Man Stabs Himself So He Doesn't Have To Work At Blockbuster
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
night because he didn't want to go to work.
Aaron Seibers, 29, reported that he was stabbed on his way to work, a
Blockbuster Video Store on Sheridan Boulevard.
He claimed that three skinheads or Hispanic males dressed in black
tried to rob him and stabbed him in the lower left leg.
After reporting the stabbing at his job, he was taken to Saint
Anthony's Hospital.
The Denver Channel reports:
Investigators reviewed surveillance video taken at a nearby business
that failed to show an attack where Siebers claimed it had happened.
The Denver Post reports that after the man was released from the
hospital, detectives confronted him with evidence that conflicted with
his changing stories about the attack.
At that point, Siebers confessed and told them he stabbed himself
because he didn't want to go to work, said the police spokesman.
Siebers had taken a bus from Denver to the Blockbuster store in
Edgewater. The surveillance video from the Target store showed him
walking from the bus stop to the store without any indication he was
suffering from a deep stab wound.
Seibers was arrested and charged with false reporting and obstructing
a police officer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/aaron-seibers-stabs-himse_n_344142.html
moviePig
"Yes ma'am, TITANIC sure was the *best* movie ever."
"No sir. I agree that the guns in E.T. were way over the line."
(I'm surprised he didn't cut his foot clean off...)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
calvin
The guy wanted to get out of work, period. Blockbuster
had nothing to do with it. My local Blockbuster has
always looked like a fine place to work, because it has
a good manager. And no one is expected to agree with
customers about movies there.
(As for 'Titanic', it had some bad flaws, but still was a
great movie, loved by billions around the world, not just
by American teeny-DiCaprio-boppers, as the myth has it.)
steve
On 3-Nov-2009, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent" <classic...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> He claimed that three skinheads or Hispanic males dressed in black
> tried to rob him and stabbed him in the lower left leg.
That was the first clue.
"Officer...he held a knife to my lower leg, and..."
"Uh huh. Slow down. [typing] 'perp held knife to lower leg' ... What?
Wait a minute..."
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag
moviePig
My dislike of Blockbuster is residue from the days when they dominated
the rental market, yet refused to carry 'NC-17' titles.
(TITANIC can be entered only in the 'Great Movie' contests that
include, say, GONE WITH THE WIND or THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH...
i.e., contests that, say, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA could also enter, but
wouldn't...)
TBerk
Worse even still was when the began to carry reedited films or not at
all; even more so when film makers began to get gun-shy from fear
they'll not make the cut with the folks at BB.
berk
calvin
> On Nov 4, 1:26 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 11:30 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 3, 7:51 pm, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
> > > <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/aaron-seibers-stabs-himse_n_...
>
> > > "Yes ma'am, TITANIC sure was the *best* movie ever."
>
> > > "No sir. I agree that the guns in E.T. were way over the line."
>
> > > (I'm surprised he didn't cut his foot clean off...)
>
> > The guy wanted to get out of work, period. Blockbuster
> > had nothing to do with it. My local Blockbuster has
> > always looked like a fine place to work, because it has
> > a good manager. And no one is expected to agree with
> > customers about movies there.
>
> > (As for 'Titanic', it had some bad flaws, but still was a
> > great movie, loved by billions around the world, not just
> > by American teeny-DiCaprio-boppers, as the myth has it.)
>
> My dislike of Blockbuster is residue from the days when they dominated
> the rental market, yet refused to carry 'NC-17' titles.
Since I never heard of that, I don't know when those days were.
> (TITANIC can be entered only in the 'Great Movie' contests that
> include, say, GONE WITH THE WIND or THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH...
> i.e., contests that, say, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA could also enter, but
> wouldn't...)
'Great' can cover a lot of ground. Of the four named above,
I wouldn't include the DeMille one among the great except
for the documentary scenes of setting up the circus, which
he narrated.
The Giant Brain
"TBerk" <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0cb1f7cf-6c9f-434c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>Worse even still was when the began to carry reedited films or not at
all; even more so when film makers began to get gun-shy from fear
they'll not make the cut with the folks at BB.
That was the worst thing they ever did, IMO.
Their sanitized version of "Deliverance" came close to making no sense at all.
Prides goes before a fall and all that...
nick
sorry, This Is It isn't out on DVD yet. No, sir, sorry, the Jim
Carrey Christmas Carol isn't out on DVD yet."
"If Burt Reynolds is in it, it has to be good!"
(I overheard this from a Blockbuster clerk to a customer inquiring
about some crap straight-to-DVD Burt Reynolds flick.)
nick
>
> > On Nov 3, 7:51 pm, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
> > <classic.mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/aaron-seibers-stabs-himse_n_...
>
> > "Yes ma'am, TITANIC sure was the *best* movie ever."
>
> > "No sir. I agree that the guns in E.T. were way over the line."
>
> > (I'm surprised he didn't cut his foot clean off...)
>
> The guy wanted to get out of work, period.
It reminds me of the short story by Bentley Little, where some guy
gets carjacked by a fat redneck psychopath but after awhile he stops
worrying about his situation because being carjacked by a fat redneck
psychopath at least gets him out of work for the day.
nick
> "TBerk" <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
When did Blockbuster release a "sanitized" version of Deliverance?
Blockbuster has a lot of faults--I've stopped going--but the whole
censorship of movies thing is some leftover complaint from the
1990s.
calvin
> On Nov 4, 5:10 pm, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote:> "TBerk" <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> all; even more so when film makers began to get gun-shy from fear
>
> > they'll not make the cut with the folks at BB.
>
> > That was the worst thing they ever did, IMO.
> > Their sanitized version of "Deliverance" came close to making no sense at all.
> > Prides goes before a fall and all that...
>
> When did Blockbuster release a "sanitized" version of Deliverance?
> Blockbuster has a lot of faults--I've stopped going--but the whole
> censorship of movies thing is some leftover complaint from the
> 1990s.
Whatever BB did must have been in the 90s. I was renting
VHS tapes from Turtles back then. But the DVDs that I've
been renting from BB all through this decade, before switching to
Netflix, certainly have not been censored.
It appears that BB is now suffering from some sort of customer
hangover from the 90s, if what is being said in this thread is
true. But it may not be true; eg: liberals have been unfairly on
Wal-Mart's case for a long time, because Wal-Mart has not
been unionized. One must beware believing liberals' complaints
about businesses.
william
One must beware believing liberals' complaints
> about businesses.
But not anyone else's? Only liberals have hidden agendas, I guess.
William
www.williamahearn.com
steve
On 4-Nov-2009, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> �One must beware believing liberals' complaints
> > about businesses.
>
> But not anyone else's? Only liberals have hidden agendas, I guess.
It's no hidden agenda, William. It's a hostility towards free markets, and
it's in plain view.
steve
nick
> On 4-Nov-2009, william <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One must beware believing liberals' complaints
> > > about businesses.
>
> > But not anyone else's? Only liberals have hidden agendas, I guess.
>
> It's no hidden agenda, William. It's a hostility towards free markets, and
> it's in plain view.
>
like Blockbuster generally belong to Netflix or maybe now they're
using Redbox or some other kiosk vendor, so where is the hostility
towards free markets? Blockbuster was too expensive and they didn't
adjust to the times. People went elsewhere. Capitalism worked.
The Giant Brain
"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:494a3800-6fb3-4098...@g7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The last time I patronized BB WAS back in the 90s when movies still were on VHS.
The VHS version of "Deliverance" I rented from them was sanitized down to a "G"
rating (for all I could tell, Ned Beatty and the hillbilly played spin the
bottle!).
That's when I stopped renting movies from them, so I have no idea what they are
doing now (nor do I care since Netflix gets 100% of my rental business)
Maybe you'd like to explain why you think any business complaint by a liberal is
somehow invalid?
calvin
> ... Maybe you'd like to explain why you think any business
> complaint by a liberal is somehow invalid?
Not invalid, just suspect. I was at Wal-Mart today, and
as always before, I saw nothing but happy campers
among the (non-unionized) employees.
If they were unionized, then they sure would be worried
about the Obama administration's efforts to make
union ballots non-secret. What a joke; no secret
ballot here in the USA. No secret ballot in institutions
famous for intimidation, even outright thuggery, against
those who don't toe the union line.
moviePig
>
> > One must beware believing liberals' complaints
> > > about businesses.
>
> > But not anyone else's? Only liberals have hidden agendas, I guess.
>
> It's no hidden agenda, William. It's a hostility towards free markets, and
> it's in plain view.
Since I raised the issue here of BB's censorship: Yes, it was way
back when (afaik)... but it was sufficiently repugnant that the taint
lingers in memory. Yes, BB had every legal right to do it... as well
as every social responsibility not to. And, yes, if a slightly less
free market means I can drive a stake through the heart of mass
censorship, then pass me the hammer...
nick
> On Nov 4, 6:07 pm, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
> > On 4-Nov-2009, william <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > One must beware believing liberals' complaints
> > > > about businesses.
>
> > > But not anyone else's? Only liberals have hidden agendas, I guess.
>
> > It's no hidden agenda, William. It's a hostility towards free markets, and
> > it's in plain view.
>
> Since I raised the issue here of BB's censorship: Yes, it was way
> back when (afaik)... but it was sufficiently repugnant that the taint
> lingers in memory.
I didn't like the censorship, if you can call it censorship, since it
was more about the willing capitulation of spineless film studios, the
same as making "clean versions" of rap CDs available to Walmart or
allowing the "Make a Porno" to be taken away from Zack and Miri.
Speaking of porn . . . the first Blockbuster I ever went into, I was
walking in circles inside the store trying to find the porn section.
I didn't want to ask anyone. I'd never been in a video store without
a porn section before. At the time, it was unthinkable. Around that
time Blockbuster was notorious for refusing to carry The Last
Temptation of Christ.
That was always my main objection to Blockbuster--those hideous
sterile buildings with an atmosphere that made you want to get in and
out as quickly as possible. It was such a comedown from the funky
eccentricities of the porn-pushing locally owned mom and pop
neighborhood video stores that made watching movies in the 80s such a
discovery-filled adventure. It was less about censorship and more
about bad vibes.
calvin
> I didn't like the censorship, if you can call it censorship, since it
> was more about the willing capitulation of spineless film studios, the
> same as making "clean versions" of rap CDs available to Walmart or
> allowing the "Make a Porno" to be taken away from Zack and Miri.
> Speaking of porn . . . the first Blockbuster I ever went into, I was
> walking in circles inside the store trying to find the porn section.
> I didn't want to ask anyone. I'd never been in a video store without
> a porn section before. At the time, it was unthinkable. Around that
> time Blockbuster was notorious for refusing to carry The Last
> Temptation of Christ.
>
> That was always my main objection to Blockbuster--those hideous
> sterile buildings with an atmosphere that made you want to get in and
> out as quickly as possible. It was such a comedown from the funky
> eccentricities of the porn-pushing locally owned mom and pop
> neighborhood video stores that made watching movies in the 80s such a
> discovery-filled adventure. It was less about censorship and more
> about bad vibes.
Seems strange that you make porn a central part of your
argument. My experience with Turtles for renting VHS tapes
in the 90s was that it didn't 'push' porn, but it had an 'alternate
lifestyles' section, or something like that.
william
> it's in plain view.
>
any store (read participator in the "free" markets) is a latent
Marxist ready to take your guns, burn your Bibles and make the Girl
Scouts handmaidens to the abortionists. Once again you're jimmying a
conversation to spout more of your silly politics. All politics is
silly as far as I'm concerned and nowhere is that more apparent is
when someone tries to turn a complaint against Block Buster into a
soapbox for something entirely different. It's sooooooo transparent as
to be funny. Trust me, Steve. I'm laughing on the inside.
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
>Speaking of porn . . . the first Blockbuster I ever went into, I was
>walking in circles inside the store trying to find the porn section.
Nick!! Your mind is in the cinema gutter!!
>That was always my main objection to Blockbuster--those hideous
>sterile buildings with an atmosphere that made you want to get in and
>out as quickly as possible.
My favorite video outlet for shopping around -- not a rental outlet,
btw -- was DVD Planet on Beach Boulevard. Man, they had everything,
all perfectly arranged on the shelves, category by category. And every
category under the sun: TV, European, Japanese, Hollywood Golden Age
Studio, Special Interest (you know, the discs most people aren't
interested in), Sports, Teleplays, everything. Oh, & porn.
____
On the question of playing continuo during a Mozart concerto, I can only
reaffirm my belief that it is perfectly fine as long as it is inaudible.
-- Charles Rosen, "The Classical Style"
David Oberman
>Seems strange that you make porn a central part of your
>argument. My experience with Turtles for renting VHS tapes
>in the 90s was that it didn't 'push' porn, but it had an 'alternate
>lifestyles' section, or something like that.
"Alternate lifestyle" I guess applies only to bisexual, whereas gay &
les has to be "alternative lifestyle." That's the joke among
grammarians, anyway.
The Giant Brain
---------------------------------------------------
There, there Cal.
Drink your milk, put on your tinfoil hat and don't worry about the big bad
liberals.
trotsky
> On Nov 4, 7:04 pm, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote:
>> ... Maybe you'd like to explain why you think any business
>> complaint by a liberal is somehow invalid?
>
> Not invalid, just suspect. I was at Wal-Mart today, and
> as always before, I saw nothing but happy campers
> among the (non-unionized) employees.
>
> If they were unionized, then they sure would be worried
> about the Obama administration's efforts to make
> union ballots non-secret.
Because they're smart enough to work at Walmart, you mean? Let me know
if logic and reasoning ever enters the picture, okay?
calvin
> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
> > about the Obama administration's efforts to make
> > union ballots non-secret. What a joke; no secret
> > ballot here in the USA. No secret ballot in institutions
> > famous for intimidation, even outright thuggery, against
> > those who don't toe the union line.
> There, there Cal.
> Drink your milk, put on your tinfoil hat and don't worry about the big bad
> liberals.
So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
and other things on which they vote, is okay?
You think extreme condescension toward someone who
objects to non-secret ballots is a valid argument?
moviePig
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >Seems strange that you make porn a central part of your
> >argument. My experience with Turtles for renting VHS tapes
> >in the 90s was that it didn't 'push' porn, but it had an 'alternate
> >lifestyles' section, or something like that.
>
> "Alternate lifestyle" I guess applies only to bisexual, whereas gay &
> les has to be "alternative lifestyle." That's the joke among
> grammarians, anyway.
Not to mention electricians, to whom bi might be "alternating
lifestyle", or perhaps "adaptable to current conditions", or even
"plug-compatible"...
calvin
In any case, I wasn't referring to gay/lesbian/bi, etc. I was
trying to remember what Turtles called its porn section, which
iirc featured such things as Playboy/Penthouse-produced videos.
steve
On 4-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Since I raised the issue here of BB's censorship: Yes, it was way
> back when (afaik)... but it was sufficiently repugnant that the taint
> lingers in memory. Yes, BB had every legal right to do it... as well
> as every social responsibility not to. And, yes, if a slightly less
> free market means I can drive a stake through the heart of mass
> censorship, then pass me the hammer...
What is this recurring nonsense about BB censoring films? They had thier
own standards for what they would rent (no nc-17, etc.) but there is no way
in hell they actually edited films. That would be as impractical (in terms
of both expense and customer outrage) as it would be illegal (fraud,
copywrite violation). Idiotic rumors like that represent just the type of
hostility towards free markets that I mentioned.
Further, even if BB did that (however absurd) there is no need to make the
market less free to solve the problem. Other chains did and do rent and
sell content that BB (and others) did not. In short, the market solves,
rather than creates, the problem.
trotsky
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>> Seems strange that you make porn a central part of your
>> argument. My experience with Turtles for renting VHS tapes
>> in the 90s was that it didn't 'push' porn, but it had an 'alternate
>> lifestyles' section, or something like that.
>
> "Alternate lifestyle" I guess applies only to bisexual, whereas gay &
> les has to be "alternative lifestyle." That's the joke among
> grammarians, anyway.
Remind me not to got any of their parties.
steve
On 4-Nov-2009, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So according to your yahoo fringe politics anyone who complains about
> any store (read participator in the "free" markets) is a latent
> Marxist ready to take your guns, burn your Bibles and make the Girl
> Scouts handmaidens to the abortionists. Once again you're jimmying a
> conversation to spout more of your silly politics. All politics is
> silly as far as I'm concerned and nowhere is that more apparent is
> when someone tries to turn a complaint against Block Buster into a
> soapbox for something entirely different. It's sooooooo transparent as
> to be funny. Trust me, Steve. I'm laughing on the inside.
And now Im laughing, too...on the outside. Look at the thread and tell me
again that I took this conversation into politics. Im third in line, in
fact.
> So according to your yahoo fringe politics anyone who complains about
> any store (read participator in the "free" markets) is a latent
> Marxist ready to take your guns, burn your Bibles and make the Girl
> Scouts handmaidens to the abortionists.
I dont know why so many people think it's effective argument to
hyperbolically misstate the other persons position.
And Im all for corrupting girl scouts.
The Giant Brain
So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
and other things on which they vote, is okay?
Please provide proof.
You think extreme condescension toward someone who
objects to non-secret ballots is a valid argument?
--------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, I do.
Trouble with all you ditto-heads is that no one can believe anything you say.
You're all filled with hate.
trotsky
> On 4-Nov-2009, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One must beware believing liberals' complaints
>>> about businesses.
>> But not anyone else's? Only liberals have hidden agendas, I guess.
>
> It's no hidden agenda, William. It's a hostility towards free markets, and
> it's in plain view.
I agree. Look at any other country that produces automobiles, for
example and when you see the tariffs the imports have to pay to market
their products there you can understand why the term "free market" is
the single biggest reason for the American auto makers failing. And
that's just one example.
Why do you guys always spout platitudes without having a scintilla of
information on what you're talking about?
steve
On 5-Nov-2009, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > There, there Cal.
> > Drink your milk, put on your tinfoil hat and don't worry about the big
> > bad
> > liberals.
>
> So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> and other things on which they vote, is okay?
And why should the govt impose any coercive controls on any form of
bargaining (collective or otherwise)?
william
>
> I dont know why so many people think it's effective argument to
> hyperbolically misstate the other persons position.
>
so perverse in injecting this tired political nonsense into a
conversation about someone who didn't want to go to work. The fact is
that you can't argue the merits of the original conversation so you
(the two of you) unload your superficial understandings of politics
into the thread. It's silly. There's no argument. Neither you or
Calvin want to discuss anything; you're just venting. And I'm making
fun of you. You hyperbolically mutated the conversation by the
injection of that old world reactionary dogma. Tit for tat. But I
guess you don't get humor.
William
www.williamahearn.com
steve
On 5-Nov-2009, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not arguing with you. I'm making light of how you and Calvin are
> so perverse in injecting this tired political nonsense into a
> conversation about someone who didn't want to go to work.
Dude...here is the progression of political talk in this thread (all from
one post, in fact):
**********************
Calvin:
>�> One must beware believing liberals' complaints
> > about businesses.
William:
> But not anyone else's? Only liberals have hidden agendas, I guess.
steve:
It's no hidden agenda, William. It's a hostility towards free markets, and
it's in plain view.
**********************
Which makes your assertion (that I introduced poitics into this thread)
clearly wrong.
> The fact is
> that you can't argue the merits of the original conversation
LOL. And what, pray tell, beyond the opportunity for some jokes (and Im
pretty sure a joke was my first entry into the thread), could we discuss
about the dope who stabbed himself to avoid work? What controversy or
pressing issue does that incident raise? Lack of proper care for the
mentally ill? Knife control? BBs hiring practices?
> There's no argument. Neither you or
> Calvin want to discuss anything; you're just venting.
I discuss all sorts of things all the time, here. Film, politics, art,
music, philosophy...all with detailed analysis of issues and arguments and
with true (often agonizing...ask Pig-man) give and take. You're just wrong
on the facts, my friend...twice, now.
> You hyperbolically mutated the conversation by the
> injection of that old world reactionary dogma. Tit for tat. But I
> guess you don't get humor.
I do when it's funny.
moviePig
http://www.dove.org/columns/1996/column9612.htm
From the above link, you'll see that BB apparently did, in fact,
coerce filmmakers into producing sanitized versions ...which, indeed,
copyright laws prohibited BB from doing itself.
You will, of course, assert that all parties behaved voluntarily and
legally. And I will, of course, reiterate that I agree ...even while
insisting that BB's actions, because it then controlled 90% of the
rental market, were de facto censorship ...censorship, moreover, not
by BB, but by the family-values minority of its customer base that
BB's accountants wouldn't risk inconveniencing. (We know that BB
itself held no "moral" position, as it reversed itself as soon as the
market demanded.)
Now, *you* may choose to leave issues like censorship to the whims of
the "free" market. But then, per Dirty Harry, the question you have
to ask yourself is: Do you feel lucky?
calvin
> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> ------------------------------------------------
> Please provide proof.
Here ya go:
http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
> > You think extreme condescension toward someone who
> > objects to non-secret ballots is a valid argument?
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> As a matter of fact, I do.
> Trouble with all you ditto-heads is that no one can believe anything
> you say. You're all filled with hate.
I'm neither a ditto-head nor filled with hate. But even
if I was both, it would be irrelevant in this case. Facts
are facts. I guess if I wasn't filled with hate, I would
like for unions to threaten and intimidate people for
voting publicly the 'wrong' way, rather than allow secret
ballots.
steve
On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> http://www.dove.org/columns/1996/column9612.htm
>
> From the above link, you'll see that BB apparently did, in fact,
> coerce filmmakers into producing sanitized versions ...which, indeed,
> copyright laws prohibited BB from doing itself.
"Coerce" is the wrong word, and that is of the utmost importance.
From the article:
> Recently, director Paul Verhoeven edited "Showgirls," an NC-17 film, into
> an R-rating before Blockbuster Video would put in their order.
I rented the unedited "Showgirls" (Im not proud to admit...what some guys
wont do for a good wank) from a rental shop (three doors down from a BB, in
fact) the day it came out.
> You will, of course, assert that all parties behaved voluntarily and
> legally. And I will, of course, reiterate that I agree ...even while
> insisting that BB's actions, because it then controlled 90% of the
> rental market, were de facto censorship
BB didnt "control" 90% of the market (and Im taking your word on the %) they
garnered and serviced 90%. And, yes, the voluntary nature of the
interaction with content providers is what prevents the editing from being
censorship.
> (We know that BB
> itself held no "moral" position, as it reversed itself as soon as the
> market demanded.)
And that should tell you something. If they "controlled" the market, they
wouldnt have to change thier practices to respond to demand.
> Now, *you* may choose to leave issues like censorship to the whims of
> the "free" market.
A free market simply can not censor because there is no cercion (by
definition). By your definition, any influence market forces have over
content is censorship. Netflix doesnt (as far as I know) rent hard core
porn. TCM (we know) is quite selective and careful about what they show and
at what time of day. Consorship? Nope. Just marketing choices.
steve
The Giant Brain
On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote:
> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> ------------------------------------------------
> Please provide proof.
Looks like the unions are fer it, not agin it.
That the right-wing plutocrats of the Chamber of Commerce are against it is
enough to make me believe it's probably an excellent piece of legislation that
will serve to help the working man.
YMMV
calvin
> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > Please provide proof.
> >
> > Here ya go:
> > http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> Looks like the unions are fer it, not agin it.
> That the right-wing plutocrats of the Chamber of Commerce are against it is
> enough to make me believe it's probably an excellent piece of legislation that
> will serve to help the working man.
> YMMV
Having to publicly sign a card saying whether or not you
want to be unionized is denial of a secret ballot. Who is
fer it or agin it has nothing to do with it. And to say that
'unions' are for it is misleading in the extreme. Unions
consist of those who run the unions and those who are
unionized. Of course those who run unions don't want a
secret ballot. Thay want to be able to intimidate the voters,
the union members, whom they want to intimidate. Are
you ignorant of the whole sordid history of union intimidation
of members?
The Giant Brain
---------------------------------------------------------
As is typical of you ditto-heads, you have completely distorted, nay outright
lied, about this legislation.
Put on your tinfoil hat and try to calm yourself before you blow a gasket.
calvin
> Put on your tinfoil hat and try to calm yourself before you blow a gasket.
Thanks for giving me something to remember you by.
moviePig
Addenda:
... Yes, "90%" is merely my rough recall of BB's dominance, but I
believe it accurate enough to make a valid point.
... SHOWGIRLS was a comedy. And Verhoeven sure as hell didn't edit
to broaden his exposure, but merely his investors' profits.
... Those who can't find hardcore (anyway) at Netflix don't know
where to look.
steve
On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Addenda:
>
> ... Yes, "90%" is merely my rough recall of BB's dominance, but I
> believe it accurate enough to make a valid point.
I dont dispute the % because it is irrelevant.
> ... SHOWGIRLS was a comedy. And Verhoeven sure as hell didn't edit
> to broaden his exposure, but merely his investors' profits.
...and therefore?
> ... Those who can't find hardcore (anyway) at Netflix don't know
> where to look.
Fair enough, but the point is that they make choices as to what content to
carry, and those choices are not censorship.
You still havent addressed the key points in my argument.
TBerk
>
> Seems strange that you make porn a central part of your
> argument. My experience with Turtles for renting VHS tapes
> in the 90s was that it didn't 'push' porn, but it had an 'alternate
> lifestyles' section, or something like that.
It's not strange, it's the free market.
Customer goes to the rental shop to rent something- it has a
noticeable lack of a certain segment- it's Noticeable. He mentions
it's conspicuousness by absence; Germain and On Topic.
When I discovered BB doing this type of thing (exerting economic
pressure to release censored versions) I let my personal membership
lapse, talked to those whom I knew also had memberships (so they could
investigate for themselves) and focused more on the Mom n' Pop rental
place that was on the way home from work anyway.
Yes, it _was_ last Century; I haven't dealt with BB since other than
the odd Used Video purchase out of the retired movies bin, and those
have been very far and few between.
Besides, the local place had a much deeper, broader, and interesting
collection to choose from.
Latly I've been filling my video jones via TCM and online sources but
there's going to be a very hard row to hoe for BB to gain me back as a
customer.
berk
TBerk
> What is this recurring nonsense about BB censoring films? ...
I have actually held a differing version in my hand. I have actually
watched a film I was already familiar with and the editing was
noticeable. I do not believe BB actually did the editing themselves,
but it was a condition of doing business with them that it be done
prior to rental in their stores.
berk
calvin
Whatever BB did, it was a long time ago. The store has
been just fine for the past decade.
Except that their rental price has become so high that I
do most of my renting from Netflix. When I first started with
Netflix two years ago, it was just for renting things that
Blockbuster didn't have. Now it's for nearly everything, old
or new.
steve
On 5-Nov-2009, TBerk <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What is this recurring nonsense about BB censoring films? ...
>
>
> I have actually held a differing version in my hand. I have actually
> watched a film I was already familiar with and the editing was
> noticeable. I do not believe BB actually did the editing themselves,
> but it was a condition of doing business with them that it be done
> prior to rental in their stores.
Exactly. The decision (including the decision to do biz with BB) and the
control was in the hands of the film makers and distributers. The
persistent rumor was that BB edited and censored films...clearly not what
was happening.
The Giant Brain
On Nov 5, 2:38 pm, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:37 am, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
> > What is this recurring nonsense about BB censoring films? ...
>
> I have actually held a differing version in my hand. I have actually
> watched a film I was already familiar with and the editing was
> noticeable. I do not believe BB actually did the editing themselves,
> but it was a condition of doing business with them that it be done
> prior to rental in their stores.
Whatever BB did, it was a long time ago. The store has
been just fine for the past decade.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Along that line of reasoning, let's forgive the Nazi war criminals - after all,
WWII ended a long time ago...
Except that their rental price has become so high that I
do most of my renting from Netflix. When I first started with
Netflix two years ago, it was just for renting things that
Blockbuster didn't have. Now it's for nearly everything, old
or new.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For those who only occasionally rent a DVD and whose tastes are pedestrian,
Blockbuster is just fine.
Netflix has had just about every film I ever wanted, no matter how obscure,
delivered within a few days right to my front door..
The low monthly fee and the steady stream of DVDs to my humble abode make me a
happy Netflix user.
moviePig
I think your point is that, unless there's the threat of gunplay or
incarceration, you don't extend recognition of de facto censorship.
moviePig
> On Nov 5, 2:38 pm, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 6:37 am, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is this recurring nonsense about BB censoring films? ...
>
> > I have actually held a differing version in my hand. I have actually
> > watched a film I was already familiar with and the editing was
> > noticeable. I do not believe BB actually did the editing themselves,
> > but it was a condition of doing business with them that it be done
> > prior to rental in their stores.
>
> Whatever BB did, it was a long time ago. The store has
> been just fine for the past decade.
>
Although that may be true, clearly some crimes feel more like a
statement of abiding character than of policy. Moreover, I'm
personally not above hoisting BB's carcass even today as a cautionary
example to potential imitators (...i.e., similar to the motive, right
or wrong, claimed by some Polanski-pursuers).
steve
On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > You still havent addressed the key points in my argument.
>
> I think your point is that, unless there's the threat of gunplay or
> incarceration, you don't extend recognition of de facto censorship.
Yes. And I'd like to hear your definition, which I believe (from what
you've said so far) will lead immediately to absurd conclusions.
BTW...I seem to recall that we've had this same (almost exact) discussion
before. Could that be?
steve
steve
On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Although that may be true, clearly some crimes feel more like a
> statement of abiding character than of policy. Moreover, I'm
> personally not above hoisting BB's carcass even today as a cautionary
> example to potential imitators (...i.e., similar to the motive, right
> or wrong, claimed by some Polanski-pursuers).
Just thought Id mention that I dumped BB (so very long ago) for lack of
selection and for not carrying NC-17 versions (I complained to management
many times about the latter). We then frequented Hollywood Video, and
discovered they had better selection but the same NC-17 policy (I complained
again). Then came Netflix, and...salvation!
moviePig
> On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > You still havent addressed the key points in my argument.
>
> > I think your point is that, unless there's the threat of gunplay or
> > incarceration, you don't extend recognition of de facto censorship.
>
> Yes. And I'd like to hear your definition, which I believe (from what
> you've said so far) will lead immediately to absurd conclusions.
>
> BTW...I seem to recall that we've had this same (almost exact) discussion
> before. Could that be?
Maybe. I have only just enough topics to make me forget the one
furthest back in the rotation.
Censorship is when I expressly impede your access to a class of
literature.
steve
On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Censorship is when I expressly impede your access to a class of
> literature.
So...how does BB "impede my access" to NC-17 films simply by not providing
them? And isnt every person or business that doesnt rent or sell them (like
your neighbor, the drug store, hardware store, clothing shops, car
dealerships, etc.) "impeding my access" to NC-17 films just as much as BB?
That's the absurdity I predicted.
And, BTW, you need to be specific about what "expressily impede" means. BB
didnt stop me from renting NC-17 "Showgirls" three doors down.*
steve
* Actually, the owner of that competing, mom and pop rental shop told me
that BB was behind a push to zone him out of the area (for renting those
dirty NC-17 films). That IS censorship, of course, and involved/required
the use of govt power. BB failed to push him out.
nick
> On Nov 5, 9:18 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 11:14 pm, David Oberman <dober...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> > > calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > >Seems strange that you make porn a central part of your
> > > >argument. My experience with Turtles for renting VHS tapes
> > > >in the 90s was that it didn't 'push' porn, but it had an 'alternate
> > > >lifestyles' section, or something like that.
>
> > > les has to be "alternative lifestyle." That's the joke among
> > > grammarians, anyway.
>
> > Not to mention electricians, to whom bi might be "alternating
> > lifestyle", or perhaps "adaptable to current conditions", or even
> > "plug-compatible"...
>
> In any case, I wasn't referring to gay/lesbian/bi, etc. I was
> trying to remember what Turtles called its porn section, which
> iirc featured such things as Playboy/Penthouse-produced videos.
Our local video store didn't call it the alternative lifestyle
section. They called it the woo-woo room.
nick
> nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> >Speaking of porn . . . the first Blockbuster I ever went into, I was
> >walking in circles inside the store trying to find the porn section.
>
> Nick!! Your mind is in the cinema gutter!!
>
I'm using "porn" here more in in the symbolic sense than anything
literal, though like the late John Harkness, I have a fondness for the
pre-video golden age of porn (plots! production values! original
scores! sometimes even helicopters!) I mean, when I was in
Blockbuster for the first time and not finding that porn section, I
knew the pioneer days of the video store were over, that the whole
thing had been corporatized and sterilized and made family friendly.
The owner of our first neighborhood video store, the only reason he
got into the business was that he wanted to meet porn stars at trade
shows. But through this rather seedy De Palma-esque looking
individual I saw a lot of great movies. A lot of bad ones too. The
VCR revolution was a cinematic education that hasn't been equalled
either by DVD or the Internet. We can laugh at VHS now (and VHS was
just winning the format war when I came in) but at the time it was
wonderful.
moviePig
As so often, 'absurdity' here is in the catechism of the beholder.
In what I deem a worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship, I burden
literature vendors with a responsibility to provide fully open
access... and apply such burden in proportion to their dominance of
the marketplace.
("Expressly impede" is when someone with power gives an iota more than
a rat's ass about *my* opinion of what *you* should be allowed to
watch.)
moviePig
I went directly to the porn, too... right after FORBIDDEN PLANET,
poetically...
steve
On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> In what I deem a worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship, I burden
> literature vendors with a responsibility to provide fully open
> access... and apply such burden in proportion to their dominance of
> the marketplace.
So... providing a service (selling books, DVDs, CDs) confers a duty? How
so? What is the extent of that duty? And what meets the test of "fully
open access"? And I notice you're now talking about what you "worthwhile
zeal to thwart censorship" as your justification for a definition of
censorship. That's circular, and gets you nowhere.
I think you came back too quickly with a definition that didnt reflect much
critical thought. Unless you think it through, you'll be waving hands
and/or scrambling to clean things up. Perhaps you should take some time and
try to come up with a more defensible definition.
As a practical matter (aside from the logical argument) no one can provide
all, and in many markets even trying to provide a wide range of options is
likley to kill profits. If you require all or nothing, you're likley to get
nothing.
steve
moviePig
My definition reflects the amount of 'critical thought' I'm willing to
spend on this. ...Any 'hand-waving' I may do is merely to gain your
attention as you speed along a different itinerary.
...My "worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship" is predicated on 1) the
evil of censorship, and 2) the certainty that our species will attempt
it. For purposes of this discussion, I consider both axiomatic.
...In our less-than-infinite society, I view including BB's local-
market sterilizing effect (erstwhile) under the rubric of merely
"providing a service" to be disingenuous...
calvin
premises:
> 1) the evil of censorship, and
> 2) the certainty that our species will attempt it.
conclusion:
Our species is inherently afflicted with this evil.
question:
How did those of our species who abhor censorship
free themselves from this evil?
The Giant Brain
premises:
conclusion:
question:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kill files?
TBerk
>
> A free market simply can not censor because there is no cercion (by
> definition).
Are you saying they can't exert decision making influence over others
using purse-string?
berk
moviePig
Merely having completed Step 12 doesn't make them 'free'...
steve
On 5-Nov-2009, TBerk <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > A free market simply can not censor because there is no cercion (by
> > definition).
>
> Are you saying they can't exert decision making influence over others
> using purse-string?
No. Im saying exerting influence is not censorship. Coercive measures are
required to create censorship.
And I invite you (as I did Pig-man) to define censorship as you see it. And
do me a favor...think about it, and examine your own definition to see if it
covers far more than you intend and/or leads to absurd conclusions.
steve
On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> My definition reflects the amount of 'critical thought' I'm willing to
> spend on this. ...Any 'hand-waving' I may do is merely to gain your
> attention as you speed along a different itinerary.
Is careful examination of ideas so taxing and unimportant? What do you
think about when you're mind isnt otherwise occupied (showering, jogging,
riding a bike, taking a dump, sipping morning coffee, taking a walk,
driving, sitting in a waiting room, voting for liberals, etc. etc.)? Use
that time to examine your own attitudes and beliefs.
> ...My "worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship" is predicated on 1) the
> evil of censorship, and 2) the certainty that our species will attempt
> it. For purposes of this discussion, I consider both axiomatic.
In fact, I agree...but you still havent given me a reasonable definition.
And (maybe this is a better starting point) what's wrong with my definition
(censorship = stifling expression by coercive measures)?
> ...In our less-than-infinite society, I view including BB's local-
> market sterilizing effect (erstwhile) under the rubric of merely
> "providing a service" to be disingenuous...
It's far more than that. It's (and here comes that word...) immoral! And
hooray for you for saying so, but a big boo to you for supporting the power
of the govt to do that and more. What do you think 99% of govt intervention
in the marketplace is all about? Regulation is not the govt protecting
people, it's a form of oppression that thwarts your ability to peaceably
influence others to provide for your needs and desires. It's a club used by
the powerful to maintain market dominance for those who are well connected
and willling to pay for it. It's a (legal) protection racket. In short,
it's a fuckin' scam on the saps who support it. Wise up!
moviePig
> On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > My definition reflects the amount of 'critical thought' I'm willing to
> > spend on this. ...Any 'hand-waving' I may do is merely to gain your
> > attention as you speed along a different itinerary.
>
> Is careful examination of ideas so taxing and unimportant? What do you
> think about when you're mind isnt otherwise occupied (showering, jogging,
> riding a bike, taking a dump, sipping morning coffee, taking a walk,
> driving, sitting in a waiting room, voting for liberals, etc. etc.)? Use
> that time to examine your own attitudes and beliefs.
Actually, I spend some effort seeking techniques to *un*occupy my
mind... (...even though old age eventually provides a few involuntary
ones). Meanwhile, I probably spend at least as much time 'examining
my own attitudes and beliefs" as you do yours. You presume much to
suppose otherwise...
> > ...My "worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship" is predicated on 1) the
> > evil of censorship, and 2) the certainty that our species will attempt
> > it. For purposes of this discussion, I consider both axiomatic.
>
> In fact, I agree...but you still havent given me a reasonable definition.
> And (maybe this is a better starting point) what's wrong with my definition
> (censorship = stifling expression by coercive measures)?
I think we disagree about the threshold for "coercive". E.g., another
poster mentioned "purse-strings" ...I agree with him.
(Btw, for me, anyway, the *intent* to censor is sufficient to indict.)
> > ...In our less-than-infinite society, I view including BB's local-
> > market sterilizing effect (erstwhile) under the rubric of merely
> > "providing a service" to be disingenuous...
>
> It's far more than that. It's (and here comes that word...) immoral! And
> hooray for you for saying so, but a big boo to you for supporting the power
> of the govt to do that and more. What do you think 99% of govt intervention
> in the marketplace is all about? Regulation is not the govt protecting
> people, it's a form of oppression that thwarts your ability to peaceably
> influence others to provide for your needs and desires. It's a club used by
> the powerful to maintain market dominance for those who are well connected
> and willling to pay for it. It's a (legal) protection racket. In short,
> it's a fuckin' scam on the saps who support it. Wise up!
I think you mis-parsed my statement above. But, as far as your
response to it, I suspect you're haranguing the converted...
The Giant Brain
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
news:9a57c023-4827-44db...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> (...i.e., similar to the motive, right or wrong, claimed by some
> Polanski-pursuers).
Polanski admitted to committing a heinous crime then fled the country.
He deserves some type of punishment solely for that.
If it provides a deterrence lesson for others, well that's just the icing on the
cake.
steve
On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Actually, I spend some effort seeking techniques to *un*occupy my
> mind... (...even though old age eventually provides a few involuntary
> ones). Meanwhile, I probably spend at least as much time 'examining
> my own attitudes and beliefs" as you do yours. You presume much to
> suppose otherwise...
Im not presuming or supposing. Im evaluating your comments and arguments.
You dont show me any willingness to examine your beliefs. You cant defend
them beyond superficial statements, and when confronted with the problems
and contradictions, you wave hands. If you confront me with difficult
issues, I not only examine them...I enjoy doing so. When, for example, you
asked me to define "morality", I enjoyed working that out overnight and gave
you what I believe was a thoughtful answer the next day. I asked you for a
definition of censorship and you came back in just a few minutes with an
answer that doesnt hold up for 10 seconds.
> > In fact, I agree...but you still havent given me a reasonable
> > definition.
> > And (maybe this is a better starting point) what's wrong with my
> > definition
> > (censorship = stifling expression by coercive measures)?
>
> I think we disagree about the threshold for "coercive". E.g., another
> poster mentioned "purse-strings" ...I agree with him.
You're waving hands again. Now the question becomes one of defining
coercion.
coercion = the use of violence or it's credible threat.
What is your definition?
> > > ...In our less-than-infinite society, I view including BB's local-
> > > market sterilizing effect (erstwhile) under the rubric of merely
> > > "providing a service" to be disingenuous...
> >
> > It's far more than that. �It's (and here comes that word...) immoral!
> > �And
> > hooray for you for saying so, but a big boo to you for supporting the
> > power
> > of the govt to do that and more. �What do you think 99% of govt
> > intervention
> > in the marketplace is all about? �Regulation is not the govt protecting
> > people, it's a form of oppression that thwarts your ability to peaceably
> > influence others to provide for your needs and desires. �It's a club
> > used by
> > the powerful to maintain market dominance for those who are well
> > connected
> > and willling to pay for it. �It's a (legal) protection racket. �In
> > short,
> > it's a fuckin' scam on the saps who support it. �Wise up!
>
> I think you mis-parsed my statement above. But, as far as your
> response to it, I suspect you're haranguing the converted...
Am I? Then you consider govt intervention into the free market to be
thuggish and immoral? You've never said anything even close to this.
Hand waving, again?
Tom
> On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > Please provide proof.
>
> Here ya go:http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
little value.
Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
of touch with modern business thought.
How about another, more credible, source?
Tom
calvin
Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
complaining is right-wing or not.
In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
don't bother to report it.
I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
documents from the National Archives, and I documented
it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
is wrong.
moviePig
If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
calvin
Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
shall become unionized or not.
moviePig
> On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I spend some effort seeking techniques to *un*occupy my
> > mind... (...even though old age eventually provides a few involuntary
> > ones). Meanwhile, I probably spend at least as much time 'examining
> > my own attitudes and beliefs" as you do yours. You presume much to
> > suppose otherwise...
>
> Im not presuming or supposing. Im evaluating your comments and arguments.
> You dont show me any willingness to examine your beliefs. You cant defend
> them beyond superficial statements, and when confronted with the problems
> and contradictions, you wave hands. If you confront me with difficult
> issues, I not only examine them...I enjoy doing so. When, for example, you
> asked me to define "morality", I enjoyed working that out overnight and gave
> you what I believe was a thoughtful answer the next day. I asked you for a
> definition of censorship and you came back in just a few minutes with an
> answer that doesnt hold up for 10 seconds.
Well, in one manner of speaking, I'm not sure I have any
"beliefs" ...but rather merely guesses and estimates. And I'm always
ready to replace those with what seem sounder ones. (To me.)
However, I built a definition of censorship that I judged, and judge,
appropriate to the context. Instead of complaining about its
preparation time, perhaps you could replay, with brevity, the trivial
arrow in its heart...
> > > In fact, I agree...but you still havent given me a reasonable
> > > definition.
> > > And (maybe this is a better starting point) what's wrong with my
> > > definition
> > > (censorship = stifling expression by coercive measures)?
>
> > I think we disagree about the threshold for "coercive". E.g., another
> > poster mentioned "purse-strings" ...I agree with him.
>
> You're waving hands again. Now the question becomes one of defining
> coercion.
>
> coercion = the use of violence or it's credible threat.
>
> What is your definition?
I almost daren't say, lest we stoop to defining "hand waving".
Suffice to note that I thought (and think) that the definition of
'coercion' is our sticking point ...as I said. And, as I thought my
example showed, 'coercion', for me, includes persuasion by external
means (...whether or not that persuasion's successful). You limit
coercion to violence ...which seems to me unrealistically narrow, as
many victims would choose (say) broken limbs over hungry offspring.
> > > > ...In our less-than-infinite society, I view including BB's local-
> > > > market sterilizing effect (erstwhile) under the rubric of merely
> > > > "providing a service" to be disingenuous...
>
> > > It's far more than that. It's (and here comes that word...) immoral!
> > > And
> > > hooray for you for saying so, but a big boo to you for supporting the
> > > power
> > > of the govt to do that and more. What do you think 99% of govt
> > > intervention
> > > in the marketplace is all about? Regulation is not the govt protecting
> > > people, it's a form of oppression that thwarts your ability to peaceably
> > > influence others to provide for your needs and desires. It's a club
> > > used by
> > > the powerful to maintain market dominance for those who are well
> > > connected
> > > and willling to pay for it. It's a (legal) protection racket. In
> > > short,
> > > it's a fuckin' scam on the saps who support it. Wise up!
>
> > I think you mis-parsed my statement above. But, as far as your
> > response to it, I suspect you're haranguing the converted...
>
> Am I? Then you consider govt intervention into the free market to be
> thuggish and immoral? You've never said anything even close to this.
>
> Hand waving, again?
Hard to lay down your new hammer and pick up your spectacles?
I think fooling with the free market is usually dicey, often
'thuggish', and seldom to my benefit. Still doesn't mean that free
markets are always the answer... imo...
moviePig
If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
it instead as inadvertent honesty...
steve
On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Well, in one manner of speaking, I'm not sure I have any
> "beliefs" ...but rather merely guesses and estimates. And I'm always
> ready to replace those with what seem sounder ones. (To me.)
How can I discuss anything with you? You evade responsibility for your own
statements, and refuse to define and defend. Here is your definition and
ostensible clarifications on "censorship".
*********************
Censorship is when I expressly impede your access to a class of
literature.
("Expressly impede" is when someone with power gives an iota more than
a rat's ass about *my* opinion of what *you* should be allowed to
watch.)
In what I deem a worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship, I burden
literature vendors with a responsibility to provide fully open
access... and apply such burden in proportion to their dominance of
the marketplace.
**********************
How could anyone apply that definition and determine if an action is or isnt
censorship..unless virtually all marketing choices are censorship? As Ive
pointed out before, each time you "clarify" something it becomes less clear.
The second statement (in parenthesis) is particularly incoherent, as it
refers not to action, but to attitude. The third isnt related to the
definition, but only a statement of what appears to be an arbitrary demand
on your part. And now you give me this:
> Well, in one manner of speaking, I'm not sure I have any
> "beliefs" ...but rather merely guesses and estimates. And I'm always
> ready to replace those with what seem sounder ones. (To me.)
Even though, earlier, you said:
> ...My "worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship" is predicated on 1) the
evil of censorship
So how am I to take your assertion that censorship is evil, and resolve that
with your claim to have no "beliefs".
> However, I built a definition of censorship that I judged, and judge,
> appropriate to the context. Instead of complaining about its
> preparation time, perhaps you could replay, with brevity, the trivial
> arrow in its heart...
I pointed out some absurdities and asked probing questions about your
definition, and you gave me nothing. I'll repeat them here:
*****************************
So...how does BB "impede my access" to NC-17 films simply by not providing
them? And isnt every person or business that doesnt rent or sell them (like
your neighbor, the drug store, hardware store, clothing shops, car
dealerships, etc.) "impeding my access" to NC-17 films just as much as BB?
That's the absurdity I predicted.
So... providing a service (selling books, DVDs, CDs) confers a duty? How
so? What is the extent of that duty? And what meets the test of "fully
open access"? And I notice you're now talking about what you "worthwhile
zeal to thwart censorship" as your justification for a definition of
censorship. That's circular, and gets you nowhere.
*****************************
You dont address my objections or answer my pointed questions. How can we
make any progress that way?
> > You're waving hands again. �Now the question becomes one of defining
> > coercion.
> >
> > coercion = the use of violence or it's credible threat.
> >
> > What is your definition?
>
> I almost daren't say, lest we stoop to defining "hand waving".
hand waving = avoiding or failing to address relevant issues
> Suffice to note that I thought (and think) that the definition of
> 'coercion' is our sticking point ...as I said. And, as I thought my
> example showed, 'coercion', for me, includes persuasion by external
> means (...whether or not that persuasion's successful). You limit
> coercion to violence ...which seems to me unrealistically narrow, as
> many victims would choose (say) broken limbs over hungry offspring.
Please define coercion. Telling me my definition is "unrealistically
narrow" doesnt help me much. You must draw some distinctions rather than
simply blurring lines.
> > Hand waving, again?
>
> Hard to lay down your new hammer and pick up your spectacles?
Sometimes I think that you believe argument is just the art of the quip.
Im charging, repeatedly, that you are avoiding addressing issues. Why?
Because you have repeatedly avoided addressing issues.
The fault in the repetition is yours, not mine.
> I think fooling with the free market is usually dicey, often
> 'thuggish', and seldom to my benefit. Still doesn't mean that free
> markets are always the answer... imo...
I agree, but the exceptions are few and extremely limited. But I wont go
further, as this will only become a distraction. I will note that you seem
to be contradicting yourself, as you are a supporter of BHO, who is hostile
to markets as a matter of course and policy.
calvin
Well of course. Any honesty that comes from me would
have to be inadvertent (including this statement).
moviePig
> On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, in one manner of speaking, I'm not sure I have any
> > "beliefs" ...but rather merely guesses and estimates. And I'm always
> > ready to replace those with what seem sounder ones. (To me.)
>
> How can I discuss anything with you? You evade responsibility for your own
> statements, and refuse to define and defend. Here is your definition and
> ostensible clarifications on "censorship".
>
> *********************
> Censorship is when I expressly impede your access to a class of
> literature.
>
> ("Expressly impede" is when someone with power gives an iota more than
> a rat's ass about *my* opinion of what *you* should be allowed to
> watch.)
>
> In what I deem a worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship, I burden
> literature vendors with a responsibility to provide fully open
> access... and apply such burden in proportion to their dominance of
> the marketplace.
>
> **********************
>
> How could anyone apply that definition and determine if an action is or isnt
> censorship..unless virtually all marketing choices are censorship? As Ive
> pointed out before, each time you "clarify" something it becomes less clear.
> The second statement (in parenthesis) is particularly incoherent, as it
> refers not to action, but to attitude.
That's not "incoherent" ...it seems rather to have been dead on.
Censorship is *me* intentionally circumscribing *your* access to
certain classes of literature. ...i.e., 'attitude' is very much
involved (...although, without attendant 'action', who cares?)
> The third isnt related to the
> definition, but only a statement of what appears to be an arbitrary demand
> on your part. And now you give me this:
>
> > Well, in one manner of speaking, I'm not sure I have any
> > "beliefs" ...but rather merely guesses and estimates. And I'm always
> > ready to replace those with what seem sounder ones. (To me.)
>
> Even though, earlier, you said:
>
> > ...My "worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship" is predicated on 1) the
>
> evil of censorship
>
> So how am I to take your assertion that censorship is evil, and resolve that
> with your claim to have no "beliefs".
Ideally, you'll infer, in each instance, the appropriate context.
E.g.... "Censorship is evil" exists in the conversational context of
gut-level human reactions. At a more stilted level, though, I
question whether such reactions are ever to be trusted. And, at a
still further removed level, I might argue that evil is merely a
matter of differing priorities.
> > However, I built a definition of censorship that I judged, and judge,
> > appropriate to the context. Instead of complaining about its
> > preparation time, perhaps you could replay, with brevity, the trivial
> > arrow in its heart...
>
> I pointed out some absurdities and asked probing questions about your
> definition, and you gave me nothing. I'll repeat them here:
>
> *****************************
> So...how does BB "impede my access" to NC-17 films simply by not providing
> them? And isnt every person or business that doesnt rent or sell them (like
> your neighbor, the drug store, hardware store, clothing shops, car
> dealerships, etc.) "impeding my access" to NC-17 films just as much as BB?
> That's the absurdity I predicted.
>
> So... providing a service (selling books, DVDs, CDs) confers a duty? How
> so? What is the extent of that duty? And what meets the test of "fully
> open access"? And I notice you're now talking about what you "worthwhile
> zeal to thwart censorship" as your justification for a definition of
> censorship. That's circular, and gets you nowhere.
> *****************************
>
> You dont address my objections or answer my pointed questions. How can we
> make any progress that way?
I'll clarify more explicitly: If BB presents you with the choice of
driving either to the next county for the grown-up video you want or
two blocks for a Meg Ryan fairy tale BB carries, then they're impeding
your free intellectual access. And, if they do it because someone
deems the video you want to be "unsuitable" for you, then that's
censorship.
> > > You're waving hands again. Now the question becomes one of defining
> > > coercion.
>
> > > coercion = the use of violence or it's credible threat.
>
> > > What is your definition?
>
> > I almost daren't say, lest we stoop to defining "hand waving".
>
> hand waving = avoiding or failing to address relevant issues
("Hand waving" connotes something different to me. But never mind.)
> > Suffice to note that I thought (and think) that the definition of
> > 'coercion' is our sticking point ...as I said. And, as I thought my
> > example showed, 'coercion', for me, includes persuasion by external
> > means (...whether or not that persuasion's successful). You limit
> > coercion to violence ...which seems to me unrealistically narrow, as
> > many victims would choose (say) broken limbs over hungry offspring.
>
> Please define coercion. Telling me my definition is "unrealistically
> narrow" doesnt help me much. You must draw some distinctions rather than
> simply blurring lines.
I'll rephrase the subsequent example I provided: If I understand you,
threatening to break someone's arm is coercion ...whereas threatening
his finances (so that, e.g., his children might go malnourished) is
not. To my mind, a presence/absence of hard violence in the equation
is a sufficient-but-not-necessary condition of 'coercion'.
> > > Hand waving, again?
>
> > Hard to lay down your new hammer and pick up your spectacles?
>
> Sometimes I think that you believe argument is just the art of the quip.
Hmm, you raise this objection to a quip that merely responded to
yours...
> Im charging, repeatedly, that you are avoiding addressing issues. Why?
> Because you have repeatedly avoided addressing issues.
>
> The fault in the repetition is yours, not mine.
If I deliberately avoid an issue, I say so, and why. Rather, in
addressing some issues with you, my communications seem merely
unsuccessful, for whatever reason.
> > I think fooling with the free market is usually dicey, often
> > 'thuggish', and seldom to my benefit. Still doesn't mean that free
> > markets are always the answer... imo...
>
> I agree, but the exceptions are few and extremely limited. But I wont go
> further, as this will only become a distraction. I will note that you seem
> to be contradicting yourself, as you are a supporter of BHO, who is hostile
> to markets as a matter of course and policy.
Then, reciprocally, I will note my guess that BHO would, with complete
candor, strongly dispute your summary insight into his hostilities...
er.. principles...
calvin
My point is only that these are news items, not
editorials.
steve
On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> That's not "incoherent" ...it seems rather to have been dead on.
> Censorship is *me* intentionally circumscribing *your* access to
> certain classes of literature. ...i.e., 'attitude' is very much
> involved (...although, without attendant 'action', who cares?)
It's incoherent in context, i.e. I cannot relate it to the issue at hand.
And, of course, since you refer to attitude and NOT action, it says nothing
about censorship which, we apparently agree (and I might add... duh),
requires action. You toss in that admission as a parenthetical comment,
when it is, in fact, the crux of the problem!
> Ideally, you'll infer, in each instance, the appropriate context.
> E.g.... "Censorship is evil" exists in the conversational context of
> gut-level human reactions. At a more stilted level, though, I
> question whether such reactions are ever to be trusted. And, at a
> still further removed level, I might argue that evil is merely a
> matter of differing priorities.
The bottom line is that none of this is of any value to the discussion. In
intellectual terms, your just blathering.
> I'll clarify more explicitly: If BB presents you with the choice of
> driving either to the next county for the grown-up video you want or
> two blocks for a Meg Ryan fairy tale BB carries, then they're impeding
> your free intellectual access.
But BB doesnt give me that choice. They give me the choice of renting or
not renting whatever they offer. Market forces (assuming they are not
thwarted by govt) determine if I have to drive to rent something else.
BB is not impeding anything. They are simply offering less than you would
like them to offer. Likewise, the local hardware store fails to offer NC-17
videos (or any videos, in fact). So, by your logic, they censor. That is
where your reasoning breaks down.
> > hand waving = avoiding or failing to address relevant issues
>
> ("Hand waving" connotes something different to me. But never mind.)
I picked that up in college. How did you understand it?
> > Please define coercion. �Telling me my definition is "unrealistically
> > narrow" doesnt help me much. �You must draw some distinctions rather
> > than
> > simply blurring lines.
>
> I'll rephrase the subsequent example I provided: If I understand you,
> threatening to break someone's arm is coercion ...whereas threatening
> his finances (so that, e.g., his children might go malnourished) is
> not.
You have to be specific. What is threatening thier finances? If they are
violating property rights, the many consequences are all a result of that
injustice. If they are not violating prop rights (or making a credible
threat to do so)...how are they threatening finances?
> Hmm, you raise this objection to a quip that merely responded to
> yours...
I didnt quip. I characterized your argument. Substitute my definition for
the phrase, and there is no doubt.
> > The fault in the repetition is yours, not mine.
>
> If I deliberately avoid an issue, I say so, and why. Rather, in
> addressing some issues with you, my communications seem merely
> unsuccessful, for whatever reason.
Look back through the thread. In many instances you either ignored pointed
questions or your reply was unresponsive. The former is obviously
intentional as I know you can read. The latter may not be.
> Then, reciprocally, I will note my guess that BHO would, with complete
> candor, strongly dispute your summary insight into his hostilities...
> er.. principles...
I have no doubt he would dispute. He is more Orwellian in his blatent
contradictions than even Bill Clinton. But his actions are clear, as are
his many past statements and actions (all consistent with his current
actions), that he now disavows. He's a lying, anti-capitalist, power
hungry, political thug. And Im just getting started.
Im out for the weekend.
moviePig
My point is only that, for convincing others of something, citing only
Limbaugh and Hume might not be maximally efficient.
moviePig
> On 6-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > That's not "incoherent" ...it seems rather to have been dead on.
> > Censorship is *me* intentionally circumscribing *your* access to
> > certain classes of literature. ...i.e., 'attitude' is very much
> > involved (...although, without attendant 'action', who cares?)
>
> It's incoherent in context, i.e. I cannot relate it to the issue at hand.
> And, of course, since you refer to attitude and NOT action, it says nothing
> about censorship which, we apparently agree (and I might add... duh),
> requires action. You toss in that admission as a parenthetical comment,
> when it is, in fact, the crux of the problem!
No. E.g., BB might abjure 'NC-17's because those are more expensive
rather than because they're naughty. In either instance, BB's
'action' is the same. It's their 'attitude' in the second instance
that makes it censorship.
> > Ideally, you'll infer, in each instance, the appropriate context.
> > E.g.... "Censorship is evil" exists in the conversational context of
> > gut-level human reactions. At a more stilted level, though, I
> > question whether such reactions are ever to be trusted. And, at a
> > still further removed level, I might argue that evil is merely a
> > matter of differing priorities.
>
> The bottom line is that none of this is of any value to the discussion. In
> intellectual terms, you're just blathering.
No, I'm anwering a seeming inconsistency you perceived and queried
(and elided).
> > I'll clarify more explicitly: If BB presents you with the choice of
> > driving either to the next county for the grown-up video you want or
> > two blocks for a Meg Ryan fairy tale BB carries, then they're impeding
> > your free intellectual access.
>
> But BB doesnt give me that choice. They give me the choice of renting or
> not renting whatever they offer. Market forces (assuming they are not
> thwarted by govt) determine if I have to drive to rent something else.
>
> BB is not impeding anything. They are simply offering less than you would
> like them to offer. Likewise, the local hardware store fails to offer NC-17
> videos (or any videos, in fact). So, by your logic, they censor. That is
> where your reasoning breaks down.
So, if the local KKK purchases and burns all the town's copies of
'Uncle Tom's Cabin', they're just giving me the *choice* of not
reading it or moving? But, yes, if the local hardware store installs
a Redbox, but pulls its pro-Conservative titles, they're censoring.
(Look! Local hardware has repaired my broken-down reasoning!)
> > > hand waving = avoiding or failing to address relevant issues
>
> > ("Hand waving" connotes something different to me. But never mind.)
>
> I picked that up in college. How did you understand it?
'Hand waving', afaik, is when potentially complex details of a
presentation are deceptively dismissed as patently trivial ...i.e.,
with the wave of a hand.
> > > Please define coercion. Telling me my definition is "unrealistically
> > > narrow" doesnt help me much. You must draw some distinctions rather
> > > than
> > > simply blurring lines.
>
> > I'll rephrase the subsequent example I provided: If I understand you,
> > threatening to break someone's arm is coercion ...whereas threatening
> > his finances (so that, e.g., his children might go malnourished) is
> > not.
>
> You have to be specific. What is threatening their finances? If they are
> violating property rights, the many consequences are all a result of that
> injustice. If they are not violating prop rights (or making a credible
> threat to do so)...how are they threatening finances?
E.g., your town's ultra-major employer chooses to terminate you for
supporting global-warming initiatives. You can relocate, but only at
huge financial burden...
> > Hmm, you raise this objection to a quip that merely responded to
> > yours...
>
> I didnt quip. I characterized your argument. Substitute my definition for
> the phrase, and there is no doubt.
>
> > > The fault in the repetition is yours, not mine.
>
> > If I deliberately avoid an issue, I say so, and why. Rather, in
> > addressing some issues with you, my communications seem merely
> > unsuccessful, for whatever reason.
>
> Look back through the thread. In many instances you either ignored pointed
> questions or your reply was unresponsive. The former is obviously
> intentional as I know you can read. The latter may not be.
Oh, yes. *Now* I see all those pointed questions I ducked... Are you
kidding?
> > Then, reciprocally, I will note my guess that BHO would, with complete
> > candor, strongly dispute your summary insight into his hostilities...
> > er.. principles...
>
> I have no doubt he would dispute. He is more Orwellian in his blatant
> contradictions than even Bill Clinton. But his actions are clear, as are
> his many past statements and actions (all consistent with his current
> actions), that he now disavows. He's a lying, anti-capitalist, power
> hungry, political thug. And I'm just getting started.
No, you're past getting started and stopped... i.e., on an issue you
claimed you wouldn't pursue.
(But I'm pleased you, too, look back fondly on the Clinton years...)
> I'm out for the weekend.
Over and.
trotsky
> On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>> So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
>>>>> and other things on which they vote, is okay?
>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>> Please provide proof.
>>> Here ya go:
>>> http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>> Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
>> the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
>> little value.
>>
>> Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
>> of touch with modern business thought.
>>
>> How about another, more credible, source?
>
> Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> yourself.
Translation: "I'll find some and get back to ya!"
calvin
When the mainstream media don't care enough
to report that which makes the left uncomfortable,
then Limbaugh and Hume become as efficient as
one will be able to find to cite.
Your innate cynical devining rod is always strangely
inert in the presence of mischief on the left.
calvin
I changed my mind. Google it yourself. Why
should I bother, when nothing I cite will impress
you except the mainstream leftist media, and they
certainly are not going to tell you about any
wrongdoing by union leadership.
moviePig
Jeez, and there I was thinking I'd *just* made somewhere up there an
analogous remark about Olbermann and DailyKos. Must've been an
artefact of Liberal DTs...
The Giant Brain
-----------------------------------------------------------
The dittoheads are amusing when they complain about the "liberal press" but
don't say a word about the rightwing nutjobs like Limbaugh, Hannity and
O'Reilly...
calvin
I noted that, but it was only hypothetical, not
based on an actual report by either of them that
you would need to offer only as rumor.
calvin
> The dittoheads are amusing when they complain about the "liberal press" but
> don't say a word about the rightwing nutjobs like Limbaugh, Hannity and
> O'Reilly...
The right has FoxNews and most of talk radio. The left has
NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time, ...
Currently the media of the right care about what is happening
to the country. The media of the left (see above) care only
that the first black President succeeds in doing whatever he
wants to do. They couldn't care less what the horrific effects
might be, so long as he is a success. Do they care that the
near trillion dollar stimulus bill was only a pork bill? No, he
wanted it, so it was good. Do they care that the 'cap and trade'
bill will cripple U.S. industry? No, he wants it, so it will be
good. Do they care that the 2000 page healthcare bill that will
cost a trillion dollars is for the most part incomprehensible to
anyone who cares to read it? No, he wants it, so we can find
out after it passes whatever it is that it says, or they will claim it
says.
The Obama administration is absolute madness, destined to
wreck the country, but only the right cares; the left steamrolls
onward, blindly following their extremist leaders. They won the
election, so the country be damned.
The Giant Brain
"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:4de47316-ba83-48e0...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------
There, there Cal... Be a good fellow and drink your milk. Mommy is bringing you
your tinfoil hat and will chase all the big bad liberals away...
calvin
> There, there Cal... Be a good fellow and drink your milk.
> Mommy is bringing you your tinfoil hat and will chase all
> the big bad liberals away...
Unfortunately the liberals are here to stay. A grim consolation
in all this is that those liberals who are not so extreme, but have
enabled the extremists, are going to suffer for what they have
brought on everyone.
And that includes you, unless you are merely posing as a
liberal for the fun of it. Who knows, or cares?
trotsky
Or artifact, as the case may be.
The Giant Brain
On Nov 7, 8:52 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi...@brain.invalid> wrote:
> There, there Cal... Be a good fellow and drink your milk.
> Mommy is bringing you your tinfoil hat and will chase all
> the big bad liberals away...
Unfortunately the liberals are here to stay. A grim consolation
in all this is that those liberals who are not so extreme, but have
enabled the extremists, are going to suffer for what they have
brought on everyone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Relax bunky, the Republic is in no danger.
We survived 8 years of Dubya (barely) and can take a few more years of Obama (I
think he's a one-termer.)
Middle-of-the-road republicans are being disenfranchised by the extreme right ,
as represented by Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, FOX News and the
bimbo-of-the-month Palin.
The pendulum swings both ways, now it's swinging to the left. It will eventually
swing back, it always does.
********************************************************************
And that includes you, unless you are merely posing as a
liberal for the fun of it. Who knows, or cares?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You know you care Cal!
Actually I am conservative on many fiscal issues and liberal on social issues.
I think there should be a single-payer health system in this country, managed by
the government and financed by making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.
Sputter on Cal...
moviePig
Per Wiki -- "# artefact or artifact: In British usage, artefact is the
main spelling and artifact a minor variant. In American English,
artifact is the usual spelling. Canadians prefer artifact and
Australians artefact, according to their respective dictionaries.
Artefact reflects Arte-fact(um), the Latin source."
I debated, but relied on the most recent instance I recalled --
probably in British subtitles. So, I admit that you and your Canadian
friends seem indeed to be correct... (if a bit arty-factual...)
trotsky
Okay, I may have seen that spelling at some point in time whilst reading
Brit. Lit., but more recently we have seen the term used ad infinitum
when discussing high end video, so I don't think the alternate spelling
comes up much. Interestingly (to a spelling geek anyway) my
spellchecker in Thunderbird underlines "artefact" as if it is an
incorrect spelling.
Stone me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: liberals and a liberal society.
Perhaps liberals are those who have a different point of view.
The word extreme seems to be a value you place with liberals,
yet I detect no such concerns about those who are to the right
of your point of view. Did GWB "enable" Right wing extremists,
I wonder?
Generally most of us are committed to our differing points of view,
and elections make no difference in the way we cast our vote(s).
Those who do change their votes from the choice of two have
no trouble with the concerns you raise.
The people I suspect elections are for are like that woman who
complained that she had voted for Obama, but her husband and
herself were unemployed so she will be voting Republican next
time.
In the UK, many people have expressed a desire to vote for the
Fascist party, BNP at the next election. Fortunately most of them
could not find their way to a polling station.
Liberals as you insist on calling them are people who want a
society that has been well described. The difference is a moral
rather than a fiscal one.
Obama has by his taking the highest office in the land, made a
section of people feel that the American Dream can still be
something they can dream in too.
I think of Nat King Cole, who, when taking up residence in a
Hollywood street, was approached by one of his neighbours,
(presumably after the word "n....r" was burned or dug into his lawn)
"we just want to live in an area where there are no bad people"
To which Cole replied, "me too".
Stone me.
moviePig
(Don't take it as future obligation, but... that's a pretty good
post.)
moviePig
So does mine in Google. Fuck 'em.