On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:10:32 -0600, Uncle Vic <address at (no spam) withheld.com
wrote:

One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisions at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
good taste.

PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television
decency. "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with your
concept of decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We have a
right to watch what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".

I always wondered why the V-chip didn't give non-Christians the option
of blocking Christian crap.

One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisions at (no spam) live.com> wrote:


"Uncle Vic" <address at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBCE1DF4C89vicman at (no spam) 216.196.97.131...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisions at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
good taste.

PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television
decency. "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with
your concept of decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We
have a right to watch what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".



What about the children? If it were only adults with access to
television, I'd agree with you 100%.


BS, you'd probably rather go drink a sixpack in the basement, leaving the
children to fend for themselves, wouldn't you? Do you even have
children? Adults are responsible for what their children watch on TV,
and if they can't monitor their own kids they deserve what they get.

BTW, I'll join you in the basement, if you have enough beer for both of
us.

Me? I prefer to allow my kids to watch whatever they want. Why shelter
them from what they'll learn later on in adulthood anyway? At least mine
are ready for it. I say, you might as well give them an early start on
the real world. With this outlook, you also tend to get very realistic,
first hand movie reviews!

Well, maybe I'm just about out of the picture anyhoo. My eldest is 24,
and my younger is 17. But I've held fast to this opinion since that
first Big O...

"Uncle Vic" <address at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBCE5B4F6016vicman at (no spam) 216.196.97.131...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisions at (no spam) live.com> wrote:


"Uncle Vic" <address at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBCE1DF4C89vicman at (no spam) 216.196.97.131...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisions at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency
and good taste.

PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television
decency. "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with
your concept of decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We
have a right to watch what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".



What about the children? If it were only adults with access to
television, I'd agree with you 100%.


BS, you'd probably rather go drink a sixpack in the basement, leaving
the children to fend for themselves, wouldn't you? Do you even have
children? Adults are responsible for what their children watch on
TV, and if they can't monitor their own kids they deserve what they
get.

BTW, I'll join you in the basement, if you have enough beer for both
of us.

Me? I prefer to allow my kids to watch whatever they want. Why
shelter them from what they'll learn later on in adulthood anyway?
At least mine are ready for it. I say, you might as well give them
an early start on the real world. With this outlook, you also tend
to get very realistic, first hand movie reviews!

Well, maybe I'm just about out of the picture anyhoo. My eldest is
24, and my younger is 17. But I've held fast to this opinion since
that first Big O...




I wasn't referring to 17 year olds; more the 11-14 range, when kids
are more impressionable to what they see. Are you really looking to
promote this type of behaviour, which is much different than asking
people to acccept it. Kids have enough problems at that age; they can
find out thressomes when they're a little older.
Despite what you may think, I know kids aren't stupid. I give them
enough credit to figure out how to watch a television show even if
their parents strictly forbid it.

Ah, the old conservative mantra. A screech, really. "WHAT ABOUT THE
CHILDREN!?!???!??!??!?!??!?"

They'll survive, just as they survive everything else you kooks think
will wipe them off the face of the earth.

How many children died when Janet Jackson showed her tit on TV?
Zero. How many were maimed for life? Zero. How many were
temporarily disabled as a result? Zero. How many had attacks of
nerves so severe that they had to be institutionalized? Zero. It's
the adults who have the problem. Quit using kids in your arguments.

Then you're not against censorship. Yet you post articles that are
against censorship and make out like you support this.

WTF?

One fine day in alt.atheism, Uncle Vic <address at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote:



Then you're not against censorship. Yet you post articles that are
against censorship and make out like you support this.

WTF?


Oops...

Let me try that again.

Then you're against censorship. Yet you post articles that are pro-
censorship and make out like you support this. WFT?

...dang...

On Nov 8, 12:20 am, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:
"Uncle Vic" <addr... at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9CBCE1DF4C89vicman at (no spam) 216.196.97.131...

One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency
and good taste.

PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television
decency. "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with
your concept of decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We
have a right to watch what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".

What about the children?

Ah, the old conservative mantra. A screech, really. "WHAT ABOUT THE
CHILDREN!?!???!??!??!?!??!?"

They'll survive, just as they survive everything else you kooks think
will wipe them off the face of the earth.

How many children died when Janet Jackson showed her tit on TV?
Zero. How many were maimed for life? Zero. How many were
temporarily disabled as a result? Zero. How many had attacks of
nerves so severe that they had to be institutionalized? Zero. It's
the adults who have the problem. Quit using kids in your arguments.

PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be heeded. The
episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and good taste.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56694

Group Urges CW Stations Not to Air 'Gossip Girl'

New York - On-air promos for a sexual threesome on an upcoming episode of
"Gossip Girl" have spurred the Parents Television Council to ask affiliates
of the CW network to pre-empt the show.

Airing the teen tryst, which is being teased in an ad as a "3SOME," is
"reckless and irresponsible," said PTC president Tim Winter in a statement
Wednesday. The threesome involves three main characters in the show but they
are not identified in the promos.

The PTC has urged CW affiliate stations not to air the episode, scheduled
for Nov. 9.

"Uncle Vic" <address at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBCE1DF4C89vicman at (no spam) 216.196.97.131...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisions at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
good taste.

PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television decency.
"Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with your concept of
decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We have a right to watch
what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".

What about the children? If it were only adults with access to television,
I'd agree with you 100%.

I always wondered why the V-chip didn't give [people] the option
of blocking [RRR-Cult] crap.

On Nov 8, 12:20 am, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

snippy

What about the children?

Perhaps the *parents* should actually worry about them, instead of
letting someone else do the parenting?

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!

On Nov 8, 1:29 am, "Smiler" <Smi... at (no spam) joe.king.com> wrote:
Pat Magroyne wrote:
On Nov 8, 12:20 am, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:
"Uncle Vic" <addr... at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9CBCE1DF4C89vicman at (no spam) 216.196.97.131...

One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency
and good taste.

PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television
decency. "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with
your concept of decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We
have a right to watch what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".

What about the children?

Ah, the old conservative mantra. A screech, really. "WHAT ABOUT THE
CHILDREN!?!???!??!??!?!??!?"

They'll survive, just as they survive everything else you kooks
think will wipe them off the face of the earth.

How many children died when Janet Jackson showed her tit on TV?
Zero. How many were maimed for life? Zero. How many were
temporarily disabled as a result? Zero. How many had attacks of
nerves so severe that they had to be institutionalized? Zero. It's
the adults who have the problem. Quit using kids in your arguments.

In the UK, that would have been laughed of as an 'unfortunte
incident'.

Ah. In the U.S., a fabulous PR firm called it a "wardrobe
malfunction", which, I have to say, is the most delicious attempt at
damage control I've ever seen!

As for children, don't they see their mother's tits when they're
suckling? Mine boys certainly did. My wife was often topless in
front of them, until THEY were old enough to be embarassed by it.

Yep. Any kids watching the incident weren't offended by it. Maybe
embarrassed by it, but only if they were in the company of adults at
the time. If alone, the younger ones would have laughed, the older
ones might have made lewd comments. Nobody died, nobody was injured.
It wasn't the prettiest boob in town, but nobody went blind looking at
it.

"Uncle Vic" <address at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBCE1DF4C89vicman at (no spam) 216.196.97.131...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisions at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
good taste.

PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television decency.
"Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with your concept of
decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We have a right to watch
what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".



What about the children? If it were only adults with access to television,
I'd agree with you 100%.

On Nov 8, 12:20 am, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:
"Uncle Vic" <addr... at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9CBCE1DF4C89vicman at (no spam) 216.196.97.131...

One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisi... at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
good taste.

PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television decency.
"Turn the Fucking Channel".  Many of us don't agree with your concept of
decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you.  We have a right to watch
what's on TV.  Now go get a life, "J".

What about the children?

Ah, the old conservative mantra. A screech, really. "WHAT ABOUT THE
CHILDREN!?!???!??!??!?!??!?"

They'll survive, just as they survive everything else you kooks think
will wipe them off the face of the earth.

How many children died when Janet Jackson showed her tit on TV?
Zero. How many were maimed for life? Zero. How many were
temporarily disabled as a result? Zero. How many had attacks of
nerves so severe that they had to be institutionalized? Zero. It's
the adults who have the problem. Quit using kids in your arguments.

"Uncle Vic" <address at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBCE5B4F6016vicman at (no spam) 216.196.97.131...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisions at (no spam) live.com> wrote:


"Uncle Vic" <address at (no spam) withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBCE1DF4C89vicman at (no spam) 216.196.97.131...
One fine day in alt.atheism, "J" <Jvisions at (no spam) live.com> wrote:

PTC, which has exhibited sound judgement in the past, should be
heeded. The episode described is beyond the boundries of decency and
good taste.

PTC adherants need to learn the golden rule concerning television
decency. "Turn the Fucking Channel". Many of us don't agree with
your concept of decency. In fact, me might just outnumber you. We
have a right to watch what's on TV. Now go get a life, "J".



What about the children? If it were only adults with access to
television, I'd agree with you 100%.


BS, you'd probably rather go drink a sixpack in the basement, leaving the
children to fend for themselves, wouldn't you? Do you even have
children? Adults are responsible for what their children watch on TV,
and if they can't monitor their own kids they deserve what they get.

BTW, I'll join you in the basement, if you have enough beer for both of
us.

Me? I prefer to allow my kids to watch whatever they want. Why shelter
them from what they'll learn later on in adulthood anyway? At least mine
are ready for it. I say, you might as well give them an early start on
the real world. With this outlook, you also tend to get very realistic,
first hand movie reviews!

Well, maybe I'm just about out of the picture anyhoo. My eldest is 24,
and my younger is 17. But I've held fast to this opinion since that
first Big O...




I wasn't referring to 17 year olds; more the 11-14 range