after they lost. They wanted
: > an NBA championship very, very badly. And why? Becuase it would have
: > meant that they were the best at what they do. They may get paid about
: as
: > much as the Bulls, but they're missing something the Bulls have.
: >
: > A championship.
: Good thing they we're used to losing. If Barney had been around 25 years
: ago or so when they were children half of the Jazz team would have had to
: have some serious therapy.
That is totally irrelevent.
: > : >I don't think we can equate children playing games with the
: life-or-death
: > : >make-or-break struggles that we adults face in our lives.
: > : >
: > : >~Chris
: > : >
: > : I'd have to agree with you, Chris. I guess it's adults without kids
: who
: > : fail to see the point. I was never a fan of Barney until I had my
: > : daughter (she loves the show, as well as Sesame Street, and the whole
: host
: > : of other PBS kids-shows). Not that I was ever part of this Jihad
: stuff, I
: > : just did not like him and consequently ignored all things Barney. I
: never
: > : sought to 'destroy' him, nor did I participate in and RPG-type stuff
: about
: > : him.
: >
: > : My daughter has fun dancing and singing with Barney and all of the
: other
: > : characters and kids on the show.
: > : It almost seems like some adults are so frustrated or worn down by life
: > : and it's myriad struggles that they want to deprive kids of the simple
: joy
: > : of being a kid.
: >
: > No. Although kids playing with the beast may *seem* happy and *seem* to
: > be growing and maturing, they are being mentally scarred and warped
: beyond
: > any semblence of humanity. One must look deeper than what the surface
: > of the beast presents. One must look past the "Purple Facade" of
: > b'harnii and see the true, long-term effects on children.
: > I have nothing against kids having fun. But I have something against
: kids
: > who are only seemingly having fun, but are being exploited and shaped
: into
: > cookie-cutter clones with no trace of individuality.
: Do you have any evidence at all of this? What are you basing this on? I
: haven't seen any of these mindless drone children. What makes these
: children different from you or I when we were kids? Give me something
: concrete or quantifiable if you have it.
Watch the show. Do the kids act any differently from any other? And
even when they try, their individuality is crushed by the beast.
:
: > : One of my favorite lines for my friends goes something like this: 'If
: I
: > : can't find pleasure in flying a kite, going to a circus, splashing in a
: > : pool, etc, then it's either time for me to check out or sit down and
: > : seriously reevaluate my life.'
: >
: > I don't find pleasure in any of that. You don't see me putting a gun to
: > my head, though.
: >
: > : Maybe some of us have lost our 'inner child.'????
: >
: > And maybe some of us are doing just fine without it.
: > Fuck you.
: I pity you.
Don't. I am content with my life as it is.
: ~Chris
: *insert witty sig file and title here
Good, you've been inserting mounds and mounds of bs elsewhere.
--
Sir Timothy
Captain, TRES Corps, XO of Omega Squad
Sergeant in M.A.U.L.
Special Forces Operative, LoD Intelligence
Keeper of the Jihad Codes[tm]
SirTim on IRC.
sir...@jpj.net
http://sirtim.home.ml.org/
"B'harnie must DIE. All else is irrelevent."
"The rain comes down, cold wind blows
The plans we made are back up on the road
Turn up my collar, welcome the unknown
Remember that you said
`One day you'll walk alone'"
Visit the TRES Corps web pages....
http://w3.one.net/~deadlock/Jihad/TRES/
Jihad Code Block 3.010
B---- SPG---- F++++ R&D++ ND TIJ++ ODD+++ MAG PSI
RPacktor
The quoted stuff is tim's. I hacked out the headers, sig stuff, and
irrelevant or off-topic stuff.
>You missed the point. You're making it sound like I'm saying "Kids
>*should* lose." What I am saying is "Win or lose, let kids learn how to
>handle victory and defeat. Don't cheat them by devauling victory."
>
I agree, to a point. What kids have developed the faculties to handle
concepts like victory and defeat, we should intorduce them to it. When
you have kids (and I can only assume you do not), I'm sure (at least for
their sakes, I hope) you'll let them win at Candyland or Go Fish
occasionally. Trust me, life will hand each of enough defeats. Let the
kids just play. I do not think the point of the games on Barney is to win
or lose. that's an uniquely adult concept. Kids sometimes play just to
be playing. Who said there has to be a winner and a loser (when you're a
kid)?
>: Do you have any evidence at all of this? What are you basing this on? I
>: haven't seen any of these mindless drone children. What makes these
>: children different from you or I when we were kids? Give me something
>: concrete or quantifiable if you have it.
>
>Watch the show. Do the kids act any differently from any other? And
>even when they try, their individuality is crushed by the beast.
>
Please provide episode titles and approx air dates so I can view your
evidence. All you are doing is making unsupported assertions here. I
could say that Barney walked on water 'in some episode some day' but it's
an equally unsupported assertion.
Please also elaborate on the crushed individuality line. You made the
assertion and I'll hold you to it. Give me specific CONCRETE show refs
and or acceptable cites and I'll revisit. Otherwise this whole argument
is not worth the keystrokes. You can't just make these grand sweeping
assertions without proof.
>Don't. I am content with my life as it is.
I'm happy for you, but you dodge the intent of the replies to the
profanity. Please address in the future.
>Good, you've been inserting mounds and mounds of bs elsewhere.
Yawn. Stay on topic and away from snide comments please.
Robert
Taniara XIII
RPacktor wrote:
>
> >I snip for brevity. You might try it sometime, Robmeister.
>
Whatever, Rob-o.
> >It was. I even cross-posted it to alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die for
> >good measure.
>
> My guess would be that that's where the jihad stuff makes more sense.
Not only makes sense--it's born there.
> >You were doing it too. Let's see: stereotyping Jihaddi and other
> >anti-barney people as adults (I'm living proof they are NOT). There are
> >other places below, but I won't bother marking them since you seem to be
> >intelligent enough to recognize them yourself. And leave Sir Timothy out
> >of this.
>
> Sorry. Did not realize we had kids spewing this kind of profanity,
> etc.....
Watch regular primetime TV for about five seconds. You won't wonder
why.
> Sir Tim's in it because he posted to the group.
---vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv---
>>>BUT NOT IN THIS SECTION OF THE THREAD<<<
---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^---
> >And I said the Fuchsia Freak has nothing to do with letting kids be kids
> >because--*gasp*--HE DOESN'T!
>
> Using words like 'Fuchsia Freak' just detracts from the conversation.
Yeah, whatever. *rolls eyes*
> >> 2. The 'free basing' cocaine argument is a straw man.
> >
> >It's perfectly legitimate and you know it.
> >
> Straw men are legitmate when other more effective forms of ommunication/
> argumentation are exhausted, or simply to make a point in the extreme. My
> response was merely that comparing the watching of Barney to free-basing
> cocaine was ridiculous in the extreme.
I was making a point, something you failed to do. It was that just
because your daughter likes something doesn't mean it's good for her.
> >> Cocaine is proven medically and historically to have generally
> >> detrimental effects on its users.
> >
> >Just like barney, ha! What _are_ the odds?
> >
> Please provide acceptable cites as to the alleged damage caused by Barney
> (JAMA, NEJM, Psychology Today, ERIC would be acceptable)
I would if I could but I can't because of a computer problem hampering
my use of the WWW so I won't.
> >*SLAP* Yes, there is. And there's a URL that I know, can't remember it
> >off the bat but I _think_ it's owned by FC Samhain of the DE, someone
> >help me out here . . .
>
> The only URL I've been pointed to is
> "http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/1868/yessay.html" (Thanks,
> Amanda Van Rhyn). It's an essay by someone pre-disposed to disliking
> Barney (by her own admission). I would prefer more than this as
> acceptable cites as to Barney's alleged legative impact.
HEY! any help from a Jihaddi reading this who knows that URL would be
much appreciated.
> >The way you were saying it, it was "let kids be kids". What is the
> >Jihad doing to deny that? NOTHING. Simply protecting vulnerable
> >children from a potentially harmful influence, that's what the Jihad is
> >doing.
> >
> Still patiently waiting for that authoratative cite.....
> >I'm kind of a spelling and geography freak :^)
>
> If you're still in school, congrats to your ed system (public or private).
> They're doing a good thing. My spelling slips sometimes since I have to
> rush these replies out.
> >
*Laughing hysterically* If only you knew how terrible it really is . . .
RPacktor
this is timmy's snip. I'll reply.
I cut out the sig since it was almost as long as the reply......
><snip>
>: >You missed the point. You're making it sound like I'm saying "Kids
>: >*should* lose." What I am saying is "Win or lose, let kids learn how
to
>: >handle victory and defeat. Don't cheat them by devauling victory."
>: >
>: I agree, to a point. What kids have developed the faculties to handle
>: concepts like victory and defeat, we should intorduce them to it. When
>: you have kids (and I can only assume you do not), I'm sure (at least
for
>: their sakes, I hope) you'll let them win at Candyland or Go Fish
>: occasionally. Trust me, life will hand each of enough defeats. Let
the
>: kids just play. I do not think the point of the games on Barney is to
win
>: or lose. that's an uniquely adult concept. Kids sometimes play just
to
>: be playing. Who said there has to be a winner and a loser (when you're
a
>: kid)?
>
>You're still missing the point. The bottom line is that you feel that
>kids should *always* win, no matter if they performed well or not.
>You maintain that that is tantamount to high self esteem later in life.
>I state that that kids shouldn't automatically win because then it means
>*nothing* to them. When they carry that attitude later into life, their
>self-esteem will suffer immensely when they suffer defeat for the first
>time. They will feel worthless for not doing something they've always
>done. And while losing may upset a child at first, the long-term effects
>will prove ultimately to be better.
>
Yo, tim!! Where did I say that kids should always win???? when they are
that young it's ok for parents to let them win occacionally. You only
assume that I would let my daughter win everything. That's an incorrect
assumption based not at all on any of my statements. I stated that when
kids are a little older and ready to deal with losing, we can introduce
them to it then. Tell me, tim, did your parents ever 'let' you win any
games when you were a toddler?
>: >: Do you have any evidence at all of this? What are you basing this
on? I
>: >: haven't seen any of these mindless drone children. What makes these
>: >: children different from you or I when we were kids? Give me
something
>: >: concrete or quantifiable if you have it.
>: >
>: >Watch the show. Do the kids act any differently from any other? And
>: >even when they try, their individuality is crushed by the beast.
>: >
>: Please provide episode titles and approx air dates so I can view your
>: evidence. All you are doing is making unsupported assertions here. I
>: could say that Barney walked on water 'in some episode some day' but
it's
>: an equally unsupported assertion.
>
>: Please also elaborate on the crushed individuality line. You made the
>: assertion and I'll hold you to it. Give me specific CONCRETE show refs
>: and or acceptable cites and I'll revisit. Otherwise this whole
argument
>: is not worth the keystrokes. You can't just make these grand sweeping
>: assertions without proof.
>
>Okay, here you go. Quoting from Doug Corti's episode reviews...
>
>BEEF #2
>
>At the Carnival of Numbers, Shawn wants to play a football game.
>Fine. But then Barney says "_Everybody_ (emphasis added by me)
>step this way." No debate at all. Barney forces the children to
>play the game, and there is no indication from the children that
>they do not want to play the game. They march with their leader.
>
Hmmm.... No indication that the kids do NOT want to pla football. You
know, maybe they do. Maybe they want to share in Shawn's favorite things.
You are interpreting the kids' willingness to share in Shawn's favorite
activity as some dictatorial issue by Barney, when it is really just kids
getting along. Did you ever play football with friends when you might
have rather played basketball? Did your friends ORDER you to play
football? Probably not, if this ever happened to you, you might have gone
along and played football so you could share in the company of friends.
BTW, who is Doug Corti? Is he some other jihadder who would be
predisposed to dislike the show? Is this in a book somewhere?
>
>COMPLAINT #4 - As with many episodes, there seems to be a blind
>follow-the-leader type game going on. Whoever makes the suggestion, the
>gang will follow in conformity. There is never any debate or any
>indication that one of the children may not want to do what somebody else
>wants. Agreement is not going to happen all the time, and it should be
>acknowledged by the show.
>
Pardon me, but would you rather have the kids fight over what to play.
They play each others games as a courtesy because they know that they will
get their own turn.
>COMPLAINT # 2 - Mandatory blind agreement. One child wants to do
>something, everybody else agrees without conflict. Been there. Done
that.
>Commented on way too many times to recall.
>
Heck, timmy. This is the same agrument the third time in THIS POST. Try
a new angle. Is this your only complaint with the show? If so, let's drop
all other issues and only deal with your perceived 'blind agreement.'
>
>: >Don't. I am content with my life as it is.
>
>: I'm happy for you, but you dodge the intent of the replies to the
>: profanity. Please address in the future.
>
>Make me. And you aren't really happy for me, are you? You don't even
>know me...
Actually, if you are happy with your life, then I am happy for you. I
guess altruism is lost for the most part in today's society. I do not
have to know you to be happy for you.
>
>
>: >Good, you've been inserting mounds and mounds of bs elsewhere.
>
>: Yawn. Stay on topic and away from snide comments please.
>
>Looks like your pathetic little hell wyrm didn't give you a sense of
>humor.
I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about, but it's not
related to the topic, so....
Later.
Timothy Geier
Taniara XIII (jon...@Charleston.Net) wrote:
<Lochaber swipe>
: >
: > The only URL I've been pointed to is
: > "http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/1868/yessay.html" (Thanks,
: > Amanda Van Rhyn). It's an essay by someone pre-disposed to disliking
: > Barney (by her own admission). I would prefer more than this as
: > acceptable cites as to Barney's alleged legative impact.
: HEY! any help from a Jihaddi reading this who knows that URL would be
: much appreciated.
:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~midnite/barni.html would be the URL...
<snip>
: ------------------------------------------------------
: | Lt.j.g. Taniara XIII | Alpha Squadron | TRES Corps |
ST
Nexxus aka Lt. Mahtash
On 23 Jul 1997 01:24:58 GMT, car...@aol.com (CarlK14) wrote:
>>Nexxus aka Lt. Mahtash stated:
>
>>Here's a page put up on the web by a teacher :)
>>http://www.edu.yorku.ca/~edcetera/barney.html
>
>I'm glad that this particular report was cited. It is a blatent example
>of opinion being stated as fact. It is also a perfect example of the
>danger of the web, that placing information on the web neither guarantees
>its truth or accuracy.
>
Actually, I never presented it as fact. I never presented it as
opinion either. I merely pointed it out as a source other than
the Jihad.
>
>
>Diana DeFreitas in her article states:
>
>>I am a teacher candidate in my third year at the Faculty of >Education
>and I despise Barney the Dinosaur.
>
>A teacher candidate? In my dictionary that spells student teacher. I
>certainly wouldn't consider three years of education theory to be proof of
>expertise. The sorry state of the schools in Washington DC and Prince
>George's County, MD are a perfect demonstration that an education degree
>is not a guarantee of ability. Six schools in Prince George's County were
>classed as "At Risk" by the State of Maryland. In order to be reappointed
>to their positions in the schools, the teachers had to reapply. Nearly
>half of the teachers that elected to reapply were rejected as unsuitable.
>
Yes, student teacher. You bring up a good point, but it's only
fair to also mention those teachers of some 20-30 odd years who,
for all their experience, [to put it bluntly] still don't know
shit. I'm an educated person, and I'm sorry to say that in all
the years I've been in school, I've run across maybe 3 teachers
who knew anything about educating a class. In my opinion, anyone
can stand in front of a room full of people and recite stuff out
of a book. A teacher is someone who can make it interesting and
keep the classroom's attention, a real teacher is a person who
ends up with a room full of people at the end of the year who can
recall from memory what the first lesson was at the start of the
year. Years of experience isn't an accurate way to judge whether
or not a teacher is good at what he/she does.
><snip>
>
>>It is important to incorporate children's interest in the class
>>environment, but is Barney really what children are interested >in? There
>is a difference between staying on the surface of >Ninja Turtles, for
>example, and studying the underlying Ninja >codes of honour that the kids
>are really attracted to.
>
>Is Barney really what children are interested in? Beyond the early
>primary years, no. Barneys audience is the preschool 2-5 year old group.
>At that age tastes are not very sophisticated and the children are as
>interested in singing and dancing along as anything else. Barney is a
>participatory experience as it encourages the child to dance, sing and
>respond. As the child enters the early and later primary years their
>tastes develop rapidly. They embrace more sophisticated activities and
>Barney becomes passe. I am intrigued by the comparison with the Ninja
>Turtles and the alleged "Ninja Code." Children like the martial arts
>because of the implied violence. The early attraction is the potential of
>wreaking bodily harm on another. That is not to say that the martial arts
>do not have a positive effect. The concept of discipline and of the
>defensive nature of most of the martial arts are lauditory. However, I
>seem to have missed this noble Ninja Code. Ninja were spies and
>assassins, nothing more. In the Japanese feudal structure they were
>feared and detested, considered to be beneath contempt by the samurai. I
>can only assume that either this Ninja Code has been made up, or our
>expert has confused Ninja with samurai.
>
The "Ninja Code" she is refering to is the "Code" the Ninja
Turtles follow. This has nothing to do with real life ninjas.
Actually the "code" is far from anything a real ninja would
follow.
>Her essay is a perfect example of many of the sources quoted by the Jihad,
>personal opinion presented as fact.
Please point out where I, or anyone else for that matter, stated
that this was a source of factual nature. I know I did no such
thing, and to the best of my knowledge, neither has anyone else.
I simply pointed this out as a source other than the Jihad.
--==X==--==X==--==X==--==X==--==X==--==X==--
High Councillor Nexxus, Verthandic Rangers
Lt. A. Mahtash, TRES Corps, Theta Squad
Lead, Follow, or get the Hell Out of my Way!
E-mail: hem...@inorbit.com.*
vr...@sandwich.org.*
--==X==--==X==--==X==--==X==--==X==--==X==--
http://vrdet.sandwich.org/
Taniara XIII
Timothy Geier wrote:
>
> Taniara XIII (jon...@Charleston.Net) wrote:
(snip)
> : HEY! any help from a Jihaddi reading this who knows that URL would be
> : much appreciated.
> :
>
> http://www.public.iastate.edu/~midnite/barni.html would be the URL...
> <snip>
> : ------------------------------------------------------
> : | Lt.j.g. Taniara XIII | Alpha Squadron | TRES Corps |
>
> ST
Much thanks, Sir Tim.
--
------------------------------------------------------
| Lt.j.g. Taniara XIII | Alpha Squadron | TRES Corps |
CarlK14
>Nexxus aka Lt. Mahtash stated:
>Here's a page put up on the web by a teacher :)
>http://www.edu.yorku.ca/~edcetera/barney.html
I'm glad that this particular report was cited. It is a blatent example
of opinion being stated as fact. It is also a perfect example of the
danger of the web, that placing information on the web neither guarantees
its truth or accuracy.
<Picture>
<Picture>
Diana DeFreitas in her article states:
>I am a teacher candidate in my third year at the Faculty of >Education
and I despise Barney the Dinosaur.
A teacher candidate? In my dictionary that spells student teacher. I
certainly wouldn't consider three years of education theory to be proof of
expertise. The sorry state of the schools in Washington DC and Prince
George's County, MD are a perfect demonstration that an education degree
is not a guarantee of ability. Six schools in Prince George's County were
classed as "At Risk" by the State of Maryland. In order to be reappointed
to their positions in the schools, the teachers had to reapply. Nearly
half of the teachers that elected to reapply were rejected as unsuitable.
<snip>
>It is important to incorporate children's interest in the class
>environment, but is Barney really what children are interested >in? There
is a difference between staying on the surface of >Ninja Turtles, for
example, and studying the underlying Ninja >codes of honour that the kids
are really attracted to.
Is Barney really what children are interested in? Beyond the early
primary years, no. Barneys audience is the preschool 2-5 year old group.
At that age tastes are not very sophisticated and the children are as
interested in singing and dancing along as anything else. Barney is a
participatory experience as it encourages the child to dance, sing and
respond. As the child enters the early and later primary years their
tastes develop rapidly. They embrace more sophisticated activities and
Barney becomes passe. I am intrigued by the comparison with the Ninja
Turtles and the alleged "Ninja Code." Children like the martial arts
because of the implied violence. The early attraction is the potential of
wreaking bodily harm on another. That is not to say that the martial arts
do not have a positive effect. The concept of discipline and of the
defensive nature of most of the martial arts are lauditory. However, I
seem to have missed this noble Ninja Code. Ninja were spies and
assassins, nothing more. In the Japanese feudal structure they were
feared and detested, considered to be beneath contempt by the samurai. I
can only assume that either this Ninja Code has been made up, or our
expert has confused Ninja with samurai.
Her essay is a perfect example of many of the sources quoted by the Jihad,
Timothy Geier
RPacktor (rpac...@aol.com) wrote:
<snip>
: >You missed the point. You're making it sound like I'm saying "Kids
: >*should* lose." What I am saying is "Win or lose, let kids learn how to
: >handle victory and defeat. Don't cheat them by devauling victory."
: >
: I agree, to a point. What kids have developed the faculties to handle
: concepts like victory and defeat, we should intorduce them to it. When
: you have kids (and I can only assume you do not), I'm sure (at least for
: their sakes, I hope) you'll let them win at Candyland or Go Fish
: occasionally. Trust me, life will hand each of enough defeats. Let the
: kids just play. I do not think the point of the games on Barney is to win
: or lose. that's an uniquely adult concept. Kids sometimes play just to
: be playing. Who said there has to be a winner and a loser (when you're a
: kid)?
You're still missing the point. The bottom line is that you feel that
kids should *always* win, no matter if they performed well or not.
You maintain that that is tantamount to high self esteem later in life.
I state that that kids shouldn't automatically win because then it means
*nothing* to them. When they carry that attitude later into life, their
self-esteem will suffer immensely when they suffer defeat for the first
time. They will feel worthless for not doing something they've always
done. And while losing may upset a child at first, the long-term effects
will prove ultimately to be better.
: >: Do you have any evidence at all of this? What are you basing this on? I
: >: haven't seen any of these mindless drone children. What makes these
: >: children different from you or I when we were kids? Give me something
: >: concrete or quantifiable if you have it.
: >
: >Watch the show. Do the kids act any differently from any other? And
: >even when they try, their individuality is crushed by the beast.
: >
: Please provide episode titles and approx air dates so I can view your
: evidence. All you are doing is making unsupported assertions here. I
: could say that Barney walked on water 'in some episode some day' but it's
: an equally unsupported assertion.
: Please also elaborate on the crushed individuality line. You made the
: assertion and I'll hold you to it. Give me specific CONCRETE show refs
: and or acceptable cites and I'll revisit. Otherwise this whole argument
: is not worth the keystrokes. You can't just make these grand sweeping
: assertions without proof.
Okay, here you go. Quoting from Doug Corti's episode reviews...
BEEF #2
At the Carnival of Numbers, Shawn wants to play a football game.
Fine. But then Barney says "_Everybody_ (emphasis added by me)
step this way." No debate at all. Barney forces the children to
play the game, and there is no indication from the children that
they do not want to play the game. They march with their leader.
COMPLAINT #4 - As with many episodes, there seems to be a blind
follow-the-leader type game going on. Whoever makes the suggestion, the
gang will follow in conformity. There is never any debate or any
indication that one of the children may not want to do what somebody else
wants. Agreement is not going to happen all the time, and it should be
acknowledged by the show.
COMPLAINT # 2 - Mandatory blind agreement. One child wants to do
something, everybody else agrees without conflict. Been there. Done that.
Commented on way too many times to recall.
: >Don't. I am content with my life as it is.
: I'm happy for you, but you dodge the intent of the replies to the
: profanity. Please address in the future.
Make me. And you aren't really happy for me, are you? You don't even
know me...
: >Good, you've been inserting mounds and mounds of bs elsewhere.
: Yawn. Stay on topic and away from snide comments please.
Looks like your pathetic little hell wyrm didn't give you a sense of
humor.
: Robert
Chris
Nexxus aka Lt. Mahtash <Hem...@inorbit.com.no.spam> wrote in article
<33d50922...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> Here's a page put up on the web by a teacher :)
> http://www.edu.yorku.ca/~edcetera/barney.html
There is nothing solid on this page. She merely says why she hates barney.
She speaks of a conference at Binghamton University in which a lecture
attacking barney was given. Believe it or not, I attended BU at that time.
I can assure you that the arguement she refers to was an attempt to show
how critical theory could be used to attack and deconstruct anything,
including a TV show that the majority of American people would consider
wholesome. The point was to show the usefulness of that academic model, not
to destroy the show.
~Chris (He who waits ;) )
Chris
Timothy Geier <sir...@blues.jpj.net> wrote in article
<5r2odc$s...@news.monad.net>...
> : > You have *no* idea what they went through after they lost. They
wanted
> : > an NBA championship very, very badly. And why? Becuase it would
have
> : > meant that they were the best at what they do. They may get paid
about
> : as
> : > much as the Bulls, but they're missing something the Bulls have.
> : >
> : > A championship.
>
> : Good thing they we're used to losing. If Barney had been around 25
years
> : ago or so when they were children half of the Jazz team would have had
to
> : have some serious therapy.
>
> That is totally irrelevent.
Maybe so, I didn't bring it up.
> : But I have something against
> : kids
> : > who are only seemingly having fun, but are being exploited and shaped
> : into
> : > cookie-cutter clones with no trace of individuality.
>
> : Do you have any evidence at all of this? What are you basing this on? I
> : haven't seen any of these mindless drone children. What makes these
> : children different from you or I when we were kids? Give me something
> : concrete or quantifiable if you have it.
>
> Watch the show. Do the kids act any differently from any other? And
> even when they try, their individuality is crushed by the beast.
I have. Ever consider that they were acting or following a script? The
point of the show isn't to show how 4 kids can act as individuals and
wander about the set doing their own thing. The point is to show how young
kids-barney's target audience-can cooperate and form social relationships
and learn how to interact with their peers.
>
> : I pity you.
>
> Don't. I am content with my life as it is.
>
> : ~Chris
>
> : *insert witty sig file and title here
>
> Good, you've been inserting mounds and mounds of bs elsewhere.
ME??? Please consider the point of the show.
If there is a conspiracy to subvert America's children via a TV show could
you please tell me why and who will benefit from this? I'd love to hear it.
Chris
> You're still missing the point. The bottom line is that you feel that
> kids should *always* win, no matter if they performed well or not.
> You maintain that that is tantamount to high self esteem later in life.
> I state that that kids shouldn't automatically win because then it means
> *nothing* to them. When they carry that attitude later into life, their
> self-esteem will suffer immensely when they suffer defeat for the first
> time. They will feel worthless for not doing something they've always
> done. And while losing may upset a child at first, the long-term effects
> will prove ultimately to be better.
What makes you think that ALL games a child plays in a day are like this?
This is a half-hour show, period. Kids do much more in a day including
playing many other games. I'm sure that they play 'real' games in the same
day that they play barney's 'no loser's' games. Don't you think a kid can
tell the difference? Do any of the home kids actually participate and
receive acknowledgment fron barney? No. This is a passive activity, they
are watching a program. When they play REAL games with REAL people they
know that sometimes they win and sometimes they lose; that's what
constitutes a game. You sell our kids short by implying that all they know
is what they see on TV.
> Okay, here you go. Quoting from Doug Corti's episode reviews...
>
> BEEF #2
>
> At the Carnival of Numbers, Shawn wants to play a football game.
> Fine. But then Barney says "_Everybody_ (emphasis added by me)
> step this way." No debate at all. Barney forces the children to
> play the game, and there is no indication from the children that
> they do not want to play the game. They march with their leader.
A show about kids arguing about a game isn't good TV. THEY'RE FOLLOWING A
SCRIPT!!!
Do you think young children want to watch other kids TALK about games or
play them?
These kids are actors, period.
> COMPLAINT #4 - As with many episodes, there seems to be a blind
> follow-the-leader type game going on. Whoever makes the suggestion, the
> gang will follow in conformity. There is never any debate or any
> indication that one of the children may not want to do what somebody else
> wants. Agreement is not going to happen all the time, and it should be
> acknowledged by the show.
Isn't this the same as your last point? Of course agreement is going to
happen all the time in real life. Neither will you interact with a purple
dinosaur. THIS IS TV! There are alot of things on that, and every, show
that are not replicated in real life.
> COMPLAINT # 2 - Mandatory blind agreement. One child wants to do
> something, everybody else agrees without conflict. Been there. Done
that.
> Commented on way too many times to recall.
Didn't we cover this already? I'm growing bored of this, IT'S A SCRIPTED TV
SHOW!!!!!! They have to keep a kid's attention (quite a feat let me assure
you). Talking about which game to play isn't going to do it. By the time
their lawyers have negotiated which game they are all inclined to play the
audience will have moved on to other things.
CarlK14
>Nexxus aka Lt. Mahtash stated:
>Please point out where I, or anyone else for that matter, stated
>that this was a source of factual nature. I know I did no such
>thing, and to the best of my knowledge, neither has anyone else.
>I simply pointed this out as a source other than the Jihad.
Nexxus, you have been very fair about qualifying the site. However that
is not generally true. The Yermish Essay and the DeFreitas essay are both
frequently cited as proving the harmful effects of Barney, however neither
one can truly be classed as an objective study by one with a background in
early childhood education and development. In both cases they are in fact
opinion pieces. If presented as an opinion piece for consideration and a
source for discussion, they serve a valuable purpose. When presented as a
factual proof, they serve only to distort.
I would also like again to ask in which episode Barney states "A
stranger's just a friend you haven't met yet!" This is frequently cited
as proof that Barney is dangerous, placing children at risk by encouraging
them to approach strangers. Strangely enough, when I and others have
asked in which episode this appeared, no one is able to provide that
answer. I have seen every episode which either MPT or WETA have televised
and have yet to have seen Barney say that. I have, however seen Barney
teaching the Children to "Never Talk to Strangers", it appears in Barney's
safety video. My son Joseph and I sing the song frequently as we travel
together.
Chris
Taniara XIII <jon...@Charleston.Net> wrote in article
<33D557...@Charleston.Net>...
> RPacktor wrote:
> >
> > >I snip for brevity. You might try it sometime, Robmeister.
> >
> > Actually, I prefer Robert, but thats ok, I guess..... <g>
>
> Whatever, Rob-o.
Good God! Could you be any more immature if you tried?
> > >> Cocaine is proven medically and historically to have generally
> > >> detrimental effects on its users.
> > >
> > >Just like barney, ha! What _are_ the odds?
> > >
> > Please provide acceptable cites as to the alleged damage caused by
Barney
> > (JAMA, NEJM, Psychology Today, ERIC would be acceptable)
>
> I would if I could but I can't because of a computer problem hampering
> my use of the WWW so I won't.
Sure ;) Pretty good excuse
> > If you're still in school, congrats to your ed system (public or
private).
> > They're doing a good thing. My spelling slips sometimes since I have
to
> > rush these replies out.
> > >
> *Laughing hysterically* If only you knew how terrible it really is . . .
And these childish personal attacks help to prove your point by
_____________?
Please fill in this blank, because in my opinion you're belittling
yourself. It seems that if you have no evidence to back up your tenuous
position, you merely make an insult and change the subject. That makes for
a very weak arguement since I'm now more likely to ignore your rantings for
the childish insults they are.
~Chris
Chris
CarlK14 <car...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970723012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> I'm glad that this particular report was cited. It is a blatent example
> of opinion being stated as fact. It is also a perfect example of the
> danger of the web, that placing information on the web neither guarantees
> its truth or accuracy.
Very well stated.
>
> Is Barney really what children are interested in? Beyond the early
> primary years, no. Barneys audience is the preschool 2-5 year old group.
> At that age tastes are not very sophisticated and the children are as
> interested in singing and dancing along as anything else. Barney is a
> participatory experience as it encourages the child to dance, sing and
> respond. As the child enters the early and later primary years their
> tastes develop rapidly. They embrace more sophisticated activities and
> Barney becomes passe.
I think you've just summarized the show and it's purpose very succinctly
and accurately. I'm glad Robert and I are not alone.
~Chris
Chris
> No problem. Articles from leading parenting magazines (and notes from
> psychologists) can be found at
> http://www.public.iastate.edu/~midnite/barni.html .
>
Hmmm, as much as I enjoy USA weekend for it's insightful Hollywood gossip,
I don't consider it an academic journal where the results of credible
research are posted. Sorry, still waiting for something.....
~Chris
Nexxus aka Lt. Mahtash
On 24 Jul 1997 01:21:04 GMT, "Chris" <cbbl...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Nexxus aka Lt. Mahtash <Hem...@inorbit.com.no.spam> wrote in article
><33d50922...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>> Here's a page put up on the web by a teacher :)
>> http://www.edu.yorku.ca/~edcetera/barney.html
>
>There is nothing solid on this page. She merely says why she hates barney.
>
"Here's a page put up on the web by a teacher :)"
Please point out where in that sentence I stated any such thing.
>She speaks of a conference at Binghamton University in which a lecture
>attacking barney was given. Believe it or not, I attended BU at that time.
>I can assure you that the arguement she refers to was an attempt to show
>how critical theory could be used to attack and deconstruct anything,
>including a TV show that the majority of American people would consider
>wholesome. The point was to show the usefulness of that academic model, not
>to destroy the show.
>
and your point is?
>~Chris (He who waits ;) )
Nexxus aka Lt. Mahtash
On 24 Jul 1997 01:07:15 GMT, car...@aol.com (CarlK14) wrote:
>>Nexxus aka Lt. Mahtash stated:
>
[snip]
>I would also like again to ask in which episode Barney states "A
>stranger's just a friend you haven't met yet!" This is frequently cited
>as proof that Barney is dangerous, placing children at risk by encouraging
>them to approach strangers. Strangely enough, when I and others have
>asked in which episode this appeared, no one is able to provide that
>answer. I have seen every episode which either MPT or WETA have televised
>and have yet to have seen Barney say that. I have, however seen Barney
>teaching the Children to "Never Talk to Strangers", it appears in Barney's
>safety video. My son Joseph and I sing the song frequently as we travel
>together.
>
If memory doesn't fail me, I believe that episode, which is one of the
earlier ones, is no longer shown. I'm not sure, but I think there was
a thread not too long ago about this. PBS supposedly recieved
complaints about it, and since then the show with "never takl to
strangers" was produced.
RPacktor
>From: Fingon aka Radagast <fin...@earthlink.no.smeg.net>
>Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:28:45 -0500
>Message-ID: <33D6E8...@earthlink.no.smeg.net>
>
>Chris most foolishly spewed forth:
>
><hedgeclippers. snip. snip, snip snip.>
>
>> > Watch the show. Do the kids act any differently from any other? And
>> > even when they try, their individuality is crushed by the beast.
>>
>> I have. Ever consider that they were acting or following a script? The
>
And where do you get this insight? Interviewed many kids, etc? Again
rad, you use words like beast to try to get everyone all worked up and
then dodge any reasoned debate on the issue. Yes, the kids tend to do one
or two things together on the show, and yes in real life kids do a lot
more than that, but a group of kids will tend to play one or two games
_for half of an hour_. String the shows together and watch back to back
and you will see that the kids do lots of things together and in some of
the shows, then go home to their families for dinner, to play, etc.
(Group play AND individuality)
>
>> point of the show isn't to show how 4 kids can act as individuals and
>> wander about the set doing their own thing. The point is to show how
young
>> kids-barney's target audience-can cooperate and form social
relationships
>> and learn how to interact with their peers.
>
>Why bother with Barney?
>Why not just show them the "Best of Both Worlds" and "Return of the
>Archons" and tell them "the people on the Enterprise are the bad guys"?
I'm not sure I follow, Rad. Please don't reply with a simple "duh, you're
stupid."
Reply by explaining your argument.
>> If there is a conspiracy to subvert America's children via a TV show
could
>> you please tell me why and who will benefit from this? I'd love to hear
it.
>
>You said yourself, the goal of a capitalist society is making money.
>Who'll benefit? The bastards behind the show.
>
Yeah they make money, but I'm still not convinced on the whole subversion
theory. What is there to gain by 'subverting' a generation? At their
peak, the turtles were as popular if not more. Were they subverting kids
by making money off of them?
Fingon aka Radagast
Chris most foolishly spewed forth:
<hedgeclippers. snip. snip, snip snip.>
> > Watch the show. Do the kids act any differently from any other? And
> > even when they try, their individuality is crushed by the beast.
>
> I have. Ever consider that they were acting or following a script? The
Do kids know that? No. They just think that's how people act.
> point of the show isn't to show how 4 kids can act as individuals and
> wander about the set doing their own thing. The point is to show how young
> kids-barney's target audience-can cooperate and form social relationships
> and learn how to interact with their peers.
Why bother with Barney?
Why not just show them the "Best of Both Worlds" and "Return of the
Archons" and tell them "the people on the Enterprise are the bad guys"?
<snip>
>
> ME??? Please consider the point of the show.
>
> If there is a conspiracy to subvert America's children via a TV show could
> you please tell me why and who will benefit from this? I'd love to hear it.
You said yourself, the goal of a capitalist society is making money.
Who'll benefit? The bastards behind the show.
Rens Houben
In <01bc957a$6d928980$f0d5afce@chrisbly> "Chris" <cbbl...@sprynet.com> writes:
>Rens Houben <re...@sci.kun.nl> wrote in article
><5qt8on$fh9$1...@studs2.sci.kun.nl>...
{more snippage}
>> *Really old text snipped*
>>
>> >> > What did they really lose?
>> Umm, the NBA championship? </obvious>
>No shit?
*smiles strangely, puts on a pleasant voice*
Oka, so much for making a subtle point....
*changes to dragon form, snatches Rad's megaphone*
HELLLLOOOOOO!!!! SINCE WHEN IS THE MONEY THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR A SPORTS
TOURNAMENT? I SEEM TO RECALL A RULE TOLD IN HIGH SCHOOL ABOUT THE OBJECTIVE
BEING THE GAME, NOT THE MARBLES!
*switching it off*
Sure, a couple million bucks would be nice to have, but that is *NOT*, in
this dragon's history books, what sports tournaments are about. IMNSH, the
reasons for them were more like:
1) Friendly competition between all sports practitioners in the nation/world;
2) Showing non-sports people that sports do exist, and that they're fun to
watch and participate.
Am I being idealistic? Probably.
But even so, this is the point I was trying to make. If you still have problems
understanding, drop me a note and I'll E-mail an explanation in one-syllable
words.
Salutations,
Initiate Shadur t'Kharn . , Captain Houben of TRES Corps,
of the Chosen of Khorne . ,`o--Y Zeta squad
____.....------.' .,' ,,~'' `,------.....____
''''` `---.:: ,': ; ,' ;`. ;;.---' '````
Last of the ` `:__`-._ `.`., _,-'__;' ' BUFH, BPFH
Shadow dragons ` `---`---'`'`---'---' ' and general Bastard
__________________________ \`--'/`,,___________
``` '''
Begin jihad code block:
-------------------------------------------------------
B---- SPG--- F++++ R&D+++ ND---- TIJ+ ODD++ MAG PSI++++
IRC++++ JW++ ABD4+++
!MST !RPG GF++ GG+++ GM++++ GMO+++ VECH-AS
-------------------------------------------------------
Tenderfoot Incarnate [tm]
Chris wrote:
>
> Fingon aka Radagast <fin...@earthlink.no.smeg.net> wrote in article
> <33D046...@earthlink.no.smeg.net>...
> >
> > I'm not saying what they DO teach, I'm saying what they SHOULD.
> > Kids can learn all that social stuff elsewhere.
> > GAMES are about using your mind.
>
> Where would you suggest? An obvious social action like game playing seems
> more than appropriate to me. As toddlers, kids are interested in mostly one
> thing when they see other children--playing and having fun. Adults
> subjecting them to rigid "games" and pressuring them to win doesn't sound
> fun to me. It sounds like work. Let them enjoy their childhood until they
> reach school age. THAT is the place for competition---that is where
> excellence should be rewarded. But unfortunately our academic system holds
> the advanced back with the rest of the herd who just plod through the
> lessons.
>
Actually, I have memories going as far back as 3 years old...and the
kids with whom _I_ wanted to play were the _big_ kids (like my brother,
who was [and still is] 2 years older than I). Kids my age weren't
interesting at all. "B'harnii and Fiends" draws on this principle, by
including older kids, but <gestures> they all act as if they were
toddlers </gestures>. As far as "pressuring them to win" goes, my
parents never _made_ me want to win. However, I learned early in life
that there was a difference between winning and losing. I liked winning
better, when I deserved it. I _hated_ it when my brother would LET me
win, trying to make me feel good. Later on (age 4 or 5), I enjoyed
playing with kids my age, especially games like "Tag", or (better yet)
"Freeze Tag." In many of our games, we were NOT competing against each
other. However, those games were often struggles against imaginary
foes. Sort of an early role-playing game, without the dice, in which we
collectively told a story of battles against powerful enemies. We
cooperated (in the story we all shaped), but we "knew" that we were
fighting together against our adversaries. My point is, I and my
friends knew before we reached school age that there were times to try
to win against each other (races, playing "Candy Land", etc.), there
were times to cooperate against actual opponents (anybody who has played
"Freeze Tag" knows the importance of helping your frozen compadres, lest
one be frozen oneself), and there were times to enjoy telling a group
story. B'harnii teaches children that everybody should win all the
time. How does _that_ help a child learn about life?
<<snips rest of post>>
//signature//
Tenderfoot Incarnate [tm]
Cyohtee
Chris wrote:
>
> > You're still missing the point. The bottom line is that you feel that
> > kids should *always* win, no matter if they performed well or not.
> > You maintain that that is tantamount to high self esteem later in life.
> > I state that that kids shouldn't automatically win because then it means
> > *nothing* to them. When they carry that attitude later into life, their
> > self-esteem will suffer immensely when they suffer defeat for the first
> > time. They will feel worthless for not doing something they've always
> > done. And while losing may upset a child at first, the long-term effects
> > will prove ultimately to be better.
>
> What makes you think that ALL games a child plays in a day are like this?
> This is a half-hour show, period. Kids do much more in a day including
> playing many other games.
You need to remember that this is NOT a show that kids watch for 1/2 an
hour and then forget about. They watch the show, and the videos, and the
videos they force their parents to tape off the TV for them. We are
talking about a show that has been SHOWN to cause children to throw
tantrums and defy their parents because of the "Barney would let me do
it" mindset that the show instills.
>I'm sure that they play 'real' games in the same
> day that they play barney's 'no loser's' games. Don't you think a kid can
> tell the difference? Do any of the home kids actually participate and
> receive acknowledgment fron barney? No. This is a passive activity, they
> are watching a program. When they play REAL games with REAL people they
> know that sometimes they win and sometimes they lose; that's what
> constitutes a game. You sell our kids short by implying that all they know
> is what they see on TV.
Sure they do not get direct personal acknowledgement from the TV
character, but they DO play along at home, and do NOT passively sit and
watch the show. You need to stop assigning adult mannerisms to small
children. You seem to be assuming that these children of the Barney age
group are of an age to understand that games have losers. The Barney age
group starts at 2! A 2 year old does NOT know he can't always win. My
nephew when he was 2 sure didn't, and he would pitch a fit when he
didn't win, and screamed about how Barney would have let him win. It was
horrible and I chided my sister-in-law for allowing the kids to watch
Barney. At that age they only know that wich the see around them, and if
they see Barney they DO only know what they see on TV, and when they
later fing out it isn't so, they are upset by it and somewhat
traumatized.
> > Okay, here you go. Quoting from Doug Corti's episode reviews...
> >
> > BEEF #2
> >
> > At the Carnival of Numbers, Shawn wants to play a football game.
> > Fine. But then Barney says "_Everybody_ (emphasis added by me)
> > step this way." No debate at all. Barney forces the children to
> > play the game, and there is no indication from the children that
> > they do not want to play the game. They march with their leader.
>
> A show about kids arguing about a game isn't good TV. THEY'RE FOLLOWING A
> SCRIPT!!!
> Do you think young children want to watch other kids TALK about games or
> play them?
> These kids are actors, period.
In a show that is billed as an educational show designed to prepare them
for when they go off to school. When they don't go into conflicts that
they WILL encounter in the real world, they are NOT preparing them.
>
> > COMPLAINT #4 - As with many episodes, there seems to be a blind
> > follow-the-leader type game going on. Whoever makes the suggestion, the
> > gang will follow in conformity. There is never any debate or any
> > indication that one of the children may not want to do what somebody else
> > wants. Agreement is not going to happen all the time, and it should be
> > acknowledged by the show.
>
> Isn't this the same as your last point? Of course agreement is going to
> happen all the time in real life. Neither will you interact with a purple
> dinosaur. THIS IS TV! There are alot of things on that, and every, show
> that are not replicated in real life.
And it is from a review of a different episode. You seem to assume that
anything that was covered somewhere else that YOU saw should be dropped,
even though someone else reading it might NOT have seen the other review
you saw. Plus when the same objectionable act is performed several times
in the same episode it also needs to be pointed out each time, else the
proponents of this show come back with a "Gee, it happens ONCE and you
scream"
>
> > COMPLAINT # 2 - Mandatory blind agreement. One child wants to do
> > something, everybody else agrees without conflict. Been there. Done
> that.
> > Commented on way too many times to recall.
>
> Didn't we cover this already? I'm growing bored of this, IT'S A SCRIPTED TV
> SHOW!!!!!! They have to keep a kid's attention (quite a feat let me assure
> you). Talking about which game to play isn't going to do it. By the time
> their lawyers have negotiated which game they are all inclined to play the
> audience will have moved on to other things.
>
Um, again, since it apparently is the SECOND complaint you quoted
numbered #2, it is from A DIFFERENT EPISODE!!!
PLUS! If this is the case, how come other shows like Sesame Street, Mr
Rogers, and Shining Times Station can all show conflicts without the
kids attention wandering? I think your argument needs a bit more
thought.
If you are so bored, go away. Drop it and you won't have to read it over
again.
Commander Cyohtee, XO, Kappa Squad, TRES Corps
Chris
Nexxus aka Lt. Mahtash <Hem...@inorbit.com.no.spam> wrote in article
<33d8ee1a....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> On 24 Jul 1997 01:21:04 GMT, "Chris" <cbbl...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Nexxus aka Lt. Mahtash <Hem...@inorbit.com.no.spam> wrote in article
> ><33d50922...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> >> Here's a page put up on the web by a teacher :)
> >> http://www.edu.yorku.ca/~edcetera/barney.html
> >
> >There is nothing solid on this page. She merely says why she hates
barney.
> >
> "Here's a page put up on the web by a teacher :)"
> Please point out where in that sentence I stated any such thing.
Well, this is what you referred me to when I, and others, asked you for any
proof for your accusations. Rightly so you made no claims to this page's
credibility. Nor did you provide any backing for your arguement. Still
waiting.
> >She speaks of a conference at Binghamton University in which a lecture
> >attacking barney was given. Believe it or not, I attended BU at that
time.
> >I can assure you that the arguement she refers to was an attempt to show
> >how critical theory could be used to attack and deconstruct anything,
> >including a TV show that the majority of American people would consider
> >wholesome. The point was to show the usefulness of that academic model,
not
> >to destroy the show.
> >
> and your point is?
My point is that this arguement was made to prove the strentgh of a
theoretical standpoint. When you work with critical theory, as we do at
Binghamton, you want to prove that your theoretical model can be used to
deconstruct and re-evaluate aspects of our society that have been
overlooked or unquestioned in the past.
The author decided to show that the model used was SO solid that it could
be used to criticize a childrens show that most people accept as a quality
educational program. They could have used any case study for this model
(they chose Barney, probably because Barney-mania was just taking off), the
case wasn't important--the theory was.
If you would like some references of some critical theorists I'll provide
some. Perhaps you can read them and use their models to make a solid case
against Barney. You could do no worse than what I've already read as
"proof".
~Chris
RPacktor
>From: skel...@sos.net. (SkeletonJ)
>Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 04:13:08 GMT
>Message-ID: <33d822f1....@news.nas.com>
>
>On 24 Jul 1997 00:37:57 GMT, "Chris" <cbbl...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>>><SNIPED><<
>> Don't you think a kid can tell the difference?
>TV with them, and if you have the time, play with them yourself *GASP*
>*SHOCK*
I don't recall your name appreaing before, skeleton, so you might not
have caught this in catching up to the thread.
Chris and I are the ones arguing for parental involvement. My main
argument throughout is that the show is a worthwhile tool for parents; not
a substitute.
>>Do any of the home kids actually participate and
>>receive acknowledgment fron barney? No. This is a passive activity, they
>>are watching a program. When they play REAL games with REAL people they
>>know that sometimes they win and sometimes they lose; that's what
>>constitutes a game. You sell our kids short by implying that all they
know
>>is what they see on TV.
>
>Ok, but how are they going to find out about games in the FIRST
>PLACE!!?!! You think kids are just going to instantly realise that
>the game they are playing has completely different rules then the one
>that Barney plays on TV. No, the young child is going to decide that
>the games are the same, and be sad when he looses, when the kids on TV
>never lose a game.
>
Re-apply the parental involvement stuff here. I've granted to most of the
jihadders (but no one's even mentioned it back to me) that if the show is
used as a substiture or surrogate parent, then some of the jihad's
arguments take on more weight. However, in the face of parental
involvement, the arguments don't hold up.
>>><SNIPED FOR SPACE><<
>>A show about kids arguing about a game isn't good TV. THEY'RE FOLLOWING
A
>>SCRIPT!!!
>So what, people shoot other people and say the song told them to.
Irrelevant and off topic....
>>Do you think young children want to watch other kids TALK about games or
>>play them?
>If kids didnt want to watch the ones on TV play games, then they
>wouldnt be watch Barney, witch is fine by me.
Maybe they learn some new games and songs from the show and share those
songs and games with their friends.
>>These kids are actors, period.
>No, an actor is someone who can put meaning and feeling into a role.
>Either that or just looks good jumping over a wall with a building
>exploding behind them. The kids just act like puppets being strung
>about by Barneys ideas on what to do.
.... dragging in all of the 'mindless conformist' arguments......
I've posted my repoinses to the conformist argument so many times, I'm
tired of it. Look through my older posts to see my responses.
>>Neither will you interact with a purple dinosaur. THIS IS TV! There are
alot
>of things on that, and every, show
>>that are not replicated in real life.
>If everybody could tell the difference then we could finally watch DIE
>HARD uncut on TBS friday night movie. Some people cant figure out
>that there is much of a difference, do you really think that a 4 year
>old is going to stand up and say "Wait a second, that isnt a real
>school yard. Barney is a fake" If they could, then we wouldnt be
>having this argument and Barney would be off the air.
Guys, the show repeatedly says that Barney lives in the imaginations of
the kids... Remember the words from the theme song. At the end of most
episodes (I'd like to say all episodes, but frankly I do not think I've
seen all of them) Barney reverts to being a stuffed animal on the school
playground and the kids go on home or go on about playing other games.
>>
>>><SNIPED FOR SPACE><<
>>Didn't we cover this already? I'm growing bored of this, IT'S A SCRIPTED
TV
>>SHOW!!!!!! They have to keep a kid's attention (quite a feat let me
assure
>>you).
>Not really, the hardest part is keeping your attention on them. As
>long as your paying attention, the kids are pretty much happy unless
>they fall over.
>
Obviously not a quote from a parent....
>> Talking about which game to play isn't going to do it. By the time
>>their lawyers have negotiated which game they are all inclined to play
the
>>audience will have moved on to other things.
>>
>That paragraph is rather pointless. Talking about which game to play
>wont do it under the current setup because when one kid mentions a
>game, Barney sais "What a great idea" and they all happily march over.
>In reality, and quality shows like S.Street, the kids would have a
>brief discussion and come to a compromise. I realize that
>compromising may be foreign to alot of people, but it actually works
>pretty well.
Actually, skeleton, it's right on point. The point is that this is a 30
minute TV show. If the kids argued for 25 of those monutes over what game
to play, the whole thing would be a waste. If you watch enough episodes,
you will see that each kid gets to do his/her own thing with the other
kids. They take turns choosing what games the whole group will play. I
would think that cooperative playing and group socialization are pretty
neat things for kids to learn.
Melanie Davies
In article <01bc97ce$4494f080$2d64afce@chrisbly>,
Here's what I know of published stuff on Barney. The only thing close to
an article on Barney that has been published in an academic journal so
far as I know if the taxonomy of Barney in Annals Improbable Research,
which claims that he is most closely related to a dead salmon. There are
no papers published on the education/ psychological effects of Barney so
far as I know, though there are some articles from parenting magazines
and/or psychologists that I have seen around. While there aren't any
papers showing that Barney is harmful there are none that prove that the
show is good for children either, and it would be wrong to assume that it
is wonderful just because there is nothing published in a scientific
journal saying that Barney is harmful. Until something is published both
pro- and anti- Barney opinions are just opinions, neither of which can be
scientifcally proven. Personally I don't like Barney and think that
there is enough potential to harm children in the show that I would
describe the show as bad for children.
Melanie
Captain Davies
XO Alpha squad, TRES Corps
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Rens Houben
>The only URL I've been pointed to is
>"http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/1868/yessay.html" (Thanks,
>Amanda Van Rhyn). It's an essay by someone pre-disposed to disliking
>Barney (by her own admission). I would prefer more than this as
>acceptable cites as to Barney's alleged legative impact.
Oh, so anyone who doesn't like Barney is automatically unsuited to
make a good report on whether or not B'harnii is detrimental?
Taking that assumption, who are you to defend the show?
>Still patiently waiting for that authoratative cite.....
<voice mode=IGOR>
Yess, master.... Your humble ssservant, masssssster......
</voice> </sarcasm>
I'll give you a hint.
http://www.yahoo.com
keyword: anti-barney.
>>I'm kind of a spelling and geography freak :^)
>If you're still in school, congrats to your ed system (public or private).
> They're doing a good thing. My spelling slips sometimes since I have to
>rush these replies out.
Then *DON'T* rush them out!
Read what you're posting at least once before hitting 'commit' or whatever
program you use. It prevents one from placing one's pedal extremity where
one's tongue is supposed to be[1]. It also helps you catch most of the
obvious typos.
Cheers,
Initiate Shadur t'Kharn . , Captain Houben of TRES Corps,
of the Chosen of Khorne . ,`o--Y Zeta squad
____.....------.' .,' ,,~'' `,------.....____
''''` `---.:: ,': ; ,' ;`. ;;.---' '````
Last of the ` `:__`-._ `.`., _,-'__;' ' BUFH, BPFH
Shadow dragons ` `---`---'`'`---'---' ' and general Bastard
__________________________ \`--'/`,,___________
``` '''
Begin jihad code block:
-------------------------------------------------------
B---- SPG--- F++++ R&D+++ ND---- TIJ+ ODD++ MAG PSI++++
IRC++++ JW++ ABD4+++
!MST !RPG GF++ GG+++ GM++++ GMO+++ VECH-AS
-------------------------------------------------------
[1] Tm Terry Pratchett.
Samhain
>Where would you suggest? An obvious social action like game playing seems
>more than appropriate to me. As toddlers, kids are interested in mostly one
>thing when they see other children--playing and having fun. Adults
>subjecting them to rigid "games" and pressuring them to win doesn't sound
>fun to me.
You miss the point. It's not the *pressure* that makes the game
good or worthwhile... but in some ways, it is that very same pressure
that makes it fun.
What games do you remember having the most fun with as a kid?
Personally, I remember things like tag, duck-duck-goose, dodgeball,
soccer. Winning wasn't the most important thing, but it teaches some
valuable lessons. 1) work hard... by yourself or as a team... and you
can succeed. 2) sometimes, no matter what, you will not succeed.
Success and failure are both a part of life. And you can learn
from both. Teamwork is important, too. But working together just for
the sake of working together is boring. ;)
>It sounds like work. Let them enjoy their childhood until they
>reach school age. THAT is the place for competition---that is where
>excellence should be rewarded. But unfortunately our academic system holds
>the advanced back with the rest of the herd who just plod through the
>lessons.
Hmm. Everyone is together and equal. Where've I heard that one
before...?
> As far
> as your point about the Jazz not getting executed when they
>lost....well, that helps my point. They cash their paychecks too, just
>like the Bulls.
They fought for that right--they played hard, and had to win a
*lot* of very difficult games to get there, remember? If both teams
worked together, would it be fun to watch?
>What other form of success is there in a capitalist society? Who's more
>respected and influential--the millionaire athlete who couldn't get into
>college or the biochemist working on a cure for a disease? Sure we can take
>pleasure and feel successful for many other accomplishments, but
>overwhelmingly people associate wealth with success--and therefore with
>"winning" in the game of life.
Competition is the very *foundation* of a capitalist society, is
it not? What drives people to improve products, to do things better,
cheaper, and faster? Equality?
>I'll admit that I'm no fan of barney...but my 11 month old likes the
>singing and dancing. I'd rather she watch discovery or CNN, but it just
>doesn't hold her interest.
Of course not. Barney was engineered to be something you could
drop your kid in front of and forget about them for 30 minutes. In the
words of a PBS executive, "The kids shut up for 30 minutes, and it works
out good." [the New Yorker, May 3, 1993.]
There *are* other shows intended for kids. Other shows far more
educational and also quite capable of holding their interest. I don't
object to shows intended for kids... but I *do* object to the thought
that a TV should be used as a babysitter.
>*Finally a discussion group that has some brains. I'm enjoying this. I know
>that this is a specific newsgroup, but are there any other shows that you
>readers see that are as offensive as barney? Just curious.
Yes, there are. ;) But for the most part, they don't masquerade as
being something wholesome and completely good for kids. That, and my
tax dollars don't pay for them. ;)
Samhain Has Spoken. (tm)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><-><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> < > <
|| Doberman Fleet Commander Aurelius Invid Manticore Samhain ||
|| Patron Saint of the Church of Blarney, Order of the Big Mac ||
|| Founder of W.E.D.J.E.E. ||
|| Captain of the 10th Company of the Chosen of Khorne ||
|| Blackblood the Feral (NYAR!) C.E.D. of the Maenads of ||
|| The Holy Albino ||
|| _____________________ ________ ||
|| |________Sage Samhain_|=|___OJP__| ||
> < > <
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><-><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
/ http://www.public.iastate.edu/~midnite/barni.html \
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Persuant to Federal regulations, Any and all unsolicited commercial email to
this email address is subject to an archival fee of up to US $500 per
message. Emailing of message denotes acceptance of these terms.
______________________________________________________________________________
Samhain
>Besides, if this stuff bothers you, DON'T let your kids watch. Where is the
>pro-active parenting in this arguement? This crap is on, and no number of
>ng posts will make it go away. Your pleas shouldn't be for the death of
>barney but for parents to watch with their children and discuss what they
>see..
They are. =) You see, We've got your attention, haven't we? In
order to get parents to do something, they first have to believe there's
a problem. As the saying goes... "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." ;)
So my job is to convince you there's something wrong... and either get
it fixed [by cancellation] or have a workable patch put on it [get
parents to take responsibility.] =)
>Besides, should the big purple bastard get cancelled some other moron
>will take his place. Sadly enough most parents are happy to sit their kids
>in front of the ole electronic babysitter and take a break.
My point entirely. Barney was *designed* for this specific
purpose. Don't believe me? Check out the Deceber 21, 1992 issue of
Time magazine and read closely. Sheryl Leach [appropriate name, don't
you think? Sucking the brains from the kids and the money from the
parents! =D] created Barney because she wanted a *videotape* that would
hold her kids' attention.
>Well, who do I see more? Who do kids see more? Who do they know more about?
>My personal feelings have very little impact on the schedulers of the major
>networks. Let's face it...people watch sports, they like to be entertained.
No arguement there. But what is it that makes it entertaining?
Even educational shows can be entertaining! Take Mr. Wizard's world,
for example. =)
>Of course you're going to see athletes more. It's hard for kids to respect
>people that the network bigshots have determined to be 'too boring for good
>ratings'.
You think the kids even know about the network bigshots'
opinions? ;)
> But at least we now have the Women's Basketball
>Association--aaacckk, did I just write that?
Hmmm... *looks again* yep. Looks like you did. ;)
>Hegemonize me, I like it
One word... BOHICA. :)
SkeletonJ
On 24 Jul 1997 00:37:57 GMT, "Chris" <cbbl...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>><SNIPED><<
> Don't you think a kid can tell the difference?
No, most of them are to young to realize, witch is why you need watch
TV with them, and if you have the time, play with them yourself *GASP*
*SHOCK*
>Do any of the home kids actually participate and
>receive acknowledgment fron barney? No. This is a passive activity, they
>are watching a program. When they play REAL games with REAL people they
>know that sometimes they win and sometimes they lose; that's what
>constitutes a game. You sell our kids short by implying that all they know
>is what they see on TV.
Ok, but how are they going to find out about games in the FIRST
PLACE!!?!! You think kids are just going to instantly realise that
the game they are playing has completely different rules then the one
that Barney plays on TV. No, the young child is going to decide that
the games are the same, and be sad when he looses, when the kids on TV
never lose a game.
>><SNIPED FOR SPACE><<
>A show about kids arguing about a game isn't good TV. THEY'RE FOLLOWING A
>SCRIPT!!!
So what, people shoot other people and say the song told them to.
>Do you think young children want to watch other kids TALK about games or
>play them?
If kids didnt want to watch the ones on TV play games, then they
wouldnt be watch Barney, witch is fine by me.
>These kids are actors, period.
No, an actor is someone who can put meaning and feeling into a role.
Either that or just looks good jumping over a wall with a building
exploding behind them. The kids just act like puppets being strung
about by Barneys ideas on what to do.
>
>><SNIPED FOR SPACE><<
>Isn't this the same as your last point? Of course agreement is going to
>happen all the time in real life.
Of corse agreement is going to happen all the time in real life, I
hope you mean on the TV show, either that or I need to get back to
reality.
>Neither will you interact with a purple dinosaur. THIS IS TV! There are alot of things on that, and every, show
>that are not replicated in real life.
If everybody could tell the difference then we could finally watch DIE
HARD uncut on TBS friday night movie. Some people cant figure out
that there is much of a difference, do you really think that a 4 year
old is going to stand up and say "Wait a second, that isnt a real
school yard. Barney is a fake" If they could, then we wouldnt be
having this argument and Barney would be off the air.
>
>><SNIPED FOR SPACE><<
>Didn't we cover this already? I'm growing bored of this, IT'S A SCRIPTED TV
>SHOW!!!!!! They have to keep a kid's attention (quite a feat let me assure
>you).
Not really, the hardest part is keeping your attention on them. As
long as your paying attention, the kids are pretty much happy unless
they fall over.
> Talking about which game to play isn't going to do it. By the time
>their lawyers have negotiated which game they are all inclined to play the
>audience will have moved on to other things.
>
That paragraph is rather pointless. Talking about which game to play
wont do it under the current setup because when one kid mentions a
game, Barney sais "What a great idea" and they all happily march over.
In reality, and quality shows like S.Street, the kids would have a
brief discussion and come to a compromise. I realize that
compromising may be foreign to alot of people, but it actually works
pretty well.
======================================================
Skeleton Jack | "Insanity is in the Mind
| of the Beholder"
======================================================
Chris
Melanie Davies <ml...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote in article
<8698475...@dejanews.com>...
> Here's what I know of published stuff on Barney. The only thing close
to
> an article on Barney that has been published in an academic journal so
> far as I know if the taxonomy of Barney in Annals Improbable Research,
> which claims that he is most closely related to a dead salmon.
HAHA! That sounds very amusing, I'll have to check it out when I get a
chance. Thanks ;)
There are
> no papers published on the education/ psychological effects of Barney so
> far as I know, though there are some articles from parenting magazines
> and/or psychologists that I have seen around. While there aren't any
> papers showing that Barney is harmful there are none that prove that the
> show is good for children either, and it would be wrong to assume that it
> is wonderful just because there is nothing published in a scientific
> journal saying that Barney is harmful. Until something is published both
> pro- and anti- Barney opinions are just opinions, neither of which can be
> scientifcally proven .
I agree that our opinions are just opinions. But your goal as jihaddi is to
convince me, right? I'm afraid I need something more substantial to sway
me, but I've enjoyed the various insights into the programs merits (or
total lack thereof).
CarlK14
Chris
Rens Houben <re...@sci.kun.nl> wrote in article
<5rauee$gdp$1...@studs2.sci.kun.nl>...
> In <19970722172...@ladder02.news.aol.com> rpac...@aol.com
(RPacktor) writes:
>
> >The only URL I've been pointed to is
> >"http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/1868/yessay.html" (Thanks,
> >Amanda Van Rhyn). It's an essay by someone pre-disposed to disliking
> >Barney (by her own admission). I would prefer more than this as
> >acceptable cites as to Barney's alleged legative impact.
>
> Oh, so anyone who doesn't like Barney is automatically unsuited to
> make a good report on whether or not B'harnii is detrimental?
>
> Taking that assumption, who are you to defend the show?
YOU'RE the one trying to prove a point, it's up to you to supply the
evidence. I don't want opinions, I want studies, done by professionals, of
the long-term effects of watching this show. If you can't give me any
(after a week I assume you can't) then give me what you can. PLEASE tell me
you have better stuff than what you've already referred us to.
~Chris
Samhain
>> No problem. Articles from leading parenting magazines (and notes from
>> psychologists) can be found at
>> http://www.public.iastate.edu/~midnite/barni.html .
>Hmmm, as much as I enjoy USA weekend for it's insightful Hollywood gossip,
>I don't consider it an academic journal where the results of credible
>research are posted. Sorry, still waiting for something.....
Ok, I've been patient so far, but...
ARE YOU BLIND?!?!
Obviously, you looked at *one* citation... probably not even the
article.
In *ADDITION* to the USA Weekend article, there are articles
from Time, Parents, Newsweek, the New Yorker...
Yet... for some odd reason... you said not a word about those.
hmm...
So... which is it? Are you blind? Or are you choosing to ignore the
rest?
DeadLock the Feral (NYAR!)
On 24 Jul 1997 00:47:11 GMT, "Chris" <cbbl...@sprynet.com> scrawled:
:Taniara XIII <jon...@Charleston.Net> wrote in article
[...]
:> > Actually, I prefer Robert, but thats ok, I guess..... <g>
:> Whatever, Rob-o.
:Good God! Could you be any more immature if you tried?
The best way to encourage immaturity, as displayed by Taniara, is to
acknowledge it.
[...spelling flammage...]
:> *Laughing hysterically* If only you knew how terrible it really is . . .
Try "I know you are, but what am I?" next time for a spiffy rejoinder,
Lt. JG. I honestly expect better behavior from people who are intent on
remaining in TRES Corps.
:And these childish personal attacks help to prove your point by
:_____________?
:Please fill in this blank, because in my opinion you're belittling
:yourself. It seems that if you have no evidence to back up your tenuous
[...]
You know, I'm starting to wonder what your purpose is in coming here.
:~Chris
DLtF(NYAR!)
Amanda Van Rhyn
RPacktor wrote:
(snippage)
> >Do kids know that? No. They just think that's how people act.
>
> And where do you get this insight? Interviewed many kids, etc? It's a simple fact of life, RPacktor. Young children that are
Barney's target audience can't draw lines between fantasy and
reality. When the two contradict, what is the child going to
believe? Barney, where everyone is happy and life is always good?
Or real life, with its sadness and occasional complete bleakness?
I'm guessing Barney.
(snip)
> Yes, the kids tend to do one
> or two things together on the show, and yes in real life kids do a lot
> more than that, but a group of kids will tend to play one or two games
> _for half of an hour_. Speaking from experience as a preschooler, I can safely say that
it was rarely that my friends and I could decide on one game to
play for half an hour without arguing at some point over which
game to play, who got to go first, etc. Children that placid just don't
exist and probably never have.
> >> point of the show isn't to show how 4 kids can act as individuals and
> >> wander about the set doing their own thing. The point is to show how
> young
> >> kids-barney's target audience-can cooperate and form social
> relationships
> >> and learn how to interact with their peers.A necessary part of learning to interact with your peers is learning how
to disagree and stay friends. Sesame Street and other shows explain that
it is possible to like different things and still like each other, but
in Barney's world, every friend has to like the same thing.
(snippage)
> >You said yourself, the goal of a capitalist society is making money.
> >Who'll benefit? The bastards behind the show.
> >
> Yeah they make money, but I'm still not convinced on the whole subversion
> theory. What is there to gain by 'subverting' a generation? At their
> peak, the turtles were as popular if not more. Were they subverting kids
> by making money off of them?The subversion, in this case, may or may not be intentional. Lyons is
trying to make a show that will get kids watching, so that they can make
serious money off of liscensed products. Simple math: the less
experienced (and educated in child psychology) your writers are (or the
simpler their scripts are), the less you have to pay them. The less you
have to pay the writers, the more profit you make. It may not be a case
of intended subversion as much as it might be a neglect of script
quality (and with it educational quality and emotional value).
Technician Brynhild 5th Consulate Crystal Helix
Verthandic Rangers (VRDET) Church of St. Dino the Avenger
LLBurnside
Chris <cbbl...@sprynet.com> wrote:
Hi Carl! And welcome to the newsgroup Chris & Robert! No, you are not
alone, but for quite awhile I thought I was. I haven't posted
substantially for a few weeks (been out of town). I was pleasantly
surprised to see the (mostly) substantial discussion going on here.
As a brief intro for those who are new to alt.tv.barney: I am a 36 year
old, married, recently re-employed mother of two Barney fans (Emily-2 yrs
old & Calvin 5 yrs old). I am also the author of the FAQ for this
newsgroup (NOT for the Jihad). I haven't posted it for awhile, so I guess
I'll dig it up and post it again.
I do want to respond to a few items that have gone by in this thread:
1) The "bees" that keep getting referenced was Tina in a bee costume
while the other kids sang "Baby Bumble Bee." Even my 2 year old knows
that anything real that comes buzzing around her is unpleasant and to be
avoided. I doubt very seriously that any child would think that it would
be fun to go out and catch bees after watching Barney. And BTW, this
"bee" activity that the kids were doing was totally on their own, before
Barney sprang to life on the show. Barney does NOT dictate everything the
kids do.
2) It was a PLAY STOVE!! (I'd comment further, but I have already been
involved in a rather lengthy thread on this topic and don't wish to
re-hash it. Feel free to look me up on Dejanews.com if you want to find
my previous posts on this. I have nothing to hide.)
3) There have been several handicapped kids on Barney. Yes, the one in
the wheelchair visited briefly at the beginning of one of the shows and
then disappeared after participating in a song and dance. A blind girl
played a substantial role in one of the shows, leading the kids on a "Bear
Hunt." One girl (Tina, I think) had a broken arm (a temporary handicap)
for several episodes, and accommodations were made in their play
activities so she could join in without too much discomfort. And then
there was Jason, the deaf kid with hearing aids who was part of the cast
for at least one entire season and was in some of the videos. A much more
minor handicap that often goes unnoticed is that some of the kids wear
glasses. In every case, the handicapped kid is treated like part of the
gang, and a big deal is not made out of the handicap. I think this is
good because it encourages kids to accept each other for what they CAN do,
rather than emphasizing how different they are and what they can't do.
Thanks to whoever started all this discussion in the first place - Not an
easy feat.
Lisa
LLBur...@aol.com
Melanie Davies
In article <19970726013...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Thanks :o).
I'm still kinda gone though, I don't have any news access but
I occasionally get a chance to use dejanews at work, and even more
occasionally find something that isn't spam :P.
Melanie Davies
In article <01bc996b$8f752220$a0d5afce@chrisbly>,
"Chris" <cbbl...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Melanie Davies <ml...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote in article
> <8698475...@dejanews.com>...
> > Here's what I know of published stuff on Barney. The only thing close
> to
> > an article on Barney that has been published in an academic journal so
> > far as I know if the taxonomy of Barney in Annals Improbable Research,
> > which claims that he is most closely related to a dead salmon.
>
> HAHA! That sounds very amusing, I'll have to check it out when I get a
> chance. Thanks ;)
>
There should be a copy on the web, I can't remember the URL but there's a
link from http://www.geocities.com/Area51/2458/barney.html
> There are
> > no papers published on the education/ psychological effects of Barney so
> > far as I know, though there are some articles from parenting magazines
> > and/or psychologists that I have seen around. While there aren't any
> > papers showing that Barney is harmful there are none that prove that the
> > show is good for children either, and it would be wrong to assume that it
> > is wonderful just because there is nothing published in a scientific
> > journal saying that Barney is harmful. Until something is published both
> > pro- and anti- Barney opinions are just opinions, neither of which can be
> > scientifcally proven .
>
> I agree that our opinions are just opinions. But your goal as jihaddi is to
> convince me, right? I'm afraid I need something more substantial to sway
> me, but I've enjoyed the various insights into the programs merits (or
> total lack thereof).
Right :o). I would be very happy to see a scientific study on Barney,
whatever they found, if it was bad, good news for the Jihad, if it was
good then I'm sure I could have lots of fun nitpicking at it :o). I'd say
the best way to get an insight into Barney is watch the show (with plenty
of unhellthy snacks and good music on standby of course :o)) and think
about how the way people behave on the show relates to reality and what a
child could learn from what happens on the show, the bad bits are more in
the emotional side of things than stuff like learning ABCs...
Melanie Davies
In article <01bc97c9$b4286c60$2d64afce@chrisbly>,
"Chris" <cbbl...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> What makes you think that ALL games a child plays in a day are like this?
> This is a half-hour show, period. Kids do much more in a day including
> playing many other games. I'm sure that they play 'real' games in the same
> day that they play barney's 'no loser's' games. Don't you think a kid can
> tell the difference? Do any of the home kids actually participate and
> receive acknowledgment fron barney? No. This is a passive activity, they
> are watching a program. When they play REAL games with REAL people they
> know that sometimes they win and sometimes they lose; that's what
> constitutes a game. You sell our kids short by implying that all they know
> is what they see on TV.
I think an important point here is the discrepancy from what happens on
B&F and what happens in reality, there are a lot of such discrepancies on
the show IMO. Watching B&F it looks like all games are for fun and there
are no winners or loosers which is not what happens in reality. It's
just another example of the everythings happy, everyone wins and nobody
should ever be sad attitude of B&F IMO.
> > Okay, here you go. Quoting from Doug Corti's episode reviews...
> >
> > BEEF #2
> >
> > At the Carnival of Numbers, Shawn wants to play a football game.
> > Fine. But then Barney says "_Everybody_ (emphasis added by me)
> > step this way." No debate at all. Barney forces the children to
> > play the game, and there is no indication from the children that
> > they do not want to play the game. They march with their leader.
>
> A show about kids arguing about a game isn't good TV. THEY'RE FOLLOWING A
> SCRIPT!!!
> Do you think young children want to watch other kids TALK about games or
> play them?
> These kids are actors, period.
>
They don't have to have a debate, a asking of everybody else would play
too, or one child being persuaded after not wanting to, just taking a
small amount of time would be better than Barney ordering everyone to go
and them all listening. We know that the show isn't reality and that the
children on it are actors, but for most children the boundary between
reality and fantasy is more blurred than for adults. Some kids don't even
think about how TV works, it's jsut entertainment. If kids can believe
and imaginary friend exists I'm sure they could believe what happens on a
TV show at least to some extent.
> > COMPLAINT #4 - As with many episodes, there seems to be a blind
> > follow-the-leader type game going on. Whoever makes the suggestion, the
> > gang will follow in conformity. There is never any debate or any
> > indication that one of the children may not want to do what somebody else
> > wants. Agreement is not going to happen all the time, and it should be
> > acknowledged by the show.
>
> Isn't this the same as your last point? Of course agreement is going to
> happen all the time in real life. Neither will you interact with a purple
> dinosaur. THIS IS TV! There are alot of things on that, and every, show
> that are not replicated in real life.
>
I've never seen another show that has as much of a discrepancy between
the way children and adult behave and react emotionally than this show,
and I think that it is a bad thing for children of the age B&F is aimed
at to be seeing this kind of unrealistic behaviour.
> > COMPLAINT # 2 - Mandatory blind agreement. One child wants to do
> > something, everybody else agrees without conflict. Been there. Done
> that.
> > Commented on way too many times to recall.
>
> Didn't we cover this already? I'm growing bored of this, IT'S A SCRIPTED TV
> SHOW!!!!!! They have to keep a kid's attention (quite a feat let me assure
> you). Talking about which game to play isn't going to do it. By the time
> their lawyers have negotiated which game they are all inclined to play the
> audience will have moved on to other things.
>
There are plenty of other kids shows which manage to keep children's
attention and don't have all the bad points of Barney. I'm sure you have
already heard about these bad points so i'm not going to list them (I
don't have time right now anyway). They don't need lawyers, just one
child disagreeing occasionally would be fine and much closer to reality.
Melanie
Captain Davies
XO Alpha squad, TRES Corps.
(please ignore any typos or other crap[1], I'm in a mega-rush!)
[1] Anyone who says the whole post is crap will be visited by the
Narn Bat Squad :o)
ex-PFC Thonk
Chris wrote:
> I see your point, but I don't think that it's necessary to have a winner in
> order to expand one's mind. I agree true 'games' must have winners and
> losers, so perhaps Barney calling his activities games is just an example
> of bad syntax on his writer's parts.
It's not just bad syntax, it's INTENTIONALLY DECEIVING syntax. They
are trying to imply that you can have all of the fun of competition
without having anything that could be remotely be perceived as negative
(non-winners, for example) while having competition. Part of the fun of
competition is the ability to improve your abilities to play the game by
having the possibility of not winning. When I can win a game every
time, I stop playing and move on to other games.
ex-PFC Thonk
I've lost before, I will lose again
Aris the Galactic Dragon
Taniara XIII wrote:
>
> RPac...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I snip for brevity. You might try it sometime, Robmeister.
<pAyOLa> Me too! </pAyOLa>
> > Lets see:
> >
> > 1. Like 'Sir Tim' you seem to have a need to degrade your sparring partner in
> > these discussions.
>
> You were doing it too. Let's see: stereotyping Jihaddi and other
> anti-barney people as adults (I'm living proof they are NOT).
<grin> That's steriotypical? Heh. I'd take that as a compliment, for it
proves that we have mental maturity and vocabulary of adults. Of course,
that's just IMHO.
> There are
> other places below, but I won't bother marking them since you seem to be
> intelligent enough to recognize them yourself. And leave Sir Timothy out
> of this.
I'll agree except for the fact that you *can't* leave Sir Tim out of
this, because he took offense at rpaktor-person here calling him "timmy"
- listen, if you want some good advice, **NEVER** call Sir Tim "timmy".
Or "Mr. Geer". You'll have *both* of us on your case, then.
> > Stick to real points and the discussion can go further.
>
> Geez, you haven't.
>
> > Heck you might even convince me.
>
> Excuse my laughing. *laughing*
*shrug* you might even convince him. I don't see what's funny about
that, unless you're doubting your own argumentative skills.
> > Personal slams just won't do it. Anyway,
> > I think Chris's point was that people need to let kids be kids.
>
> And I said the Fuchsia Freak has nothing to do with letting kids be kids
> because--*gasp*--HE DOESN'T!
He doesn't let kids be living, thinking kids, anyway. He lets them be
identical in thought and action, all fitigurativley bowing down to him.
(Snip cocaine argument... I have no iddea what's up with this, anyway.)
>
> > If you do not know
> > what that is, get a book on logic and philosophy. Straw men are meant to be
> > so absurd as to kill reasoned discussion. They have no point in and of
> > themselves.
>
> Don't take me for an idiot. I know what a straw man is in figurative
> speech as well as literally.
*shrug* He was trying to clarify a point. Deragatorily, yes, but still a
clarification.
*sharpens claws* be more careful with your language, AOHeLler.
> > Cocaine is proven medically and historically to have generally
> > detrimental effects on its users.
>
> Just like barney, ha! What _are_ the odds?
Well, *smirk* I don't know about *medical* effects, but the mental and
psychological effects are proven enough. To make a point, many
pedophiles and kidnappers have used B'harnii's "friendly and trusting"
image to take advantage of young kids.
Not to mention the deterimental effects on the parent's bankflow...
> > Despits what you jihaddites think, there's
> > no conclusive, accepted proof as to the 'negative effects' of the purple guy,
> > Barney.
>
> *SLAP* Yes, there is. And there's a URL that I know, can't remember it
> off the bat but I _think_ it's owned by FC Samhain of the DE, someone
> help me out here . . .
See above for a breif example... I don't know which URL you're talking
about here, but I do think that Samhain has some good ones on his page.
> And good for you, you didn't make any juvenile comments above on Jihaddi
> "actually thinking!".
And good for you for not making deragatory comments - oops.
> > 3. What's being a kid have to do with Barney, you ask? Well, it seems as if
> > the show was aimed at that particulat market segment of the viewing
> > population, but I might be wrong.
>
> You know what I meant. I don't take you for an idiot, so stop doing
> that with me!
> The way you were saying it, it was "let kids be kids". What is the
> Jihad doing to deny that? NOTHING. Simply protecting vulnerable
> children from a potentially harmful influence, that's what the Jihad is
> doing.
I've gone over this before, see above.
> > 5. I'm glad you still have contact with your inner child. If this
> > jihad-stuff is just a past time, enjoy it for all it's worth. I wish you
> > well, and will continue spirited debates on the subject as my time permits.
>
> Let's just say my inner child and I are still quite close in age, among
> other things.
*sigh* let's just say you're missing the point.
The "Jihad-stuff" Isn't just a pastime for a lot of us. We really do
care about the deterimental effects on children's minds that the beast
is having on our children. (By "our" I'm saying the whole generation,
not the members' children themselves.)
The roleplay we engage in, however, *is* a pastime. I'd be a fool to say
it's anything but. It may have other, more helpful effects, but it
started as a game and still is one.
> > 6. The grenade line..... tsk tsk..... personal attacks and wishing harm on
> > someone else does not really lead to lively, logical debate.
>
'tis role-play. I do doubt that one would actually get so pissed off at
you as to look up your adress and tos over a grenade - I sure wouldn't.
> <sarcastic>Yes, Daddy.</sarcastic>
Now, now, no need to sulk.
> > Take care.
> >
> > I'll post this back to the group.
>
> And so shall I post this.
>
> > robert
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> | Lt.j.g. Taniara XIII | Alpha Squadron | TRES Corps |
(sigsnip)
--
Aris Merquoni ________________
(|)(|) / / / (O) ( ===========__/_
|___________/ ---- \--------, , \__/_/_/_/_/_/
\______________\_\_\ /_\_\_\( <________________ \__
Member of the ------/ /--------\ \---------------\ \__
Jihad to destroy ((( Aris_TGD > _>, | () | _/ /
Barney the Dinosaur on the WWW ((( | /\ | --<__/
**Aris the Galactic Dragon elsewhere** |/ \| flam...@hotmail.com
Writer, Jihaddi, Artist, Dragon |blue| if you want to reach me,
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/4786/ ------ snip the .nospam.please
---------------------------------------------------------------------
o/~ I am reaching, but I fall, / and the stars are black
and cold, / as I stare into the void, of a world that
cannot hold, / I'll escape now from this world, from this
world of Jean Valjean, / there is nowhere I can turn,
there is no way to go ON! o/~ - Javert's Suicide, Les
Misérables
RPacktor
>From: re...@sci.kun.nl (Rens Houben)
>Date: 25 Jul 1997 21:22:54 +0200
< sarcasm on both sides, and potential sarcastic replies snipped and
dropped>
>Oh, so anyone who doesn't like Barney is automatically unsuited to
>make a good report on whether or not B'harnii is detrimental?
>
>Taking that assumption, who are you to defend the show?
Nah. I do not know how far back you've followed this thread, but this
cite was offered as 'proof' that Barney is destroying kids (not my words;
those are the words I was responding to).
In that light, the Yermish essay is indeed left wanting. As op-ed, it's
not too bad; but scientific proof (as it was advanced as), it's not.
RPacktor
>From: Aris the Galactic Dragon <flam...@hotmail.com.nospam.please>
>Taniara XIII wrote:
(Most of it was not necessarily meant as a reply to me, but, I'll snip
where I feel I need to rebut.)
>> > If you do not know
>> > what that is, get a book on logic and philosophy. Straw men are
meant to
>>>be
>> > so absurd as to kill reasoned discussion. They have no point in and
of
>> > themselves.
>>
>> Don't take me for an idiot. I know what a straw man is in figurative
>> speech as well as literally.
>
>*shrug* He was trying to clarify a point. Deragatorily, yes, but still a
>clarification.
>
>*sharpens claws* be more careful with your language, AOHeLler.
I defined a straw man and recommended this person read a book on
philosophy and logic, 'if' this person was not familiar with the concept.
That's not deragotory. Please also specify which 'language' you are
referring to in this specific snip. BTW, I'd claim that the slam on AOL
is deragatory.
>Well, *smirk* I don't know about *medical* effects, but the mental and
>psychological effects are proven enough.
Now, we leave the realm of the op-ed discussion and venture into the arena
of proof. You use the words 'proven enough,' but offer no cites. Please
do not point me to Yermish, as it's op-ed. Please do not refer me to the
IASTATE cites, as, even their author agrees, they are mostly op-ed. Now,
you have made an assertion. It's up to you to back it up with appropriate
'proof.'
>To make a point, many
>pedophiles and kidnappers have used B'harnii's "friendly and trusting"
>image to take advantage of young kids.
Again, please provide acceptable proof.
>Not to mention the deterimental effects on the parent's bankflow...
lol. I know, from experience. It is incumbent on the parent to restrict
the child's choices, also. I do not buy my children everything they want.
It kind of runs counter to my idea of being a good parent. The whole
involved parent arg.
>See above for a breif example... I don't know which URL you're talking
>about here, but I do think that Samhain has some good ones on his page.
Thanks for the sp on midnite's handle (I was going to guess 'Shamain,' and
given how some of those in your org respond to misspellings, I was leery
or going there. Actually, I do not think that Samhain would have
gone-off; hopefully would have just offered the correction). Yes, there's
some good stuff in there, but even by his own admission, a lot of it is
op-ed. The best article in it (and I've previously admitted that I like
it) is the TIMEDEC link to the ENTIRE Time article. A quite balanced
piece when take in its entirety.
>The "Jihad-stuff" Isn't just a pastime for a lot of us. We really do
>care about the deterimental effects on children's minds that the beast
>is having on our children. (By "our" I'm saying the whole generation,
>not the members' children themselves.)
I can't read into your post so far where you would fall on the involved
parenting argument that Chris and I are carrying. Please let me know; I'd
be honestly interested to know. The crux of most all of my args so far is
the involved parenting point. And, I'm not certain what tossing words
like the 'beast' into the discussion adds. I'd also ask for proof of
these detrimental effects.
>The roleplay we engage in, however, *is* a pastime. I'd be a fool to say
>it's anything but. It may have other, more helpful effects, but it
>started as a game and still is one.
I agree. Perhaps some of the more extreme in your organization may not
see it that way, or perhaps there are wanna-bes claiming to belong, but it
really clouds the discussion.
>
>'tis role-play. I do doubt that one would actually get so pissed off at
>you as to look up your adress and tos over a grenade - I sure wouldn't.
lol.... <g>
Robert
Jeff Jarriel
The Spice Girls are phony's. On 22 Jul 1997 17:10:20 GMT,
rpac...@aol.com (RPacktor) wrote:
>>From: chris...@aol.com (ChrisFan04)
>>Date: 21 Jul 1997 22:01:10 GMT
>>Message-ID: <19970721220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>>
>>WHy can'[t the Spice Girls appear on barney.They sing better.
>>
>>
>An interesting point..... Not sure, though.
>
>Sesame Street has had lots of guests on it (Garth Brooks comes to mind
>first).
>
>
RPacktor
>From: Melanie Davies <ml...@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:51:59 -0600
[tremendous snippage.......]
>I've never seen another show that has as much of a discrepancy between
>the way children and adult behave and react emotionally than this show,
>and I think that it is a bad thing for children of the age B&F is aimed
>at to be seeing this kind of unrealistic behaviour.
>
Of course kids behave differently than adults. It feels like you are
applying the life experiences you have to the show and asking the show to
treat 2 year olds as adults both mentally and emotionally. Not very
realistic.
Robert
>[1] Anyone who says the whole post is crap will be visited by the
> Narn Bat Squad :o)
Please ask members of the Jihad as an org to keep to the same rule. I'll
do my best.
Aris the Galactic Dragon
Chris wrote:
>
> >
> > Read my post again. You didn't seem to understand a single word of it.
> > --
>
>
> Um, no, it's not that hard to grasp.
>
> If you don't want to relate this arguement to larger issues, well, I can
> crawl into that microcosm too, but I don't see how we can have an
> enlightened conversation about the true ramifications of his teachings when
> you have your mind so narrowly focused.
I think he was trying to say that since the argument was getting
sidetracked into politics, it wasn't focusing on the main issue, which
was something like this: If there isn't a loser, there can't be a
winner.
"The safety net that keeps people from falling is woven of the same
strands that allow people to climb to greater heights," I believe, is a
quote from a Grey Rollins story. He was talking about capitalism here,
but I believe it can be applied to "No Loser" games as well.
Please do not take this as an invitation for a communist/capitalist
argument. I *really* don't want that, and that's what Radagast was
trying to avoid.
> Fine, his games suck. I agree. He has no redeeming social value and should
> be shot. Blah, blah blah---happy now?
Is that a note of sarcasm I detect in your voice? If you agree with us,
why post the article in question in the first place? I'd rather have you
speaking your own mind than conforming for the sake of conformity -
isn't that, after all, what the Jihad is about? Fighting mindless
conformity?
> ~Chris
Rens Houben
In <19970725122...@ladder02.news.aol.com> rpac...@aol.com (RPacktor) writes:
{Massive snippage}
>Re-apply the parental involvement stuff here. I've granted to most of the
>jihadders (but no one's even mentioned it back to me) that if the show is
>used as a substiture or surrogate parent, then some of the jihad's
>arguments take on more weight. However, in the face of parental
>involvement, the arguments don't hold up.
*sighs*
You're not really listening to us either, are you?
Our point is that the practical amount of praental involvement with kids
watching the show is ZERO.
The woman who created the show admitted as much, stating that she created
it just to have her kid out of her hair for 30 minutes while she was doing
other stuff.
So here we have you saying that all our arguments are void because parents
can counteract the harmful effects, and here we have the creator stating
that, basically, parents don't have to be around while the kids watch it.
Do I detect a inconsistency here?
RPacktor
>From: re...@sci.kun.nl (Rens Houben)
>Date: 29 Jul 1997 09:25:21 +0200
>Message-ID: <5rk5t1$i26$1...@studs2.sci.kun.nl>
>
>You're not really listening to us either, are you?
I'm trying to, but not getting a lot back until lately.....
>Our point is that the practical amount of praental involvement with kids
>watching the show is ZERO.
I'm not certain I agree with this. Do you have proof that this is true?
Most of my friends with young kids watch the show with the kids when
possible. Involved parenting does not necessitate watching the show with
the child all the time. It is actually quite a bit more than that.
Now, we've left (on this particular sub-thread) the whole issue of alleged
psychological impacts. We are now entering the 'parents abuse the show'
realm. Again, I'd ask for some numbers on this issue. You claim that
(and I'll quote) "the practical amount of parental involvement with kids
watching the show is zero (emphasis removed)." Now, I ask you to back up
this particular assertion.
>The woman who created the show admitted as much, stating that she created
>it just to have her kid out of her hair for 30 minutes while she was
doing
>other stuff.
And, I've used the show to hold my daughter's attention while I cooked
breakfast or dinner. Is that it's only use? No. Does that mean I'm using
it as a surrogate parent? No.
And, BTW, an un-involved parent would not have taken the energy to develop
the show, would she?
>So here we have you saying that all our arguments are void because
parents
>can counteract the harmful effects, and here we have the creator stating
>that, basically, parents don't have to be around while the kids watch it.
No, I'm not saying that your points are void because parents can counter
the (alleged) harmful effects. They're weakened considerably due to the
fact that there's just no evidence to back up the (sometimes wild) claims
made on behalf of the Jihad. Just because you may feel the show has
negative impacts does not (I'm sorry to say) make it a fact in reality.
You see, the whole arg stream so far is (1) from the Jihad (with somewhat
limited and acknowledged exceptions): "We don't like the show. It's
awful. It ruins kids." (2) The defenders of the show are simply saying
prove it. I suppose we could simply reply, "Barney's great. He teaches
kids. Kids have great fun watching him. He walks on water......" We can
simply hurl these wild assertions back and forth until we all get tired of
typing and simply give up, but what's been gained?
>Do I detect a inconsistency here?
Nah. It just seems that you may have missed a finer point in the arg
stream.
Melanie Davies
In article <19970728185...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rpac...@aol.com (RPacktor) wrote:
>
> >From: Melanie Davies <ml...@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
> >Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:51:59 -0600
>
> [tremendous snippage.......]
>
> >I've never seen another show that has as much of a discrepancy between
> >the way children and adult behave and react emotionally than this show,
> >and I think that it is a bad thing for children of the age B&F is aimed
> >at to be seeing this kind of unrealistic behaviour.
> >
> Of course kids behave differently than adults. It feels like you are
> applying the life experiences you have to the show and asking the show to
> treat 2 year olds as adults both mentally and emotionally. Not very
> realistic.
>
That was totally not what I was trying to say, I can't remember what else
I said in that post but I can see how it wasn't perfectly clear from just
the bit quoted above, though at the time I wrote it I though it would
make sense in the context of other stuff in my post. I was in a major
rush at the time though so sorry if I wasn't making myself clear. What I
was trying to say was that children and adults on B&F behave differently
to how they would in real life. I was comparing the behaviour of both on
B&F to the behaviour of both in reality not comparing the behaviour of
children on B&F to adults on B&F. And from my life experiences I would
say that there are a *lot* of differences between children and adults.
> Robert
>
> >[1] Anyone who says the whole post is crap will be visited by the
> > Narn Bat Squad :o)
>
> Please ask members of the Jihad as an org to keep to the same rule. I'll
> do my best.
I personally don't call something crap unless I think it is, and have a
good reason for having that opinion. I would hope that others do the
same but it's not something I can force them to do. I have to say though
that I have seen a lot of smartass answers appearing in this thread, most
of them adding nothing useful to the discussion, and acheiving nothing
other than pissing people off, and I think that I have seen some from
both sides of the discussion.
Melanie
Captain Davies
XO Alpha squad, TRES Corps
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
CarlK14
>re...@sci.kun.nl (Rens Houben) stated
>You're not really listening to us either, are you?
>
>Our point is that the practical amount of praental involvement with kids
>watching the show is ZERO.
Strangely enough I have seen a number of parents stating that they become
involved in the watching of the show, among them, Llburnside, rpactor and
myself. We have repeatedly stated that.
Amanda Van Rhyn
to you. It's very admirable. Our point is, though, that "B&F" is mostly
used as a babysitter so the parent can go do something else; the creator
admits that was the complete purpose of the show from the start. In that
context, it is extremely dangerous.
Technician Brynhild 5th Consulate Crystal Helix
Vertahndic Rangers (VRDET) Church of St. Dino the Avenger
RPacktor
>From: Amanda Van Rhyn <mv6...@navix.net>
>Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 20:05:38 -0500
>car...@aol.comAgain, if you get involved with what your >kids watch,
great.
>More power
>to you. It's very admirable. Our point is, though, that "B&F" is mostly
>used as a babysitter so the parent can go do something else; the creator
>admits that was the complete purpose of the show from the start. In that
>context, it is extremely dangerous.
Amanda, you have now reiterated the assertion that the show is "mostly"
used as a babysitter. Again, no one has any proof of this going either
way.
What the show's creator said was that she wanted something to occupy her
kids for 30 min or so. It says nothing of her involvedness as a parent.
Quite to the contrary, I'd point out that _only_ and INVOLVED parent would
go to the trouble to create such a show. The lady never said she dumped
the kids in front of the TV, merely that she wanted a show to occupy them
for a short span of time.
I have on occasion used the show for that too. Does that make me an
uninvolved parent? Nope. It just means that I'd rather not have my
daughter wanting to play with me when I'm cooking (hot stove), washing
dishes (hot water, soap), or cleaning the house (nasty chemicals).
BTW, I do not think that this was the "complete purpose" of the show (your
words; not mine).
Robert
Melanie Davies
In article <19970729122...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
rpac...@aol.com (RPacktor) wrote:
>
> >From: re...@sci.kun.nl (Rens Houben)
> >Date: 29 Jul 1997 09:25:21 +0200
> >Message-ID: <5rk5t1$i26$1...@studs2.sci.kun.nl>
> >
> >Our point is that the practical amount of praental involvement with kids
> >watching the show is ZERO.
>
> I'm not certain I agree with this. Do you have proof that this is true?
> Most of my friends with young kids watch the show with the kids when
> possible. Involved parenting does not necessitate watching the show with
> the child all the time. It is actually quite a bit more than that.
>
There's no scientific proof that I know of of that, but do you have to
have scientific proof to believe anything?! From what I have seen and
from what many others here have said about what they have seen happen I'd
say there are a lot of parents out there who leave children to watch TV
all by themselves.. and watching a supposedly educational TV show like
B&F unsupervised should be a perfectly safe activity.. from what I have
seen of the show I wouldn't describe it as perfectly safe to watch
unsupervised.
> Now, we've left (on this particular sub-thread) the whole issue of alleged
> psychological impacts. We are now entering the 'parents abuse the show'
> realm. Again, I'd ask for some numbers on this issue. You claim that
> (and I'll quote) "the practical amount of parental involvement with kids
> watching the show is zero (emphasis removed)." Now, I ask you to back up
> this particular assertion.
>
I can say that quite a lot of parents don't watch TV with their children
from what I have seen, not exactly scientific proof, but then that
doesn't make it any les valid as a personal observation of what happens
which others would say is simialr to what they have observed.
> >The woman who created the show admitted as much, stating that she created
> >it just to have her kid out of her hair for 30 minutes while she was
> doing
> >other stuff.
>
> And, I've used the show to hold my daughter's attention while I cooked
> breakfast or dinner. Is that it's only use? No. Does that mean I'm using
> it as a surrogate parent? No.
No, and if you were that would be your problem, the bad lessons on the
show though are the problem of the people who write the scripts, produce
the show etc.
> And, BTW, an un-involved parent would not have taken the energy to develop
> the show, would she?
>
I could be cynical and mention words like "profit" and "money" here. I
don't know how much involvement the creator had in indivdual episodes but
I doubt and involved and caring parent would have let a line like "A
stranger is a friend you haven't met yet" be in the show. I know that
episode is not shown on TV anymore but it is available on video, but I
think it's very bad that it was put in there in the first place. They
did stop showing it, but I doubt they had a real choice as whatever TV
censors there are in the US would probably have done somethine about it
eventually. A line like that being put in the show says something about
the amount of careful thought and care for children that was put into the
show, at least at the time that episode was made IMO.
> >So here we have you saying that all our arguments are void because
> parents
> >can counteract the harmful effects, and here we have the creator stating
> >that, basically, parents don't have to be around while the kids watch it.
>
> No, I'm not saying that your points are void because parents can counter
> the (alleged) harmful effects. They're weakened considerably due to the
> fact that there's just no evidence to back up the (sometimes wild) claims
> made on behalf of the Jihad. Just because you may feel the show has
> negative impacts does not (I'm sorry to say) make it a fact in reality.
>
We, as Jihaddi, feel that there are things in the show have the potential
to be harmful to children, the fact that noone has ever done a scientific
study that has proven up right does not make us wrong, there is no proof
that watching Barney isn't harmful either. That you feel the show is
harmless and good for children does not neccessarily make that a fact in
reality either.
> You see, the whole arg stream so far is (1) from the Jihad (with somewhat
> limited and acknowledged exceptions): "We don't like the show. It's
> awful. It ruins kids." (2) The defenders of the show are simply saying
> prove it. I suppose we could simply reply, "Barney's great. He teaches
> kids. Kids have great fun watching him. He walks on water......" We can
> simply hurl these wild assertions back and forth until we all get tired of
> typing and simply give up, but what's been gained?
>
Nothing gained, but then nothing is gained by ignoring our arguments due
to the lack of scientific proof either.
Melanie Davies
In article <19970729203...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
car...@aol.com (CarlK14) wrote:
>
> >re...@sci.kun.nl (Rens Houben) stated
>
> >You're not really listening to us either, are you?
> >
> >watching the show is ZERO.
>
> involved in the watching of the show, among them, Llburnside, rpactor and
> myself. We have repeatedly stated that.
>
From what you and Lisa Burnside have said here I would think that you are
both good parents who are involved with what your children watch on TV, I
don't know much about rpactor but if he's bothered to find a news group
on the show I would guess that he is pretty involved. The people who
have said here that they are involved are parents who have bothered to
find and post to a news group on the show, that is not exactly
representative of all parents, and from what I have seen a lot of
children watch TV by themselves, often with the parents not making much
effort to check the quality of the programmes. And a programme being
unsuitable for a child to watch alone is not the parents problem it is
the problem of the people who make the show.
CarlK14
Melanie Davies Wrote:
<snip>
>And a programme being
>unsuitable for a child to watch alone is not the parents problem it is
>the problem of the people who make the show.
Any show is unsuitable for a child to watch alone, a child that young
needs parental involvement in viewing (I think that older children would
actually do much better with parental involvement too, I consider much of
the television available to be trash.) Some fine shows have been
suggested as alternatives for Barney, some of them are appropriate, shows
like Shining Time Station would probably be more appropriate for an older
child.
Melanie Davies
In article <19970804110...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
I think idealy children should watch TV with a parent or other adult, but
that isn't always going to happen, especially towards the older ages of
the range B&F is aimed at. I haven't seen many American TV shows aimed at
the ages B&F is aimed at other than B&F and Sesame street, but here there
are a lot of shows for the same age group that B&F is aimed at that are a
lot better than B&F IMO, even teletubbies is better in most ways IMO.
B&F is the only childrens show I have seen so far that I wouldn't be
happy to let a child watch alone (or even at all!), though I do think
that it is better to have parental involvement with any show.
GCarras
I love you. You love me. Let's expose that fraud B'harni.
With a big hug then pull with tug till you're dead,
Let's show off the actor's head.
Steve Carras.
Melody Polakow
let's kill himOn Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:53:57 -0400, ex-PFC Thonk
<Thon...@ex.com> wrote:
______________________
Mark Polakow
http://markp.imp.net
fin...@earthlink.no.smeg.net
In <33f27cfd...@news.lisco.com>, mel...@imp.net (Melody Polakow) scrawled in the margins in yellow crayon:
>let's kill him
Kill who? Try to be a little more clear. And maybe study
capitalisation 101, and maybe advanced punctuation.....
Radagast. He's back-kicking bottom or WHAT?
*---------------------------------------------*
fin...@earthlink.net | remove no.smeg to reply
http://home.earthlink.net/~fingon/index.html
"In the future, technology will make our lives harder
and many of us will be delighted about it" -Scott Adams
