Petition to stop company from making cop killings in their..

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

You heard me right. Those people will not stop at just banning game
sales to minors, they will eventually want to seek bans on game
contents.
Here is the link:
http://www.mediafamily.org/mediawise/Take_2_petition.shtml
43 answers Last reply
More about petition stop company making killings their
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On 11 Mar 2005 07:39:01 -0800, sj543210@yahoo.com wrote:

    >You heard me right. Those people will not stop at just banning game
    >sales to minors, they will eventually want to seek bans on game
    >contents.
    >Here is the link:
    >http://www.mediafamily.org/mediawise/Take_2_petition.shtml

    LOL, I loved this bit:
    "We respect the First Amendment and do not advocate censorship.
    However, we have the right to tell the industry that we will not
    accept the glorification of violence towards police officers."

    Is DiF***wit's mum behind this one?
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly sj543210@yahoo.com Spake Unto All:

    >You heard me right. Those people will not stop at just banning game
    >sales to minors, they will eventually want to seek bans on game
    >contents.
    >Here is the link:
    >http://www.mediafamily.org/mediawise/Take_2_petition.shtml

    Well thank God someone is standing up for our impressionable little
    minds! It's about time someone did!

    I'm certainly going to sign that petition, as surely as my name is
    Mary-Juanna Reefer, and I suggest every other right-thinking
    individual here does too!
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    > Thusly sj543210@yahoo.com Spake Unto All:
    >
    >
    >>You heard me right. Those people will not stop at just banning game
    >>sales to minors, they will eventually want to seek bans on game
    >>contents.
    >>Here is the link:
    >>http://www.mediafamily.org/mediawise/Take_2_petition.shtml
    >
    >
    > Well thank God someone is standing up for our impressionable little
    > minds! It's about time someone did!
    >
    > I'm certainly going to sign that petition, as surely as my name is
    > Mary-Juanna Reefer, and I suggest every other right-thinking
    > individual here does too!
    >

    I'm with ya Mary. Plus I think they should extend it to shooting
    civilians in games. Then we should look at whether it's right to shoot
    soldiers in games - I guess a lot of folk shot german soldiers during
    their gaming moments last night but we're not at war with Germany - I
    mean is it right to shoot soldiers of an army you are not actually at
    war with?

    --
    I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
    'done it'...
    What do you mean?
    Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
    Yes...
    What's it like?
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> Spake Unto All:

    >> I'm certainly going to sign that petition, as surely as my name is
    >> Mary-Juanna Reefer, and I suggest every other right-thinking
    >> individual here does too!
    >
    >I'm with ya Mary. Plus I think they should extend it to shooting
    >civilians in games. Then we should look at whether it's right to shoot
    >soldiers in games - I guess a lot of folk shot german soldiers during
    >their gaming moments last night but we're not at war with Germany - I
    >mean is it right to shoot soldiers of an army you are not actually at
    >war with?

    And what about animals? I once saw this game for sale, where you were
    supposed to sneak up on and brutally shoot a poor defenceless deer!!!
    On purpose!!! And you could wound it, so it'd run off, and you could
    track it by following the blood dripping off it!!! And shoot it
    again!!!
    Everytime I think of the suffering of those poor electrons on the
    screen, I just want to cry.

    I think I'm going to have to ask my neighbors Claire Voyant and Hugh G
    Reckshon sign this petition too!
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    > Thusly Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >
    >>>I'm certainly going to sign that petition, as surely as my name is
    >>>Mary-Juanna Reefer, and I suggest every other right-thinking
    >>>individual here does too!
    >>
    >>I'm with ya Mary. Plus I think they should extend it to shooting
    >>civilians in games. Then we should look at whether it's right to shoot
    >>soldiers in games - I guess a lot of folk shot german soldiers during
    >>their gaming moments last night but we're not at war with Germany - I
    >>mean is it right to shoot soldiers of an army you are not actually at
    >>war with?
    >
    >
    > And what about animals? I once saw this game for sale, where you were
    > supposed to sneak up on and brutally shoot a poor defenceless deer!!!
    > On purpose!!! And you could wound it, so it'd run off, and you could
    > track it by following the blood dripping off it!!! And shoot it
    > again!!!
    > Everytime I think of the suffering of those poor electrons on the
    > screen, I just want to cry.
    >
    > I think I'm going to have to ask my neighbors Claire Voyant and Hugh G
    > Reckshon sign this petition too!
    >
    >

    Totally with you. You know I do see an opportunity here to extend it
    further. It's not just the killings. Games such as Age of Empires
    blatantly put gamers in a position of power where they abuse their
    workers rights, working them for hours on end with no break and just
    killing them off when their usefullness has expired. These gamers then
    go onto become the captains of industry (those that dont follow the
    killer career path of course). How can this be defended? No wonder
    there is so much stress and bullying in the workplace. Damn. Perhaps
    we can get difsayno to write a 'document'.

    --
    I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
    'done it'...
    What do you mean?
    Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
    Yes...
    What's it like?
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message
    news:1110561006.8051.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
    > Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    > > Thusly Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> Spake Unto All:
    > >
    > >
    > >>>I'm certainly going to sign that petition, as surely as my name is
    > >>>Mary-Juanna Reefer, and I suggest every other right-thinking
    > >>>individual here does too!
    > >>
    > >>I'm with ya Mary. Plus I think they should extend it to shooting
    > >>civilians in games. Then we should look at whether it's right to shoot
    > >>soldiers in games - I guess a lot of folk shot german soldiers during
    > >>their gaming moments last night but we're not at war with Germany - I
    > >>mean is it right to shoot soldiers of an army you are not actually at
    > >>war with?
    > >
    > >
    > > And what about animals? I once saw this game for sale, where you were
    > > supposed to sneak up on and brutally shoot a poor defenceless deer!!!
    > > On purpose!!! And you could wound it, so it'd run off, and you could
    > > track it by following the blood dripping off it!!! And shoot it
    > > again!!!
    > > Everytime I think of the suffering of those poor electrons on the
    > > screen, I just want to cry.
    > >
    > > I think I'm going to have to ask my neighbors Claire Voyant and Hugh G
    > > Reckshon sign this petition too!
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Totally with you. You know I do see an opportunity here to extend it
    > further. It's not just the killings. Games such as Age of Empires
    > blatantly put gamers in a position of power where they abuse their
    > workers rights, working them for hours on end with no break and just
    > killing them off when their usefullness has expired. These gamers then
    > go onto become the captains of industry (those that dont follow the
    > killer career path of course). How can this be defended? No wonder
    > there is so much stress and bullying in the workplace. Damn. Perhaps
    > we can get difsayno to write a 'document'.

    You all left out the games like Tetris and Bejeweled. Where the player
    get's 3 boxes in a row and BOOM! They blow up.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound> wrote in message
    news:BemYd.67634$SQ4.44862@fe1.texas.rr.com...
    >
    > "Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message
    > news:1110561006.8051.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
    > > Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    > > > Thusly Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> Spake Unto All:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >>>I'm certainly going to sign that petition, as surely as my name is
    > > >>>Mary-Juanna Reefer, and I suggest every other right-thinking
    > > >>>individual here does too!
    > > >>
    > > >>I'm with ya Mary. Plus I think they should extend it to shooting
    > > >>civilians in games. Then we should look at whether it's right to
    shoot
    > > >>soldiers in games - I guess a lot of folk shot german soldiers during
    > > >>their gaming moments last night but we're not at war with Germany - I
    > > >>mean is it right to shoot soldiers of an army you are not actually at
    > > >>war with?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > And what about animals? I once saw this game for sale, where you were
    > > > supposed to sneak up on and brutally shoot a poor defenceless deer!!!
    > > > On purpose!!! And you could wound it, so it'd run off, and you could
    > > > track it by following the blood dripping off it!!! And shoot it
    > > > again!!!
    > > > Everytime I think of the suffering of those poor electrons on the
    > > > screen, I just want to cry.
    > > >
    > > > I think I'm going to have to ask my neighbors Claire Voyant and Hugh G
    > > > Reckshon sign this petition too!
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > Totally with you. You know I do see an opportunity here to extend it
    > > further. It's not just the killings. Games such as Age of Empires
    > > blatantly put gamers in a position of power where they abuse their
    > > workers rights, working them for hours on end with no break and just
    > > killing them off when their usefullness has expired. These gamers then
    > > go onto become the captains of industry (those that dont follow the
    > > killer career path of course). How can this be defended? No wonder
    > > there is so much stress and bullying in the workplace. Damn. Perhaps
    > > we can get difsayno to write a 'document'.
    >
    > You all left out the games like Tetris and Bejeweled. Where the player
    > get's 3 boxes in a row and BOOM! They blow up.
    >

    Poor, poor boxes. <sigh>
    I tried that in my living room the other night with some u-haul boxes. It
    didn't work to well. Then I realized that I'd forgotten the M80's...
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    OldDog wrote:
    > "Shawk" <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> wrote in message
    > news:1110561006.8051.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
    >
    >>Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    >>
    >>>Thusly Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> Spake Unto All:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>I'm certainly going to sign that petition, as surely as my name is
    >>>>>Mary-Juanna Reefer, and I suggest every other right-thinking
    >>>>>individual here does too!
    >>>>
    >>>>I'm with ya Mary. Plus I think they should extend it to shooting
    >>>>civilians in games. Then we should look at whether it's right to shoot
    >>>>soldiers in games - I guess a lot of folk shot german soldiers during
    >>>>their gaming moments last night but we're not at war with Germany - I
    >>>>mean is it right to shoot soldiers of an army you are not actually at
    >>>>war with?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>And what about animals? I once saw this game for sale, where you were
    >>>supposed to sneak up on and brutally shoot a poor defenceless deer!!!
    >>>On purpose!!! And you could wound it, so it'd run off, and you could
    >>>track it by following the blood dripping off it!!! And shoot it
    >>>again!!!
    >>>Everytime I think of the suffering of those poor electrons on the
    >>>screen, I just want to cry.
    >>>
    >>>I think I'm going to have to ask my neighbors Claire Voyant and Hugh G
    >>>Reckshon sign this petition too!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>Totally with you. You know I do see an opportunity here to extend it
    >>further. It's not just the killings. Games such as Age of Empires
    >>blatantly put gamers in a position of power where they abuse their
    >>workers rights, working them for hours on end with no break and just
    >>killing them off when their usefullness has expired. These gamers then
    >>go onto become the captains of industry (those that dont follow the
    >>killer career path of course). How can this be defended? No wonder
    >>there is so much stress and bullying in the workplace. Damn. Perhaps
    >>we can get difsayno to write a 'document'.
    >
    >
    > You all left out the games like Tetris and Bejeweled. Where the player
    > get's 3 boxes in a row and BOOM! They blow up.
    >
    >

    Nah, you're reaching now - those boxes aren't live entities... oh...
    wait a minute....

    --
    I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
    'done it'...
    What do you mean?
    Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
    Yes...
    What's it like?
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    +0000, Anno Domini:


    - Hide quoted text -
    - Show quoted text -

    >Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    >> Thusly Shawk <s...@clara.co.uk.3guesses> Spake Unto All:

    >>>>I'm certainly going to sign that petition, as surely as my name is
    >>>>Mary-Juanna Reefer, and I suggest every other right-thinking
    >>>>individual here does too!


    >>>I'm with ya Mary. Plus I think they should extend it to shooting
    >>>civilians in games. Then we should look at whether it's right to
    shoot
    >>>soldiers in games - I guess a lot of folk shot german soldiers
    during
    >>>their gaming moments last night but we're not at war with Germany -
    I
    >>>mean is it right to shoot soldiers of an army you are not actually
    at
    >>>war with?


    >> And what about animals? I once saw this game for sale, where you
    were
    >> supposed to sneak up on and brutally shoot a poor defenceless
    deer!!!
    >> On purpose!!! And you could wound it, so it'd run off, and you could

    >> track it by following the blood dripping off it!!! And shoot it
    >> again!!!
    >> Everytime I think of the suffering of those poor electrons on the
    >> screen, I just want to cry.


    >> I think I'm going to have to ask my neighbors Claire Voyant and Hugh
    G
    >> Reckshon sign this petition too!


    >Totally with you. You know I do see an opportunity here to extend it
    >further. It's not just the killings. Games such as Age of Empires
    >blatantly put gamers in a position of power where they abuse their
    >workers rights, working them for hours on end with no break and just
    >killing them off when their usefullness has expired. These gamers
    then
    >go onto become the captains of industry (those that dont follow the
    >killer career path of course). How can this be defended? No wonder
    >there is so much stress and bullying in the workplace. Damn. Perhaps

    >we can get difsayno to write a 'document'.


    As funny as this immature little Beavis & Butthead exchange has been
    (HE,
    HE, HA, HA, HI, HI), you guys don't seem to be able to discriminate
    much
    between degrees of right wrong or hold a meaningful conversation
    regarding
    this topic. You certainly don't seem to have raised any small children
    of
    your own (if you have, God help us!, they are no doubt gun-totin little

    rednecks in the making, though & through :). And you certainly haven't
    got a
    clue how the 1st Amendment actually applies, which is even sadder,
    because
    most of you are yanks lol.

    Oh yeah, & GTA is the worst POS dribble that has come out of a game box
    in
    many years >;-p

    Hey is this guy ripping on us yanks? wtf is up with that. Must be a
    foriegner. I agree that people and conservatists groups are always
    looking for a shot to make it at the headlines. I for one, Dont play
    GTA SA . But I was a big fan of VC, and VC Online. If kids portray what
    they learn in a game, then its not the video game makers fault, its the
    parents neglect on raising them. If anyone should be punished, it
    should be the parents. And this petition will never go. Last I read
    that 80% of americans are gamers in a certain kind of way. More as the
    years go on. So ditch the negitivity, and Look at the positive side,
    atleast the 20 percent that arent gamers, arent working for video game
    companies making us games that make you hug trees, and feed rabbits.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>, Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:15:20
    +0000, Anno Domini:

    >Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    >> Thusly Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> Spake Unto All:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>I'm certainly going to sign that petition, as surely as my name is
    >>>>Mary-Juanna Reefer, and I suggest every other right-thinking
    >>>>individual here does too!
    >>>
    >>>I'm with ya Mary. Plus I think they should extend it to shooting
    >>>civilians in games. Then we should look at whether it's right to shoot
    >>>soldiers in games - I guess a lot of folk shot german soldiers during
    >>>their gaming moments last night but we're not at war with Germany - I
    >>>mean is it right to shoot soldiers of an army you are not actually at
    >>>war with?
    >>
    >>
    >> And what about animals? I once saw this game for sale, where you were
    >> supposed to sneak up on and brutally shoot a poor defenceless deer!!!
    >> On purpose!!! And you could wound it, so it'd run off, and you could
    >> track it by following the blood dripping off it!!! And shoot it
    >> again!!!
    >> Everytime I think of the suffering of those poor electrons on the
    >> screen, I just want to cry.
    >>
    >> I think I'm going to have to ask my neighbors Claire Voyant and Hugh G
    >> Reckshon sign this petition too!
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Totally with you. You know I do see an opportunity here to extend it
    >further. It's not just the killings. Games such as Age of Empires
    >blatantly put gamers in a position of power where they abuse their
    >workers rights, working them for hours on end with no break and just
    >killing them off when their usefullness has expired. These gamers then
    >go onto become the captains of industry (those that dont follow the
    >killer career path of course). How can this be defended? No wonder
    >there is so much stress and bullying in the workplace. Damn. Perhaps
    >we can get difsayno to write a 'document'.

    As funny as this immature little Beavis & Butthead exchange has been (HE,
    HE, HA, HA, HI, HI), you guys don't seem to be able to discriminate much
    between degrees of right wrong or hold a meaningful conversation regarding
    this topic. You certainly don't seem to have raised any small children of
    your own (if you have, God help us!, they are no doubt gun-totin little
    rednecks in the making, though & through :). And you certainly haven't got a
    clue how the 1st Amendment actually applies, which is even sadder, because
    most of you are yanks lol.

    Oh yeah, & GTA is the worst POS dribble that has come out of a game box in
    many years >;-p

    --
    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

    >As funny as this immature little Beavis & Butthead exchange has been

    <smiles in anticipation: Ah... >

    >, you guys don't seem to be able to discriminate much
    >between degrees of right wrong or hold a meaningful conversation regarding
    >this topic.

    Good point, nossy. Why don't you explain to these moral deviants why
    the one entirely fictional two-dimensional depiction is more wrong
    than another entirely fictional two-dimensional depiction, and how
    this translates into reality?

    >(if you have, God help us!, they are no doubt gun-totin little
    >rednecks in the making, though & through :). And you certainly haven't got a
    >clue how the 1st Amendment actually applies, which is even sadder, because
    >most of you are yanks lol.

    And where was the First Amendment when Howard Stern was fined for
    baring his breasts on the air?

    Well, at least we now know the answer to the age-old question "Did
    anyone named after a spaceship ever pass a drug test?"...
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Nostromo wrote:
    >
    >
    > As funny as this immature little Beavis & Butthead exchange has been (HE,
    > HE, HA, HA, HI, HI),

    YOU found it funny. I'm honoured :-)

    you guys don't seem to be able to discriminate much
    > between degrees of right wrong or hold a meaningful conversation regarding
    > this topic.

    You got all that from a joke exchange. Your powers of perception are
    without doubt the most impressive I've seen since disayno

    You certainly don't seem to have raised any small children of
    > your own (if you have, God help us!, they are no doubt gun-totin little
    > rednecks in the making, though & through :). A

    Raised two. Well balanced teenagers who know the difference between
    debate and parody and could not comprehend why they might want to own a gun

    nd you certainly haven't got a
    > clue how the 1st Amendment actually applies,

    Not the first idea - true

    which is even sadder, because
    > most of you are yanks lol.

    Ahh, powers of perception failing I see :-)

    >
    > Oh yeah, & GTA is the worst POS dribble that has come out of a game box in
    > many years >;-p
    >

    Wouldn't know. Played GTA VC for a while but got bored. That was a
    long time ago.

    Look Nostromo - it's a serious issue that needs a serious debate. Doing
    it here with a bunch of rednecks, liberals and 14yr olds is not the
    forum for it.


    --
    I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
    'done it'...
    What do you mean?
    Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
    Yes...
    What's it like?
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    And I can tell you that I can discern reality from video games, tv, movies,
    music, or otherwise. Today on my way to work, I had a terrible traffic
    accident happen right before my eyes. Sure in any PC game that would be
    "cool" to see. But after jumping out of my car and dragging this person out
    of his cargo van on its side, it is has a million times more impact that
    seeing it on screen, realistic or otherwise. Thank God that everyone was ok.
    And the sight of someone else bleeding in reality really made an impact on
    me. I didn't make the connection here earlier, but the more I thought about
    it, the more I realized how much something like blaming video game violence
    pisses me off.

    Games allow us to fantasize non-violently against other beings. For those
    that cannot discern the difference, they will more than likely find a way to
    enact their fantasies on reality anyways. But that's my opinion and I'm no
    psychiatrist.

    Well, 'nuf said from me...
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> Spake Unto All:

    >Look Nostromo - it's a serious issue that needs a serious debate. Doing
    >it here with a bunch of rednecks, liberals and 14yr olds is not the
    >forum for it.

    Hey, I resent that - I'm not 14 years old!

    Besides, it doesn't need serious debate. It needs serious ridicule.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    > Thusly Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >
    >>Look Nostromo - it's a serious issue that needs a serious debate. Doing
    >>it here with a bunch of rednecks, liberals and 14yr olds is not the
    >>forum for it.
    >
    >
    > Hey, I resent that - I'm not 14 years old!
    >
    > Besides, it doesn't need serious debate. It needs serious ridicule.
    >
    >

    Lol. That's OK - you dont *have* to be all three :-)

    Issue of censorship that affects our games does require serious debate -
    but this NG aint the place for it. Too many mass-debaters. Serious
    ridicule *is* what is required 'here'.


    --
    I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
    'done it'...
    What do you mean?
    Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
    Yes...
    What's it like?
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk>, Sat, 12 Mar
    2005 00:14:37 +0100, Anno Domini:

    >Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>As funny as this immature little Beavis & Butthead exchange has been
    >
    ><smiles in anticipation: Ah... >
    >
    >>, you guys don't seem to be able to discriminate much
    >>between degrees of right wrong or hold a meaningful conversation regarding
    >>this topic.
    >
    >Good point, nossy. Why don't you explain to these moral deviants why
    >the one entirely fictional two-dimensional depiction is more wrong
    >than another entirely fictional two-dimensional depiction, and how
    >this translates into reality?

    I rest my case yer honour! ;-p

    >>(if you have, God help us!, they are no doubt gun-totin little
    >>rednecks in the making, though & through :). And you certainly haven't got a
    >>clue how the 1st Amendment actually applies, which is even sadder, because
    >>most of you are yanks lol.
    >
    >And where was the First Amendment when Howard Stern was fined for
    >baring his breasts on the air?

    Well, those judges & lawyers have to eat too ya know!

    >Well, at least we now know the answer to the age-old question "Did
    >anyone named after a spaceship ever pass a drug test?"...

    Never! Errr...I mean...I never had a drug test that I would've failed, so
    there! :-p

    --
    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>, Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:29:22
    +0000, Anno Domini:

    >Look Nostromo - it's a serious issue that needs a serious debate. Doing
    >it here with a bunch of rednecks, liberals and 14yr olds is not the
    >forum for it.

    No kiddin? ;-)

    --
    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    sj543210@yahoo.com looked up from reading the entrails of the porn
    spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    >You heard me right. Those people will not stop at just banning game
    >sales to minors, they will eventually want to seek bans on game
    >contents.

    And of course you feel SO strongly about it, you're posting through
    google and using a throwaway Yahoo email address.

    Uh yeah, I'll greet your call to arms with the overwhelming apathy your
    anonymity inspires.

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> looked up from reading the entrails
    of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
    >Nostromo wrote:
    <snip>
    >> Oh yeah, & GTA is the worst POS dribble that has come out of a game box in
    >> many years >;-p
    >>
    >
    >Wouldn't know. Played GTA VC for a while but got bored. That was a
    >long time ago.
    >
    >Look Nostromo - it's a serious issue that needs a serious debate. Doing
    >it here with a bunch of rednecks, liberals and 14yr olds is not the
    >forum for it.

    It's not a serious issue, it's a cheap cop out.

    GTA didn't make anyone shoot anyone, or steal cars or do anything else.

    The only problem here is the American legal system ACCEPTING these
    modern equivalents of "The Devil made me do it" argument.

    Censorship calls should ALWAYS be treated with the respect they deserve;
    unbridled ridicule.

    ANY attempt to blame someone/something else for YOUR choices/actions
    should also be met with the utmost derision.

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    seanwillett@gmail.com once tried to test me with:

    > Hey is this guy ripping on us yanks? wtf is up with that. Must be a
    > foriegner.

    Actually it's pronounced furner. He's a damn furner.

    And I hear he's from Austria.

    --

    Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

    Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Xocyll wrote:
    > Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> looked up from reading the entrails
    > of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
    >
    >>Nostromo wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >>>Oh yeah, & GTA is the worst POS dribble that has come out of a game box in
    >>>many years >;-p
    >>>
    >>
    >>Wouldn't know. Played GTA VC for a while but got bored. That was a
    >>long time ago.
    >>
    >>Look Nostromo - it's a serious issue that needs a serious debate. Doing
    >>it here with a bunch of rednecks, liberals and 14yr olds is not the
    >>forum for it.
    >
    >
    > It's not a serious issue, it's a cheap cop out.
    >
    > GTA didn't make anyone shoot anyone, or steal cars or do anything else.
    >
    > The only problem here is the American legal system ACCEPTING these
    > modern equivalents of "The Devil made me do it" argument.
    >
    > Censorship calls should ALWAYS be treated with the respect they deserve;
    > unbridled ridicule.
    >
    > ANY attempt to blame someone/something else for YOUR choices/actions
    > should also be met with the utmost derision.
    >
    > Xocyll

    Dont misunderstand me Xocyll, I agree with your comments but if there is
    no debate, if you do not take it seriously, then you may find a creeping
    censorship coming into force purely because it is a popular and
    UNCONTESTED cause. Politicians do not do what is right - they do what
    is popular. How the hell do you think political correctness came about?
    Unless challenged these things creep in.


    --
    I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
    'done it'...
    What do you mean?
    Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
    Yes...
    What's it like?
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>, Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:38:10 -0500,
    Anno Domini:

    >Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> looked up from reading the entrails
    >of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
    >>Nostromo wrote:
    ><snip>
    >>> Oh yeah, & GTA is the worst POS dribble that has come out of a game box in
    >>> many years >;-p
    >>>
    >>
    >>Wouldn't know. Played GTA VC for a while but got bored. That was a
    >>long time ago.
    >>
    >>Look Nostromo - it's a serious issue that needs a serious debate. Doing
    >>it here with a bunch of rednecks, liberals and 14yr olds is not the
    >>forum for it.
    >
    >It's not a serious issue, it's a cheap cop out.
    >
    >GTA didn't make anyone shoot anyone, or steal cars or do anything else.
    >
    >The only problem here is the American legal system ACCEPTING these
    >modern equivalents of "The Devil made me do it" argument.
    >
    >Censorship calls should ALWAYS be treated with the respect they deserve;
    >unbridled ridicule.
    >
    >ANY attempt to blame someone/something else for YOUR choices/actions
    >should also be met with the utmost derision.
    >
    >Xocyll

    Don't hold back Xocyll, speak yer mind mate! ;-p

    --
    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Xocyll wrote:
    > And of course you feel SO strongly about it, you're posting through
    > google and using a throwaway Yahoo email address.
    >
    > Uh yeah, I'll greet your call to arms with the overwhelming apathy
    your
    > anonymity inspires.

    I've been looking for a way to tell whose posts to trust on this NG.
    And you've found it for me.

    So, anyone using Google and a Yahoo email address is obviously a bit
    flakey. And presumably anyone with a real-looking email address and
    using a newsreader is legit?
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Andrew wrote:
    > On 14 Mar 2005 07:37:46 -0800, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >So, anyone using Google and a Yahoo email address is obviously a bit
    > >flakey. And presumably anyone with a real-looking email address and
    > >using a newsreader is legit?
    >
    > I guess that rules me out then. Personally I judge people by their
    > message content and KF based on that, but if they nym shift or have
    an
    > offensive name that also gets them ignored.


    Ah, but I shouldn't put any faith in what I say.
    Google Groups and Hotmail = Axis of Evil.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote in
    news:ob3431p0ag7m23l9o2vg3ph39m0pao4egv@4ax.com:

    > As funny as this immature little Beavis & Butthead exchange has been
    > (HE, HE, HA, HA, HI, HI), you guys don't seem to be able to
    > discriminate much between degrees of right wrong or hold a meaningful
    > conversation regarding this topic.

    On the other hand, we *can* tell the difference between real life and a
    computer game.


    > You certainly don't seem to have
    > raised any small children of your own (if you have, God help us!, they
    > are no doubt gun-totin little rednecks in the making, though & through

    Raising children is a hobby that holds absolutely no interest for me.
    But if you have them, it's *YOUR* responsibility to teach them the
    difference between fantasy and reality. Not mine.

    As an adult, I will enjoy entertainment marketed for adults (such as the
    Grand Theft Auto games) and fight those who would deprive me of that
    right.


    stePH
    --
    If it cannot break the egg's shell, a chick will die without being born.
    We are the chick. The world is our egg.
    If we cannot break the world's shell, we will die without being born.
    Smash the world's shell! For the revolution of the world!
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    On 14 Mar 2005 07:37:46 -0800, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >So, anyone using Google and a Yahoo email address is obviously a bit
    >flakey. And presumably anyone with a real-looking email address and
    >using a newsreader is legit?

    I guess that rules me out then. Personally I judge people by their
    message content and KF based on that, but if they nym shift or have an
    offensive name that also gets them ignored.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> looked up from reading the entrails
    of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    >Xocyll wrote:
    >> Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> looked up from reading the entrails
    >> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
    >>
    >>>Nostromo wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>>Oh yeah, & GTA is the worst POS dribble that has come out of a game box in
    >>>>many years >;-p
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Wouldn't know. Played GTA VC for a while but got bored. That was a
    >>>long time ago.
    >>>
    >>>Look Nostromo - it's a serious issue that needs a serious debate. Doing
    >>>it here with a bunch of rednecks, liberals and 14yr olds is not the
    >>>forum for it.
    >>
    >>
    >> It's not a serious issue, it's a cheap cop out.
    >>
    >> GTA didn't make anyone shoot anyone, or steal cars or do anything else.
    >>
    >> The only problem here is the American legal system ACCEPTING these
    >> modern equivalents of "The Devil made me do it" argument.
    >>
    >> Censorship calls should ALWAYS be treated with the respect they deserve;
    >> unbridled ridicule.
    >>
    >> ANY attempt to blame someone/something else for YOUR choices/actions
    >> should also be met with the utmost derision.
    >>
    >> Xocyll
    >
    >Dont misunderstand me Xocyll, I agree with your comments but if there is
    >no debate, if you do not take it seriously, then you may find a creeping
    >censorship coming into force purely because it is a popular and
    >UNCONTESTED cause. Politicians do not do what is right - they do what
    >is popular. How the hell do you think political correctness came about?
    > Unless challenged these things creep in.

    Then it's time Americans get off the couch and insist that their
    representatives push for laws holding people accountable for their own
    actions.

    There wouldn't be any censorship calls for GTA if it wasn't being used
    as an excuse and the courts weren't letting that kind of excuse go to
    court.

    So push your Senators and Congressmen to push the courts to REMOVE the
    validity of "the devil made me do it" pleas.
    Nobody MADE them do it, they chose to, now it's time to pay for that
    choice.

    [Ok the religious fundies would still be calling for censorship of
    anything they don't like; it's their sacred duty to protect us from
    things they don't like, after all.]

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails
    of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    >
    >Xocyll wrote:
    >> And of course you feel SO strongly about it, you're posting through
    >> google and using a throwaway Yahoo email address.
    >>
    >> Uh yeah, I'll greet your call to arms with the overwhelming apathy
    >your
    >> anonymity inspires.
    >
    >I've been looking for a way to tell whose posts to trust on this NG.
    >And you've found it for me.

    Really the only way to do that is to judge for yourself based on message
    content.

    >So, anyone using Google and a Yahoo email address is obviously a bit
    >flakey. And presumably anyone with a real-looking email address and
    >using a newsreader is legit?

    Not necessarily flakey and lots of people do post through them.

    Opinions are just that, opinions - whether they're "valid" for you
    really depends on you and how much you share those opinions.
    There's nothing inherently wrong with freemail addresses, but there are
    a lot of people who use them as throwaways to spam, troll, nymshift,
    etc.

    [That said, I will note that my email filters delete everything sent to
    me via aol/lycos/yahoo/hotmail/earthlink/msn, unless the person is in my
    friends list. If I don't know them and it's from one of those services,
    it's spam or a trojan 99% of the time.
    Of course, I also have twelve countries in my email blacklists.]


    But posting a "call to arms" while anonymous is a different order of
    things altogether.
    How strongly could this person feel about this "issue" if they feel the
    need to hide while presenting it?


    And of course there's always Difool/JustSayNo the freemail abuse
    posterchild.

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    In article <1110555541.932835.247540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    <sj543210@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > You heard me right. Those people will not stop at just banning game
    > sales to minors, they will eventually want to seek bans on game
    > contents.
    > Here is the link:
    > http://www.mediafamily.org/mediawise/Take_2_petition.shtml

    The site says:

    % We respect the First Amendment and do not advocate
    % censorship. However, we have the right to tell the industry that we
    % will not accept the glorification of violence towards police
    % officers.

    That's pretty clear, and has nothing to do with "bans on game
    contents". It's the marketplace at work.

    Rick R.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Xocyll wrote:
    > "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> looked up from reading the
    entrails
    > of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
    >
    > >
    > >Xocyll wrote:
    > >> And of course you feel SO strongly about it, you're posting
    through
    > >> google and using a throwaway Yahoo email address.
    > >>
    > >> Uh yeah, I'll greet your call to arms with the overwhelming apathy
    > >your
    > >> anonymity inspires.
    > >
    > >I've been looking for a way to tell whose posts to trust on this NG.
    > >And you've found it for me.
    >
    > Really the only way to do that is to judge for yourself based on
    message
    > content.

    [...]

    > But posting a "call to arms" while anonymous is a different order of
    > things altogether.
    > How strongly could this person feel about this "issue" if they feel
    the
    > need to hide while presenting it?

    So what should I make of your original response to the OP? You are
    posting anonymously, like almost every else, so I will judge you on
    your content.

    The OP posted a link with the comment "You heard me right. Those people
    will not stop at just banning game sales to minors, they will
    eventually want to seek bans on game contents. "

    You interpreted that as a "call to arms". It sounded more like
    incredulity to me.

    Or perhaps you meant the organisation that the OP linked to? But they
    are not anonymous; their About Us page gives the names of the key
    players and their credentials.

    Do you see now why I didn't get your "anonymous" comment? Someone posts
    a link saying "can you believe this?" and you respond by accusing them
    of trying to start a crusade anonymously.
    Perhaps you were reading a different post at the time?
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake stePH <acetheta@earthlink.net>, 14 Mar 2005 14:26:26 GMT, Anno
    Domini:

    >Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote in
    >news:ob3431p0ag7m23l9o2vg3ph39m0pao4egv@4ax.com:
    >
    >> As funny as this immature little Beavis & Butthead exchange has been
    >> (HE, HE, HA, HA, HI, HI), you guys don't seem to be able to
    >> discriminate much between degrees of right wrong or hold a meaningful
    >> conversation regarding this topic.
    >
    >On the other hand, we *can* tell the difference between real life and a
    >computer game.
    >
    >
    >> You certainly don't seem to have
    >> raised any small children of your own (if you have, God help us!, they
    >> are no doubt gun-totin little rednecks in the making, though & through
    >
    >Raising children is a hobby that holds absolutely no interest for me.
    >But if you have them, it's *YOUR* responsibility to teach them the
    >difference between fantasy and reality. Not mine.
    >
    >As an adult, I will enjoy entertainment marketed for adults (such as the
    >Grand Theft Auto games) and fight those who would deprive me of that
    >right.

    Likewise. I'm just not immune (or insensitive) to the collateral damage it's
    causing our society. Not to mention that kids *do* like to copy adults, & no
    matter how hard you police it, they WILL get a hold of these titles at ages
    much less than 15, one way or the other. At what price is "freedom of
    expression" too high a price...? If you say NONE, then you're either one of
    the causes of the problem, or you just haven't thought it through enough
    yet, take yer pick.

    --
    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> looked up from reading the entrails
    of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    >Thus spake stePH <acetheta@earthlink.net>, 14 Mar 2005 14:26:26 GMT, Anno
    >Domini:
    >
    >>Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> wrote in
    >>news:ob3431p0ag7m23l9o2vg3ph39m0pao4egv@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> As funny as this immature little Beavis & Butthead exchange has been
    >>> (HE, HE, HA, HA, HI, HI), you guys don't seem to be able to
    >>> discriminate much between degrees of right wrong or hold a meaningful
    >>> conversation regarding this topic.
    >>
    >>On the other hand, we *can* tell the difference between real life and a
    >>computer game.
    >>
    >>
    >>> You certainly don't seem to have
    >>> raised any small children of your own (if you have, God help us!, they
    >>> are no doubt gun-totin little rednecks in the making, though & through
    >>
    >>Raising children is a hobby that holds absolutely no interest for me.
    >>But if you have them, it's *YOUR* responsibility to teach them the
    >>difference between fantasy and reality. Not mine.
    >>
    >>As an adult, I will enjoy entertainment marketed for adults (such as the
    >>Grand Theft Auto games) and fight those who would deprive me of that
    >>right.
    >
    >Likewise. I'm just not immune (or insensitive) to the collateral damage it's
    >causing our society. Not to mention that kids *do* like to copy adults, & no
    >matter how hard you police it, they WILL get a hold of these titles at ages
    >much less than 15, one way or the other. At what price is "freedom of
    >expression" too high a price...? If you say NONE, then you're either one of
    >the causes of the problem, or you just haven't thought it through enough
    >yet, take yer pick.

    Shortly before christmas I was in the dvd section of walmart.
    Where I saw a kid of about 8, maybe, buying GTA:SA - his grandmother was
    with him and okaying it.
    Ok she probably had no idea what it's about, but she didn't FIND OUT
    before okaying it either.

    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

    >Likewise. I'm just not immune (or insensitive) to the collateral damage it's
    >causing our society.

    Asserted, unevidenced, unsupported.
    What studies there are are deeply, and I mean deeply, flawed.

    >At what price is "freedom of
    >expression" too high a price...?

    None.

    > If you say NONE, then you're either one of
    >the causes of the problem

    No, *you* haven't. Who decides what is acceptable? What criteria?
    Rubber laws on a per-case basis? Arbitrary judgments from an activist
    body like the filthy stinking FCC?
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly rickr@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) Spake Unto All:

    >The site says:
    >
    >% We respect the First Amendment and do not advocate
    >% censorship. However, we have the right to tell the industry that we
    >% will not accept the glorification of violence towards police
    >% officers.
    >
    >That's pretty clear, and has nothing to do with "bans on game
    >contents". It's the marketplace at work.

    It's also bunk. This organization e.g. organizes mailing campaigns to
    the FCC to get them to ban shows. They do not respect the First
    Amendment.
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails
    of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    >
    >Xocyll wrote:
    >> "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> looked up from reading the
    >entrails
    >> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >Xocyll wrote:
    >> >> And of course you feel SO strongly about it, you're posting
    >through
    >> >> google and using a throwaway Yahoo email address.
    >> >>
    >> >> Uh yeah, I'll greet your call to arms with the overwhelming apathy
    >> >your
    >> >> anonymity inspires.
    >> >
    >> >I've been looking for a way to tell whose posts to trust on this NG.
    >> >And you've found it for me.
    >>
    >> Really the only way to do that is to judge for yourself based on
    >message
    >> content.
    >
    >[...]
    >
    >> But posting a "call to arms" while anonymous is a different order of
    >> things altogether.
    >> How strongly could this person feel about this "issue" if they feel
    >the
    >> need to hide while presenting it?
    >
    >So what should I make of your original response to the OP? You are
    >posting anonymously, like almost every else, so I will judge you on
    >your content.

    NO, i'm posting semi-anonymously.
    I don't use my real name on Usenet, but I do use one and only one alias,
    and a fixed, real, e-mail address.

    The difference is my posts can be traced back to my account at my ISP.
    You can look up my ISP and get a actual town where it's located.

    Google made posts and yahoo email on the other hand are both accessed
    via the web and leave the users origin totally obscured.

    >The OP posted a link with the comment "You heard me right. Those people
    >will not stop at just banning game sales to minors, they will
    >eventually want to seek bans on game contents. "
    >
    >You interpreted that as a "call to arms". It sounded more like
    >incredulity to me.

    What do you think he had in mind, ignoring them?

    The subtext is more "we must stop them" than "what are these people
    thinking".

    >Or perhaps you meant the organisation that the OP linked to? But they
    >are not anonymous; their About Us page gives the names of the key
    >players and their credentials.
    >
    >Do you see now why I didn't get your "anonymous" comment? Someone posts
    >a link saying "can you believe this?" and you respond by accusing them
    >of trying to start a crusade anonymously.
    >Perhaps you were reading a different post at the time?

    NO I was reading the OP's "those people want to do bad things" post,
    made via google, and with a throwaway freemail address attached to it.

    The OP _isn't_ a regular poster here.


    Xocyll
    --
    I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
    a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
    Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
    FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>, Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:01:25 -0500,
    Anno Domini:

    >Shortly before christmas I was in the dvd section of walmart.
    >Where I saw a kid of about 8, maybe, buying GTA:SA - his grandmother was
    >with him and okaying it.
    >Ok she probably had no idea what it's about, but she didn't FIND OUT
    >before okaying it either.

    No doubt, granny's fault. Do you blame her for allowing her grandson to pick
    something from a games dept that probably looked ok-ish on the cover? Mind
    you the name should've tipped her you'd think. And in this case, surely the
    store clerk at the counter is by far the most to blame? It's a MA 15+ game
    isn't it? Should've at least commented to the granny.

    I reckon it's old people. Yeah. Kill em all, let the worms sort them out
    >;-)

    --
    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk>, Tue, 15 Mar
    2005 01:25:06 +0100, Anno Domini:

    >Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>Likewise. I'm just not immune (or insensitive) to the collateral damage it's
    >>causing our society.
    >
    >Asserted, unevidenced, unsupported.
    >What studies there are are deeply, and I mean deeply, flawed.

    No studies. Something's causing it. I have my suspicions & theories. Proof
    is irrelevant in these subjective matters anyway. TV probably hasn't helped
    much I'd wager. There's a reason family & community values are eroding &
    individualism is rampant. You tell me?

    >>At what price is "freedom of
    >>expression" too high a price...?
    >
    >None.

    I bet I can name a few. Like someone holding a gun to your kid's head? Or
    even just yours...:-/

    >> If you say NONE, then you're either one of
    >>the causes of the problem
    >
    >No, *you* haven't. Who decides what is acceptable? What criteria?
    >Rubber laws on a per-case basis? Arbitrary judgments from an activist
    >body like the filthy stinking FCC?

    I didn't say I had the answers, but I can see a problem when I'm neck deep
    in it. But someone decided that a lot of these things that once would've in
    *no way* been acceptable are so now. And it's all under this pretext of the
    1st amendment (in the US anyway).
    Even a short 50-60 years ago, society's values were much different, not to
    imply better in all cases, but different. How long has the 1st amendment
    been around anyway?
    Something stinks if you ask me. Call me old fashioned if you must ;-)

    --
    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

    >>>Likewise. I'm just not immune (or insensitive) to the collateral damage it's
    >>>causing our society.
    >>
    >>Asserted, unevidenced, unsupported.
    >>What studies there are are deeply, and I mean deeply, flawed.
    >
    >No studies.

    Not at all. There's hundreds upon hundreds of studies. It's just that
    they a) either find no correlation between fictional and real
    violence, or b) are tendentious and deeply flawed. And that's not
    really my bias talking, although I do have a firm view.

    > Something's causing it. I have my suspicions & theories. Proof
    >is irrelevant in these subjective matters anyway.

    What's subjective about crime?

    >TV probably hasn't helped
    >much I'd wager. There's a reason family & community values are eroding &
    >individualism is rampant. You tell me?

    TV has informed the public, yes. It really has. It has shown what is
    possible, it has removed many of the social constraints which was used
    to keep earlier generations in check (such as religion, patriotism,
    and awed respect for rulers) by showing that there are good points to
    alternative religions, that other countries are just another place,
    and that the rulers are in fact flawed human beings.
    However, that large parts of the population are no longer being held
    in check by lies while a ruling class runs free isn't necessarily a
    bad thing. What's potentially bad is what people do with this freedom,
    and of course the insecurity and inevitable longing for the security
    of the blinders of old.
    What's needed isn't a return to the blinders of old, to suppression
    through superstition and bigotry, but development of new social norms.

    >>>At what price is "freedom of
    >>>expression" too high a price...?
    >>
    >>None.
    >
    >I bet I can name a few. Like someone holding a gun to your kid's head? Or
    >even just yours...:-/

    I've never been tested that way, but I'd hope I'd pass the test and
    not cave in to force. I'd certainly try. Might isn't right.

    >>> If you say NONE, then you're either one of
    >>>the causes of the problem
    >>
    >>No, *you* haven't. Who decides what is acceptable? What criteria?
    >>Rubber laws on a per-case basis? Arbitrary judgments from an activist
    >>body like the filthy stinking FCC?
    >
    >I didn't say I had the answers, but I can see a problem when I'm neck deep
    >in it.

    So your position really is that there is too much freedom in society?
    That a healthy dose of oppression is what's needed?
    Basically, that there's no problem with our civilization that a bit of
    Saddam couldn't fix?

    > But someone decided that a lot of these things that once would've in
    >*no way* been acceptable are so now.

    That swings both ways. A lot of things which were acceptable in the
    70's, notably nudity, aren't now. And a *lot* of things which were
    acceptable in the 1700's, such as free speech and freedom of religion,
    are rapidly becoming unacceptable in the US today.

    Here's a very good article you might want to read:
    http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

    >Even a short 50-60 years ago, society's values were much different, not to
    >imply better in all cases, but different. How long has the 1st amendment
    >been around anyway?
    >Something stinks if you ask me. Call me old fashioned if you must ;-)

    No, I'd call you conformist. That sounds worse than it is - a level of
    conformism is necessary for social cohesion, but it easily devolves
    into oppression of minorities.

    The moral pendulum swings. as I said the 1700's and the 70's (and
    80's) were more liberal than the present. Right now we're at or
    surpassing 50's wrt moralism, a level of moralism which was the
    subject of ridicule in the 70's and 80's because of its hypocrisy and
    gulf between private and public morals (e.g. Hoover publicly
    persecuting communists and moral deviants, while privately being a
    transvestite).

    "People these days are reluctant to read the canonical texts, but they
    love fiction. Not all fiction, mind you, for they are sick of
    exemplary themes and far prefer the obscene and fantastic. How low
    contemporary morals have sunk! Anyone concerned about public morality
    will want to retrieve the situation."
    -- Li Yu, in "The Carnal Prayer Mat" c. 1657 A.D.
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk>, Tue, 15 Mar
    2005 13:30:29 +0100, Anno Domini:

    >Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>>>Likewise. I'm just not immune (or insensitive) to the collateral damage it's
    >>>>causing our society.
    >>>
    >>>Asserted, unevidenced, unsupported.
    >>>What studies there are are deeply, and I mean deeply, flawed.
    >>
    >>No studies.
    >
    >Not at all. There's hundreds upon hundreds of studies. It's just that
    >they a) either find no correlation between fictional and real
    >violence, or b) are tendentious and deeply flawed. And that's not
    >really my bias talking, although I do have a firm view.

    The only study I'm interested in for the purposes of this argument, is my
    own - I like to call it 'life' ;-)

    >> Something's causing it. I have my suspicions & theories. Proof
    >>is irrelevant in these subjective matters anyway.
    >
    >What's subjective about crime?

    I was talking about the decline of 'civilisation' over the past 50-60 years
    or so.

    >>TV probably hasn't helped
    >>much I'd wager. There's a reason family & community values are eroding &
    >>individualism is rampant. You tell me?
    >
    >TV has informed the public, yes. It really has. It has shown what is
    >possible, it has removed many of the social constraints which was used
    >to keep earlier generations in check (such as religion, patriotism,
    >and awed respect for rulers) by showing that there are good points to
    >alternative religions, that other countries are just another place,
    >and that the rulers are in fact flawed human beings.
    >However, that large parts of the population are no longer being held
    >in check by lies while a ruling class runs free isn't necessarily a
    >bad thing. What's potentially bad is what people do with this freedom,
    >and of course the insecurity and inevitable longing for the security
    >of the blinders of old.
    >What's needed isn't a return to the blinders of old, to suppression
    >through superstition and bigotry, but development of new social norms.

    Wow! TV is good for us? I don't know where to even start to argue with that
    pov it's flawed on so many levels. But, it's yours to have & to keep ;-)

    >>>>At what price is "freedom of
    >>>>expression" too high a price...?
    >>>
    >>>None.
    >>
    >>I bet I can name a few. Like someone holding a gun to your kid's head? Or
    >>even just yours...:-/
    >
    >I've never been tested that way, but I'd hope I'd pass the test and
    >not cave in to force. I'd certainly try. Might isn't right.

    Didn't say it was right. But it can be pretty convincing.

    >>>> If you say NONE, then you're either one of
    >>>>the causes of the problem
    >>>
    >>>No, *you* haven't. Who decides what is acceptable? What criteria?
    >>>Rubber laws on a per-case basis? Arbitrary judgments from an activist
    >>>body like the filthy stinking FCC?
    >>
    >>I didn't say I had the answers, but I can see a problem when I'm neck deep
    >>in it.
    >
    >So your position really is that there is too much freedom in society?
    >That a healthy dose of oppression is what's needed?
    >Basically, that there's no problem with our civilization that a bit of
    >Saddam couldn't fix?

    Only the 1st part. You made up the last 2 sentences & they're *your* words
    out of *your* e-mouth, NOT mine ;-p

    >> But someone decided that a lot of these things that once would've in
    >>*no way* been acceptable are so now.
    >
    >That swings both ways. A lot of things which were acceptable in the
    >70's, notably nudity, aren't now. And a *lot* of things which were
    >acceptable in the 1700's, such as free speech and freedom of religion,
    >are rapidly becoming unacceptable in the US today.

    I think things are a *lot* more individual-oriented. The whole "I'm the
    centre of the universe" thing & each man for himself is prevalent (&
    possible) today as it never has been throughout history. Which is a sad
    thing imo.

    >Here's a very good article you might want to read:
    >http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

    Page down. Will try again later.

    >>Even a short 50-60 years ago, society's values were much different, not to
    >>imply better in all cases, but different. How long has the 1st amendment
    >>been around anyway?
    >>Something stinks if you ask me. Call me old fashioned if you must ;-)
    >
    >No, I'd call you conformist. That sounds worse than it is - a level of
    >conformism is necessary for social cohesion, but it easily devolves
    >into oppression of minorities.

    I oppress no minorities. In fact, I'm probably a sheep-oppressor if
    anything. I prefer the devil's advocate stance in most cases & defending ppl
    who aren't there to defend themselves. For example, I abhor gossip &
    rumour-mongering. But we're talking about social issues here, not
    individuals. Basically, I reserve the right to point out what's wrong with
    society while offering no solutions & keeping a healthy distance the from
    secular world. It's a world (re)view thing :)

    >The moral pendulum swings. as I said the 1700's and the 70's (and
    >80's) were more liberal than the present. Right now we're at or
    >surpassing 50's wrt moralism, a level of moralism which was the
    >subject of ridicule in the 70's and 80's because of its hypocrisy and
    >gulf between private and public morals (e.g. Hoover publicly
    >persecuting communists and moral deviants, while privately being a
    >transvestite).

    The problem is you seem to be using the good ol US of A as a foundation for
    all your observations/conclusions. I can do that too, from the outside
    looking in AND I can see the rest of the world more clearly, without the
    'superpower' fog on me. I find yanks just can't do that very easily.

    >"People these days are reluctant to read the canonical texts, but they
    >love fiction. Not all fiction, mind you, for they are sick of
    >exemplary themes and far prefer the obscene and fantastic. How low
    >contemporary morals have sunk! Anyone concerned about public morality
    >will want to retrieve the situation."
    >-- Li Yu, in "The Carnal Prayer Mat" c. 1657 A.D.

    I like a bit of obscene and fantastic fiction (pictures preferably included
    >;-). But I also like my canonical texts. But then I'm strange :)

    --
    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:

    >>What's subjective about crime?
    >
    >I was talking about the decline of 'civilisation' over the past 50-60 years
    >or so.

    Well, it depends on what you mean by civilzation. 60 years ago the
    world was just emerging from the most devastating war off all time, a
    war in which even the allies were intentionally fire-bombing civilan
    population centers, with the express intention of killing civilians,
    and the Soviet troops were ordered to rape all german women they
    found.
    And those were the *good guys* of that war.

    50 years ago the US was segregated, with discrimination against
    blacks. The cold war was revving up, with Soviet detonating its first
    nuclear bomb, and Britain announcing nuclear capability.

    And, perhaps more relevant to the issue, throughout the west there was
    an uproar and a backlash over the way negro music, a primitive hybrid
    music known as 'rock', was corrupting the youth and leading to crime
    and vice.

    >>TV has informed the public, yes.
    >
    >Wow! TV is good for us?

    In the sense that humans now are more educated than any time in
    history, all thanks to TV, yes, sure.
    The world of 1955 seemed simpler and smaller than the world of 2005,
    and much, perhaps most, of the difference is due to television.

    >>So your position really is that there is too much freedom in society?
    >>That a healthy dose of oppression is what's needed?
    >>Basically, that there's no problem with our civilization that a bit of
    >>Saddam couldn't fix?
    >
    >Only the 1st part. You made up the last 2 sentences & they're *your* words
    >out of *your* e-mouth, NOT mine ;-p

    The others follow from the first. If you say there is such a thing as
    too much freedom, then you advocate oppression. The taking away of
    freedom is.

    >I think things are a *lot* more individual-oriented. The whole "I'm the
    >centre of the universe" thing & each man for himself is prevalent (&
    >possible) today as it never has been throughout history. Which is a sad
    >thing imo.

    I see this a result of information. If you see that the religion
    you've been taught is just one of many, and that all of them have
    obvious strengths and weaknesses, you're unlikely to go to war for it.

    >>Here's a very good article you might want to read:
    >>http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
    >
    >Page down. Will try again later.

    Hmmm... The link works for me. Do read it, it's very good.

    >I oppress no minorities.

    I see. So, what expressions presently free to express would you ban,
    specifically?

    >rumour-mongering. But we're talking about social issues here, not
    >individuals.

    Society is just a big bunch of individuals. Anyone who tells you
    otherwise is trying to manipulate you into behaving in their best
    interests, but against yours.
    In fact, you should always be suspicious whenever anyone appeals to
    abstractions.

    >Basically, I reserve the right to point out what's wrong with
    >society while offering no solutions & keeping a healthy distance the from
    >secular world. It's a world (re)view thing :)

    It's much the same for me, but my fundamental moral compass is "every
    persons freedom is infinite, unless where it impinges on another
    persons equally infinite freedom".
    For instance, I personally find nazis to be violent, stupid, incapable
    of arguing their way out of a wet paper bag, and basically embodying
    everything I dislike, but I would still give them freedom to freely
    express their stupidity in public.
    I wouldn't, however, necessarily give them permission to ACT on their
    stupid ideas, as that would likely mean that someone elses, quite
    possibly my, freedom was impinged.
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk>, Tue, 15 Mar
    2005 23:43:29 +0100, Anno Domini:

    >Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>>What's subjective about crime?
    >>
    >>I was talking about the decline of 'civilisation' over the past 50-60 years
    >>or so.
    >
    >Well, it depends on what you mean by civilzation. 60 years ago the
    >world was just emerging from the most devastating war off all time, a
    >war in which even the allies were intentionally fire-bombing civilan
    >population centers, with the express intention of killing civilians,
    >and the Soviet troops were ordered to rape all german women they
    >found.
    >And those were the *good guys* of that war.
    >
    >50 years ago the US was segregated, with discrimination against
    >blacks. The cold war was revving up, with Soviet detonating its first
    >nuclear bomb, and Britain announcing nuclear capability.
    >
    >And, perhaps more relevant to the issue, throughout the west there was
    >an uproar and a backlash over the way negro music, a primitive hybrid
    >music known as 'rock', was corrupting the youth and leading to crime
    >and vice.

    I can find just as many examples, both for & against, today. The specifics
    belie the underlying family & community values of which I'm talking about -
    it all starts at home really. And then there's the spiritual climate (for
    want of a better word) which has changed significantly (in many ways for the
    worse) in the last 20-30 years. And yes, being 40, & having lived in both a
    Socialist/Communist country AND capitalist democracy I have context.

    >>>TV has informed the public, yes.
    >>
    >>Wow! TV is good for us?
    >
    >In the sense that humans now are more educated than any time in
    >history, all thanks to TV, yes, sure.
    >The world of 1955 seemed simpler and smaller than the world of 2005,
    >and much, perhaps most, of the difference is due to television.

    And I could also rant on for pages about the evils of TV, but I
    won't...(don't get me wrong - I'm a couch potato through & through ;-)

    >>>So your position really is that there is too much freedom in society?
    >>>That a healthy dose of oppression is what's needed?
    >>>Basically, that there's no problem with our civilization that a bit of
    >>>Saddam couldn't fix?
    >>
    >>Only the 1st part. You made up the last 2 sentences & they're *your* words
    >>out of *your* e-mouth, NOT mine ;-p
    >
    >The others follow from the first. If you say there is such a thing as
    >too much freedom, then you advocate oppression. The taking away of
    >freedom is.

    No, I'm saying there are many things we can't *do* in a civilized society -
    why should we be able to *say* anything then? The problem here is that stick
    & stones can break ones but WORDS are what really gets Evil going! Words
    have *far* more power than actions in actual fact. They are the principal
    way we communicate. Why should we say it's ok to have an opinion about
    public nudity yet pass a law that locks you up if you actually do it?
    I guess I'm throwing a spanner in the works here, but it's an important
    distinction to me, coming from a 'religious' (I use that term *very* loosely
    ;-) background & belief system in which God incarnate calls himself The
    Word. Perhaps it's the inconsistencies/hypocrisies in our society which irk
    me the most. Just some food for thought...

    >>I think things are a *lot* more individual-oriented. The whole "I'm the
    >>centre of the universe" thing & each man for himself is prevalent (&
    >>possible) today as it never has been throughout history. Which is a sad
    >>thing imo.
    >
    >I see this a result of information. If you see that the religion
    >you've been taught is just one of many, and that all of them have
    >obvious strengths and weaknesses, you're unlikely to go to war for it.
    >
    >>>Here's a very good article you might want to read:
    >>>http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
    >>
    >>Page down. Will try again later.
    >
    >Hmmm... The link works for me. Do read it, it's very good.

    Yeah, just a glitch - worked fine 2nd time.

    My comments in brief are: what he says is very 'chic' & really just uncommon
    sense. What he doesn't address is how someone knows what concepts to
    challenge & which to accept. He just says "challenge everything in your head
    but speak very little or nothing". Great if you like to be unhinged or live
    in a state of mental anarchy, but not so great if you want to live (& to
    some degree fit) in society.

    >>I oppress no minorities.
    >
    >I see. So, what expressions presently free to express would you ban,
    >specifically?

    See above. As I've said before, I like to play devil's advocate. I can't
    think of any expressions I would ban if I had the power, but many as an
    individual that I *would* want banned. What I want doesn't make it right &
    if I head the power I'd be very careful with it. I do recognise it's a short
    trip from Woodstock to 1984 you know ;-)

    >>rumour-mongering. But we're talking about social issues here, not
    >>individuals.
    >
    >Society is just a big bunch of individuals. Anyone who tells you
    >otherwise is trying to manipulate you into behaving in their best
    >interests, but against yours.
    >In fact, you should always be suspicious whenever anyone appeals to
    >abstractions.

    Yes & no. 'Society' can have a group conscience & direction & ideas which no
    individual holds all on their own (kinda like government policies). It can
    be greater than the sum of its part, or much lesser.

    >>Basically, I reserve the right to point out what's wrong with
    >>society while offering no solutions & keeping a healthy distance the from
    >>secular world. It's a world (re)view thing :)
    >
    >It's much the same for me, but my fundamental moral compass is "every
    >persons freedom is infinite, unless where it impinges on another
    >persons equally infinite freedom".

    I would agree with that in general terms, but caution against the hedonistic
    mindset of "if it feels good & it's not hurting anyone it's ok". That's
    probably a large part of how we got from post-war conservativism, to the
    sexual revolution of the 60s, through to the apathy & individualism I see
    prevalent today. We'd all like to think we're the centre of the Universe,
    though we're not even the centre of the solar system :)

    >For instance, I personally find nazis to be violent, stupid, incapable
    >of arguing their way out of a wet paper bag, and basically embodying
    >everything I dislike, but I would still give them freedom to freely
    >express their stupidity in public.

    And if they went from redneck racist minority to genocidal majority again?
    ....

    >I wouldn't, however, necessarily give them permission to ACT on their
    >stupid ideas, as that would likely mean that someone else's, quite
    >possibly my, freedom was impinged.

    The sad fact of a fallen world (yes, in my world view, of course :) is that
    someone's freedom *always* gets impinged, because people are never in
    agreement & voters are the ones who make laws ultimately. I certainly
    remember how farmers & gun-nuts in Aus received the gun abolition a few
    years back. I know how a lot of women feel about anti-abortion laws. I know
    how a cop on the street feels about me calling him a pig. Freedom of
    expression carries with it defamation/libel laws in most countries. And it's
    a short trip in some ppl's minds from freedom of expression to actual
    freedom to act. Why can't pedophiles have their own chat groups & web sites
    free from fear of reprisals? Why shouldn't I have a website on how to make
    bombs from common household ingredients? Why can't murderers make money from
    publishing their stories? Etc, etc, etc. Look forward to your reply (as
    always ;-).

    --
    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    "Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:96hh31t59ir4dvtsl8j2vnhns20jid70b6@4ax.com...
    > Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
    >
    > >>The others follow from the first. If you say there is such a thing as
    > >>too much freedom, then you advocate oppression. The taking away of
    > >>freedom is.
    > >
    > >No, I'm saying there are many things we can't *do* in a civilized
    society -
    > >why should we be able to *say* anything then? The problem here is that
    stick
    > >& stones can break ones but WORDS are what really gets Evil going! Words
    > >have *far* more power than actions in actual fact.
    >
    > Well, if I had a choice whom I'd rather be bound and gagged and locked
    > up in a basement by & with - a person with a serrated knife and an
    > oddly detached smile, OR someone intent on nagging me into buying an
    > encyclopedia... I know which I'd choose.
    >
    > To me the idea that WORDS are more dangerous than ACTION is bizarre.
    >


    Maybe he's talking about the rhetoric used by radicals in the world that
    have led to some of the brutal actions that we've seen. Hilter, Bin Laden,
    ..... Most Germans or Muslims are normal people. But wind up the
    rhetoric and watch the transformation. The same could be said for people
    all over the world. Enter the warm southern states of the US, and listen
    to the KKK as they preach hate and fear; where even mild manner Clark Kent
    wants to go on a rampage.

    I wonder what General Custer told his 7th Cavalry prior to their last
    engagement?
    "Don't worry men, it's only a few redskins!"

    Rhetoric has been used throughout time to motive plain ordinary men into
    committing some of the most heinous acts in the history of the world.

    <snip>
    > >Yes & no. 'Society' can have a group conscience & direction & ideas which
    no
    > >individual holds all on their own (kinda like government policies). It
    can
    > >be greater than the sum of its part, or much lesser.
    >
    > Possibly. I'm not sure. Group dynamics exist, but with age I've become
    > quite cynical about things like patriotism and the way it's wielded by
    > politicians.
    >

    Sort of like when today's politicians get up and speak about how our great
    nation (US) was founded upon great principles. What histroy book did they
    read? One that didn't cover Slavery, Civil War, American Indians,
    Segregation, Woman's Suffrage, ....

    <snip>
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

    Thus spake "OldDog" <OldDog@city.pound>, Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:34:27 GMT, Anno
    Domini:

    >
    >"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    >news:96hh31t59ir4dvtsl8j2vnhns20jid70b6@4ax.com...
    >> Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
    >>
    >> >>The others follow from the first. If you say there is such a thing as
    >> >>too much freedom, then you advocate oppression. The taking away of
    >> >>freedom is.
    >> >
    >> >No, I'm saying there are many things we can't *do* in a civilized
    >society -
    >> >why should we be able to *say* anything then? The problem here is that
    >stick
    >> >& stones can break ones but WORDS are what really gets Evil going! Words
    >> >have *far* more power than actions in actual fact.
    >>
    >> Well, if I had a choice whom I'd rather be bound and gagged and locked
    >> up in a basement by & with - a person with a serrated knife and an
    >> oddly detached smile, OR someone intent on nagging me into buying an
    >> encyclopedia... I know which I'd choose.
    >>
    >> To me the idea that WORDS are more dangerous than ACTION is bizarre.
    >>
    >
    >
    >Maybe he's talking about the rhetoric used by radicals in the world that
    >have led to some of the brutal actions that we've seen. Hilter, Bin Laden,
    >.... Most Germans or Muslims are normal people. But wind up the
    >rhetoric and watch the transformation. The same could be said for people
    >all over the world. Enter the warm southern states of the US, and listen
    >to the KKK as they preach hate and fear; where even mild manner Clark Kent
    >wants to go on a rampage.
    >
    >I wonder what General Custer told his 7th Cavalry prior to their last
    >engagement?
    >"Don't worry men, it's only a few redskins!"
    >
    >Rhetoric has been used throughout time to motive plain ordinary men into
    >committing some of the most heinous acts in the history of the world.

    You took the words right out of my mouth OldDog ;-)

    ><snip>
    >> >Yes & no. 'Society' can have a group conscience & direction & ideas which
    >no
    >> >individual holds all on their own (kinda like government policies). It
    >can
    >> >be greater than the sum of its part, or much lesser.
    >>
    >> Possibly. I'm not sure. Group dynamics exist, but with age I've become
    >> quite cynical about things like patriotism and the way it's wielded by
    >> politicians.
    >>
    >
    >Sort of like when today's politicians get up and speak about how our great
    >nation (US) was founded upon great principles. What histroy book did they
    >read? One that didn't cover Slavery, Civil War, American Indians,
    >Segregation, Woman's Suffrage, ....

    ROFL!

    --
    Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games IBM Video Games