Men Are Nothing But Sperm Donors - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-16-2005, 09:36 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl

You use the name Jesus Christ to make a point and yet you dont believe in his story..... weird.
Totally off topic, sorry. I just found it ironic


Did I *ever* say I didn't believe? Tell me.

Liberal Protestantism is credited with not only saying that the Bible is not literal, but also doesn't believe in hell.

Frankly, this assumption is plain uncalled for.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 09:37 AM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:55 PM
well, i'm straddling both worlds ...

i work for a television channel where the GM is a female who came from the BBC.

though i'm not working for the channel itself, right now; doing an educational project instead, but for the same company.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 09:42 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Anyway if the 'Christian Taliban' are so all pervasive, then how the heck does South Park get produced?
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 09:43 AM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Anyway if the 'Christian Taliban' are so all pervasive, then how the heck does South Park get produced?
It's on cable, not network television. It's also on after 10 pm, which makes it even less regulated.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 09:45 AM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Shit

Another f up FYM thread

Why talk about anything when we can toss "Christian Taliban" in a thread and go off on conservative Christians....

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 09:49 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Why talk about anything when we can toss "Christian Taliban" in a thread and go off on conservative Christians....

Because, like it or not, they are a major force behind American television. You get a breast on for a fraction of a second and you get record FCC fines. I watched CBC the other day, on the other hand, and not only saw breasts but an ass during prime time. God forbid!

And when it comes to depictions of gay people on TV, these are the same people who bitch to the FCC complaining they are "indecent." Most thankfully, the FCC has ignored them on the latter.

As someone who works in this industry and is interested in artistry and creativity, I will complain about any group that works to stifle creativity. Thank goodness premium cable is fully unregulated, but I also happen to live in a rural area and can't get cable.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 09:50 AM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Shit

Another f up FYM thread

Why talk about anything when we can toss "Christian Taliban" in a thread and go off on conservative Christians....

I don't often agree with you but I do on this.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 09:54 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Anyway, I'm tired of this thread myself.

Summary, for those looking for hidden agendas:

1) It is NOT the fault of women that has made BBC to be perceived as "crappy." U.S. reality television, in fact, is mostly derivatives from European and often *British* television, and people here eat them up. Likewise, the CBC is also accused of being "crappy" in Canada, and they are NOT female dominated. In other words, the writer of the article here has dug up "sexism," because he's stagnating in his career probably.

2) If you want more *accountability,* then push for more open ratings and focus groups on your television. Non-commercial and government-owned television, generally speaking, does not have to a flying fuck about what people think, because they don't have to worry about ratings. Now PBS cares, to a degree, because they have to worry about pledge drives, but BBC? When it's tax supported and non-commercial, what incentive is there to actively search for shows that everyone wants to watch?

And that's it. I'm tired of this.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 10:09 AM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Because, like it or not, they are a major force behind American television. You get a breast on for a fraction of a second and you get record FCC fines. I watched CBC the other day, on the other hand, and not only saw breasts but an ass during prime time. God forbid!

And when it comes to depictions of gay people on TV, these are the same people who bitch to the FCC complaining they are "indecent." Most thankfully, the FCC has ignored them on the latter.

As someone who works in this industry and is interested in artistry and creativity, I will complain about any group that works to stifle creativity. Thank goodness premium cable is fully unregulated, but I also happen to live in a rural area and can't get cable.

Melon
The only place your made-up organization has any influence is in your mind.

Or, does any one filing a complaint with the FCC grant them instant membership in the "Christian Taliban"?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 10:16 AM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
The only place your made-up organization has any influence is in your mind.
If only they were a figment of my imagination.

Quote:
'Justice Sunday' Attacks Gays But Soft-Peddles Roberts

Posted: August 15, 2005 1:00 pm ET

(Washington) The second in a series of satellite broadcasts to conservative churches across the country on Sunday was long on attacks on gays and "activist judges" but conspicuously short on mentions of President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court.

The event, organized by the Family Research Council of Washington, D.C., featured House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, former Georgia Senator Zell Miller and Focus on the Family Chairman Dr. James Dobson.

Speakers urged Christians to pray to God for deliverance from liberal judges. They denounced Supreme Court rulings on gay rights, religious expression, and abortion.

"Disguising prejudice as justice is un-American," said Human Rights Ccampaign President Joe Solmonese. "The extremism on display last night dangerously ignored the Court's more than 200-year-old responsibility of independence. In rallying against this liberty, the speakers last night rallied against one of our democracy's greatest qualities."

Although the broadcast originally had been set up to promote Judge John Roberts' confirmation to the high court, none of last night's speakers explicitly called for Roberts to be placed on the high court.

The closest reference came from Miller who urged people of faith to "cover this confirmation process with a blanket of prayer." Dobson said he prays that Senate Democrats won't be able to turn the hearings "into a circus."

The broadcast had been set up to push Roberts' confirmation. But, that was before many conservative groups became "alarmed" over revelations that Roberts had offered free legal advice to an LGBT group that ultimately won a landmark 1996 gay civil rights case at the Supreme Court. Following closely was the disclosure Roberts also lent a hand in 1999 preparing Playboy representatives for oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

Last week, Public Advocate, a conservative Virginia-based "national pro-family group", withdrew its support of Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.

Other conservative groups have not gone so far but several, including the organizers of Sunday's event, have been vocal in raising "concerns" Roberts may be too liberal in his views.

Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group fighting LGBT rights in several states, said Roberts' involvement in the gay case is "something to certainly be concerned about." Focus on the Family also is "raising alarm bells."

But, while conservative pull back on their support for Judge Roberts, LGBT civil rights groups are equally concerned.

"All this shows is that Roberts is a good lawyer. It has nothing to do with his ideology," NGLTF executive director Matt Foreman said of the1996 gay rights case last week."

Michael Adams, director of education at Lambda Legal, said that "It poses as many questions as answers."

Senate confirmation hearings for Roberts are set to begin Sept. 6.
Quote:
Or, does any one filing a complaint with the FCC grant them instant membership in the "Christian Taliban"?
"One filing"? Please. The FCC is currently on a rather unprecedented backlog, because "Christian conservatives" have purposely lodged enough complaints during TV stations' required license renewal process with frivolous "indecency" complaints on an already neutered network TV environment. They got their V-chips and their TV ratings, and they're still not happy.

Instead, the FCC is now being forced to investigate most which will amount to crap.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 10:21 AM   #41
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


The only place your made-up organization has any influence is in your mind.

Or, does any one filing a complaint with the FCC grant them instant membership in the "Christian Taliban"?


are you completely unaware of all the boycotts organized against certain media precisely because of their content? are you unaware of Michael Powell and the FCC? are you unaware of Wal-Mart's power when it comes to DVD sales and how they put nudity of any sort in an "adults only" section of the store? (and Wal-Mart accounts for fully a quarter of all DVD sales in the country)?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 10:23 AM   #42
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:55 PM
anyway ... back on topic ... i will add that most of the women at the top of my network (and there are quite a few) are almost all childless. i can think of one woman who adopted.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 10:27 AM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 PM
I would appreciate it if people would get back on topic, and, if you'd like, comment on what I posted here:

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Anyway, I'm tired of this thread myself.

Summary, for those looking for hidden agendas:

1) It is NOT the fault of women that has made BBC to be perceived as "crappy." U.S. reality television, in fact, is mostly derivatives from European and often *British* television, and people here eat them up. Likewise, the CBC is also accused of being "crappy" in Canada, and they are NOT female dominated. In other words, the writer of the article here has dug up "sexism," because he's stagnating in his career probably.

2) If you want more *accountability,* then push for more open ratings and focus groups on your television. Non-commercial and government-owned television, generally speaking, does not have to a flying fuck about what people think, because they don't have to worry about ratings. Now PBS cares, to a degree, because they have to worry about pledge drives, but BBC? When it's tax supported and non-commercial, what incentive is there to actively search for shows that everyone wants to watch?

And that's it. I'm tired of this.

Melon
I had absolutely no intention of spinning this thread into a different direction, but you know the nature of the internet: once someone interprets what you say differently from what you intended, all hell breaks loose.

Well, here's my (perhaps futile) attempt to reign in hell.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 10:35 AM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 11:55 PM
yes, can we please stick to the subject
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-16-2005, 10:38 AM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
are you completely unaware of all the boycotts organized against certain media precisely because of their content? are you unaware of Michael Powell and the FCC? are you unaware of Wal-Mart's power when it comes to DVD sales and how they put nudity of any sort in an "adults only" section of the store? (and Wal-Mart accounts for fully a quarter of all DVD sales in the country)?
Yes. Are they all part of your "Christian Taliban"?


Back to the thread.



Quote:
Originally posted by Melon
Non-commercial and government-owned television, generally speaking, does not have to a flying fuck about what people think, because they don't have to worry about ratings.
Does this support a call to end government funding of television? I'm not sure how open ratings and focus groups would affect change in organizations that receive protected income.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com