The Block 2 has druggies for contestants
Tourette's
0.html
THE Nine Network went into damage control yesterday after it was revealed on
Saturday one of the contestants in its second series of The Block had been
convicted of manufacturing drugs.
Dani Bacha, 29, and his wife Monique Koryzma were one of four couples
selected from 4000 couples around Australia who applied to be on the show.
Bacha, a former stripper and owner of Playboys Afloat, spent six months
behind bars awaiting trial after being charged with being an accessory
before the fact of knowingly taking part in the manufacture of
methamphetamine, or speed.
Bacha pleaded guilty in the New South Wales District Court in November 2002
and was released on a good behaviour bond, taking into account the time he
had already spent in prison.
---
Tourette's
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
<emily...@notmail.hotmail.com> wrote:
SO??
HE also has hair.
>
>
>
ferret
Rewarding Loosers in society, mmmm sounds like 7's britain's worst
drivers. Where the Best of Worst driver wins an expensive sports car !!
Iggy
"ferret" <nob...@localhost.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CwQMb.245$oZ6....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> Rewarding Loosers in society, mmmm sounds like 7's britain's worst
> drivers. Where the Best of Worst driver wins an expensive sports car !!
I have often wondered why so many people on the internet spell the word
"losers" as "loosers".
ferret
Oh no the spelling cops are out surf'n again
Iggy
Well, yeah - but it does seem to be kind of endemic to the net. I see it
everywhere, and it's not like it's a difficult or unusual word. I'm just
sayin', is all.
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
How are they rewarding for commiting a crime he has paid for and why
is it relevant?
Marc Dodsworth
"ferret" <nob...@localhost.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CwQMb.245$oZ6....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Well maybe they hope is that they might drive better to they don't prang the
thing.
However a lousy driver with an exspensive car could find themselves with a
hefty insurance premium :-)
>
>
>
ferret
The ending was just so fricking Ridicules, all of them should have
their license revoked permanently. I would hate to be in a supermarket
with Any one of them. Death by shopping trolly, could be first.
ferret
The problem is, this show is targeted for fun family viewing. Hence the
timeslot. So a ex-stipper and ex-drug dealer is perfect for family values ?
AJ
For god sake, Jamie Durie is an ex stripper, has been hosting Backyard Blitz
for years and both seasons of The Block, noone has said anything about him.
The Drug thing is another issue, but the stripper thing, big freakin deal.
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
So is the guy on there promoting drugs?
No.
His past is irrelevant.
His future and present is what should be thought of as relevant.
If we go by your theory then Jamie Durie shouldnt be there.
Kevin Hendrikssen
news:a3p700p0gdrs4d69q...@4ax.com...
> So is the guy on there promoting drugs?
> No.
> His past is irrelevant.
Nope. Nine probably chose him deliberately, knowing full well what extra
publicity it would give them.
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
yesss..but his past is irrelevant when judging him as someone who
should or shouldnt be on the show.
ferret
Ok, Now work with me here.
There was some controversy over dreary, butt
Dreary was always upfront about his past, and didn't hide anything.
Being honest about his past actually worked in his favor.
These others, attempted to deceive others from the start.
The public doesn't like people who deceive, just look at politicians.
This does raise other questions, like what else are they hiding.
If there was only one, either a druggie or whore on TV the public might
accept it easier, but with both being a matched set...Hello
However it wouldn't surprise if Nein purposely put a whore in the show,
so people would watch to see what a whore looks like !
Trevor Gensch
> should or shouldnt be on the show.
So a child molester should be allowed to host a children's show?
Trev.
Tourette's
> yesss..but his past is irrelevant when judging him as someone who
> should or shouldnt be on the show.
Can't agree with you there. If these two had been convicted with the
possession of drugs, I wouldn't mind so much, but their charges
related to the *manufacture* of methamphetamine - they are drug
makers, not drug users. They have no place being a part of a show
like this, of being in the public eye as 'celebrities', or of benefitting
financially from the above.
---
Tourette's
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
<nob...@localhost.microsoft.com> wrote:
YEs, but why should the contestant be judged on his past?
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
And here we go....
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
So you dont believe we should have a legal system?
Maybe we should forgo the courts and prisons and just shun everyone
for the rest of their lives and give them no choice but to commit
crime?
>
Tourette's
> So you dont believe we should have a legal system?
> Maybe we should forgo the courts and prisons and just shun everyone
> for the rest of their lives and give them no choice but to commit
> crime?
In the case of murders, serial rapists and drug dealers - yes.
We're not talking about shoplifters and nerdy embezzlers here,
but people who deliberately hurt other people, in this case for
financial gain. And you think it's OK that they parade around on
TV wearing big smiles and trying to win thousands of dollars?
---
Tourette's
Trevor Gensch
> >> yesss..but his past is irrelevant when judging him as someone who
> >> should or shouldnt be on the show.
> >
> >So a child molester should be allowed to host a children's show?
>
>
How so? Its just as valid as wanting to have a drug producer be rewarded
with prime time TV coverage - should we also extend that to other types of
shows and convicted felons?
Trev.
ferret
Why not, its not like theres a shortage !!!
Besides when's a druggie always a druggie.
A reformed druggie you say, I say bullshit. No such thing, just smarter.
Face it, Nine fucked up in choosing these two.
Iggy
"ferret" <nob...@localhost.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:R6RMb.262$oZ6....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> timeslot. So a ex-stipper and ex-drug dealer is perfect for family values
?
Well, if they are not stripping and dealing drugs in the show, who cares?
>
maxfli
It is a good question .....what's your answer yes or no .
Iggy
"maxfli" <ste...@you.com> wrote in message
news:4004...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Surely there are already one or two kiddy-fiddlers on TV?
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
<nob...@localhost.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> YEs, but why should the contestant be judged on his past?
>
>Why not, its not like theres a shortage !!!
>
but WHY should he be judged?
>Besides when's a druggie always a druggie.
>A reformed druggie you say, I say bullshit. No such thing, just smarter.
Sooooooo??
>
>Face it, Nine fucked up in choosing these two.
how so?
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
<emily...@notmail.hotmail.com> wrote:
>In the case of murders, serial rapists and drug dealers - yes.
>We're not talking about shoplifters and nerdy embezzlers here,
>but people who deliberately hurt other people, in this case for
>financial gain.
So you want the circle to continue and to never be broken?
You'd rather see someone be punished than be reformed?
And you think it's OK that they parade around on
>TV wearing big smiles and trying to win thousands of dollars?
It has no relevance to their crime and the punishment they were given.
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
Will he be on the show promoting drug use?
Will his appearance be a danger to anyone watching?
Hell, we might as well not let anyone on tv who has a speeding fine.
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
Ok, answer this..
why wouldnt you have them on such a show?
Would you want to protect the kids from what potentially could happen
or do you want to punish the person for what did happen?
Surely it couldnt be the latter could it?
Trevor Gensch
<bit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>How so? Its just as valid as wanting to have a drug producer be rewarded
>>with prime time TV coverage - should we also extend that to other types of
>>shows and convicted felons?
>>
>
>Will he be on the show promoting drug use?
>Will his appearance be a danger to anyone watching?
The concept of now the incident has come to light - if the show still
allows the conestant to appear on it they are saying "its ok this
guy/gal made drugs - we are more interested in good television than
anything else!"
>
>Hell, we might as well not let anyone on tv who has a speeding fine.
World of difference between a drug maker and somebody who pushes their
foot too hard on the accelerator.
--
Trev
"Hitler, come on! I'll buy you a lemonade."
Fan Made DVD Commentaries - http://www.geocities.com/mmmcommentaries
VizPoets Filmmakers - http://vizpoets.server101.com
Trevor Gensch
<ig0610(nospam)@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>Surely there are already one or two kiddy-fiddlers on TV?
Who?
Trevor Gensch
<bit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>why wouldnt you have them on such a show?
Condoning an admitted drug maker is abhorent.
Trevor Gensch
<bit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>So you want the circle to continue and to never be broken?
>You'd rather see someone be punished than be reformed?
How is appearing on national television going to reform them? How is
not taking responsibility for their past actions and withdrawing from
the contest reforming?
Iggy
"Trevor Gensch" <trevorgensc...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:98ca009jfqp2da5s5...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:12:45 +1100, "Iggy"
> <ig0610(nospam)@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >Surely there are already one or two kiddy-fiddlers on TV?
>
> Who?
Well, I don't know, but the law of averages means there must be.
Tourette's
> >In the case of murders, serial rapists and drug dealers - yes.
> >We're not talking about shoplifters and nerdy embezzlers here,
> >but people who deliberately hurt other people, in this case for
> >financial gain.
> So you want the circle to continue and to never be broken?
> You'd rather see someone be punished than be reformed?
In the case of murderers and drug dealers, yes.
> > And you think it's OK that they parade around on
> > TV wearing big smiles and trying to win thousands of dollars?
> It has no relevance to their crime and the punishment they were given.
You're right. I just don't believe these people should be rewarded
and treated like nouveau royalty - as contestants on The Block are
likely to receive - when there are several million other Australians
who haven't cooked up meth in their backyards.
As I've said, if it was just dole fraud, credit card theft or chopping
the heads off the neighbours' roses, I wouldn't give a shit. But
drug dealers and the evil bastards who make the stuff are one
evolutionary step above pond scum, and should not be splattered
all over our TV screens.
---
Tourette's
ho'JU
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:38:46 +1100, "Matthew (Woohoo¤)"
> <bit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >why wouldnt you have them on such a show?
>
> Condoning an admitted drug maker is abhorent.
And what of rewarding those who have paid their debt to society and now seek
to redeem themselves?
ho'JU
Hermit
> h> How is appearing on national television going to reform them? How is
> not taking responsibility for their past actions and withdrawing from
> the contest reforming?
Trevor,
firstly, the drug manufacturer did the crime and was punished for it.
That is what I call being made to take responsibility for one's
actions. You may disagree with the leniency of the punishment, but that
has nothing to do what happens subsequently.
Secondly, appearing on television is not going to reform anyone, but
excluding someone from an opportunity, because of a crime they
committed for which they had already been punished, would seem to me to
make recidivism more likely.
You might have noticed that I have had little sympathy for fatso's
utterances in the past, but in this case I emphatically agree with what
Matthew Goodyear has to say. The drug manufacturer has paid for the
crime. It is no business, or any one else's, for that matter, to mete
out further punishment. By the same token, the broadcasters are not
rewarding the criminal for the crime. Having acknowledged the
participant's past, they deal with the present, i.e. the participant's
attempt to win money in an insipid competition which will undoubtedly
rate its socks off. Good luck to all of them.
I will watch as much of it as I have watched all those so called
reality shows in the past: zilch, apart from inadvertently getting
caught by promotional clips and occasional, brief stays while channel
surfing.
--
Hermit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermit's Profile: http://forums.eyo.com.au/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=5740
View this thread: http://forums.eyo.com.au/showthread.php?threadid=34998
Hermit
Matthew (Woohoo¤): So you want the circle to continue and to never be
broken? You'd rather see someone be punished than be reformed?
> s> In the case of murderers and drug dealers, yes.
Matthew (Woohoo¤): It has no relevance to their crime and the
punishment they were given.
> s> You're right. I just don't believe these people should be rewarded and
> treated like nouveau royalty - as contestants on The Block are
> likely to receive - when there are several million other Australians
> who haven't cooked up meth in their backyards.
>
> As I've said, if it was just dole fraud, credit card theft or
> chopping the heads off the neighbours' roses, I wouldn't give a sh*t.
> But drug dealers and the evil bastards who make the stuff are one
> evolutionary step above pond scum, and should not be splattered all
> over our TV screens.
Tourette's, is that you or your impostor speaking? I hope it is the
latter!
Tourette's
"Hermit" <Hermit...@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:Hermit...@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au...
> Tourette's, is that you or your impostor speaking? I hope it is the
> latter!
It is me, Hermit. My liberal views do not extend to drugs or those
who produce or sell them. I have personal reasons for feeling this
way, but they are valid and immutable.
---
Tourette's
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
<trevorgensc...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>Will he be on the show promoting drug use?
>>Will his appearance be a danger to anyone watching?
>
>The concept of now the incident has come to light - if the show still
>allows the conestant to appear on it they are saying "its ok this
>guy/gal made drugs - we are more interested in good television than
>anything else!"
They have never said it is ok.
They are saying the man has done his time.
Thats it.
>
>>
>>Hell, we might as well not let anyone on tv who has a speeding fine.
>
>World of difference between a drug maker and somebody who pushes their
>foot too hard on the accelerator.
Who gets to decide that?
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
<trevorgensc...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:38:46 +1100, "Matthew (Woohoo¤)"
><bit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>why wouldnt you have them on such a show?
>
>Condoning an admitted drug maker is abhorent.
how is having him on the show condoning his actions?
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
wrote:
YOu cant do that.
You must make them feel like pariahs..thus driving them back towards
crime.
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
<trevorgensc...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:34:41 +1100, "Matthew (Woohoo¤)"
><bit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>So you want the circle to continue and to never be broken?
>>You'd rather see someone be punished than be reformed?
>
>How is appearing on national television going to reform them? How is
>not taking responsibility for their past actions and withdrawing from
>the contest reforming?
So you continue to punish them forever?
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
Oh, i agree they are evil bastards..BUT..they have paid their debt.
ferret
I think I'll go talk to the brick wall.
Iggy
Seriously though, it's a publicity coup for them. The tabloids will report
all the gory details and people will be outraged, but they will tune in to
watch the dealer and the stripper. It's a smart move on 9's part when you
think about it.
>
Trevor Gensch
> >foot too hard on the accelerator.
>
> Who gets to decide that?
Anybody with an ounce of common sense does.
Trev.
Trevor Gensch
> >
> > Condoning an admitted drug maker is abhorent.
>
> And what of rewarding those who have paid their debt to society and now
seek
> to redeem themselves?
What of it? How does a national TV show with a big prize up for grabs
equate to redeeming yourself?
Trev.
Trevor Gensch
> >>why wouldnt you have them on such a show?
> >
> >Condoning an admitted drug maker is abhorent.
>
> how is having him on the show condoning his actions?
That the show is seemingly prepared to ignore them.
Trev.
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
er, why wouldnt they?
He did a crime.
He got caught.
He got convicted.
He did his time.
Punishment over.
Trevor Gensch
"Matthew (Woohoo¤)" <bit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4iib005bc2dc6trn5...@4ax.com...
and reward time begins?
Trev.
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
<trevorgensc...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Matthew (Woohoo¤)" <bit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4iib005bc2dc6trn5...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:51:12 GMT, "Trevor Gensch"
>> <trevorgensc...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >>why wouldnt you have them on such a show?
>> >> >
>> >> >Condoning an admitted drug maker is abhorent.
>> >>
>> >> how is having him on the show condoning his actions?
>> >
>> >That the show is seemingly prepared to ignore them.
>> >
>> >Trev.
>> >
>>
>> er, why wouldnt they?
>> He did a crime.
>> He got caught.
>> He got convicted.
>> He did his time.
>> Punishment over.
>
>and reward time begins?
>
>Trev.
>
How is he being rewarded for commiting a crime?
Kevin Hendrikssen
> How is he being rewarded for commiting a crime?
He's not, but channel Nine sure is. Look at how many posts this has
generated about a show that hasn't even started yet.
Kudos to Nine for the perfect publicity stunt (and shame on you for buying
into it).
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
<sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>"Matthew (Woohoo¤)" <bit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ppob001a1oc60p3tq...@4ax.com...
>
>> How is he being rewarded for commiting a crime?
>
>He's not, but channel Nine sure is. Look at how many posts this has
>generated about a show that hasn't even started yet.
>
You're still missing the point.
How is he being rewarded for the crime he has commited?
They havent given hima spot because he made drugs.
They gave him a spot because he was a suitable contestant.
Trevor Gensch
> They havent given hima spot because he made drugs.
How do you know that? They may have given him the position for the very
controversy that has erupted because of it.
Trev.
Kevin Hendrikssen
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:53:50 +1100, "Kevin Hendrikssen"
> <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> >"Matthew (Woohoo¤)" <bit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ppob001a1oc60p3tq...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> How is he being rewarded for commiting a crime?
> >
> >He's not, but channel Nine sure is. Look at how many posts this has
> >generated about a show that hasn't even started yet.
> >
>
> You're still missing the point.
No I'm not.
> How is he being rewarded for the crime he has commited?
I said "he's not" above.
> They havent given hima spot because he made drugs.
I'm sure they were well aware of his history. I don't think they gave him a
spot because of that: they probably got advice from their lawyers that
everything was in order and went ahead with him knowing full well it would
be controversial and create extra publicity.
> They gave him a spot because he was a suitable contestant.
I never said he wasn't.
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
<sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>I'm sure they were well aware of his history. I don't think they gave him a
>spot because of that: they probably got advice from their lawyers that
>everything was in order and went ahead with him knowing full well it would
>be controversial and create extra publicity.
Yeah so?
Wouldnt you if you wanted ratings?
Kevin Hendrikssen
Congratulations.
Bloody hell.
Tourette's
> Oh, i agree they are evil bastards..BUT..they have paid their debt.
Oh right, so they should be allowed to teach in schools, sit in
parliament and appear on cheesy reality TV shows.
---
Tourette's
Astro
<trevorgensc...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>World of difference between a drug maker and somebody who pushes their
>foot too hard on the accelerator.
Why? Many a speeding driver have taken innocent lives.
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
Ok, tell me why the Shouldnt be allowed..
Rebel without a Kenton
"Tourette's" <emily...@notmail.hotmail.com> wrote:
Yup.
God forgives them, why can't you ?
Rebel without a Kenton
"Tourette's" <emily...@notmail.hotmail.com> wrote:
> You're right. I just don't believe these people should be rewarded
> and treated like nouveau royalty - as contestants on The Block are
> likely to receive - when there are several million other Australians
> who haven't cooked up meth in their backyards.
It's called reality television because it stars real people. If you want
well mannered, well meaning, friendly characters then stick to the Brady
Bunch.
Surely it's better to put these people on camera, and learn from them,
then shun them away and pretend they don't exist ?
I don't think it will glamourise drug dealers any more than it
glamourised homosexuals, like with Gav and Waz. And no I'm not comparing
gays to reformed drug dealers, except in the sense that they are real
people who face discrimination....and we can learn from them.
Tourette's
"Rebel without a Kenton" <kobNOSPA...@kob.id.au> wrote in message
news:kobNOSPAMPLEASEE-79...@news.syd.swiftel.com.au...
> > Oh right, so they should be allowed to teach in schools, sit in
> > parliament and appear on cheesy reality TV shows.
> Yup.
> God forgives them, why can't you ?
Who is God? I've never met this person.
---
Tourette's
Tourette's
> > You're right. I just don't believe these people should be rewarded
> > and treated like nouveau royalty - as contestants on The Block are
> > likely to receive - when there are several million other Australians
> > who haven't cooked up meth in their backyards.
> It's called reality television because it stars real people. If you want
> well mannered, well meaning, friendly characters then stick to the Brady
> Bunch.
> Surely it's better to put these people on camera, and learn from them,
> then shun them away and pretend they don't exist ?
> I don't think it will glamourise drug dealers any more than it
> glamourised homosexuals, like with Gav and Waz. And no I'm not comparing
> gays to reformed drug dealers, except in the sense that they are real
> people who face discrimination....and we can learn from them.
I'm not concerned with the ethics of using them on television, or any
concerns about the quality of reality shows. I simply don't think that
supposedly sensible people at Nein should be using convicted drug
manufacturers as contestants and ergo giving them the chance to win
large sums of money. Perhaps Nein didn't know about it, perhaps they
did and just didn't care. Or perhaps they're on the same moral streak
that you appear to be. Whatever the case, let's face it, if Block-voting
loons know that they are druggies, they have no chance of winning - so
why not give someone else a shot?
I don't think there's anything to be 'learned' from them either, as you
say, unless you film it in C division at Boggo Road.
---
Tourette's
Rebel without a Kenton
"Tourette's" <emily...@notmail.hotmail.com> wrote:
If you really think they aren't going to win, what are you so worried
about ? The guy gets to renovate a house, and show he can contribute to
society.
> I don't think there's anything to be 'learned' from them either, as you
> say, unless you film it in C division at Boggo Road.
So you think kids who might grow up to be potential drug dealers, have
nothing to learn from convicted drug dealers, interesting.
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
Hi!
Matthew (Woohoo¤)
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:27:24 +1100, "Tourette's"
><emily...@notmail.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In the case of murders, serial rapists and drug dealers - yes.
>>We're not talking about shoplifters and nerdy embezzlers here,
>>but people who deliberately hurt other people, in this case for
>>financial gain.
>
>I trust your ire extends to the cigarette manufacturers and brewery
>owners?
She must hate Americans then.
Politically incorrect
First Fleet. What Eastern European country do they come from? Are
they Aussie citizens?
"Tourette's" <emily...@notmail.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pVIMb.92$oZ6....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
> http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8376878%255E2902,0
> 0.html
>
> THE Nine Network went into damage control yesterday after it was revealed on
> Saturday one of the contestants in its second series of The Block had been
> convicted of manufacturing drugs.
>
> Dani Bacha, 29, and his wife Monique Koryzma were one of four couples
> selected from 4000 couples around Australia who applied to be on the show.
> Bacha, a former stripper and owner of Playboys Afloat, spent six months
> behind bars awaiting trial after being charged with being an accessory
> before the fact of knowingly taking part in the manufacture of
> methamphetamine, or speed.
>
> Bacha pleaded guilty in the New South Wales District Court in November 2002
> and was released on a good behaviour bond, taking into account the time he
> had already spent in prison.
>
> ---
>
> Tourette's
J Asking
> Bacha and Koryzma...they don't sound like names that came from the
> First Fleet. What Eastern European country do they come from? Are
> they Aussie citizens?
They probably are Australian citizens but who knows? Maybe Pauline
Hanson attended their citizenship ceremony and signed their
citizenship certificates? What's the value of Pauline Hanson signed
citizenship certificates now? 2 cents?