Add in the Austin American Statesman Comic section

19 views
Skip to first unread message

Allen Kitchen

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 1:52:53 PM3/2/93
to
>I just got around to reading last Sunday's comics (2-28), and when I got
>to the back page, I was completely shocked by a full 1-page add by the
>"American Family Association" calling for censorship of Music, Hollywood,
>TV in general, Daytime soaps and NBC's "Saturday Night Live" in particular,
>
>I *hate* censorship!
>sl...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu // gl...@cs.utexas.edu **** Glen A. Graham ****

When you write your letter, let me know who you send it to. I will
send some letters of my own. It wasn't the fact that these people wasted
money on a newspaper ad. After all, they are entitled to their opinion and
they have the right to express it. (ironic that the freedom of expression
they enjoy, they seek to deny to others.) It wasn't even the gross size of
the ad, as if by making it larger they could persuade more people. What
made me sickest was that this was nothing more than a solicitation for
funds in the funny pages!!

Personally, I think the ads should not be in the comics. Period.
It sets us on a slippery slope. What then is to keep other groups from
ruining the funny pages with 30 or 40 ads doling out their particular dogma?
What is to keep someone from buying a page and filling it with racial or
other kinds of slurs? Suppose the KKK wants to buy the entire front page
of the comics for an advertisment.

There is a place for political ads, and for ads soliciting funds.
The comics section is not such a place.

If you wish to complain to the paper about the tripe ad on the
comics section, the number to the Advertising Director at the Austin
American Statesman is 445-3545. The advertising director is named
George Gutierrez.


Allen Kitchen
ifa...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
************ Shame, Shame on you... Ruining the sunday funnys *********
***************************************************************************

Jaime Vazquez

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 2:44:35 PM3/2/93
to
In article <1mv3r7...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, sl...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
(Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged) writes:
> From: sl...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged)
> Subject: Add in the Austin American Statesman Comic section

>
> I just got around to reading last Sunday's comics (2-28), and when I got
> to the back page, I was completely shocked by a full 1-page add by the
> "American Family Association" calling for censorship of Music, Hollywood,
> TV in general, Daytime soaps and NBC's "Saturday Night Live" in particular,
> and the Film Industry for it's "NC-17" rating ("... so sex-filled, erotic,
> bloody films will no longer be barred from community movie houses.")
>
> Was anybody else amazed? I've always thought of Austin as a fairly
progressive
> area (aside from the recent Sex Education thing...), but now this?
>
> I am tempted to write to them of my extreme disgust of their attempts
to force
> their morals on me, but they are obviously close minded... the add states:
> "Spare us the censorship lecture - you are in the entertainment
industry. And
> this is not an appeal for prudery." They basically consider anyone opposing
> their views to be "in the entertainment industry"??? I *like* my
right to see
> Arnold Schwarzenegger blast people to smithereens.
>
> I thought I was old enough to choose what I want to watch. Most movies now
> are rated R, so parents don't kids have to be accompanied by adults anyway?
> These people would do away with these movies and bring back "wholesome
> family entertainment". Personally, I find many of "those" movies boring.
> People were even shot in Disney's "wholesome" "The Man From Snowy River"
>
> AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I *hate* censorship!
>
> --
> sl...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu // gl...@cs.utexas.edu **** Glen A.
Graham ****
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want | Fools wander,
> to achieve immortality through not dying. --Woody Allen | Wise
men Travel.
So, what do you want to do? Censor their right to tell the entertainment
industry that they are not happy with trash that comes out all day every day?
I happen to back the idea of the entertainment industry cleaining up their act
a little. From what I gathered in the add, it was to start a letter writting
campaign to let them know that there is a large segmetn of people out
there that
want a change in the types of movies and tv shows being put out. Check the
local movie listings and count up the number of R and PG-13 rated movies versus
the number of G and PG shows. Slim pickings for a family to go to, if they
have young kids. And it's not that the G/PG movies don't make money. The top
grossing films of 91 and 92 were both G rated. From somew stats I heard, the
G/PG movies constitute about 20% of the movies released in the last couple of
years and generated more money than all the other films combined for the same
time frame.

Get a grip on reality. There are people out here with families that have
every right to tell tv and movie companies that there are not happy with
their products and want a change. They are not trying to impose their
morality on you; just tired of having theirs constantly trampled and mocked.

Jaime Vazquez
AIX Technical Support
IBM AWD-Austin/2830
InterNet: ja...@austin.vnet.ibm.com or jaime%aus...@vnet.ibm.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<Standard disclaimers apply.>

Stan

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 2:57:15 PM3/2/93
to

In article <C39zJ...@austin.ibm.com>, mrmi...@mrm.austin.ibm.com () writes:
> In article <C39rw...@austin.ibm.com> joh...@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> >In article <C39pA...@austin.ibm.com>, mrmi...@mrm.austin.ibm.com () writes:
> >|> You might hate any kind fo censorship but as I get older I am slowly
> >|> finding that restricting access to violent and sexual materials needs
> >|> to be restricted to adults.
> >
> >Why? What happens when adults view violent or sexual materials that could
> >justify restricting them?
> >
> >--
> >John Iacoletti IBM AWS Austin Internet: joh...@austin.ibm.com
> > My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
> >"Matey, this parrot wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it!"
>
> Maybe you did not understand what I meant?? Adults can have access to
> this stuff but not kids.
>
> I am currently stuck at home nursing a ruptured disk. Both daytime and
> night time TV is loaded with sex and violence. What really has started
> to bother me is the number of R rated movies on cable TV and these are
> not on the pay channels either. It gets tough to restrict what children
> can see.
>
> Marc Miller

Violence? Sex? The supposition is that the intertainment on tv and in the
movies is contributing to both, right? I suppose it all started way back when
with western movies. I can remember when I was very young, in the movie
"Shane" when one of the bad guys was shot. To make the impact of a 45 slug
look real they placed a harness on the subject (can't remember his name) and
then with pulleys, a large weight. At the exact moment the weight was dropped
and the man was jerked backwards off his feet and he fell flat on his back in
some mud. That scene stayed with me for years as I realized the power of a
gun. I never got the urge to see it for real though. Wonder what went wrong?

We also had access to some pretty racy photos and books, even underground
Micky Mouse comic books that were flat out raunchy. I don't think I've ever
had an urge to commit a sex crime or any crime for that matter. Must be
something else to blame for our current society behaviour besides intertainment.

It's actually easy to restrict channels. 1) Don't subscribe to it. The cable
company will put a filter on the ones you're not paying for. 2) Use the
parental function on your tv or cable box. Both of mine have that function
to exclude channels if you don't have the password. 3) Tell your kids not to
watch certain things. 4) Do something together with your kids when what you
feel is objectionable is showing. You know quality time. 5) Set an example
for your children by watching only quality material; whatever that is.

Actually I think more of the problems are being caused by working couples.
Families where both parents work and leave the important child raising years
to day schools and by single parents, for what ever reason they're single.
Zeus only knows what havoc homsexual parents bring. Lack of attention to
being a parent, what a thought.

bmoore

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 3:32:43 PM3/2/93
to

I agree 100%.
--
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²Bryan R. Moore²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛbmoore%sunfish.aus...@ibmpa.austin.ibm.comÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ

Jim McCoy

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 3:34:22 PM3/2/93
to

In article <C3A1I...@austin.ibm.com>, ja...@unicorn.austin.ibm.com (Jaime Vazquez) writes:
[regarding the ad in the AAS comic section...]

> So, what do you want to do? Censor their right to tell the entertainment
> industry that they are not happy with trash that comes out all day every day?

So tell the entertainment industry you are not happy by not purchasing
their wares. Don't try to tell them what they can and can't make. You just
make your own personal choices about what you want to view and let the rest
of us do the same.

> I happen to back the idea of the entertainment industry cleaining up
> their act a little. From what I gathered in the add, it was to start a
> letter writting campaign to let them know that there is a large segmetn of
> people out there that want a change in the types of movies and tv shows
> being put out.

Considering the massive amount of money the people of the US and the rest
of the world (this area is one of our most profitable exports BTW...) spend
on these products, they must be doing something right. The objectives of
these companies is to make money. They do so by creating movies and TV
shows that people will watch. No one is forcing anyone to watch them, and
it really annoys me to see people whine about the content without
addressing the reasons for that content...

> [lack of G and PG movies...] And it's not that the G/PG movies don't


> make money. The top grossing films of 91 and 92 were both G rated.

Home Alone and Alladin. How many other G or PG films were in the top ten
or top twenty for each year? If there was money in it, you would see a lot
more films come out with these ratings, but it appears that the necessary
incentive just isn't there...

> From somew stats I heard, the
> G/PG movies constitute about 20% of the movies released in the last couple of
> years and generated more money than all the other films combined for the same
> time frame.

This is complete BS. "More money than all the other films combined"?? Not
a chance. Children are a small market for the movie industry, and
"warm-fuzzy" films are either big kid hits that children see more than once
(mutant turtles, home alone, etc) or have a crossover market with the
adults (recent disnet cartoons and a few others), or bring in so little
money as to be statistically insignificant when it comes to counting up the
recipts.

> Get a grip on reality. There are people out here with families that have
> every right to tell tv and movie companies that there are not happy with
> their products and want a change.

It is you who need to get a grip on reality. No one has a "right" to tell
a company what products it should produce. Where do you think this
mythical "right" comes from? The TV and movie producers are out to make
money and they are obviously find a lot of people who _are_ happy with
their products or else they would be producing something else. If they
want a change then they should either promote it by patronizing those films
and TV shows whose content they agree with (thereby influencing the demand
for the products) or they should make their own products and have a go at
making it in the real world. Telling people what _shouldn't_ be produced
is simply censorship. Nothing more, nothing less.

> They are not trying to impose their
> morality on you; just tired of having theirs constantly trampled and mocked.

Maybe it is because they are such a ridiculous and moralistic group of
whiners that they are mocked so much. They are trying to impose their
morality upon the rest of us by influencing the products available through
their holier-than-thou preaching instead of letting the demand dictate the
supply. I have no pity for these people and think that they should just
deal with life instead of complaining to everyone else (as if we really give
a shit...)

jim
--
Jim McCoy |
mc...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | Unix Support Services
j-m...@nwu.edu |

Douglas Floyd

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 3:47:47 PM3/2/93
to
[Deleted]

My opinion is that Hollywood needs to stop making cookie cutter violent
movies and TV shows, and try to make something that is better for people's
minds than pulling out an UZI and nailing people with it.

The person who invented the video tube for the TV hoped that his invention
would be used for educational purposes. He turned bitter before he died
when all broadcasting companies did with it was make cheap garbage that
festers the mind.

I believe that these violent thrillers are damaging to the moral health of
America. The main cause of death in teenagers is now shootings. People
tend to use the images on TV as models. Violence is not the way to solve
all problems.

We need to get our morals in check unless we are going to become like
Somalia.

I applaud the people putting that ad, but not in the "funnies".

Please save your breath when replying about "censorship". I am not talking
about censorship. I am talking about Hollywood and TV producers
producing more than just sex and violence.


--
ifb...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Disclaimer: I speak for myself Please, no NeXTMail at this time.

<Insert witty quote, literal, constant or expression here>

mcki...@vnet.ibm.com

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 3:48:31 PM3/2/93
to
In <C3A1I...@austin.ibm.com> ja...@unicorn.austin.ibm.com (Jaime Vazquez) writes:
>Get a grip on reality. There are people out here with families that have
>every right to tell tv and movie companies that there are not happy with
>their products and want a change. They are not trying to impose their
>morality on you; just tired of having theirs constantly trampled and mocked.
>

Yes, they have every right to complain. It's a free country.

I think we're discussing the merits of their complaint, though. Frankly, I'm sick
of fundamentalist would-be censors trying to get the PUBLIC airways run according
to their ostrich-head-in-the-sand morality. Art imitates society; there is more sex
and violence in the media today precisely because we live in a more violent and
sexually open world. Parents can try to shield their children, but eventually they
leave home and they will be in for a rude awakening if they have been raised in
a Apple Pie Fantasy.

Now, I'm not saying that all media is appropriate for all age groups, but I do think
that parents should exercise some responsibility in the home before they go
crying for the rest of us to tailor our choice of information and entertainment to
their needs. Buy a channel blocker. Set rules on TV watching. Watch TV with
your children (some people seem to think that the TV is a good surrogate parent).
Fulfill your parental obligations by having frank and open discussions about what
they view. It's easier to prepare your children to live in the world than it is to
change the world to fit your children.

Ken McKinney

PS: Does anyone ever get the impression that the real agenda behind these groups
is determining what OTHER PEOPLE's children should be able to watch? I think the
"I'm just protecting my own children" thing is just a smokescreen.

Dean

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 4:54:37 PM3/2/93
to
In article <1n0ae5...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> ifa...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Kitchen) writes:
>
> Personally, I think the ads should not be in the comics. Period.
>ruining the funny pages with 30 or 40 ads doling out their particular dogma?
>The comics section is not such a place.
>
>************ Shame, Shame on you... Ruining the sunday funnys *********

Well, you know they were probably aiming at the more
intellectual crowd (considering the location).

Paul Conditt

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 5:11:22 PM3/2/93
to
In article <C3A23...@austin.ibm.com> st...@austin.ibm.com (Stan) writes:
>
>In article <C39zJ...@austin.ibm.com>, mrmi...@mrm.austin.ibm.com () writes:
>> In article <C39rw...@austin.ibm.com> joh...@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>> >In article <C39pA...@austin.ibm.com>, mrmi...@mrm.austin.ibm.com () writes:
>> >|> You might hate any kind fo censorship but as I get older I am slowly
>> >|> finding that restricting access to violent and sexual materials needs
>> >|> to be restricted to adults.
>> >
>> >Why? What happens when adults view violent or sexual materials that could
>> >justify restricting them?
>> >
>> >--
>> >John Iacoletti IBM AWS Austin Internet: joh...@austin.ibm.com

>> not on the pay channels either. It gets tough to restrict what children


>> can see.
>>
>> Marc Miller
>
>Violence? Sex? The supposition is that the intertainment on tv and in the
>movies is contributing to both, right?

There is actually some data collected by social psychologists that supports
this conclusion, although it's not accepted as fact. (sorry, I don't
have the studies in front of me, I just remember reading this in a
social psych textbook). What does happen is that being assaulted with
this stuff on tv, in the movies, in commercials, in magazines, everything,
desensitizes us to the effects of these things. I was appalled at
myself the other night when they were showing the shooting up near Waco.
They actually showed on the news that one ATF agent getting shot. The
first time I saw it it didn't really register with me that this was a
real person being shot, because it looked just like something off of some
tv show.

We can't really draw a cause-effect relationship between violence and
sex on tv and how it exists in society. Some would argue that the violence
on tv is a reflection of the violence in society. Others would say that
violence on tv actually escalates violence in society. I would say that
the truth lies somewhere in between. When our children (and us, too)
see all this violence constantly on tv or in the movies, we begin to
accept it as a way of life. Obviously, we can never eliminate violence
from our society, but it's not good for us to become desensitized to it.
The same is true with sex. How can we teach our children, and ourselves
for that matter, that sex is something to be taken seriously when all we
have to do is turn on the tv and watch just about as much of it as we
could ever hope for. And what kind of impression do we get when tv and
movies associate violence with sex so much of the time?

The ad in the paper raises some very interesting and important issues that
we as a society must face. From the other posts, it seems like people
with families are having to face these issues on a daily basis. The
people who ran the ad seem to be trying to do something about it. If all
they do is raise public consciousness about these issues, I'd say they
have succeeded. I don't think this is a case of someone trying to shove
their morals down everyone else's throat, but one of concerned people
doing what they can to affect the society in which they live.


===============================================================================
Paul Conditt Internet: con...@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu
Applied Research Phone: (512) 835-3086 FAX: (512) 835-3416/3259
Laboratories Fedex: 10000 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas 78758-4423
University of Texas Postal: P.O. Box 8029, Austin, Texas 78713-8029
Austin, Texas

I only use my guns whenever kindness fails. - Robert Earl Keen, Jr.

Lance W. Bledsoe

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 6:33:38 PM3/2/93
to
In article <C3A23...@austin.ibm.com> st...@austin.ibm.com (Stan) writes:
>Violence? Sex? The supposition is that the intertainment on tv and in the
>movies is contributing to both, right? I suppose it all started way back when
>with western movies. I can remember when I was very young, in the movie
>"Shane" when one of the bad guys was shot. To make the impact of a 45 slug
>look real they placed a harness on the subject (can't remember his name) and
>then with pulleys, a large weight. At the exact moment the weight was dropped
>and the man was jerked backwards off his feet and he fell flat on his back in
>some mud. That scene stayed with me for years as I realized the power of a
>gun. I never got the urge to see it for real though. Wonder what went wrong?

I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't happen when sombody gets
shot (go back and loog at the ATF guys getting chewed up in Waco this
weekend). If you remember your High School physics class, the bullet
will not hit the victim any harder than the recoil was from the shooters
gun. I don't seem to remember seeing Matt Dillon being hurled backwards
everytime he fired his Colt '44. Hmmmmmm, mabey Hollywood doesn't portray
these events factually... Na... :-)

>It's actually easy to restrict channels. 1) Don't subscribe to it. The cable
>company will put a filter on the ones you're not paying for. 2) Use the
>parental function on your tv or cable box. Both of mine have that function
>to exclude channels if you don't have the password. 3) Tell your kids not to
>watch certain things. 4) Do something together with your kids when what you
>feel is objectionable is showing. You know quality time. 5) Set an example
>for your children by watching only quality material; whatever that is.

Well I have a $2800 TV, and it can only block ONE channel at a time. I
don't subscribe to ANY *pay* channels, but try sometime flipping to
the *unsubscribed* Playboy channel on your Austin Cabelvision. Even
though the channel is "scrambled" you can still see various body parts
flying around along with moaning sounds from obviously copulating couples
in between the scramble lines. Ditto for Cinemax , Showtime and HBO.

If that's not enough, the BASIC cable service is bad enough. All the
networks now seem to be cranking out show after show with tons of
very sexual situations. Fox seems to be leading the way. I'm sure
nudity is just around the corner.

Try calling the cable company and telling them you ONLY want to subscribe
to PBS, CNN, A&E, Discovery, and Nickelodian. After they stop laughing,
they'll tell you that it can't be done. (I know, I tried.)

Lance


--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lance W. Bledsoe l...@im4u.cs.utexas.edu (512) 258-0112 |
| "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free." |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Serge Pontejos

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 6:28:19 PM3/2/93
to

In article <C3A52...@austin.ibm.com> Mark Miller writes:
>>It's actually easy to restrict channels. 1) Don't subscribe to it. The cable
>>company will put a filter on the ones you're not paying for. 2) Use the
>>parental function on your tv or cable box. Both of mine have that function
>>to exclude channels if you don't have the password. 3) Tell your kids not to
>>watch certain things. 4) Do something together with your kids when what you
>>feel is objectionable is showing. You know quality time. 5) Set an example
>>for your children by watching only quality material; whatever that is.
>>
>My guess is do not have kids. Is this true?
>
>It is not so easy. There is some pretty ruanchy stuff on the channels
>my son loves to watch. They have wonderful kids stuff early and
>some pretty raunchy on late, by this I mean after 7 or 8 PM. I
>do not police everything he watches.
>
>We greatly restrict watch he watches. Then he goes to someone
>elses house and watches what he cannot watch at home. I cannot
>watch him 24 hours a day.
>
>In my opinion, TV and movies have gotten out of hand with what they
>show.

I dunno, I think things had been brewing for a long time now.
I mean, look at Warner Bros. cartoons. I thought that they were a
riot when I was a kid, and I still think so. But I *did* notice
lately that these cartoons, especially roadrunner cartoons, were
pretty violent in nature. Not a whole helluva lot of people complain
about those cartoons, at least *I* haven't noticed lately. But
cartoons aren't real life anyway, right? Neither is (most) anything
on TV! Yes, people, IT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!! When one is entertained,
one gets to see things that he would not see in everyday life. Your
world is no less safe when after "Miami Vice" is on, right? Besides,
If there were significant ratings with "quality" stuff, then maybe
there would be more of it on TV! The network execs are just playing
to the ratings. And it seems that violence and sex sells. It's just
a fact. And yes, if you don't like it, then it *is* within your power
to just have the TV turned to another channel or even off. It's the
freedom of choice. It *is* up to you to monitor what is suitable for
your children. It's not my problem to see to it that *your* kids not
see something, when I may think it is acceptable for mine. I will
know to tell my kids that what is standard fare on TV or film
is not real life, and not to believe everything you see. When he/she
is old enough to determine what he/she wants to watch, I'll even cut
my kid slack that he/she will know fantasy from reality. Besides, if
every kid out there actually carried out and externalized all those
murders and acts of violence that were seen on TV, wouldn't there be a
lot more murders and violence really happening? I mean a LOT more,
like an everyday occurance.
People have been bitching about the content of TV and film for
ages. The World (I think) was not any less violent 20 or 25 years ago
than it is today. There are just different situations now than 25
years ago, except for maybe a few things here and there. I just think
that the energies used to blast the media could be more properly used
on more pertinent problems like helping the homeless, or war victims,
or abused wives or children. Call me crazy, but...

>
>In fact, that ad is looking better all of the time.
>
>Marc R. Miller
>AIX Technology Transfer

As much as I hate to see such ads out there (the Texan ad
saying the Holocaust was a hoax is simply the opposite end of the
spectrum--or is it??), other groups have the right to say what they
have to say. And it is my right to state that I think those ads
are full of shit.

Flames will _probably_ be read, but will least likely be heeded...

Serge Pontejos
"The world is full of wonderful people. It's just the stupid ones you
notice first."
--
"There is nothing so deep as the ocean | Serge Pontejos
There is nothing so high as the sky | bu...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
And there is nothing unwavering as a woman | __________________________
When she's already made up her mind" | Ignorance begets stupidity.
-Lyle Lovett | Knowledge is power.
"She's Already Made Up Her Mind" | Free your mind...

Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 2:54:15 AM3/2/93
to

AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I *hate* censorship!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Horton

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 5:44:31 PM3/2/93
to
Yeah, they always try to frame it that "anyone agin us must be one o' them
decadent musicians or Hollywood-type poeple". They just can't fathom that
normal adult citizena are anti-censorship. Hell, write them, but don't
stop there, organize your friends and neighbors to write them to protest
this. Only when they stop beleiving that they represent 'all the right-
thinking people in this 'ere country" do we have a chance that they'll
leave us in peace.
C

Doug McLaren

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 7:22:33 PM3/2/93
to
In article <1mv3r7...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> sl...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged) writes:

>Was anybody else amazed? I've always thought of Austin as a fairly progressive
>area (aside from the recent Sex Education thing...), but now this?

Glen, one thing to remember: Austin != Austin American Statesman

I'd like to see the AAS get some competetion. (Daily Texan is a good start,
though. It's not perfect, but it does offer a different perspective ...)

Actually, I'll have to find a copy of the Comics. I'd like to see this
ad ...

>family entertainment". Personally, I find many of "those" movies boring.
>People were even shot in Disney's "wholesome" "The Man From Snowy River"

Old Yeller too! didn't they kill the (rabid) dog? Bambi's mother was
--
----------------------- \ Zippy says:
Doug McLaren, \ All right, you degenerates! I want this place
DemoN on IRC \ evacuated in 20 seconds!
dou...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu \
-------------------------- /

Serge Pontejos

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 7:28:34 PM3/2/93
to
In article <1n0h5j...@emx.cc.utexas.edu> ifb...@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>[Deleted]
>
>My opinion is that Hollywood needs to stop making cookie cutter violent
>movies and TV shows, and try to make something that is better for people's
>minds than pulling out an UZI and nailing people with it.

Well, if average Joe Suburban Kid would quit making such movies
profitable, then maybe the hollywood execs might change their mind
about filming "Lethal Weapon <insert number here>" or "Friday the 13th
part <insert number here>" Those "real life" dramas on TV seem to
reap high ratings, too. People need to quit making those profitable
for execs.

>
>The person who invented the video tube for the TV hoped that his invention
>would be used for educational purposes. He turned bitter before he died
>when all broadcasting companies did with it was make cheap garbage that
>festers the mind.
>
>I believe that these violent thrillers are damaging to the moral health of
>America. The main cause of death in teenagers is now shootings. People
>tend to use the images on TV as models. Violence is not the way to solve
>all problems.

Now when was the last time you heard Joe or Jane suburban kid
go off on a shooting rampage? Do you know a lot of Suburban teens
getting killed often? Even if the general statement of teen deaths is
true, I honestly think it is isolated among the urban kids, who seem
to believe in the "family" of the gang, where one has to "juice"
(commit some felonius act) to be accepted. They're living in a cycle
of poverty, and the only way they can see themselves get respected is
if they commit crimes that others wouldn't have the balls to commit.
That cycle needs to be broken, and we need to give them more
opportunities.

>We need to get our morals in check unless we are going to become like
>Somalia.

Yes, and of course, they watched too much miami vice...
Grrrr. What the hell does Somalia have to do with this? People in
Somalia are starving because there's no one ruling them to help create
order!!! They haven't had order for a long time, and TV or film
probably isn't in their vocabulary because they've been blown back to
the stone age! Funny how you are wasting your energy on how bad the
state of TV and film is when you could be using your energy to help
out people with REAL problems--Like Somalians!! Get your foot out of
your mouth please, it seems to be hampering my ability to understand you...

>I applaud the people putting that ad, but not in the "funnies".

Wow! Something we can both agree on!! I won't deny a person's
right to state their opinions, but It's also my right to state *my*
opinion saying that that ad is full of shit.



>Please save your breath when replying about "censorship". I am not talking
>about censorship. I am talking about Hollywood and TV producers
>producing more than just sex and violence.

You are telling them what to make and what not to make. Not
giving someone (i.e. a producer or writer) the freedom to write or
express what he/she wants sounds a lot like censorship to me. Call me
crazy, but...

You want to know the way that the execs will respond to what
you want?? Make violent or sexual programming unprofitable for
them!!! That would force them to program something *gasp* more
cerebral!! Maybe they will get the message that America really
*isn't* that stupid!!

Where the hell is it that violence on TV or film leads to
crime?? Give me a study and that proves such things and I _may_
apologize, but as far as sex is concerned, there were two <count
'em--TWO> federal judicial commisions that could NOT decisively
conclude that viewing pornographic material was directly linked to
violent crime! C'mon people, Europe as a whole shows more skin on
commercial TV than we in the states currently do, and are they more
violent? No, we seem to be. What does *that* say?

<steps off his soapbox and returns to his homework>

Serge Pontejos

"The world is full of wonderful people. It's the stupid ones you

Mike McNally

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 7:11:55 PM3/2/93
to
I agree that if someone wants to take out a big ad in a paper, they have every
right.

I wonder whether the AAS would print the kind of ad I'd like to publish; somehow
I doubt it:


AMERICANS FOR SEXIER, BLOODIER, LOUDER ENTERTAINMENT


Over the past several years, the rise in production of "G" movies
has begun to seriously disturb a significant portion of the
population. Such atrocities as "Milo and Otis" and "The Rescuers
Down Under" are an assault on our basic values of intense sex
mixed with gratuitous violence against innocents. Where will it
end? Will I be forced to witness endless cascades of sacharrine
tear-jerkers flowing unstoppably from every channel of my television
and from every big screen in town? Will THX sound be wasted on
reproduction of kitten mewling and squealing babies?


Our voices will be heard. Be warned.


I AM THE JADED CONSUMER OF MASS ENTERTAINMENT
...AND I VOTE!


(Note that I am serious, but I don't feel like spending money on it.
Then again, if somebody wants to provide me access to Illustrator, and
I get enough offers for donations, I'll consider it...)
--
Limestone, ***** Mike McNally ***** Tivoli Systems Inc
Dear Limestone ***** Software person ***** Austin, TX

Joan-Marie Shouman

unread,
Mar 2, 1993, 10:10:01 PM3/2/93
to

>So tell the entertainment industry you are not happy by not purchasing
>their wares. Don't try to tell them what they can and can't make. You just
>make your own personal choices about what you want to view and let the rest
>of us do the same.

Exactly. In a democracy (we _are_ still under this form of government, are we
not???) everyone has a choice -- not just politically but socially.
If you don't like something, you don't have to watch it. If it really and
truly offends you, write or call the station and the sponsors of the program
and say, "hey, this offended me...." NOT "you shouldn't/can't air this show"
If they get enough of these sorts of responses, they'll likely respond. If
not, boycott them.

>It is you who need to get a grip on reality. No one has a "right" to tell
>a company what products it should produce. Where do you think this
>mythical "right" comes from?

right, again.

About this parent thing: Now I have no children and am the first one to admit
I know nothing about raising a kid. Still, I think that it is the parent's
responsibility to either help their children view what they see on tv/movies
in a proper perspective or take measures to prevent them from having access to
whatever the parent judges to be inappropriate (as best as can be done).

About the ad: maybe we (those opposed to it, anyway) should form our own
little group and make some noise. Otherwise, groups like the one that
placed the ad will be the only ones heard while the rest of us sit around
idly, posting to the net, and waiting for our various freedoms (and I DON'T
just mean tv and movie stuff) to be taken away.
--
___________________________________________________
Joan-Marie Shouman |non cogito ergo
(jsho...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) |non sum :)
___________________________________________________

Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 2:40:20 AM3/3/93
to
>Get a grip on reality. There are people out here with families that have
>every right to tell tv and movie companies that there are not happy with
>their products and want a change. They are not trying to impose their
>morality on you; just tired of having theirs constantly trampled and mocked.

They are advocating far more than just cleaning up some movies- they want to
ban Saturday Night Live. That *is* an attempt to impose their morality on
me.

If G an PG movies grossed more than all the others, then movie companies
would be releasing more. Since more R movies were released, then overall,
they make the most money. QED

They are in it for the profit. If it sells, they make it. If it does not
sell, they do not fund it. Sure, the two 'G' movies may be all time
blockbusters, but many of the others flop.

You are perfectly capable of "telling tv and movie companies that you are not
happy with their product" by simply refusing to watch them. If enough people
were genuinely unhappy, then the companies would start to lose profit and would
search for the reason. They would then find that people want more wholesome
movies. However, I disagree with the attempt to stop them from making the
movies that I, and obviously a majority of the movie-goers, like.


--
sl...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu // gl...@cs.utexas.edu **** Glen A. Graham ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want | Fools wander,
to achieve immortality through not dying. --Woody Allen | Wise men Travel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

traveller

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 12:30:53 AM3/3/93
to
In article <1n0qsi...@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> l...@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>>It's actually easy to restrict channels. 1) Don't subscribe to it. The cable
>>company will put a filter on the ones you're not paying for. 2) Use the
>>parental function on your tv or cable box. Both of mine have that function
>>to exclude channels if you don't have the password. 3) Tell your kids not to
>>watch certain things. 4) Do something together with your kids when what you
>>feel is objectionable is showing. You know quality time. 5) Set an example
>>for your children by watching only quality material; whatever that is.
>
>Well I have a $2800 TV, and it can only block ONE channel at a time. I
>don't subscribe to ANY *pay* channels, but try sometime flipping to
>the *unsubscribed* Playboy channel on your Austin Cabelvision. Even
>though the channel is "scrambled" you can still see various body parts
>flying around along with moaning sounds from obviously copulating couples
>in between the scramble lines. Ditto for Cinemax , Showtime and HBO.
>
you've got a cable ready tv and don't use the cable box right? my cable box
runs the preview channel on unsubscribed pay channels. to be able to see the
scrambled unsubscribed stations i have to turn the tv to channel 4 and the box
to one or two channels below the one i'm trying to see. i hadn't done this since
i was quite a bit younger, so i just checked and it still works that way.
try getting the channel programming selector on your tv to not receive the
channels you don't want. or receive them as something else.

--
tr...@wixer.cactus.org | In Austin, Tx:
The Traveller | The city that made being a slacker an
| acceptable alternative lifestyle.
Bite me! -- It's not just a rude expression, it's a way of life!

Lance Hartmann

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 8:53:34 AM3/3/93
to
Init'ing an appropriate followup.

Paul Conditt

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 9:45:38 AM3/3/93
to
In article <1n0u3i...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> bu...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Serge Pontejos) writes:
>In article <1n0h5j...@emx.cc.utexas.edu> ifb...@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
>>[Deleted]
>>
> You want to know the way that the execs will respond to what
>you want?? Make violent or sexual programming unprofitable for
>them!!! That would force them to program something *gasp* more
>cerebral!! Maybe they will get the message that America really
>*isn't* that stupid!!

This is, of course, the only real answer. I think running such an ad,
and especially the letter writing campaign, is a good start. But
ultimately, the entertainment industry is out to make money, just like
we all are. If certain types of films and tv shows are profitable,
then they will continue to be made. If they're not, then they're
outta there. If I were adamant about making a change in our
entertainment industry, I would begin by writing letters to various
producers, but where I would need to concentrate my efforts is on
choosing the shows I will and will not watch. It would be pretty
hypocritical of me to write a letter stating my objection to sex
and violence in the tv and film industry and then go out and watch
Basic Instinct or some other show that has plenty of both. On the
other hand, I would try to support quality programming that doesn't
have so much sex and violence, like Home Improvement. OK, so maybe Tim
injuring himself all the time would be considered violent. Guess I
better find another show. :)

> Where the hell is it that violence on TV or film leads to
>crime?? Give me a study and that proves such things and I _may_
>apologize, but as far as sex is concerned, there were two <count
>'em--TWO> federal judicial commisions that could NOT decisively
>conclude that viewing pornographic material was directly linked to
>violent crime! C'mon people, Europe as a whole shows more skin on
>commercial TV than we in the states currently do, and are they more
>violent? No, we seem to be. What does *that* say?

As I stated in a previous post, the studies I've read about imply
a correlational relationship, but definitely not a cause-effect relationship.
We can't say that sex and violence on tv or any other medium *causes*
violent crime. However, it does desensitize us to the effects of it.
When we see it all the time, we begin to accept it as a normal part of
life. It is a part of life, but I'd hate to think that any of us are
willing to accept it as being "normal".


>
>Serge Pontejos
>
>"The world is full of wonderful people. It's the stupid ones you
> notice first."
>--
>"There is nothing so deep as the ocean | Serge Pontejos
> There is nothing so high as the sky | bu...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
> And there is nothing unwavering as a woman | __________________________
> When she's already made up her mind" | Ignorance begets stupidity.
> -Lyle Lovett | Knowledge is power.
> "She's Already Made Up Her Mind" | Free your mind...

John E. Stump

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 9:46:45 AM3/3/93
to
In article <1n0qsi...@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> l...@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>In article <C3A23...@austin.ibm.com> st...@austin.ibm.com (Stan) writes:
>>Violence? Sex? The supposition is that the intertainment on tv and in the
>>movies is contributing to both, right? I suppose it all started way back when
>>with western movies. I can remember when I was very young, in the movie
>>"Shane" when one of the bad guys was shot. To make the impact of a 45 slug
>>look real they placed a harness on the subject (can't remember his name) and
>>then with pulleys, a large weight. At the exact moment the weight was dropped
>>and the man was jerked backwards off his feet and he fell flat on his back in
>>some mud. That scene stayed with me for years as I realized the power of a
>>gun. I never got the urge to see it for real though. Wonder what went wrong?
>
>I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't happen when sombody gets
>shot (go back and loog at the ATF guys getting chewed up in Waco this
>weekend). If you remember your High School physics class, the bullet
>will not hit the victim any harder than the recoil was from the shooters
>gun. I don't seem to remember seeing Matt Dillon being hurled backwards
>everytime he fired his Colt '44. Hmmmmmm, mabey Hollywood doesn't portray
>these events factually... Na... :-)

You obviously know nothing of firearms. Automatic and semiautomatic
weapons make use of recoil to cycle the next round; therefore, these
types of weapons give abbreviated recoil to the shooter. Experienced
recoil and the power of the projectile are unrelated. What does affect
the hitting force of the bullet is velocity, caliber, and type of
bullet. A hollow-point .45 slug would definitely send you back a few
feet, whereas a flat-trajectory .223 would go right through you without
hardly a nudge.

>Lance

john
--
inside IBM: jst...@auntbea.austin / outside IBM: jst...@netftp.austin.ibm.com

"In one of Shakespeare's famous plays, Hamlet rations out his situation
by relieving himself in a long soliloquy." --Student Bloopers

The James Brown Of Computer Science

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 5:24:34 AM3/3/93
to
In article <1n0qsi...@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> l...@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:

> I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't happen when sombody gets
> shot (go back and loog at the ATF guys getting chewed up in Waco this
> weekend). If you remember your High School physics class, the bullet
> will not hit the victim any harder than the recoil was from the shooters
> gun. I don't seem to remember seeing Matt Dillon being hurled backwards
> everytime he fired his Colt '44. Hmmmmmm, mabey Hollywood doesn't portray
> these events factually... Na... :-)

Maybe you should remember your high school english class. The point of
the original post was that the scene had a long lasting non-violent
effect on a particular viewer. The scene's realism was not in issue.

> Well I have a $2800 TV, and it can only block ONE channel at a time. I
> don't subscribe to ANY *pay* channels, but try sometime flipping to
> the *unsubscribed* Playboy channel on your Austin Cabelvision. Even
> though the channel is "scrambled" you can still see various body parts
> flying around along with moaning sounds from obviously copulating couples
> in between the scramble lines. Ditto for Cinemax , Showtime and HBO.

If you pay more for cable and less on your tv, you'll find that those
Playboy images are much clearer.

If that's not enough, the BASIC cable service is bad enough. All the
networks now seem to be cranking out show after show with tons of
very sexual situations. Fox seems to be leading the way. I'm sure
nudity is just around the corner.

I hope so. If your kids can't handle naked people I would suggest that
the problem is a lot bigger than tv.

Mark Brown

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 11:36:35 AM3/3/93
to
> l...@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>If that's not enough, the BASIC cable service is bad enough. All the
>networks now seem to be cranking out show after show with tons of
>very sexual situations. Fox seems to be leading the way. I'm sure
>nudity is just around the corner.

Yup, nudity on TV has driven the people of France, etc. to mass violence
and social disorder. Yup. We should hide this aspect of human behavior
(that humans have sex) from our youth, not mention it in public, and
certainly go back to times when TV parents slept in twin beds.

NOT.

I have a child, and I'm firmly convinced secrets and misinformation
cause more problems that openness and honesty. We intend to raise him
with this policy in mind; our job is to help him understand what he
encounters as he grows up.

I'm also disturbed by what you and Mr. Miller have been telling me by
what you are complaining about: violence isn't as bad a problem as sex
in the media. Why do you think this is so?


--
Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX.| Fear the Government
(512) 838-3926 VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ| that fears your privacy.
MAIL: mbr...@testsys.austin.ibm.com | Keep personal cryptography legal.
DISCLAIMER: My views are independent of IBM official policy.

Craig Becker

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 12:06:04 PM3/3/93
to

m...@tivoli.UUCP (Mike McNally) writes:
> I agree that if someone wants to take out a big ad in a paper, they have every
> right.
>
> I wonder whether the AAS would print the kind of ad I'd like to publish; somehow
> I doubt it:
>
>
> AMERICANS FOR SEXIER, BLOODIER, LOUDER ENTERTAINMENT
>
>
> Over the past several years, the rise in production of "G" movies
> has begun to seriously disturb a significant portion of the
> population. Such atrocities as "Milo and Otis" and "The Rescuers
> Down Under" are an assault on our basic values of intense sex
> mixed with gratuitous violence against innocents. Where will it
> end? Will I be forced to witness endless cascades of sacharrine
> tear-jerkers flowing unstoppably from every channel of my television
> and from every big screen in town? Will THX sound be wasted on
> reproduction of kitten mewling and squealing babies?
>
>
> Our voices will be heard. Be warned.
>
>
> I AM THE JADED CONSUMER OF MASS ENTERTAINMENT
> ...AND I VOTE!
...

> (Note that I am serious, but I don't feel like spending money on it.
> Then again, if somebody wants to provide me access to Illustrator, and
> I get enough offers for donations, I'll consider it...)

Note that I'm serious, too, when I say you can put me down for $100.

Craig

Not the opinion of my employer.
--
-- "You will have the tallest, Craig Becker, Object Technology Products --
-- darkest leading man in Internet: jlpi...@austin.ibm.com --
-- Hollywood." IBM TR: jlpi...@woofer.austin.ibm.com --
-- - Merian C. Cooper to Fay Wray VNET: JLPICARD at AUSVM1 --

cl...@austin.ibm.com

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 12:36:36 PM3/3/93
to

In article <11...@tivoli.UUCP>, m...@tivoli.UUCP (Mike McNally) writes:
> I agree that if someone wants to take out a big ad in a paper, they have every
> right.
>
> I wonder whether the AAS would print the kind of ad I'd like to publish; somehow
> I doubt it:
>
>
> AMERICANS FOR SEXIER, BLOODIER, LOUDER ENTERTAINMENT
>
>
> Over the past several years, the rise in production of "G" movies
> has begun to seriously disturb a significant portion of the
> population. Such atrocities as "Milo and Otis" and "The Rescuers
> Down Under" are an assault on our basic values of intense sex
> mixed with gratuitous violence against innocents. Where will it
> end? Will I be forced to witness endless cascades of sacharrine
> tear-jerkers flowing unstoppably from every channel of my television
> and from every big screen in town? Will THX sound be wasted on
> reproduction of kitten mewling and squealing babies?
>
>
> Our voices will be heard. Be warned.
>
>
> I AM THE JADED CONSUMER OF MASS ENTERTAINMENT
> ...AND I VOTE!
>

Thankk you! You've put your finger on what really bothered me about the ad:
its sensational overtones. This ad looks like a typical National Enquirer
piece. These people are not interested in rational discussion; their
ad is a purely emotional appeal, attempting to play off the protective
instincts of parents in order to expound its own agenda.

I believe in the rights for the sponsors of the petition to express their
views, but, please, let's back up some of the claims made in the ad (for
instance, I find it difficult to believe that the "entertainment industry"
is the sole cause of violence in society, an implication not difficult to
make on the slim information given in the ad).

--
Clay Colwell Profound quotes? Feh!
arch...@vnet.ibm.com Disclaimer: The post above does not necessarily
IBM Austin, TX reflect the views of IBM. These are *my* opinions!

Jaime Vazquez

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 1:24:18 PM3/3/93
to
>
> > [lack of G and PG movies...] And it's not that the G/PG movies don't

> > make money. The top grossing films of 91 and 92 were both G rated.
>
> Home Alone and Alladin. How many other G or PG films were in the top ten
> or top twenty for each year? If there was money in it, you would see a lot
> more films come out with these ratings, but it appears that the necessary
> incentive just isn't there...
>

Let's see, Beauty And the Beast did pretty well last year. The Star Wars
trilogy turned a few bucks as well the Star Trek series. Home Alone 1&2
did $100M+. Alladin is approaching $200M. More shows are making it
out there.
Groundhog Day, Homeward Bound, A Far Place are some examples. The research
on others is just begining. Anybody with more current info, please feel free
to add to the list.

You are missing the point of my posting. You are mad because you feel that
the people who did the ad are restricting your right to see gratuitous sex,
violence and nudity. Not the case. They want to see more wholesome family
oriented entertainment. I agree with them. It may astound you but a lot
more people out there do too! What are you afraif of, that a letter campaign
of the type the ad promotes might actually work? That you might have to
drive half-way across town to see one of the few movies you want to see?
That your selection of tv offerings is so limited that you have to zip thru
50 channels looking for someting? You're telling me "Tough, live with it".
I don't want to so I'm trying to make a change. Yeah, get a grip and quit
being so self-centered.

Jim McCoy

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 2:50:01 PM3/3/93
to

In article <C3BsG...@austin.ibm.com>, ja...@unicorn.austin.ibm.com (Jaime Vazquez) writes:
> > [regarding lack of G and PG movies]

> >
> > Home Alone and Alladin. How many other G or PG films were in the top ten
> > or top twenty for each year? If there was money in it, you would see a lot
> > more films come out with these ratings, but it appears that the necessary
> > incentive just isn't there...
> >
>
> [some examples of G and PG movies that did well ranging in date from the
> late 70s to early 80s along with a couple of recent successes...]

> The research
> on others is just begining. Anybody with more current info, please feel free
> to add to the list.

Fell free. Once you have your list we can compare these few successes with
the total earnings of the remaining films. The G/PG films will lose.

> You are missing the point of my posting. You are mad because you feel that
> the people who did the ad are restricting your right to see gratuitous sex,
> violence and nudity. Not the case.

I am not saying that, and in fact I love a lot of the films you mentioned,
but I resent a narrow-minded minority trying to influence the production of
features based upon how loud they can shout instead of letting thier
patronage of films do the talking for them.

> They want to see more wholesome family
> oriented entertainment. I agree with them. It may astound you but a lot
> more people out there do too!

Good for you. So go patronize those G and PG films and stop watching films
that you don't like. If there really are "a lot more people out there" who
feel the same way then the film industry will change the supply to
correspond to the demand. This is like starting a letter-writing campaing
saying that you want the auto industry to bring back the big
gas-guzzling-handles-like-a-boat cars of the 70s. Try putting your money
where your mouth is and just stop going to see films you object to.

> What are you afraif of, that a letter campaign
> of the type the ad promotes might actually work?

I hate to break this to you, but as long as the type of films currently
popular in this country continue to make money the people in Hollywood
producing them really don't give a shit what people writing letters like
this think. This is a business, and when the producers have a market of
hundreds of millions who gladly pay money for what they are producing and
clamor for more I am certain that they will happily ignore you...

I object to someone else trying to tell the world what it should watch
instead of letting us decide. I don't really care about the ad in the
Sunday paper because I know that it will be insignificant in the grand
scheme of things. I merely objected to the principles you seemed to be
advocating in trying to tell this particular "publishing" industry what it
should and should not produce. This is censorship.

> You're telling me "Tough, live with it".
> I don't want to so I'm trying to make a change.

You are welcome to try, but stop pretending that what this group is
advocating is anything less than censorship. If a group begins a
letter-writing campaign to "suggest" to publishers that there are enough
books with violence and sex in them and that what is needed is more Peter
Rabbit books (even if no one seems to be buying enough to justify this)

> Yeah, get a grip and quit
> being so self-centered.

"Self-centered"? Because I happen to prize the freedom of other people in
this society to make the choices you wish to deny them (like what films
they can watch or what films will be available to watch...)? Maybe it is
_you_ who should be a little less self-centered. I have pity if you have
such a problem protecting your children from the realities of the world
they will live in, but don't expect much sympathy when you start marching
to the drumbeat of those who wish to control what other people can see...

Russ Williams

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 3:24:01 PM3/3/93
to
In article <C3BsG...@austin.ibm.com> ja...@austin.vnet.ibm.com writes:
>You are missing the point of my posting. You are mad because you feel that
>the people who did the ad are restricting your right to see gratuitous sex,
>violence and nudity. Not the case. They want to see more wholesome family
>oriented entertainment.

Actually, the Rev Donald Wildmon and AFA would like to see violence and
nudity banished from movies and TV. They are not simply trying to
encourage more G movies to be made, they wish that no "unchristian" movies
be made. They are a fundamentalist organization with quite a few
members sending them money all over the U.S. I'd be very careful
about identifying myself with them if I were you. They're very
hardcore in favor of censorship as well as being Christian bigots.


Russ

Werner Uhrig

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 3:57:08 PM3/3/93
to

whoever CROSS-posted the original article needs a lesson of
basic logic and netiquette.

everyone who followed up: lighten up and learn to ignore.

(how many entries do I have to make in my KILLfiles before
I am allowed to complain? and, no, I hate the delay caused
by "global" KILLfiles...)
--
wer...@cs.utexas.edu | ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | wer...@UTXVM.bitnet
"Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
-----------------> I'm still mad about Tiananmin Square !!! <---------------

st...@austin.ibm.com

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 4:10:46 PM3/3/93
to

In article <1n0qsi...@im4u.cs.utexas.edu>, l...@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't happen when sombody gets
> shot (go back and loog at the ATF guys getting chewed up in Waco this
> weekend). If you remember your High School physics class, the bullet
> will not hit the victim any harder than the recoil was from the shooters
> gun. I don't seem to remember seeing Matt Dillon being hurled backwards
> everytime he fired his Colt '44. Hmmmmmm, mabey Hollywood doesn't portray
> these events factually... Na... :-)
>
Actually, smarty, it depends on how fast the mass is accelerated and then
deccelerated. Its a function of distance and time, if you can recall your
calculus and analytic geometry from freshman college. I have seen a person
go down from a large calliber bullet and they go down hard. Especially when
the bullet hits a major bone after passing through relative nothing of flesh.
Besides, even if you really got sucked into the gun barrel -- so what, as a
kid I was believed I saw extreme violence. Are you saying that if in Halloween
III or whatever, the blood from a severed head doesn't gush 1 1/2 feet in the
air, that it's ok to watch and shouldn't be PG? Sounds like it, focus on the
point. Don't just sound off.

> >It's actually easy to restrict channels. 1) Don't subscribe to it. The cable

..............


>
> Well I have a $2800 TV, and it can only block ONE channel at a time. I
> don't subscribe to ANY *pay* channels, but try sometime flipping to
> the *unsubscribed* Playboy channel on your Austin Cabelvision. Even
> though the channel is "scrambled" you can still see various body parts
> flying around along with moaning sounds from obviously copulating couples
> in between the scramble lines. Ditto for Cinemax , Showtime and HBO.
>

First of all, you don't subscribe to *pay* channels, which I never mentioned.
You need to get a special channel selector box that allows you to call the
cable company and then they down load some command to unscramble the channel.
For some one who doesn't like what's showing, you sure spent a bunch on a tv.
You got taken, next time try ABC TV, mine, a 37" Toshiba, with pic in pic and
etc, will exclude any number you want. Only paid $1200. You must be pretty
hard up if you sit around and stare at scrambled channels.

> If that's not enough, the BASIC cable service is bad enough. All the
> networks now seem to be cranking out show after show with tons of
> very sexual situations. Fox seems to be leading the way. I'm sure
> nudity is just around the corner.
>

Oooh my gosh, not the horrible obscene human body! What ever will I do, sigh.
Fox has got that awful Rush Limbaugh on too, oh whail, poor us. He laughs
at our president.

> Try calling the cable company and telling them you ONLY want to subscribe
> to PBS, CNN, A&E, Discovery, and Nickelodian. After they stop laughing,
> they'll tell you that it can't be done. (I know, I tried.)
>
> Lance

I wouldn't want to call them to do that and besides, CNN and Discovery are
very violent at times; welcome to the real world. It's violent, Lance. And
you didn't ask too good, they have filters to take out HBO and Cinemax they
install them at the little green box with the lock on it. (I know my neighbor
has it.)
Inspite of all the quibbling over specifics, I still say you all are
complaining about the symptoms, not the disease. Which was my point, but
no sense in focusing in on the point, that would be out of character.
So read my lips, tv is NOT the cause! It's a symptom of the problem(s) with
our society. Fighting the symptom will not cure the disease!!!!

Serge Pontejos

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 4:41:03 PM3/3/93
to

Ah, yes, it is coming back to me now... Isn't Mark Weaver the
president of the local AFA? He was the one threatening to make HEB
lose business a few years ago because they carried the _Austin
Chronicle_, and wanted to get rid of the _Chronicle_ because it didn't
reflect "Family Values". I've gotten pretty sick of that term from
last year....
Yup. Scary stuff.

Serge

Alan McKendree

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 3:39:49 PM3/3/93
to
In article <1n0qsi...@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> l...@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't happen when sombody gets
>shot (go back and loog at the ATF guys getting chewed up in Waco this
>weekend). If you remember your High School physics class, the bullet
>will not hit the victim any harder than the recoil was from the shooters
>gun. I don't seem to remember seeing Matt Dillon being hurled backwards
>everytime he fired his Colt '44. Hmmmmmm, mabey Hollywood doesn't portray
>these events factually... Na... :-)

What complete drivel. Well, Lance, would you care to put your theory
into practice by volunteering as the target for a .22 shot? There's
_almost_ _no_ kick to a .22, so according to your theory, you'd
experience no more harm than from a slight thump on the chest with an
open hand.

I also recall a story from about 3 years ago in which a homeowner in
Hyde Park blew an intruder from inside his house through a window with
a single shot from a .44.

If someone with more physics knowledge and time than do I would care
to explain kinetic energy, deceleration, and opposing forces to Lance,
be my guest.

--
Alan McKendree Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
To call something public is to define it as dirty, insufficient and hazardous. The
ultimate paradigm of social spending is the public rest room. -P. J. O'Rourke

Ted Lehr

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 6:04:46 PM3/3/93
to

Stan (st...@stand.austin.ibm.com) writes:
> So read my lips, tv is NOT the cause! It's a symptom of the problem(s) with
> our society. Fighting the symptom will not cure the disease!!!!

The stuff on tv is a symptom of "our society's ills." So is the daily
murder in cities. So is the joke that is our educational system. So is
that guy up in Waco.

At the same time, because of simple and complex relationships among the
ingredients of our culture, these symptoms are contributing causes. None
are necessarily the sole cause or even a primary cause, but they are all part of
the stew of our culture.

TV images affect us. Merely following the inanities of the latest
clothing or speaking fashions (and how much they has changed from last year)
one can easily point to TV for a very likely source. "Most Excellent!" you
say, or perhaps you'd rather "NOT!"

Because this trivial garbage is so easily assimilated by "the masses," I
am skeptical of claims that the garbage on TV is a symptom.

Regards,

Ted

Hostility Muffler:
Please note I am not making any calls for censorship or reigning in
anyone's allmighty "rights" in the above. My quote of Stan above
does not suggest that he would not be in agreement with what I claim.
It seems to me, that he could be allowed the position that he means
that TV is not -the- cause but perhaps -a- cause.


--
Ted Lehr "...my thoughts, opinions and questions..."
Future Systems Technology Group
Advanced Workstations and Systems, IBM
Austin, TX 78758

Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 6:42:09 PM3/3/93
to
>You are missing the point of my posting. You are mad because you feel that
>the people who did the ad are restricting your right to see gratuitous sex,
>violence and nudity. Not the case. They want to see more wholesome family
>oriented entertainment.

I think you need to re-read the exact wording of the ad, and if you have not
read it word for word, then refrain from commenting on what they want.

They said "Shame on HOLLYWOOD" for making these movies. They did not say
shame on them for not making enough wholesome movies, but rather that Hollywood
was making *any* sexual and violent movies.

They said "Shame on NBC" for allowing Saturday night live to air. That is
stating that they do *not* want it to air. That is adocating *censorship*, and
censorship is an attempt to retract our American freedoms.

What is their next step? Institute school prayers? Ban bikinis on the beach
since *they* are sexual? Give me a break- they want to restrict my right to
see these programs by trying to get people to stop making them or even ban
them (like X movies were done from "community movie houses").

If the ad stated that the were looking for support to infleuence Hollywood to
make wholesome movies in _addition_ to the others, then I may have supported
them. However, they attacked soaps, SNL, movies, and anything else that did
not fit into their strict set of morals.

Carlos M. Puchol

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 10:24:05 PM3/3/93
to
mbr...@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) writes:
!> l...@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
!>If that's not enough, the BASIC cable service is bad enough. All the
!>networks now seem to be cranking out show after show with tons of
!>very sexual situations. Fox seems to be leading the way. I'm sure
!>nudity is just around the corner.
!
!Yup, nudity on TV has driven the people of France, etc. to mass violence
!and social disorder. Yup. We should hide this aspect of human behavior
!(that humans have sex) from our youth, not mention it in public, and
!certainly go back to times when TV parents slept in twin beds.
!
!NOT.
!
!I have a child, and I'm firmly convinced secrets and misinformation
!cause more problems that openness and honesty. We intend to raise him
!with this policy in mind; our job is to help him understand what he
!encounters as he grows up.
!
!I'm also disturbed by what you and Mr. Miller have been telling me by
!what you are complaining about: violence isn't as bad a problem as sex
!in the media. Why do you think this is so?

I think you have hit the main point here. Having lived in Europe for some twenty
years, I can tell you that there is a whole lot more nudity in TV, commercial,
public and pay channels there.

As far as society goes, people are not in general as closed minded for this
matters and violence is (in general) less there than here (in my experience).
Minor cases of street security are a bit more frequent there (car radios
stolen, appartments robbed), though.

However, I am surprised that nobody has somewhat linked the issue of violence
in society, as it is here, to other causes than TV sex and violence. As
far as I can see, there is pretty much the same type of society and
organisation. What is the problem then? In my opinion, the only difference
I see is the ease with wich just about anyone can have access to guns and
machine guns in this country.

Police is tougher here. Regulations are tougher here (alcohol, speed,
traffic, ...). However, crime (murders, Waco-type stuff, Kileen-type (sp?)
stuff, killings like the yogurt girls, ... etc.) is far higher here because
some folks just go out of thir minds and with guns at hand, just anything can
happen.

Don't get me wrong, or don't get offended, but going back to the topic
of sex education, as I said people are pretty much the same, but again I think
there is some lack of education for most everyone, especially for the folks
going on their own to college, etc, ... they suddenly find out that they
have acces to sex and drinks and things get out of control pretty easily.

Again, this is my point of view. Sorry if offended anyone. I short, my point is
gun control and close mindness are things that need to be improved here. In
most other aspects, mostly economical & business related, this are far better
here than in many places in Europe. I know this is a generalization likely
to be unfair for some people's eyes, but it's still my perspective.

Have Phun,

-- Carlos

Jennifer Mery

unread,
Mar 3, 1993, 11:26:00 PM3/3/93
to
In article <1n0toa...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> dou...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Doug McLaren) writes:
>In article <1mv3r7...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> sl...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged) writes:
>
>>Was anybody else amazed? I've always thought of Austin as a fairly progressive
>>area (aside from the recent Sex Education thing...), but now this?
>
>Glen, one thing to remember: Austin != Austin American Statesman
>

I heard about this ad somewhere else on the Net, so I don't think it was
just Austin. I think the ad ran nationwide (mostly).

I'd like to send their form back to them saying that I don't agree, but
I'm afraid they might twist everything around and make it look like I'm
some kind of supporter. I guess my best solution is to get the addresses
they're giving out and write letters supporting the "entertainment
industry" of which I may be considered a "member."

jam
--
==============================================================================
Jennifer Mery | Please do not quote entire long articles or signatures.
Austin, Texas | gu...@wixer.cactus.org
==============================================================================

Lance W. Bledsoe

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 1:42:47 AM3/4/93
to
In article <1993Mar3.2...@mcc.com> am...@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>What complete drivel. Well, Lance, would you care to put your theory
>into practice by volunteering as the target for a .22 shot? There's
>_almost_ _no_ kick to a .22, so according to your theory, you'd
>experience no more harm than from a slight thump on the chest with an
>open hand.

I'm sorry, Alan. I'll try to speak more slowley. When I said that
the bullet would hit the target with no more force than the was
generated by the gun in the first place, I assumed that you understood
that the percieved recoil of the gun was determined by several factors
including, the weight of the gun, the size of the explosion, the surface
area of the gun butt, and the weight of the bullet (there are probabally
some other factors too.)

If you've ever been deer hunting, you'd realize that the impact of
the bullet (primarially due to the surface area of the tip of the bullet
on impact) *does not* fling a 100 pound deer several feet.

>
>I also recall a story from about 3 years ago in which a homeowner in
>Hyde Park blew an intruder from inside his house through a window with
>a single shot from a .44.

You shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers. I read in
the paper that these people holed up in Waco possessed a "50mm"
machine gun! (50mm is appx 2 inches, I assume they mean .50 cal.)

>
>If someone with more physics knowledge and time than do I would care
>to explain kinetic energy, deceleration, and opposing forces to Lance,
>be my guest.

Sure. I'd love to hear how a bullet can arrive at a target with
*more* energy than it had when it left the gun! :-)

Cyberspace Buddha

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 1:14:06 AM3/4/93
to
rog...@austin.ibm.com writes:

>
>ru...@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams) writes:
>> Actually, the Rev Donald Wildmon and AFA would like to see violence and
>> nudity banished from movies and TV. They are not simply trying to
>> encourage more G movies to be made, they wish that no "unchristian" movies
>> be made. They are a fundamentalist organization with quite a few
>> members sending them money all over the U.S. I'd be very careful
>> about identifying myself with them if I were you. They're very
>> hardcore in favor of censorship as well as being Christian bigots.
>>
>> Russ
>
> By this reasoning, I shouldn't drink beer or enjoy Volkwagons because Hitler
>supported them.

False. By Russ's reasoning, beer & Volkswagons are cool,
but killing millions of innocent people because you don't
like them <for whatever reason> is highly UNcool.

cb
--
Cyberspace Buddha { Why are you looking for more knowledge when you } /(o\
c...@wixer.cactus.org } do not pay attention to what you already know? { \o)/
Is this thing on? { Just say no to war, Bush, NSA, CIA, IRS, etc... } fnord

Craig Becker

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 12:54:47 PM3/4/93
to

joh...@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> jlpi...@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker) writes:

>
> |> m...@tivoli.UUCP (Mike McNally) writes:
> |> > AMERICANS FOR SEXIER, BLOODIER, LOUDER ENTERTAINMENT
> |> ...
> |> > (Note that I am serious, but I don't feel like spending money on it.
> |> > Then again, if somebody wants to provide me access to Illustrator, and
> |> > I get enough offers for donations, I'll consider it...)
>
> |> Note that I'm serious, too, when I say you can put me down for $100.
>
> I would also contribute to placing such an ad. I just called the Austin
> American-Statesman. A full page ad on the back of the Sunday comics costs
> $5857.00.

Hmmm...maybe we should go door-to-door?

Would be great if we could raise enough money...we'd probably be
famous (for 15 minutes).

Luc Smolders

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 1:20:56 PM3/4/93
to
I was born in Europe, and just moved here a year ago, and
support 100% what Carlos said.
--
Luc Smolders
AIX Technical Consulting
Advanced Workstations and Systems | EMAIL: l...@austin.ibm.com
11400 Burnet Road, Austin, TX 78758 | PHONE: 1-512-838-9687

John Iacoletti

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 11:39:01 AM3/4/93
to
In article <C3Bou...@austin.ibm.com>, jlpi...@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker) writes:

|> m...@tivoli.UUCP (Mike McNally) writes:
|> > AMERICANS FOR SEXIER, BLOODIER, LOUDER ENTERTAINMENT

|> ...
|> > (Note that I am serious, but I don't feel like spending money on it.
|> > Then again, if somebody wants to provide me access to Illustrator, and
|> > I get enough offers for donations, I'll consider it...)

|> Note that I'm serious, too, when I say you can put me down for $100.

I would also contribute to placing such an ad. I just called the Austin


American-Statesman. A full page ad on the back of the Sunday comics costs
$5857.00.

--
John Iacoletti IBM AWS Austin Internet: joh...@austin.ibm.com
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Matey, this parrot wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it!"

Mark A. Breland

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 2:17:07 PM3/4/93
to
In article 2C...@austin.ibm.com, jst...@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (John E. Stump) writes:
>In article <1n0qsi...@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> l...@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>>
>>I hate to burst your bubble, but that doesn't happen when sombody gets
>>shot (go back and loog at the ATF guys getting chewed up in Waco this
>>weekend). If you remember your High School physics class, the bullet
>>will not hit the victim any harder than the recoil was from the shooters
>>gun. I don't seem to remember seeing Matt Dillon being hurled backwards
>>everytime he fired his Colt '44. Hmmmmmm, mabey Hollywood doesn't portray
>>these events factually... Na... :-)
>
>You obviously know nothing of firearms. Automatic and semiautomatic
>weapons make use of recoil to cycle the next round; therefore, these
>types of weapons give abbreviated recoil to the shooter. Experienced
>recoil and the power of the projectile are unrelated. What does affect
>the hitting force of the bullet is velocity, caliber, and type of
>bullet. A hollow-point .45 slug would definitely send you back a few
>feet, whereas a flat-trajectory .223 would go right through you without
>hardly a nudge.

Thanks, John. Lance's argument relating force of recoil to force of impact
on a shooting victim doesn't equate.

In article 1n48d7...@im4u.cs.utexas.edu, l...@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>
>If you've ever been deer hunting, you'd realize that the impact of
>the bullet (primarially due to the surface area of the tip of the bullet
>on impact) *does not* fling a 100 pound deer several feet.

Well Lance, what do you go hunting deer with? I use a .270 Weatherby Magnum
rifle, which not only dispatches the deer mercifully quick, but most often
DOES set them back a few feet. More significantly, if the shooter is not
braced for the recoil, they will be knocked back on their rear end almost
as far as the victim does when they're shot. Can't you see it now in ATF
training? "Yep, jist lean into that 'ol bullet, George, so's ya don't get
knocked down..."

---
Mark A. Breland - Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC)
Ada Fault Tolerance | voice: (512) 338-3509
3500 West Balcones Center Drive | FAX: (512) 338-3900
Austin, Texas 78759-6509 USA | internet: bre...@mcc.com

Douglas Floyd

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 3:44:13 PM3/4/93
to

First, please do watch the cross-posting.

Here is my reply to this (again).

I do not like ANY religious group telling me what to see, and what not to
see. I am against censorship.

I also do not like seeing Hollywood producing plotless, artless works of
violence that do nothing but beat the all-time record of body counts. For
the sake of our society, we need not mindless drivel, but maybe something
with a rare thing called a plot.

There have been studies that have found no link to porn and crimes,
but there have been links found to watching violence and crime.

It is good that someone put that ad out, but I will not join this cause as
the group who put this out is very hard right, and I do not believe in
their intolerance towards other religions, and other items.

I am just against senseless, violent shows on TV. People pay for what is
at the movie theatre, etc, so I do not blame people for seeing the local
hit. I just wish there were more choices on TV than shoot-em-ups, or the
like.

--
ifb...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd)
Disclaimer: I speak for myself Please, no NeXTMail at this time.

<Insert witty quote, literal, constant or expression here>

Lance Hartmann

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 4:03:33 PM3/4/93
to
In article <C3DI9...@austin.ibm.com> joh...@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <C3Bou...@austin.ibm.com>, jlpi...@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker) writes:
>
>|> m...@tivoli.UUCP (Mike McNally) writes:
>|> > AMERICANS FOR SEXIER, BLOODIER, LOUDER ENTERTAINMENT
>|> ...
>|> > (Note that I am serious, but I don't feel like spending money on it.
>|> > Then again, if somebody wants to provide me access to Illustrator, and
>|> > I get enough offers for donations, I'll consider it...)
>
>|> Note that I'm serious, too, when I say you can put me down for $100.
>
>I would also contribute to placing such an ad. I just called the Austin
>American-Statesman. A full page ad on the back of the Sunday comics costs
>$5857.00.


To whom shall I make out my check?

Lance Hartmann (lance%hartmann.au...@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com)
Yes, that IS a '%' (percent sign) in my network address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All statements, comments, opinions, etc. herein reflect those of the author
and shall NOT be misconstrued as those of IBM or anyone else for that matter.

Michael R. M. Cheselka

unread,
Mar 4, 1993, 11:22:31 PM3/4/93
to
Please trim down quoted articles! I just got done with a 79 line article
with only one line tacked on in the end! If you can, don't quote at all!
--
ches...@cactus.org N5UVV Michael R. M. Cheselka
o...@gnu.ai.mit.edu Hangs out on 145.21mhz 400 W. 34th st. #103
o...@wixer.cactus.org Austin, TX 78705-1331
{...}!cs.utexas!cactus.org!cheselka (512)452-9412v ( 24hours answer. mach.)

Thomas D. Barrett

unread,
Mar 5, 1993, 1:18:11 AM3/5/93
to
In article <1mv3r7...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> sl...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged) writes:
>Was anybody else amazed? I've always thought of Austin as a fairly progressive
>area (aside from the recent Sex Education thing...), but now this?

I was totally pissed... not only does this oganization turn right
around and fund their OTHER programs with the money, they had the
nerve to pollute my Sunday Funnies with very explicit language. Just
imagine what a child thought reading that full-page ad last Sunday...
and then running to ask Mom or Dad about all those sex questions. It
makes me wonder, too if the Austin-American Statesman ad department
has any brains.

AND, I was beyond pissed over having my comics squashed to hell
because they had to squeeze it all in.

I hope the Austin-American Statesman thinks twice about selling out
the comics again... I don't care what they put anywhere else... the
comics are sacred! I'm serious!

Tom
--
|Non-Profit 501(c)(3) of the Month (write them for more info): |
|Friends of Project 10 (Gay and Lesbian Youth Outreach); Fairfax HS; |
|7850 Melrose Ave.; Los Angeles, CA 90046; IRS #95-4080-446 |
|Devoted to GLB Youth when their family, friends, clergy aren't... |

Russ Williams

unread,
Mar 8, 1993, 3:09:56 AM3/8/93
to
In article <1993Mar4.0...@wixer.cactus.org> c...@wixer.cactus.org (Cyberspace Buddha) writes:

>rog...@austin.ibm.com writes:
>> By this reasoning, I shouldn't drink beer or enjoy Volkwagons because Hitler
>>supported them.
>
>False. By Russ's reasoning, beer & Volkswagons are cool,
>but killing millions of innocent people because you don't
>like them <for whatever reason> is highly UNcool.

Actually, although I appreciate the support from cb, I agree with
Rogers's observation, although he misunderstood my point.
Sigh, this is getting convoluted!

Rogers, I agree that just because Wildmon is a fascist lunatic and he
supports a cause you believe in, that does not prove the cause is bad.
I was simply alerting people who support the cause that it might be
unwise for them to send money to AFA because the AFA has a much more
extreme agenda than what many of the posters complaining about TV
would probably wish to support. That ad was somewhat analogous to
the "stealth candidates" that the religious right runs in elections,
who appear to be moderate but in fact have extreme Christian rightwing
agendas (and are often elected by unsuspecting ignorant moderate voters).

Russ

Jaime Vazquez

unread,
Mar 8, 1993, 9:43:07 AM3/8/93
to
In article <C3FH0...@austin.ibm.com>, ja...@unicorn.austin.ibm.com
(Jaime Vazquez) writes:
> From: ja...@unicorn.austin.ibm.com (Jaime Vazquez)
> Subject: Re: Add in the Austin American Statesman Comic section
>
> and "Home Alone 2". I don't have money figures for them. I will add that
> "Terminator 3" might be in an updated top Ten as well but I know for a fact
> that T2 is not.
>

An error in my posting. No such T3. T2 still did not make the top 10.

Rogers Hellman

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 9:57:31 AM3/9/93
to


> Rogers, I agree that just because Wildmon is a fascist lunatic and he
> supports a cause you believe in, that does not prove the cause is bad.
> I was simply alerting people who support the cause that it might be
> unwise for them to send money to AFA because the AFA has a much more
> extreme agenda than what many of the posters complaining about TV
> would probably wish to support. That ad was somewhat analogous to
> the "stealth candidates" that the religious right runs in elections,
> who appear to be moderate but in fact have extreme Christian rightwing
> agendas (and are often elected by unsuspecting ignorant moderate voters).
>
> Russ

Thanks Russ. I had wanted to respond to CB's comments, but was swamped with
work at the time.

My response to your post was merely a reaction to faulty logic. (something we
are all guilty of from time to time). I don't believe that I argued for either
side of the issue, so either your statement that I believe in Wilmon's cause
is stated to re-illustrate the point I made, or you are making an assumption.
(talk about getting convoluted) -)

So, while I do hasten to correct faulty arguments, let me also commend
someone who will recognise their argument and such, admit it, and correct it.
Such intellectual integrity, while not completly rare on the network is also
not common.

Rogers Hellman
--
Wer ungeborenes Leben schuetzen will, muss auch dem geborenen Leben
eine Chance geben!
----

outcast

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 3:52:34 PM3/9/93
to
>
>If that's not enough, the BASIC cable service is bad enough. All the
>networks now seem to be cranking out show after show with tons of
>very sexual situations. Fox seems to be leading the way. I'm sure
>nudity is just around the corner.
>

First of all, might I say that Fox is not considered basic cable. FOX is
broadcast TV, available to non-cable subscribers...

Next, what do you consider shows with "very sexual situations"? My cousins
in Greece are Jehovah's Witnesses (yes, they're about as religiously
fanatical as you can get) and they watch Married with Children all the time
(and might I add that they LOVE it). That show is one of the more sexually
explicit shows I have seen on television (non-movie-channel that is).

Other than that, I agree that FOX's shows tend to be more liberally-minded
than the other networks, but what's wrong with that? They have some really
awful shows in my opinion (90210, Down the Shore, Key West, Melrose Place),
but what right do I have to restrict other people from watching them? If the
shows are really bad, and people refuse to watch them, they'll be replaced
by others. I happen to like a lot of FOX's shows, like The Simpsons (one
of the best shows on TV today), Martin, and In Living Color.

People today aren't as innocent as they used to... Most kids learn about
sex in one way or another by the time they're in junior high. Whether its
the television or rampant crime and lawlessness going on in today's cities
is not for us to say. Parents have the right and SHOULD supervise their
children on what they watch, but instead of trying to deny their children
access to these shows, maybe they should talk to them about the situations
involved first. Then let the children make their own decisions.

My parents were very liberal and let me do what I want pretty much, but
I still consider myself to be fairly morally upright. I don't walk around
totally plastered all the time, embarking on one night stands and throwing
vulgarities at everyone I meet (even though I've seen just about the worst
of cable TV).


>
>Lance

F. Karner

unread,
Mar 9, 1993, 7:13:21 PM3/9/93
to

In article <lpatil...@thor.cs.utexas.edu>, c...@cs.utexas.edu (Carlos M. Puchol) writes:

Deletions...


>
> However, I am surprised that nobody has somewhat linked the issue of violence
> in society, as it is here, to other causes than TV sex and violence. As
> far as I can see, there is pretty much the same type of society and
> organisation. What is the problem then? In my opinion, the only difference
> I see is the ease with wich just about anyone can have access to guns and
> machine guns in this country.

Deletions...
>
> -- Carlos

Sorry to butt in, but thought that perhaps the following observation
would be interesting to some - even if it digresses from the main
subject.

On a trip to Cali, Colombia a couple of years ago I was struck by the
apparent civility of the people in the streets. An almost total
about-face from what I remembered some 20 odd years earlier.
No, I don't think that the country got a massive infusion of culture
and civilization in that relatively short span of time.

Matter of fact, Colombians at home and abroad are notorious for their
violence and not just the narco-goons. What I think happened is that
people realized that it's imprudent to insult someone who may be packing
a gun. The impatient behavior of motorists, honking and cussing to
their hearts content, was totally absent! Truly amazing.

Of course, a third world country like that, cannot be compared with the
States or France, at least not in contemporary times. But it seems that
at some point a parallel could be drawn between the availability of sex
and violence being equally accessible.

Perhaps the ownership of guns is not the determining factor, but rather
their use in an uncivilized manner by a few, on a mostly civilized
society. In other words, predatory behavior in a modern environment.
If it is tolerated, by the courts of law, or the civility of the
victims, no matter how much control on firearms you legislate, this
behavior will persist.
As the NRA likes to point out, the outlaws will have access no matter
what. And if not guns, then knives, clubs, etc.

By the way, I have a 14 year old daughter, have never possessed a
firearm, and don't belong to the NRA.

Some food for thought.

--

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | kar...@austin.vnet.ibm.com

Craig Becker

unread,
Mar 10, 1993, 10:54:15 AM3/10/93
to

In article <11...@tivoli.UUCP>, m...@tivoli.UUCP (Mike McNally) writes:
> In article <C3DI9...@austin.ibm.com> joh...@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> >In article <C3Bou...@austin.ibm.com>, jlpi...@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker) writes:
> >|> ... you can put me down for $100.
> >I would also contribute...
>
> Hmm... Have I created a monster?

Hope so.

> >A full page ad on the back of the Sunday comics costs $5857.00.
>

> Though it is not yet technologically feasible for me to render the gurgling noises
> that number made me generate, rest assured that I made them nevertheless.
>
> Let' see: I'll need about 60 people weird enough to put up $100 for this. Likely?
> Well, the scariest part of this is that AFA has *no problem whatsoever* mustering
> such support. (Second in the scary list is the fact that, to me, they're *way*
> weirder than I am...)

While I don't know a whole lot about the AFA, I suspect they rely on
public rallies, mail campaigns, etc, and therefore reach (and receive
contributions from) a large number of people.

Someone suggested that perhaps an ad in the Austin Chronicle would
be less expensive?

Craig Becker

unread,
Mar 10, 1993, 10:55:49 AM3/10/93
to

kar...@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
...

> Matter of fact, Colombians at home and abroad are notorious for their
> violence and not just the narco-goons. What I think happened is that
> people realized that it's imprudent to insult someone who may be packing
> a gun. The impatient behavior of motorists, honking and cussing to
> their hearts content, was totally absent! Truly amazing.

"An armed society is a polite society" - Robert A. Heinlein.

Keath Milligan

unread,
Mar 10, 1993, 2:17:57 PM3/10/93
to
In article <11...@tivoli.UUCP> m...@tivoli.UUCP (Mike McNally) writes:
>In article <C3DI9...@austin.ibm.com> joh...@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>In article <C3Bou...@austin.ibm.com>, jlpi...@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker) writes:
>>|> ... you can put me down for $100.
>>I would also contribute...
>
>Hmm... Have I created a monster?
>
>>A full page ad on the back of the Sunday comics costs $5857.00.
>
>Though it is not yet technologically feasible for me to render the gurgling noises
>that number made me generate, rest assured that I made them nevertheless.
>
>Let' see: I'll need about 60 people weird enough to put up $100 for this. Likely?
>Well, the scariest part of this is that AFA has *no problem whatsoever* mustering
>such support. (Second in the scary list is the fact that, to me, they're *way*
>weirder than I am...)
>
>Hmm, again. I've got your names...

Count me in. I've got my hundred ready.

--

Keath Milligan Real/Time Communications Austin, Texas
rea...@wixer.cactus.org (512)459-4391 2400bps (512)459-4396 v.32bis

Keath Milligan

unread,
Mar 10, 1993, 2:20:22 PM3/10/93
to
In article <C3oK6...@austin.ibm.com> jlpi...@austin.ibm.com writes:
>
>While I don't know a whole lot about the AFA, I suspect they rely on
>public rallies, mail campaigns, etc, and therefore reach (and receive
>contributions from) a large number of people.
>
>Someone suggested that perhaps an ad in the Austin Chronicle would
>be less expensive?
>
>Craig

I'm sure the Chronicle is less expensive, but that would be like "preaching
to the choir". It needs to be in the same place as the AFA ad and just as
large.

Ken Goach IBM

unread,
Mar 10, 1993, 6:10:16 PM3/10/93
to

out...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (outcast) posts:

>Other than that, I agree that FOX's shows tend to be more liberally-minded
>than the other networks, but what's wrong with that? They have some really
>awful shows in my opinion (90210, Down the Shore, Key West, Melrose Place),

^^^^^^^^^^^^^


>but what right do I have to restrict other people from watching them? If the
>shows are really bad, and people refuse to watch them, they'll be replaced
>by others.


I'm not defending it, but it did win the People's Choice award for best
new drama (or something like that), so don't expect it to fade away any
time soon!

BTW, what's wrong with _Key West_, other than it being _Northern Exposure_
in Florida?

--
THIS POSTING DOES NOT REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF MY EMPLOYERS.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to leave the store, mam" Ash, AoD
==================================================================

cl...@austin.ibm.com

unread,
Mar 10, 1993, 6:47:39 PM3/10/93