"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.

"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

"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

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"

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

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.