| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
This concerns all of US
|
This concerns all of US
(The Watcher)
Let ME interpret what HE said for YOU. HE wasn't asking YOU to interpret that site for HIM. HE was merely asking for an idea what the site was about. Capiche? Sorry, I will show you where the toilet paper is but you have to wipe your own bottom. Capiche? |
This concerns all of US
(The Watcher)
Let ME interpret what HE said for YOU. HE wasn't asking YOU to interpret that site for HIM. HE was merely asking for an idea what the site was about. Capiche? Sorry, I will show you where the toilet paper is but you have to wipe your own bottom. Capiche? |
This concerns all of US
BobbyRoberson wrote: .............I was surprised how many people WANT somebody filtering what they read/watch/hear/surf. I want to decide for myself. I'm not surprised. I think a lot of people are getting real tired of TV and other media producers deciding that anything goes. I see the creator of the web site you are promoting was on Howard Stern talking about the web site. That tells me enough. Steve |
This concerns all of US
BobbyRoberson wrote: .............I was surprised how many people WANT somebody filtering what they read/watch/hear/surf. I want to decide for myself. I'm not surprised. I think a lot of people are getting real tired of TV and other media producers deciding that anything goes. I see the creator of the web site you are promoting was on Howard Stern talking about the web site. That tells me enough. Steve |
This concerns all of US
"BobbyRoberson" wrote in message ... (The Watcher) Let ME interpret what HE said for YOU. HE wasn't asking YOU to interpret that site for HIM. HE was merely asking for an idea what the site was about. Capiche? Sorry, I will show you where the toilet paper is but you have to wipe your own bottom. Capiche? What I'm saying is that I don't feel like incrementing your hit counter, since many unscrupulous people post their sites on newsgroups just to get the hit counter incremented -- which gets them extra money from the advertisers on the site. |
This concerns all of US
"Ray Drouillard"
What I'm saying is that I don't feel like incrementing your hit counter, since many unscrupulou 1st of all I have no tie to that site. 2nd just google stopfcc and find tons of hits |
This concerns all of US
"Ray Drouillard"
What I'm saying is that I don't feel like incrementing your hit counter, since many unscrupulou 1st of all I have no tie to that site. 2nd just google stopfcc and find tons of hits |
This concerns all of US
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 03:57:37 GMT, "FDR"
wrote: "Penelope Periwinkle" wrote On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 02:30:57 GMT, "FDR" "Penelope Periwinkle" wrote: ... Your spamming has been reported to AOL. Do you report the other spammers that are here too? Is that a requirement? Just wondering why you feel the need to report this guy. He was wriggling so nicely on a hook of his own making, I just hadda take a nibble. And, well, I'm rarely able to resist irony. I report spammers as I have time and inclination. Anymore it's rare to find one who hasn't buggered its path beyond recognition; but if I can figure out who they are and where they're posting from, I report it. Penelope -- "Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart." "ElissaAnn" |
This concerns all of US
1st of all I have no tie to that site.
2nd just google stopfcc and find tons of hits The problem is, with all the people who create websites for money, the actual address does not tell us what the site is about. When you just post a link on a newsgroup, we have no way to know for sure what the website is about unless you let us know. Your form was just like a spammer, even if that was not your intention. -Steve "BobbyRoberson" wrote in message ... "Ray Drouillard" What I'm saying is that I don't feel like incrementing your hit counter, since many unscrupulou 1st of all I have no tie to that site. 2nd just google stopfcc and find tons of hits |
This concerns all of US
I see the creator of the web site you are promoting was on Howard
Stern talking about the web site. That tells me enough. What it really breaks down to is the question of who really owns the airwaves. The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people. If that was the case, IMHO, anything would be allowed to be broadcast, and it would be up to each individual as to what he/she wants to listen to. Take a look at the Superbowl inncident, that I am sure everyone is aware of. I, for one, did not want to see that. But, there is a possibility that some people did. The only thing that needs to be regulated are the ratings/content notification systems. If people can know ahead of time what type of content will be on a radio/television show, then they can make a desision on whether or not to watch. Americans are free to listen to/view what they choose (within certain limitations, i.e. child porn, etc.) and it is not up to the F.C.C. to regulate what goes out over the airwaves. However, I do believe that the FCC could do some good, by creating a ratings system that works. Nobody wants to be suprised. -Steve Michaelson "Steve" wrote in message ... BobbyRoberson wrote: .............I was surprised how many people WANT somebody filtering what they read/watch/hear/surf. I want to decide for myself. I'm not surprised. I think a lot of people are getting real tired of TV and other media producers deciding that anything goes. I see the creator of the web site you are promoting was on Howard Stern talking about the web site. That tells me enough. Steve |
This concerns all of US
Steve Michaelson wrote: What it really breaks down to is the question of who really owns the airwaves. The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people. If that was the case, IMHO, anything would be allowed to be broadcast, and it would be up to each individual as to what he/she wants to listen to. Take a look at the Superbowl inncident, that I am sure everyone is aware of. I, for one, did not want to see that. But, there is a possibility that some people did. The only thing that needs to be regulated are the ratings/content notification systems. If people can know ahead of time what type of content will be on a radio/television show, then they can make a desision on whether or not to watch. Americans are free to listen to/view what they choose (within certain limitations, i.e. child porn, etc.) and it is not up to the F.C.C. to regulate what goes out over the airwaves. However, I do believe that the FCC could do some good, by creating a ratings system that works. Nobody wants to be suprised. -Steve Michaelson The fact that the airwaves belong to the people doesn't exclude the possibility that the majority of people want some regulation. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose there was a rating system to reflect that. Personally, I want to be able to sit down with my kids and watch the superbowl. I don't want to skip the game because it has a rating that worries me. I don't even want to be put in a position where I have to turn off the half time show because of content. Steve ... feeling very prudish today, I guess. |
This concerns all of US
Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose
there was a rating system to reflect that. Well, if that was the case, enough people would have complained to keep the incident from happening. I know that I would have complained, because that is not what I want to see at the superbowl. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Technology can overcome these problems. Parents can block certain ratings from TV, and if we could broadcast the ratings over the radio (which is technologically possible at this point) we could put v-chip like hardware on our radios too. This helps the parents remain in charge, even when they are not there. It also puts in in their hands to choose what their children should view/hear. For example, a few years back, Schindler's list was played over national television. While the movie is very emotional, and tells a story that everyone should probably hear, it is done in a very harsh way, and at some points, is probably unsuitable for children. It is rated R. The Matrix, however, is a movie that I feel that my children could watch. While the second is a little explicit in it's sexuality, and the third shows a little more violence, the first movie, in my opinion, would be fine for children from about 12+ Again, if all content is put out over the airwaves, and the technology is created for the parents to keep control over what their children see, I feel that our problems would be more or less solved. Some parents may not regulate what comes through the TV/radio with their new technology, but IMHO those are the people who probably shouldn't be parents. Not the ones that think they can regulate it. -Steve Michaelson "Steve" wrote in message ... Steve Michaelson wrote: What it really breaks down to is the question of who really owns the airwaves. The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people. If that was the case, IMHO, anything would be allowed to be broadcast, and it would be up to each individual as to what he/she wants to listen to. Take a look at the Superbowl inncident, that I am sure everyone is aware of. I, for one, did not want to see that. But, there is a possibility that some people did. The only thing that needs to be regulated are the ratings/content notification systems. If people can know ahead of time what type of content will be on a radio/television show, then they can make a desision on whether or not to watch. Americans are free to listen to/view what they choose (within certain limitations, i.e. child porn, etc.) and it is not up to the F.C.C. to regulate what goes out over the airwaves. However, I do believe that the FCC could do some good, by creating a ratings system that works. Nobody wants to be suprised. -Steve Michaelson The fact that the airwaves belong to the people doesn't exclude the possibility that the majority of people want some regulation. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose there was a rating system to reflect that. Personally, I want to be able to sit down with my kids and watch the superbowl. I don't want to skip the game because it has a rating that worries me. I don't even want to be put in a position where I have to turn off the half time show because of content. Steve ... feeling very prudish today, I guess. |
This concerns all of US
Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose
there was a rating system to reflect that. Well, if that was the case, enough people would have complained to keep the incident from happening. I know that I would have complained, because that is not what I want to see at the superbowl. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Technology can overcome these problems. Parents can block certain ratings from TV, and if we could broadcast the ratings over the radio (which is technologically possible at this point) we could put v-chip like hardware on our radios too. This helps the parents remain in charge, even when they are not there. It also puts in in their hands to choose what their children should view/hear. For example, a few years back, Schindler's list was played over national television. While the movie is very emotional, and tells a story that everyone should probably hear, it is done in a very harsh way, and at some points, is probably unsuitable for children. It is rated R. The Matrix, however, is a movie that I feel that my children could watch. While the second is a little explicit in it's sexuality, and the third shows a little more violence, the first movie, in my opinion, would be fine for children from about 12+ Again, if all content is put out over the airwaves, and the technology is created for the parents to keep control over what their children see, I feel that our problems would be more or less solved. Some parents may not regulate what comes through the TV/radio with their new technology, but IMHO those are the people who probably shouldn't be parents. Not the ones that think they can regulate it. -Steve Michaelson "Steve" wrote in message ... Steve Michaelson wrote: What it really breaks down to is the question of who really owns the airwaves. The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people. If that was the case, IMHO, anything would be allowed to be broadcast, and it would be up to each individual as to what he/she wants to listen to. Take a look at the Superbowl inncident, that I am sure everyone is aware of. I, for one, did not want to see that. But, there is a possibility that some people did. The only thing that needs to be regulated are the ratings/content notification systems. If people can know ahead of time what type of content will be on a radio/television show, then they can make a desision on whether or not to watch. Americans are free to listen to/view what they choose (within certain limitations, i.e. child porn, etc.) and it is not up to the F.C.C. to regulate what goes out over the airwaves. However, I do believe that the FCC could do some good, by creating a ratings system that works. Nobody wants to be suprised. -Steve Michaelson The fact that the airwaves belong to the people doesn't exclude the possibility that the majority of people want some regulation. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose there was a rating system to reflect that. Personally, I want to be able to sit down with my kids and watch the superbowl. I don't want to skip the game because it has a rating that worries me. I don't even want to be put in a position where I have to turn off the half time show because of content. Steve ... feeling very prudish today, I guess. |
This concerns all of US
"Steve" wrote in message ... Steve Michaelson wrote: What it really breaks down to is the question of who really owns the airwaves. The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people. If that was the case, IMHO, anything would be allowed to be broadcast, and it would be up to each individual as to what he/she wants to listen to. Take a look at the Superbowl inncident, that I am sure everyone is aware of. I, for one, did not want to see that. But, there is a possibility that some people did. The only thing that needs to be regulated are the ratings/content notification systems. If people can know ahead of time what type of content will be on a radio/television show, then they can make a desision on whether or not to watch. Americans are free to listen to/view what they choose (within certain limitations, i.e. child porn, etc.) and it is not up to the F.C.C. to regulate what goes out over the airwaves. However, I do believe that the FCC could do some good, by creating a ratings system that works. Nobody wants to be suprised. -Steve Michaelson The fact that the airwaves belong to the people doesn't exclude the possibility that the majority of people want some regulation. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose there was a rating system to reflect that. Personally, I want to be able to sit down with my kids and watch the superbowl. So if there was a ratings system, no doubt the Superbowl would be rated as a mature subject since it does involve violence. And the ads support alcohol consumption. Are these things ok to watch with your kids? People seem hung up on a breast, but not on the other seedy aspects of the telecast. I don't want to skip the game because it has a rating that worries me. I don't even want to be put in a position where I have to turn off the half time show because of content. Steve ... feeling very prudish today, I guess. |
This concerns all of US
Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose
there was a rating system to reflect that. Well, if that was the case, enough people would have complained to keep the incident from happening. I know that I would have complained, because that is not what I want to see at the superbowl. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Technology can overcome these problems. Parents can block certain ratings from TV, and if we could broadcast the ratings over the radio (which is technologically possible at this point) we could put v-chip like hardware on our radios too. This helps the parents remain in charge, even when they are not there. It also puts in in their hands to choose what their children should view/hear. For example, a few years back, Schindler's list was played over national television. While the movie is very emotional, and tells a story that everyone should probably hear, it is done in a very harsh way, and at some points, is probably unsuitable for children. It is rated R. The Matrix, however, is a movie that I feel that my children could watch. While the second is a little explicit in it's sexuality, and the third shows a little more violence, the first movie, in my opinion, would be fine for children from about 12+ Again, if all content is put out over the airwaves, and the technology is created for the parents to keep control over what their children see, I feel that our problems would be more or less solved. Some parents may not regulate what comes through the TV/radio with their new technology, but IMHO those are the people who probably shouldn't be parents. Not the ones that think they can regulate it. -Steve Michaelson "Steve" wrote in message ... Steve Michaelson wrote: What it really breaks down to is the question of who really owns the airwaves. The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people. If that was the case, IMHO, anything would be allowed to be broadcast, and it would be up to each individual as to what he/she wants to listen to. Take a look at the Superbowl inncident, that I am sure everyone is aware of. I, for one, did not want to see that. But, there is a possibility that some people did. The only thing that needs to be regulated are the ratings/content notification systems. If people can know ahead of time what type of content will be on a radio/television show, then they can make a desision on whether or not to watch. Americans are free to listen to/view what they choose (within certain limitations, i.e. child porn, etc.) and it is not up to the F.C.C. to regulate what goes out over the airwaves. However, I do believe that the FCC could do some good, by creating a ratings system that works. Nobody wants to be suprised. -Steve Michaelson The fact that the airwaves belong to the people doesn't exclude the possibility that the majority of people want some regulation. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose there was a rating system to reflect that. Personally, I want to be able to sit down with my kids and watch the superbowl. I don't want to skip the game because it has a rating that worries me. I don't even want to be put in a position where I have to turn off the half time show because of content. Steve ... feeling very prudish today, I guess. |
This concerns all of US
"Steve" wrote in message ... Steve Michaelson wrote: What it really breaks down to is the question of who really owns the airwaves. The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people. If that was the case, IMHO, anything would be allowed to be broadcast, and it would be up to each individual as to what he/she wants to listen to. Take a look at the Superbowl inncident, that I am sure everyone is aware of. I, for one, did not want to see that. But, there is a possibility that some people did. The only thing that needs to be regulated are the ratings/content notification systems. If people can know ahead of time what type of content will be on a radio/television show, then they can make a desision on whether or not to watch. Americans are free to listen to/view what they choose (within certain limitations, i.e. child porn, etc.) and it is not up to the F.C.C. to regulate what goes out over the airwaves. However, I do believe that the FCC could do some good, by creating a ratings system that works. Nobody wants to be suprised. -Steve Michaelson The fact that the airwaves belong to the people doesn't exclude the possibility that the majority of people want some regulation. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose there was a rating system to reflect that. Personally, I want to be able to sit down with my kids and watch the superbowl. So if there was a ratings system, no doubt the Superbowl would be rated as a mature subject since it does involve violence. And the ads support alcohol consumption. Are these things ok to watch with your kids? People seem hung up on a breast, but not on the other seedy aspects of the telecast. I don't want to skip the game because it has a rating that worries me. I don't even want to be put in a position where I have to turn off the half time show because of content. Steve ... feeling very prudish today, I guess. |
This concerns all of US
Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose
there was a rating system to reflect that. Well, if that was the case, enough people would have complained to keep the incident from happening. I know that I would have complained, because that is not what I want to see at the superbowl. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Technology can overcome these problems. Parents can block certain ratings from TV, and if we could broadcast the ratings over the radio (which is technologically possible at this point) we could put v-chip like hardware on our radios too. This helps the parents remain in charge, even when they are not there. It also puts in in their hands to choose what their children should view/hear. For example, a few years back, Schindler's list was played over national television. While the movie is very emotional, and tells a story that everyone should probably hear, it is done in a very harsh way, and at some points, is probably unsuitable for children. It is rated R. The Matrix, however, is a movie that I feel that my children could watch. While the second is a little explicit in it's sexuality, and the third shows a little more violence, the first movie, in my opinion, would be fine for children from about 12+ Again, if all content is put out over the airwaves, and the technology is created for the parents to keep control over what their children see, I feel that our problems would be more or less solved. Some parents may not regulate what comes through the TV/radio with their new technology, but IMHO those are the people who probably shouldn't be parents. Not the ones that think they can regulate it. -Steve Michaelson "Steve" wrote in message ... Steve Michaelson wrote: What it really breaks down to is the question of who really owns the airwaves. The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people. If that was the case, IMHO, anything would be allowed to be broadcast, and it would be up to each individual as to what he/she wants to listen to. Take a look at the Superbowl inncident, that I am sure everyone is aware of. I, for one, did not want to see that. But, there is a possibility that some people did. The only thing that needs to be regulated are the ratings/content notification systems. If people can know ahead of time what type of content will be on a radio/television show, then they can make a desision on whether or not to watch. Americans are free to listen to/view what they choose (within certain limitations, i.e. child porn, etc.) and it is not up to the F.C.C. to regulate what goes out over the airwaves. However, I do believe that the FCC could do some good, by creating a ratings system that works. Nobody wants to be suprised. -Steve Michaelson The fact that the airwaves belong to the people doesn't exclude the possibility that the majority of people want some regulation. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose there was a rating system to reflect that. Personally, I want to be able to sit down with my kids and watch the superbowl. I don't want to skip the game because it has a rating that worries me. I don't even want to be put in a position where I have to turn off the half time show because of content. Steve ... feeling very prudish today, I guess. |
This concerns all of US
"Steve" wrote in message ... Steve Michaelson wrote: What it really breaks down to is the question of who really owns the airwaves. The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people. If that was the case, IMHO, anything would be allowed to be broadcast, and it would be up to each individual as to what he/she wants to listen to. Take a look at the Superbowl inncident, that I am sure everyone is aware of. I, for one, did not want to see that. But, there is a possibility that some people did. The only thing that needs to be regulated are the ratings/content notification systems. If people can know ahead of time what type of content will be on a radio/television show, then they can make a desision on whether or not to watch. Americans are free to listen to/view what they choose (within certain limitations, i.e. child porn, etc.) and it is not up to the F.C.C. to regulate what goes out over the airwaves. However, I do believe that the FCC could do some good, by creating a ratings system that works. Nobody wants to be suprised. -Steve Michaelson The fact that the airwaves belong to the people doesn't exclude the possibility that the majority of people want some regulation. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose there was a rating system to reflect that. Personally, I want to be able to sit down with my kids and watch the superbowl. So if there was a ratings system, no doubt the Superbowl would be rated as a mature subject since it does involve violence. And the ads support alcohol consumption. Are these things ok to watch with your kids? People seem hung up on a breast, but not on the other seedy aspects of the telecast. I don't want to skip the game because it has a rating that worries me. I don't even want to be put in a position where I have to turn off the half time show because of content. Steve ... feeling very prudish today, I guess. |
This concerns all of US
"Penelope Periwinkle"
He was wriggling so nicely on a hook of his own making, I just hadda take a nibble. I'll be sure to keep my fly zipped. |
This concerns all of US
"Penelope Periwinkle"
He was wriggling so nicely on a hook of his own making, I just hadda take a nibble. I'll be sure to keep my fly zipped. |
This concerns all of US
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:11:10 +0000, BobbyRoberson wrote:
Your spamming has been reported to AOL. Do feel free to notify Earthlink that I followed their instructions on how to Thanks for making my point. Its people like you that try to force their will/ideas/morality upon others. Please don't tell my Mommy. Your post was clearly off topic. That makes it spam. -- http://cannaday.us (genealogy) http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening) Uptimes below for the machines that created / host these sites. 16:56:01 up 11 days, 16:52, 2 users, load average: 0.13, 0.14, 0.43 16:50:00 up 93 days, 20:02, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 |
This concerns all of US
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:21:14 +0000, BobbyRoberson wrote:
"Penelope Periwinkle" He was wriggling so nicely on a hook of his own making, I just hadda take a nibble. I'll be sure to keep my fly zipped. Too late ... your intellect is already showing. -- http://cannaday.us (genealogy) http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening) Uptimes below for the machines that created / host these sites. 16:58:00 up 11 days, 16:54, 2 users, load average: 0.22, 0.17, 0.40 16:52:00 up 93 days, 20:04, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 |
This concerns all of US
|
This concerns all of US
So if there was a ratings system, no doubt the Superbowl would be rated as
a mature subject since it does involve violence. And the ads support alcohol consumption. Are these things ok to watch with your kids? People seem hung up on a breast, but not on the other seedy aspects of the telecast. Well, actually, I have complained for years about the Disney channel, with the exact same reasons. Not really alcohol, but teen-band, sex-appeal singers, and thoughtless rubbish. MTV is killing our teens, and Disney is killing our children. HOWEVER, it is up to the parents to allow, or prevent thier children from viewing these different things. A complex ratings system (even including ads) will help parents block certain levels/ratings that they know their kids should not see. -Steve Michaelson "FDR" wrote in message ... "Steve" wrote in message ... Steve Michaelson wrote: What it really breaks down to is the question of who really owns the airwaves. The airwaves are supposed to belong to the people. If that was the case, IMHO, anything would be allowed to be broadcast, and it would be up to each individual as to what he/she wants to listen to. Take a look at the Superbowl inncident, that I am sure everyone is aware of. I, for one, did not want to see that. But, there is a possibility that some people did. The only thing that needs to be regulated are the ratings/content notification systems. If people can know ahead of time what type of content will be on a radio/television show, then they can make a desision on whether or not to watch. Americans are free to listen to/view what they choose (within certain limitations, i.e. child porn, etc.) and it is not up to the F.C.C. to regulate what goes out over the airwaves. However, I do believe that the FCC could do some good, by creating a ratings system that works. Nobody wants to be suprised. -Steve Michaelson The fact that the airwaves belong to the people doesn't exclude the possibility that the majority of people want some regulation. A rating system doesn't solve all problems. Children just don't have the ability to choose what is good for them and what might be bad. Those who think that good parenting can overcome this and that children can be supervised constantly, can't be parents. Suppose the superbowl incident was was scheduled to happen. Suppose there was a rating system to reflect that. Personally, I want to be able to sit down with my kids and watch the superbowl. So if there was a ratings system, no doubt the Superbowl would be rated as a mature subject since it does involve violence. And the ads support alcohol consumption. Are these things ok to watch with your kids? People seem hung up on a breast, but not on the other seedy aspects of the telecast. I don't want to skip the game because it has a rating that worries me. I don't even want to be put in a position where I have to turn off the half time show because of content. Steve ... feeling very prudish today, I guess. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter