Prev: scope_pic, the ideal usenet scope!
Next: Active rectifier/peak detector @ up to 150kHz...
From: Hammy on 6 Apr 2010 19:22
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:06:41 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:56:52 -0400, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:12:27 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:28:47 +0200, "fritz" <yaputya(a)microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"David Segall" <david(a)address.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:sqamr5hqs03umb25s1404epb55mrkf4t55(a)4ax.com...
>>>>> "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to
>>>>>>products you buy on the shelf.
>>>>>>The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect
>>>>>>anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can.
>>>>>
>>>>> I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter
>>>>> is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a
>>>>> few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the
>>>>> censors delays its release by days or even weeks.
>>>>
>>>>The filter excludes all 'unclassified' sites - determined by a bunch of
>>>>faceless and unaccountable
>>>>people.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally, I am against any censorship,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or
>>>>> bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV?
>>>>
>>>>A totally stupid analogy, grow up.
>>>
>>>NO, it really isn't. The statement was *any* censorship.
>>
>>I think it is. The OT was Censorship. Bestiality is Illegal;
>
>Fine, sadism is not.
>
>>in most
>>developed countries anyways. He might just as well have said how you
>>would like to see a snuff film on prime time. Neither has any bearing
>>on the original topic of censorship. It's like comparing apples with
>>peas they are two different things, ones a fruit the others a
>>vegetable.
>
>Certainly it's censorship. It's a prior restraint on publication.
>
>>One has to do with an act that society has deemed illegal. Censorship
>>isn't about allowing illegal acts to be performed. It's about not
>>letting one group decide what should and shouldn't be available for
>>public consumption.
>
>performance <> publication.
>
>>I don't like a lot of the things I see and hear but those people
>>should still have the right to do it as long as they aren't breaking
>>any laws.
>
>If there is a law against showing a boob on TeeVee, you're fine with it?

Hell no. Boobies enhance the boob tube experience.

>You're fine with the law against the seven words?
>
>>If he would have said; how would you like a Satanist cult program on
>>during primetime? That would be more relevant to the topic of
>>censorship.
>
>No, it's one example of censorship. The position taken was *ANY* censorship.

Fair enough.

I'm against the form of censorship in which one particular group
determines what I can and cant watch. I know that this is taking place
now to a certain extent by having laws in place to prevent things like
hate literature and the like.

From: krw on 6 Apr 2010 19:34
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:22:58 -0400, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:06:41 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:56:52 -0400, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:12:27 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:28:47 +0200, "fritz" <yaputya(a)microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"David Segall" <david(a)address.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>news:sqamr5hqs03umb25s1404epb55mrkf4t55(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>> "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to
>>>>>>>products you buy on the shelf.
>>>>>>>The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect
>>>>>>>anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter
>>>>>> is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a
>>>>>> few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the
>>>>>> censors delays its release by days or even weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>>The filter excludes all 'unclassified' sites - determined by a bunch of
>>>>>faceless and unaccountable
>>>>>people.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I am against any censorship,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or
>>>>>> bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV?
>>>>>
>>>>>A totally stupid analogy, grow up.
>>>>
>>>>NO, it really isn't. The statement was *any* censorship.
>>>
>>>I think it is. The OT was Censorship. Bestiality is Illegal;
>>
>>Fine, sadism is not.
>>
>>>in most
>>>developed countries anyways. He might just as well have said how you
>>>would like to see a snuff film on prime time. Neither has any bearing
>>>on the original topic of censorship. It's like comparing apples with
>>>peas they are two different things, ones a fruit the others a
>>>vegetable.
>>
>>Certainly it's censorship. It's a prior restraint on publication.
>>
>>>One has to do with an act that society has deemed illegal. Censorship
>>>isn't about allowing illegal acts to be performed. It's about not
>>>letting one group decide what should and shouldn't be available for
>>>public consumption.
>>
>>performance <> publication.
>>
>>>I don't like a lot of the things I see and hear but those people
>>>should still have the right to do it as long as they aren't breaking
>>>any laws.
>>
>>If there is a law against showing a boob on TeeVee, you're fine with it?
>
>Hell no. Boobies enhance the boob tube experience.

;-) Well, there is a law against it so you must be fine with the censorship.

>>You're fine with the law against the seven words?
>>
>>>If he would have said; how would you like a Satanist cult program on
>>>during primetime? That would be more relevant to the topic of
>>>censorship.
>>
>>No, it's one example of censorship. The position taken was *ANY* censorship.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>I'm against the form of censorship in which one particular group
>determines what I can and cant watch. I know that this is taking place
>now to a certain extent by having laws in place to prevent things like

Of course, the question is only where to draw the line. Personally, I'm not
against a "PG" rating on OTA television. Cable, satellite, pay, Internet, not
so much. The FCC should have no jurisdiction whatsoever.

>hate literature and the like.

Laws against "hate speech" (or any other "hate crimes") and other PC nonsense
are nothing less than thought control.
From: JosephKK on 7 Apr 2010 00:03
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:17:40 GMT, David Segall <david(a)address.invalid> wrote:

>"David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to
>>products you buy on the shelf.
>>The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect
>>anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can.
>
>I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter
>is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a
>few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the
>censors delays its release by days or even weeks.
>>
>>> Personally, I am against any censorship,
>
>I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or
>bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV?

Not speaking for anyone else, but, yes, i would. It would never happen
anyway. There is not enough market for it.
From: JosephKK on 7 Apr 2010 00:15
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:56:52 -0400, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:12:27 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:28:47 +0200, "fritz" <yaputya(a)microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David Segall" <david(a)address.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:sqamr5hqs03umb25s1404epb55mrkf4t55(a)4ax.com...
>>>> "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to
>>>>>products you buy on the shelf.
>>>>>The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect
>>>>>anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can.
>>>>
>>>> I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter
>>>> is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a
>>>> few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the
>>>> censors delays its release by days or even weeks.
>>>
>>>The filter excludes all 'unclassified' sites - determined by a bunch of
>>>faceless and unaccountable
>>>people.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I am against any censorship,
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or
>>>> bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV?
>>>
>>>A totally stupid analogy, grow up.
>>
>>NO, it really isn't. The statement was *any* censorship.
>
>I think it is. The OT was Censorship. Bestiality is Illegal; in most
>developed countries anyways. He might just as well have said how you
>would like to see a snuff film on prime time. Neither has any bearing
>on the original topic of censorship. It's like comparing apples with
>peas they are two different things, ones a fruit the others a
>vegetable.
>
>One has to do with an act that society has deemed illegal. Censorship
>isn't about allowing illegal acts to be performed. It's about not
>letting one group decide what should and shouldn't be available for
>public consumption.
>
>I don't like a lot of the things I see and hear but those people
>should still have the right to do it as long as they aren't breaking
>any laws.
>
>If he would have said; how would you like a Satanist cult program on
>during primetime? That would be more relevant to the topic of
>censorship.

It has been tried in the US, it only lasted a few weeks, crappy ratings.
From: Spehro Pefhany on 7 Apr 2010 13:38
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 21:15:49 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:56:52 -0400, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:12:27 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:28:47 +0200, "fritz" <yaputya(a)microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"David Segall" <david(a)address.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:sqamr5hqs03umb25s1404epb55mrkf4t55(a)4ax.com...
>>>>> "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to
>>>>>>products you buy on the shelf.
>>>>>>The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect
>>>>>>anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can.
>>>>>
>>>>> I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter
>>>>> is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a
>>>>> few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the
>>>>> censors delays its release by days or even weeks.
>>>>
>>>>The filter excludes all 'unclassified' sites - determined by a bunch of
>>>>faceless and unaccountable
>>>>people.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally, I am against any censorship,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or
>>>>> bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV?
>>>>
>>>>A totally stupid analogy, grow up.
>>>
>>>NO, it really isn't. The statement was *any* censorship.
>>
>>I think it is. The OT was Censorship. Bestiality is Illegal; in most
>>developed countries anyways. He might just as well have said how you
>>would like to see a snuff film on prime time. Neither has any bearing
>>on the original topic of censorship. It's like comparing apples with
>>peas they are two different things, ones a fruit the others a
>>vegetable.
>>
>>One has to do with an act that society has deemed illegal. Censorship
>>isn't about allowing illegal acts to be performed. It's about not
>>letting one group decide what should and shouldn't be available for
>>public consumption.
>>
>>I don't like a lot of the things I see and hear but those people
>>should still have the right to do it as long as they aren't breaking
>>any laws.
>>
>>If he would have said; how would you like a Satanist cult program on
>>during primetime? That would be more relevant to the topic of
>>censorship.
>
>It has been tried in the US, it only lasted a few weeks, crappy ratings.

Denver 2008?

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: scope_pic, the ideal usenet scope!
Next: Active rectifier/peak detector @ up to 150kHz...