Leo wrote:

It was pretty accurate and intelligently written, actually! But I
assume from your statement that it didn't agree with your own
viewpoint, as it too is "wrong".

I consider the points it makes accurate enough, but it makes glaring
errors too.

The biggest one is the comparison between violence and sex. In it's own
context, I agree, there is a weirdness about how some of us accept
violence, but not sex.

But that ain't the argument.

If she were to become topless as an accident, I'd wager that the event
would be a momentary thing to talk about around the water cooler.
"That's the hazard of live TV" would be what people would say. "Poor
Janet! She must have been mortified!", would be another.

But since the whole thing was planned, and they lied about it
afterward, it changes the whole thing around. THAT has no place in a
halftime show.

Fact is, the shows have deteriorated in content over the last several
years, and a large portion of the audience doesn't like the emerging
format. They (we) are complaining, and they (we) have a right to. It
really isn't about sex versus violence. I no more want to see trashy,
sexually oriented "entertainment" during the superbowl halftime than I
want to see people being stabbed or hurt during it, or to have Peter
Popoff come out and do faith healing and ask for donations.

And that is why I think the article is way off base.


I take it you're not a Robbie Burns fan:

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us!"

Sigh.....

N2EY wrote:


All that's changed now. Catholic schools are now more like private academies,
and most of the teachers are lay people because nuns and brothers are too few.

Well DUH, Jim! Since we don't let them beat the kids any more, what fun
is it for them now? ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

I remember one nun who busted an 18 inch wooden ruler beating a kid,
so he had to go to a specific store after school and buy another with his own
money, (they cost about a quarter) and then bring it back the next day so she
could finish beating him with it.

One of the male nuns was going to hit my hand with the blackboard
pointer. I was
to hold out my hand, but I pulled it away by instinct to avoid getting
hit. He broke it
on the floor. He just let it go at that, as I think he may have thought
he went a hair
too far with this stuff. Not that he dialed it back much.... No he didn't
make me buy another pointer.



Oh yes, but it's usually not needed, because nowadays most kids have
at least been to kndergarten, and most have been in preschool and day
care since diaper time. So they're more used to the whole concept of school.

But back in those days it was common for a kid to have never set foot in a
school or classroom until the first day of first grade. I still remember other
kids being terrified. I wasn't - I'd gone to public school kindergarten.

Then I learned how different catholic school was...

I never finished kindergarden myself. Got thrown out of it in 2 weeks.
Was likely
partly that my mom had told me to not do anything a stranger tells me
to. Teacher
was a stranger..... I didn't know what the hell was going on with this
strange
place I got dumped off at one day.






In later grades (2 to 4 or so) I got placed in the "poor reader" group.
Because
I'd always be losing my place in the reader when it was my turn to read the
next paragraph out of the reading book. Well, who can keep track of
this while
several slow kids are slogging thru their paragraphs. I'd get bored and
read the
rest of teh story and finish it. And then not know where everyone else
is in it.
Teachers never figured this out.

They did have some good stuff. There was this thing called "SRA". Was
a box
of about a hundred different short stories and articles. Color coded
for level
of difficulty. You'd pull one of your current level and you'd read it
and answer
the questions on the back of it by yourself. Pass 5 of these little
tests and you
step up one level. Was an open book sort of test where you were allowed
and encouraged
to look at the story again as you did the questions. There were about
20 levels.

N2EY wrote:


I would point out that *most* kids, beaten or not, will not grow up to be
serial killers. But the legacy of violence plays out in other ways.

Very true! There have been children that have been abused that turn out
fine, and those with tranquil lives that turn out terrible. What the
discipline or lack of it will do is bring out latent problems.

The really whacked ones will be that way regardless.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:42:25 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Leo wrote:

It was pretty accurate and intelligently written, actually! But I
assume from your statement that it didn't agree with your own
viewpoint, as it too is "wrong".

I consider the points it makes accurate enough, but it makes glaring
errors too.

The biggest one is the comparison between violence and sex. In it's own
context, I agree, there is a weirdness about how some of us accept
violence, but not sex.

But that ain't the argument.

If she were to become topless as an accident, I'd wager that the event
would be a momentary thing to talk about around the water cooler.
"That's the hazard of live TV" would be what people would say. "Poor
Janet! She must have been mortified!", would be another.

But since the whole thing was planned, and they lied about it
afterward, it changes the whole thing around. THAT has no place in a
halftime show.

Agreed. But it just ain't that big a deal. And to listen to people
like Spike Lee deriding the incident as possibly the worst thing that
has ever happened in the entertainment biz is absolutely imbecilic,
given the content of some of his own productions. But. these guys
know where the money comes from and how to stay on the right side of
public opinion.

Personally, I'd consider Kid Rock's treatment of the flag far more
disrespectful and tasteless - yet that got hardly any press at all. Or
the lyrics to some of the award-winning rap music - plenty of hate in
there....and racism, and violence, and immorality. But, they give
performers like Eminem big awards and big bucks to spread their
sinister messages of hate and apathy to our kids - and get big-time
upset over a televised breast, as if that would cause irreprable harm
to their young psyches and moral character. That's just stupid.


Fact is, the shows have deteriorated in content over the last several
years, and a large portion of the audience doesn't like the emerging
format. They (we) are complaining, and they (we) have a right to. It
really isn't about sex versus violence. I no more want to see trashy,
sexually oriented "entertainment" during the superbowl halftime than I
want to see people being stabbed or hurt during it, or to have Peter
Popoff come out and do faith healing and ask for donations.

I'd prefer that they drop the entire halftime big talent show
entirely. Remember when the SuperBowl was all about the game? We can
thank our media friends for trying to jazz it up to appeal to the
largest number of viewers possible, in an effort to boost advertizing
revenues.

Now, because of this incident, broadcasters are installing tape delay
equipment to ensure that inappropriate things are not aired. This is
not being done for the benefit of the public good, mind you - it is
being done so as to placate the advertizers, so that they don't end up
on the wrong side of public opinion and lose market share - and keep
those big bucks coming in.....

Even the FCC has ruled that profanity is OK on broadcast services. Is
this not more repugnant than a breast? Hmmmm. Nice value system.

Where was the outcry a few years ago when Bono let loose a string of
expletives on the Grammys? That was at least an order of magnitude
worse than a televised breast, and a lot harder to explain to the
kids....where were the 7-second tape delays and prophesies of the end
of his career? But hey, there were no nasty body parts involved, so
that was OK.....


And that is why I think the article is way off base.

Not sure that I agree, Mike - the point was, the breast thing was just
not that big a deal. There are far worse things that society should
be concerned about - one need only look to the movies, video games or
even network TV to see that although sex has been somewhat removed
from our kids view, an incredible amount of graphic violence is pumped
out at them on a daily basis. That ain't good - and the impact on
society is well documented. All too frequently. With tragic results.



I take it you're not a Robbie Burns fan:

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us!"

Sigh.....

'Tis true, though - however difficult it may be.

73, Leo

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

One of the male nuns was going to hit my hand with the blackboard
pointer. I was
to hold out my hand, but I pulled it away by instinct to avoid getting
hit. He broke it
on the floor. He just let it go at that, as I think he may have thought
he went a hair
too far with this stuff. Not that he dialed it back much.... No he didn't
make me buy another pointer.

Typical. Parochial school did more to create millions of excatholics....

Oh yes, but it's usually not needed, because nowadays most kids have
at least been to kndergarten, and most have been in preschool and day
care since diaper time. So they're more used to the whole concept of school.

But back in those days it was common for a kid to have never set foot in a
school or classroom until the first day of first grade. I still remember
other
kids being terrified. I wasn't - I'd gone to public school kindergarten.

Then I learned how different catholic school was...

I never finished kindergarden myself. Got thrown out of it in 2 weeks.
Was likely
partly that my mom had told me to not do anything a stranger tells me
to. Teacher
was a stranger..... I didn't know what the hell was going on with this
strange
place I got dumped off at one day.

HAW!!

In later grades (2 to 4 or so) I got placed in the "poor reader" group.
Because
I'd always be losing my place in the reader when it was my turn to read the
next paragraph out of the reading book. Well, who can keep track of
this while
several slow kids are slogging thru their paragraphs. I'd get bored and
read the
rest of teh story and finish it. And then not know where everyone else
is in it. Teachers never figured this out.

Had several nuns whose idea of "teaching" was to simply have a kid read from
the textbook. At any moment, Sister Mary Elephant would call out another kid's
name and if the kid didn't pick up on the very next word, he'd get a beating.
We became quite good at following along and daydreaming at the same time.

They did have some good stuff. There was this thing called "SRA". Was
a box
of about a hundred different short stories and articles. Color coded
for level
of difficulty. You'd pull one of your current level and you'd read it
and answer
the questions on the back of it by yourself. Pass 5 of these little
tests and you
step up one level. Was an open book sort of test where you were allowed
and encouraged
to look at the story again as you did the questions. There were about
20 levels.

I remember that! By 5th grade they'd run out of levels for me. I'd do 3 or 4 in
the time it took most of the rest of the kids to do one. And since you could
look back and check you answers, it was a cinch.

--

Another trick was that you never wanted your folks to find out when you got
beaten at school, because they'd give you more of the same at home, and a
lecture about how those blessed nuns had sacrificed their lives to teach you
ungrateful kids, etc. Well, we never asked 'em to.

Those were the bad old days.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Leo
writes:

On 09 Feb 2004 01:21:52 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

snip

Last night, the local PBS station showed "Catch-22". More than a little
nudity,
sex and violence. But they showed it at 10 PM, with content warnings.
Anybody
who might be offended knew *ahead of time* to avoid it. No such warning or
rating on the superbowl.

That's the point that the Toronto Star article completely misses.

Jim, my friend, if you had cared to read past the title you may have
noted the other far more important points that the article was
actually making.....

I read the whole article. The author missed the most important point of the
whole wardrobe malfunction. Muddle-headed thinking on his part. Just my
opinion.



73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:



One of the male nuns was going to hit my hand with the blackboard
pointer. I was
to hold out my hand, but I pulled it away by instinct to avoid getting
hit. He broke it
on the floor. He just let it go at that, as I think he may have thought
he went a hair
too far with this stuff. Not that he dialed it back much.... No he didn't
make me buy another pointer.



Typical. Parochial school did more to create millions of excatholics....

There may have been this side effect that, after school I split the
joint as fast as I
could. Never saw any molestation (don't know if my particular school
had any of that,
but I wasn't at any risk of that).

Then there were the yearly school plays. You had two choices: be in it,
or buy a
50 cent ticket to the play. It was a no brainer: I paid the 50 cents
rather than have
to memorize lines and acts and spending more time at the school.






Had several nuns whose idea of "teaching" was to simply have a kid read from
the textbook. At any moment, Sister Mary Elephant would call out another kid's
name and if the kid didn't pick up on the very next word, he'd get a beating.
We became quite good at following along and daydreaming at the same time.

That's how history class got done. And memorizing names and dates.
Good for playing
"Jeopardy" but otherwise meaningless. It seemed that kings in Europe
would get bored
sitting around their castles and decide to have wars for fun every so
often. Football not
having been developed yet....




They did have some good stuff. There was this thing called "SRA".



I remember that! By 5th grade they'd run out of levels for me. I'd do 3 or 4 in
the time it took most of the rest of the kids to do one. And since you could
look back and check you answers, it was a cinch.

"What was Mr Honey Bunny's wife's name?" I had a bad memory, but being
able to
go back and look made it easy.

There were a few kids whose mother tongue was probably not English, and had
difficulty. I though that they were just brain damaged or something, as
I had no
concept that there were other languages than English until I was about
ten. Never
heard anything other than English in real life or on radio or TV...


--

Another trick was that you never wanted your folks to find out when you got
beaten at school, because they'd give you more of the same at home, and a
lecture about how those blessed nuns had sacrificed their lives to teach you
ungrateful kids, etc. Well, we never asked 'em to.

Didn't have that problem. Actually, my parents might have sued if they
knew, but
I didn't know that at the time.

Some nuns may have been teenage girls afraid of sex....

Leo wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:42:25 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Leo wrote:

It was pretty accurate and intelligently written, actually! But I
assume from your statement that it didn't agree with your own
viewpoint, as it too is "wrong".

I consider the points it makes accurate enough, but it makes glaring
errors too.

The biggest one is the comparison between violence and sex. In it's own
context, I agree, there is a weirdness about how some of us accept
violence, but not sex.

But that ain't the argument.

If she were to become topless as an accident, I'd wager that the event
would be a momentary thing to talk about around the water cooler.
"That's the hazard of live TV" would be what people would say. "Poor
Janet! She must have been mortified!", would be another.

But since the whole thing was planned, and they lied about it
afterward, it changes the whole thing around. THAT has no place in a
halftime show.

Agreed. But it just ain't that big a deal.

Not to you. To other people it *is* a big deal. Not just the incident
itself,
but the incident as a symbol of how goofy the whole system is.

And to listen to people
like Spike Lee deriding the incident as possibly the worst thing that
has ever happened in the entertainment biz is absolutely imbecilic,
given the content of some of his own productions. But. these guys
know where the money comes from and how to stay on the right side of
public opinion.

Exactly! They're all playing the game to their best advantage.

Personally, I'd consider Kid Rock's treatment of the flag far more
disrespectful and tasteless - yet that got hardly any press at all.

Agreed. To my way of thinking it was downright obscene. And the
producers
must have known about it beforehand.

Or
the lyrics to some of the award-winning rap music - plenty of hate in
there....and racism, and violence, and immorality. But, they give
performers like Eminem big awards and big bucks to spread their
sinister messages of hate and apathy to our kids - and get big-time
upset over a televised breast, as if that would cause irreprable harm
to their young psyches and moral character. That's just stupid.

*Who* gives out those awards? Think about it - most of the showbiz
awards,
be they Grammys, Emmys, Oscars, GGs, Tonys or whatever, are given out
based on voting by industry insiders, not the general public or even a
subset (such as the viewing/moviegoing public). Kid Rock has never,
and now
will never, get a penny from me. Yet there's little I can do to stop
him
from getting awards for acting like a treasonous idiot.

Fact is, the shows have deteriorated in content over the last several
years, and a large portion of the audience doesn't like the emerging
format. They (we) are complaining, and they (we) have a right to. It
really isn't about sex versus violence. I no more want to see trashy,
sexually oriented "entertainment" during the superbowl halftime than I
want to see people being stabbed or hurt during it, or to have Peter
Popoff come out and do faith healing and ask for donations.

I'd prefer that they drop the entire halftime big talent show
entirely.

Agreed! Maybe they should run all the commercials at halftime - most
of them were far better than what little I saw of the show!

Remember when the SuperBowl was all about the game?

When was that? This year's game was the best I've seen in a long long
time.
The game itself, that is.

We can
thank our media friends for trying to jazz it up to appeal to the
largest number of viewers possible, in an effort to boost advertizing
revenues.

That's why it's called show *business*. And make no mistake -
professional athletics is nothing more than a form of show business.

Now, because of this incident, broadcasters are installing tape delay
equipment to ensure that inappropriate things are not aired.

Aw 'cmon, they have it already.

This is
not being done for the benefit of the public good, mind you - it is
being done so as to placate the advertizers, so that they don't end up
on the wrong side of public opinion and lose market share - and keep
those big bucks coming in.....

"What's good for General Bullmoose...."

Even the FCC has ruled that profanity is OK on broadcast services.

When did they do that?

Is this not more repugnant than a breast?

Depends on whose.

Hmmmm. Nice value system.

Where was the outcry a few years ago when Bono let loose a string of
expletives on the Grammys?

That was a few months ago. And there *was* an outcry - to the extent
that
The Congress is considering a bill to ban certain words on broadcast
TV and
radio. The list is almost identical to George Carlin's list. Of course
the
words are actually part of the bill....

That was at least an order of magnitude
worse than a televised breast, and a lot harder to explain to the
kids....where were the 7-second tape delays and prophesies of the end
of his career? But hey, there were no nasty body parts involved, so
that was OK.....

Tell it to the FCC.

And that is why I think the article is way off base.

Not sure that I agree, Mike - the point was, the breast thing was just
not that big a deal.
There are far worse things that society should
be concerned about - one need only look to the movies, video games or
even network TV to see that although sex has been somewhat removed
from our kids view, an incredible amount of graphic violence is pumped
out at them on a daily basis. That ain't good - and the impact on
society is well documented. All too frequently. With tragic results.

And the broadcasters have the same excuse they've used for years:
People *want* that stuff, because they vote with their channel
changers. It's all about
ratings, and if a show gets ratings, there's more of the same. Lots
more.

Last night ABC aired "Pearl Harbor", which I found to be a much better
film
than the reviews would lead one to expect. It was quite violent, but
the
violence served a purpose and in telling the story. And the violence
had real consequences to real people. Definitely not something you'd
want young kids to see. That's a different thing than the 'cartoon'
violence of many shows. (Any really good war film [Das Boot, Saving
Private Ryan] also turns out to be an
effective anti-war film, simply by being accurate). The danger isn't
the violence, it's not taking the violence seriously.

I take it you're not a Robbie Burns fan:

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us!"

Sigh.....

You're wrong about that.

'Tis true, though - however difficult it may be.

Let me hold this mirror up for ya, Leo......

Just because I disagree with some of your opinions doesn't make me
"wrong".

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 9 Feb 2004 15:11:08 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:42:25 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

snip


Just because I disagree with some of your opinions doesn't make me
"wrong".

Fully agreed, Jim. Similarly, others who disagree with your opinions
(governments, newspapers, or individuals) aren't necessarily 'wrong'
or 'muddle-headed', are they?

You seem to believe that they are.....or so you say, anyway!

Unless you have facts available to prove the errors as you perceive
them, it's just your opinion on the subject that you are putting
forth, not absolute truths. Hence the reference to Benford's Law in
one of my other posts along the same lines as this one....


73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo