| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andres64" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2005 10:42:36 AM |
| Object: |
OT: FCC - can someone explain... |
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
.
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: FCC - can someone explain... |
10 Mar 2005 11:13:12 AM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
Stupidity is an infinite resource.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: FCC - can someone explain... |
13 Mar 2005 08:30:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:13:12 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
Stupidity is an infinite resource.
Of which Christian politicians love to demonstrate.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rally" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
10 Mar 2005 11:44:34 AM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean
the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
Yeah, it's fuckin' nuts.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
10 Mar 2005 03:05:04 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
But you can say titular.
They're completely insane.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
11 Mar 2005 01:12:48 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
But you can say titular.
They're completely insane.
You can ***** your finger ... but don't finger your *****
(another one from G. Carlin's)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
11 Mar 2005 01:32:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:12:48 -0500, "sdq@sdq.sdq" <sdq@sdq.sdq> wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
But you can say titular.
They're completely insane.
You can ***** your finger ... but don't finger your *****
(another one from G. Carlin's)
A balloon is like a virgin - one ***** and it's gone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
11 Mar 2005 02:47:23 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:12:48 -0500, "sdq@sdq.sdq" <sdq@sdq.sdq> wrote:
You can ***** your finger ... but don't finger your *****
(another one from G. Carlin's)
A balloon is like a virgin - one ***** and it's gone.
(as posted here some time ago)
"A toast to all the virgins, thanx for nothing!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
13 Mar 2005 08:35:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:32:01 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:12:48 -0500, "sdq@sdq.sdq" <sdq@sdq.sdq> wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
But you can say titular.
They're completely insane.
You can ***** your finger ... but don't finger your *****
(another one from G. Carlin's)
A balloon is like a virgin - one ***** and it's gone.
"Bottom's Up;" she says happily.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
13 Mar 2005 08:34:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:12:48 -0500, "sdq@sdq.sdq" <sdq@sdq.sdq> wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
But you can say titular.
They're completely insane.
You can ***** your finger ... but don't finger your *****
(another one from G. Carlin's)
or finger your *****.....
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
10 Mar 2005 10:17:46 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
But you can say titular.
Or "tit for tat".
They're completely insane.
Yup.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
10 Mar 2005 10:34:19 PM |
|
|
Olrik wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
But you can say titular.
Or "tit for tat".
They're completely insane.
Yup.
Not it isn't. You can even say 'tit' if you are talking about the small
bird. In the same way, the rules for the usage of '*****' depend on
whether it is an intensifier or in reference to a sexual act.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
10 Mar 2005 11:40:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:17:46 -0500, Olrik <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com>
wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
But you can say titular.
Or "tit for tat".
....and sparrows like breadcrumbs.
They're completely insane.
Yup.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
13 Mar 2005 08:33:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:05:04 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1110472956.631512.278960@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
But you can say titular.
They're completely insane.
Superstition generates and reinforces that tendency.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
11 Mar 2005 06:15:06 AM |
|
|
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
Why aren't women outraged that the US government considers
the very sight and names of their nurturing body parts obscene?
In a true free-speech country there is no FCC.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
11 Mar 2005 12:53:01 PM |
|
|
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
Why aren't women outraged that the US government considers
the very sight and names of their nurturing body parts obscene?
In a true free-speech country there is no FCC.
It's interesting that Liberals worry themselves to death over '*****',
'*****' and '*****' but don't have problem one with restrictions on
political speech they deem 'hateful' or 'racist' or otherwise not
politically correct.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
11 Mar 2005 01:19:12 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.c
om> wrote in
news:4231E90D.87D63B97@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx
yzabcdefghijk.com:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have
meanings and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its
standards/rules/whatever. Let's take a look at a typical example:
You can't say "tit", but you can say "breast." These words are
synonyms, meaning that they mean the same thing. So, it can't be
the meaning of the word (the part of the female anatomy) that
"they" find objectionable, because "they" don't object to the word
"breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A word is nothing
more than a bunch of letters that make a particular sound when
spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
Why aren't women outraged that the US government considers
the very sight and names of their nurturing body parts obscene?
In a true free-speech country there is no FCC.
It's interesting that Liberals worry themselves to death over '*****',
'*****' and '*****' but don't have problem one with restrictions on
political speech they deem 'hateful' or 'racist' or otherwise not
politically correct.
Actually, hate crime laws are an artifact of liberal politics, not
conservatives, who would consider a hate crime law one that protects their
right to kill niggers at will.
But don't let facts get in the way of a good racist wank.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
13 Mar 2005 08:48:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:19:12 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.c
om> wrote in
news:4231E90D.87D63B97@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx
yzabcdefghijk.com:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have
meanings and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its
standards/rules/whatever. Let's take a look at a typical example:
You can't say "tit", but you can say "breast." These words are
synonyms, meaning that they mean the same thing. So, it can't be
the meaning of the word (the part of the female anatomy) that
"they" find objectionable, because "they" don't object to the word
"breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A word is nothing
more than a bunch of letters that make a particular sound when
spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
Why aren't women outraged that the US government considers
the very sight and names of their nurturing body parts obscene?
In a true free-speech country there is no FCC.
It's interesting that Liberals worry themselves to death over '*****',
'*****' and '*****' but don't have problem one with restrictions on
political speech they deem 'hateful' or 'racist' or otherwise not
politically correct.
Actually, hate crime laws are an artifact of liberal politics, not
conservatives, who would consider a hate crime law one that protects their
right to kill niggers at will.
But don't let facts get in the way of a good racist wank.
Just call Bill, "Sir-Wanks-A-Lot."
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
13 Mar 2005 11:46:40 PM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' ) wrote:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
Why aren't women outraged that the US government considers
the very sight and names of their nurturing body parts obscene?
In a true free-speech country there is no FCC.
It's interesting that Liberals worry themselves to death over '*****',
'*****' and '*****' but don't have problem one with restrictions on
political speech they deem 'hateful' or 'racist' or otherwise not
politically correct.
Sorry. "Liberals" aren't the ones going around saying things should be
PC. Maybe you should do some more resarch before espousing such lunacy.
Liberals are simply those on the "left" side of the political spectrum.
You may call them "Democrats", but not all Democrats are Liberals, but
all Liberals are Democrat. Just as Conservative are those on the
"right" side of the political spectrum. All Conservatives are
Republican, but not all Republicans are Conservative.
Now, for the gradations of "Liberal" and "Conservative".
There are libertarian-liberals (like me) who believe that the government
should get out of private life and stop using government to run our
lives (Government out of bedroom, off of TV, etc.)
There are authoritarian-liberals (like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller)
who believe that it's the Government's job to enforce everything from
PC-ness to economy. I have a severe dislike for authoritarian-liberals.
There are authortarian-conservatives like Hitler who believe it's the
Government's job to promote nationalism above all else.
And there are libertarian-conservatives who believe that government
should be hands-off all together. I can deal with libertarian-liberals
and libertarian-conservatives.
I can't deal with authoritarians, which I believe that most Christians are.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary DeWaay" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
13 Mar 2005 11:32:43 PM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting =20
loud'' )'s at=20
stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com=
=20
wisdom: =20
=20
=20
=20
"Witziges R=E4tsel" wrote:
=20
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever=
..
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean t=
he
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. =
A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
=20
Why aren't women outraged that the US government considers
the very sight and names of their nurturing body parts obscene?
=20
In a true free-speech country there is no FCC.
It's interesting that Liberals worry themselves to death over '*****',
'*****' and '*****'
What liberal gives a ***** ***** about the words ***** ***** or *****?
but don't have problem one with restrictions on
political speech they deem 'hateful' or 'racist' or otherwise not
politically correct.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
--=20
Gary
"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in=
=20
the middle of the family values white house living room."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
13 Mar 2005 11:42:15 PM |
|
|
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9eddf15b79d2e998a086@news.midco.net...
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
<...>
It's interesting that Liberals worry themselves to death over '*****',
'*****' and '*****'
What liberal gives a ***** ***** about the words ***** ***** or *****?
I kinda do. Profanity is an art, and it really chaps my ***** when people can't
make the effort to cuss properly.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary DeWaay" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
14 Mar 2005 06:22:30 PM |
|
|
Clave's at wisdom:
It's interesting that Liberals worry themselves to death over '*****',
'*****' and '*****'
What liberal gives a ***** ***** about the words ***** ***** or *****?
I kinda do. Profanity is an art, and it really chaps my ***** when people can't
make the effort to cuss properly.
Fuckin' A.
--
Gary
"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
14 Mar 2005 03:20:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:42:15 -0800, "Clave"
<ClaviusNoSpamDammit@CableSpeed.com> wrote:
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9eddf15b79d2e998a086@news.midco.net...
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
<...>
It's interesting that Liberals worry themselves to death over '*****',
'*****' and '*****'
What liberal gives a ***** ***** about the words ***** ***** or *****?
I kinda do. Profanity is an art, and it really chaps my ***** when people can't
make the effort to cuss properly.
/me hands Jim a tub of 'Chapstick®' "))))))
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
14 Mar 2005 10:59:26 AM |
|
|
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at
stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com
wisdom:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
why people get so worked-up over "dirty" words? Words have meanings
and sounds. The FCC makes no sense with its standards/rules/whatever.
Let's take a look at a typical example: You can't say "tit", but you
can say "breast." These words are synonyms, meaning that they mean the
same thing. So, it can't be the meaning of the word (the part of the
female anatomy) that "they" find objectionable, because "they" don't
object to the word "breast." Therefore it must be the word itself. A
word is nothing more than a bunch of letters that make a particular
sound when spoken. So, they object to the *sound* of the word?
Why aren't women outraged that the US government considers
the very sight and names of their nurturing body parts obscene?
In a true free-speech country there is no FCC.
It's interesting that Liberals worry themselves to death over '*****',
'*****' and '*****'
What liberal gives a ***** ***** about the words ***** ***** or *****?
I was referring to the complaints about limits on what media and at what
times and in what contexts those words could be used. I'm pretty sure
that constitutes worrying about the words. What value would the taboo
words have if everyone used them all the time?
No comments on the verisimilitude of the following, which clearly is
censorship of ideas and not just limitation of methods and means:
but don't have problem one with restrictions on
political speech they deem 'hateful' or 'racist' or otherwise not
politically correct.
--
Gary
"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary DeWaay" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
14 Mar 2005 06:30:01 PM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at
stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com
wisdom:
It's interesting that Liberals worry themselves to death over '*****',
'*****' and '*****'
What liberal gives a ***** ***** about the words ***** ***** or *****?
I was referring to the complaints about limits on what media and at what
times and in what contexts those words could be used.
A liberal is behind that? I'm sorry, I realize there are liberals that
are looking for an easy way to score political points like this, but it
sounds right in a Republicans wheel house.
I'm pretty sure
that constitutes worrying about the words. What value would the taboo
words have if everyone used them all the time?
No comments on the verisimilitude of the following, which clearly is
censorship of ideas and not just limitation of methods and means:
but don't have problem one with restrictions on
political speech they deem 'hateful' or 'racist' or otherwise not
politically correct.
How do liberals try to limit racist or hateful speech? By pointing out
that it is racist or hateful?
Cry me a river.
--
Gary
"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
14 Mar 2005 08:08:43 PM |
|
|
Gary DeWaay wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )'s at
stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com
wisdom:
It's interesting that Liberals worry themselves to death over '*****',
'*****' and '*****'
What liberal gives a ***** ***** about the words ***** ***** or *****?
I was referring to the complaints about limits on what media and at what
times and in what contexts those words could be used.
A liberal is behind that? I'm sorry, I realize there are liberals that
are looking for an easy way to score political points like this, but it
sounds right in a Republicans wheel house.
Geez. Liberals are complaining that there are limits on what you can say
when on broadcast TV. This is Liberals trying to force their views on
the society as a whole.
I'm pretty sure
that constitutes worrying about the words. What value would the taboo
words have if everyone used them all the time?
No comments on the verisimilitude of the following, which clearly is
censorship of ideas and not just limitation of methods and means:
but don't have problem one with restrictions on
political speech they deem 'hateful' or 'racist' or otherwise not
politically correct.
How do liberals try to limit racist or hateful speech? By pointing out
that it is racist or hateful?
Obviously you've never heard of hate speech laws, of students getting in
trouble for calling some rampaging female students who happened to be
black, 'water buffalos', an unknown until that very moment racial
epithet.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
14 Mar 2005 08:24:35 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:423643AB.A044F25A@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Gary DeWaay wrote:
<...>
A liberal is behind that? I'm sorry, I realize there are liberals that
are looking for an easy way to score political points like this, but it
sounds right in a Republicans wheel house.
Geez. Liberals are complaining that there are limits on what you can say
when on broadcast TV...
Which liberals?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
14 Mar 2005 08:35:13 PM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:423643AB.A044F25A@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Gary DeWaay wrote:
<...>
A liberal is behind that? I'm sorry, I realize there are liberals that
are looking for an easy way to score political points like this, but it
sounds right in a Republicans wheel house.
Geez. Liberals are complaining that there are limits on what you can say
when on broadcast TV...
Which liberals?
It's what you and Gary have been complaining about right here. Good
grief.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
14 Mar 2005 09:04:37 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:423649E1.55AE1887@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:423643AB.A044F25A@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Gary DeWaay wrote:
<...>
A liberal is behind that? I'm sorry, I realize there are liberals that
are looking for an easy way to score political points like this, but it
sounds right in a Republicans wheel house.
Geez. Liberals are complaining that there are limits on what you can say
when on broadcast TV...
Which liberals?
It's what you and Gary have been complaining about right here. Good
grief.
*I* certainly haven't complained about there being speech limits on broadcast
TV, and I don't recall Gary having done so.
Gary?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shoutingloud" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
14 Mar 2005 09:12:49 PM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:423649E1.55AE1887@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:423643AB.A044F25A@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Gary DeWaay wrote:
<...>
A liberal is behind that? I'm sorry, I realize there are liberals that
are looking for an easy way to score political points like this, but it
sounds right in a Republicans wheel house.
Geez. Liberals are complaining that there are limits on what you can say
when on broadcast TV...
Which liberals?
It's what you and Gary have been complaining about right here. Good
grief.
*I* certainly haven't complained about there being speech limits on broadcast
TV, and I don't recall Gary having done so.
Gary?
Isn't that what you two are going on about in this discussion? I see the
start of this thread was actually Andres64, so I'd place that one at the
top of the stack.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: FCC - can someone explain... |
14 Mar 2005 09:40:45 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:423652B1.720CC442@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting
loud'' )"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:423649E1.55AE1887@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde
<...>
Geez. Liberals are complaining that there are limits on what you can say
when on broadcast TV...
Which liberals?
It's what you and Gary have been complaining about right here. Good
grief.
*I* certainly haven't complained about there being speech limits on broadcast
TV, and I don't recall Gary having done so.
Gary?
Isn't that what you two are going on about in this discussion? I see the
start of this thread was actually Andres64, so I'd place that one at the
top of the stack.
I don't see Andres64 complaining that there *are* limits, to quote you directly.
Seems to me more that he's arguing about where the limits are.
What about that do you find so unreasonable, or limited to liberals?
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
