Off Topic Messages

Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:55 pm

Jeff -

You wrote:
But it is hard finding anything currently produced to watch.


Don't you think that proves that you, and the minority for which you speak, are now out-of-step with modern society ?

Nothing wrong with that in itself.

But don't expect all entertainment to be tailored to your narrow tastes.

The majority of us are broadminded enough to like things as they are !

So long as there are provisions in place to protect children, I don't like censorship being used to water down what we can see in our entertainment.

Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:02 pm

The thing that gets my goat about tv here in the UK, is that every other tv drama seems to be about serial killers and the like. What happened to nice cop shows we used to import from the USA, like Cannon, The Rockford Files, Starsky and Hutch, Harry-O and Banacek ?

Give me old style Hollywood cop drama, over realism any day. Entertain me, not frighten the be-jesus out of me.

Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 pm

The majority of us are broadminded enough to like things as they are ! - Colin B

The above statement is what I've been saying. Your statement just goes to show how conditioned you and people have become. You will watch anything they throw at you without a thought of how immoral things are. Doesn't that say something about society and about you?

If you wanna see sex, see a porn movie. If I wanna see entertainment or a great movie or TV show, why should I have to see sex? There is nothing wrong with us knowing that people are having sex but do we have to be voyeurs into the characters sex life?
Point in question. When two people kiss, do we really have to have the cameras right on their mouths and seeing them tongue each other? To me, that is just totally wrong in a mainstream TV show.

jeff R

Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:30 pm

jeffreyjames wrote:The majority of us are broadminded enough to like things as they are ! - Colin B

The above statement is what I've been saying. Your statement just goes to show how conditioned you and people have become. You will watch anything they throw at you without a thought of how immoral things are. Doesn't that say something about society and about you?

If you wanna see sex, see a porn movie. If I wanna see entertainment or a great movie or TV show, why should I have to see sex? There is nothing wrong with us knowing that people are having sex but do we have to be voyeurs into the characters sex life?
Point in question. When two people kiss, do we really have to have the cameras right on their mouths and seeing them tongue each other? To me, that is just totally wrong in a mainstream TV show.

jeff R


Now hold on !

You just moved the goal posts !

You started out moaning about innocent things like a bit of cleavage or a glimpse of leg.

Now you're saying if you wanna see sex go to a porn movie.

Porn movie stuff isn't being shown in 'Lost' or anything else on mainstream tv.

Even I wouldn't be too happy if it was !

Your remark about doesn't that say something about society & me: well, yes, it says we're pretty much in step !

You aren't.

Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:00 am

Okay, if society is moving more and more towards immorality, that means we should too? And if we don't, we're not in step?
Those are some sad, sad statements about your personality.

I would just like to sit down, watch TV and not be offended by something. The way commercials have become in recent years, that's why I've chosen to rent or buy TV shows on DVD. I don't have to watch the stupid commercials and I can watch the shows when I want. But do I have to see things that I don't like?
I don't have a problem with violence as some people do. Some do, some don't.
I don't have a problem with a little bad language as some people do. Some do, some don't.
I do have a problem with excessive sex especially when it is meant to titilate the audience. Some do, some don't.

What I meant about porn movies was that if peopler want to see porn or soft-core porn, rent or buy those types of films. There is no place for it on TV especially in network prime-time TV.

Because I'm a morale person and try to live a morale life, that makes me out of step? I wouldn't think God would think so. But, then again, you don't believe in God so immorality doesn't mean anything to you, right Colin B?

You can watch what you like and I can watch what I like. The only problem is there isn't much for me to watch. Everything is going the way of sex, violence and language...in other words... immorality.

Okay I'm in the minority here. I'd rather be right with God than with a majority of people who are immoral.

jeff R

Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:06 am

Jeff,

Do you have any bootlegs or cdrs?

Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:19 am

C'mon Francesc, don't you start.

Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:22 am

jeffreyjames wrote:Okay, if society is moving more and more towards immorality, that means we should too? And if we don't, we're not in step?
Those are some sad, sad statements about your personality.


That's only true Jeff if your word on what is and is not immoral is the right one.

What would you think of a TV program on naturism ?

If I want to be entertained by a porn movie does that mean that I have to watch an unentertaining movie coz anything entertaining can't be porn ?

Killing someone is immoral, so that would rule out most movies anyway that have guns in them. Heck, if you go by the ten commandments (and who is soooo out of step these days that they do ?) there would be nothing to watch on TV.

Then again, no one has to watch it if they don't want or you can always play an Elvis DVD. :lol:

It's MMV now, not I.

Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:22 am

why? that has to be morarily wrong right?

Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:45 am

Jeff -

You wrote:
Okay I'm in the minority here.
I'd rather be right with God than with a majority of people who are immoral.


Just because I enjoy a little titillation on tv [along with the majority] doesn't make me [or them] immoral.

And I don't take kindly to being called it, either.

I live a good, clean life; and by my own rules, not the preachings from an ancient book.

I just looked up 'immoral' and the dictionary says 'not following accepted standards of moral behaviour'

Well, if the majority accept the tv the way it is, it can't be immoral, can it ?

The 'accepted standards' have changed, adapted, modernised.

You haven't.

Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:54 am

Colin is so right about this!

I would wager that 95% of the public are quite happy with the current TV set-up. Even further I would bet that the general public would be more than happy to actually see a boob or two on Desparate Housewives.

TV is only reflecting current moral values - in fact somewhat behind contemporay values.

Near where I live is a nude beach and a little further away a "gay" beach. No one rails against them - it's just part of our society - just part of life.

But then perhaps, as a country, we are a little more realistic towards society. After all we now have legalsed prostitution, same-sex marriage and abortion on demand -- and guess what society has not broken down!

I note that Britain is moving to 24 hour drinking - good move - we did that 15 years ago and guess what - less drunks staggering around.

Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:12 am

jeffreyjames wrote: But, then again, you don't believe in God so immorality doesn't mean anything to you, right Colin B?


That really is an absurd statement Jeffrey. Morality has nothing to do with religion. Some of the most moral people I know have barely set foot in a church in their lives and feel no need to. Their conscience dictates their actions.

Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:19 am

All I'm getting out of the last several responses is that you people think that because the majority of people like something then that makes it correct. How ignorant can you be?

Current moral values? Because currently people are okay with these things that makes it right and moral? Another totally ignorant comment.

95% of people are okay with TV as it is now? Where did you get that figure? More ignorance.

A nude beach and a gay beach? That's a good thing? For who? The gays and nudies are living a totally immoral lifestyle. If you are okay with that, well, that's a shame.

Our society hasn't broken down because of the many things you mentioned? The world has gone to hell. Our society and your society has gone to hell. We are taking God out of everything and this is a good thing? We are so close to the end that it is a serious matter, not a joke.

Do you think all the wars, famine, many natural disasters just happen like they have in the past fews years. There are even tornados killing people in the USA in late November. Earthquakes, hurricanes killing thousands. Child molestation on the rise. All kinds of people in the clergy raping and having sex with children. I guess you are right, we do live in a great moral society!!

jeff R

Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:33 am

a great moral society!!

It is for some and not for others...people have other views,thats all.

Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:16 pm

Jeffery, you always fail to state why something is immoral. You just seem to think we should accept it because you say so.

Colin gave you the definition of immoral and you just seemed to have ignored it.

Why are gays and naturists immoral ? Don't just say they are because you say so, tell us why.

People who live together and love one another but are not yet married would most likely be considered immoral to you for "living in sin".

Adam wore a fig leaf, would that be acceptable today ?

Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:29 pm

gee, now i suddenly feel ok that you thought buffy and angel were immoral tv shows. actually i'm glad.

sorry, man. i'm truly disinterested in watching bob the builder and teletubbies. give me a freakin' break.

you say you aren't a prude, but i think you really are. if you have a problem with something as non-explicit as a girl bending down or wearing a bikini (stay away from fiesta island during over the line in san diego--you'll be seeing more than a bikini)...you need a life. i think the puritan pilgrim hat is too tight on your head. if you didn't have a tv or a computer, i'd think you were amish. that's really how you are coming off.

do you still burn witches, pagans, and heretics at the stake like moral people used to do?

nobody would watch tv if it was andy griffith telling yet another life lesson to opie. people just can't get entertained by sickeningly sweet morals anymore in tidy neat packages with no gray area. and you gotta move on from that.

there's a such a thing as parental controls on your tv set. i recommend the g rating for you. you might be able to catch some wholesome disney channel or kiddy cartoon programming that you might find exceptable. are those old cop shows perhaps a bit too violent? i'm thinking they had guns on them, so i think you should avoid them.

sorry, man. i like my tv a little more bloody, corpsy, sexy, darker, dramatic, off-color humorish... and i'm a very moral person. virgin, never been kissed, never dated, never done drugs, never been drunk... so it is possible to be moral and still enjoy a little EDGE on screen.

excuse me while i DON'T care that my favorite tv characters are finally getting it on (you can't go on forever doing nothing; i'm sorry, the frustration gets annoying), even though in the jossverse, a good moment is usually followed by something downright depressing--as in literally angel losing his soul and becoming psycho-killer angelus--which was actually a metaphor for DON'T have teen sex, it will go bad--as seen by the completely unviolent scene the morning after where buffy gets 'dumped' not realizing it's angelus and not angel...

except it's angelus style afterwards--think necks snapping, raping, and puppies getting nailed to walls (which is said, not shown), and all that lovely stuff that's in-character. he's not supposed to be a fluffy guy you want to share a quart of double fudge mint chip with. so don't expect it to be acceptable for little kids to watch.

it'd be utterly boring if it were kiddified--i wouldn't be a fan if every episode was girl sees monster, girl slays monster, everybody goes to the club and parties--it's ok for the first season but that was it. willow said it perfectly--we couldn't wait for the "vicarious smoochies".

there's nothing more boring than nothing happening at all. a kid's show just doesn't cut it. i love classic disney. really. but even they have a few bellybuttons and seashells. and it can be done completely innocently. there is nothing wrong with it. and yes, admittedly disney heavily cleaned up the fairytales it adapted...grimm's fairyales were told for years in their pure form to kids. not quite as fluffy as their disney counterparts. there's a place for both.

you can't go on forever having the innocence of leave it to beaver. it's good for a VERY YOUNG kid, but after you reach teenybopperhood, even those retro kids started thinking--hey that elvis guy is really hot. he sure beats mr. ed.

honestly, i think smallville and harry potter suffer from holding off on the dark stuff. i don't watch them much because smallville is the 'get it on already' show that was a wannabe early buffy minus the depth, and harry potter got dwarfed by lord of the rings on the maturity.

you dilute down violence and hannibal lector doesn't seem so scary and the story can't be told. can you honestly tell me how to depict a cannibal without him eating somebody?

btw, i really don't recommend movies to you made after the 50s. animal house was made in the 70s, so i think you are really out of touch. i have no problem with characters in-character cussing up a storm a la the blues brothers. that is actually my favorite comedy of all time.

heck, i'm surprised you aren't on a 'we hate elvis' site...because last time i checked elvis was a very sexy guy...you know--he actually sweated and gyrated with an open v-neck jumpsuit showing off his chest while girls screamed orgasmically and actually ripped his clothes off a few times in the 50s. heck, a lot of his vocals were done for the tittleating effect by him dropping his voice down low or his teasing of the audience with the long pauses and movements. doesn't seem like your kind of entertainment. seems more like mine.

perhaps big band, jazz, or classical is a little bit more your speed? even though i'm sure you'll find your share of immoral sinners in those genres. you don't strike me as an aficionado of rock 'n roll...because you know the two things that are usually associated with it don't particularly meet your puritanical standards (sex and drugs). elvis doesn't meet your standards, surely, but i think we can all vouch that he was a wonderful, generous human being with a heart that was probably too big.

apparently, elvis managed to be religious and rock 'n roll at the same time. you, my friend, can only seemingly say that anybody who isn't amish is going to be burning in hell for being human.

do you also have one of those bed boards for you and your wife? no, wait. do you have twin beds like ricky and lucy ricardo? seriously. i'm wondering now.

all in the family was the first show to flush the toliet. and dan aykroyd had to fight the censors to show his buttcrack in a sketch on saturday night live when he was making fun of plumbers. not to mention jeannie's bellybutton. and of course elvis from the waist up.

i mean, it sounds silly today, but it wasn't then. but back then it was as scandalous as showing a thong bikini (honestly, people don't give a damn about even that anymore).

Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:16 pm

jeffreyjames wrote:
Pete Dube,
It was the fact that every woman had to wear low cut outfits to show their boobs off or the shortest shorts possible. I could count about 20 times per episode that the female was bending down before someone and the camera would have to show her cleavage.
To me that's total exploitation of women. To me, it ruined a good show. It trashed it.


Jeff -
How is a bit of cleavage or thigh any different than the guy who plays Sawyer showing his abs? These girls aren't naked or even semi-nude. Remember Jane Russell back in the 40's showed cleavage. And as for exploitation the girls bending over showing some cleavage is a lot less blatant than Elvis pumping his pelvis during Polk Salad Annie in TTWII. For all practical purposes he's dry-humping to the music isn't he?

And I think you're off base suggesting that atheists are immoral. One can be a disbeliever and still be a moral person. Some atheists are immoral. But some who profess to be Christians are pretty despicable people. I'd much rather hang out with the likes of a Colin B. or a T.J. than a Benny Hinn (whom it would give me great pleasure to knock on his charlaton a$$) or a Pat Robertson! So-called 'Christians' such as Robertson and Hinn are part of the reason why some people want nothing to do with Christianity.

Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:07 pm

I guess I must say I'm totally shocked at the ways I've been attacked on this thread. I knew I would get some bad feedback but I thought I would get some good too. So far, most of it has been negative.

I know some of you do agree with at least my first posting on this thread. I know things have gone farther than it has. When people get attacked, like me, I feel like counter-attacking which I have done.

When I talk about immorality, I'm talking about things from scripture or the Bible. I'm not talking about what's moral in our today life. We do live in a very immoral society. Do I believe in living and sleeping together before marriage...I do not. Although I lived with two women before I was married. Double standard? No. It's in the past and I can't do anything about it. I'm a Christian now, wasn't then.
Do I think abortion is okay? No. Even though I drove someone to have one many, many years ago. God has forgiven me.

I could go on and on but I need to stop here. I was just hoping some of you would understand that I was like many of you when I was younger and before I put God into my life. I'm more happy now than I was 20 or so years ago. I have a wonderful wife and a wonderful life. I'm also a sinner like everyone else. None of us can help ourselves but we can try to do better each day.

Enough said!

jeff R

Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:43 pm

Don't let it get to you Jeff. Stand by your conservative views.

God bless you.


Some people today want/insist that previously immoral taboos
(dope-usage, whoredom and queerdom) must now be accepted.

They don't have to be accepted.

Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:28 pm

jeffreyjames wrote:Do you think all the wars, famine, many natural disasters just happen like they have in the past fews years. There are even tornados killing people in the USA in late November. Earthquakes, hurricanes killing thousands. Child molestation on the rise. All kinds of people in the clergy raping and having sex with children. I guess you are right, we do live in a great moral society!!

jeff R


All that never happened before ...never ! Funny thing is that looks like you are obsess (sp?) with that sex thing, it's the only thing that bothers you. I don't understand why you didn't answer tyo my question about bootlegs. How can be inmoral what ColinB said but it is not inmoral to buy them or copy them.

Anyway, don't watch TV.

Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:36 pm

Jeff

There are many things that annoy me on TV, but too much "sex" isn't one of them. I would agree, if you were saying there's too much violence shown during the daytime, though.

While you think we're living in an immoral society, I think there's still too much prudery and intolerance around. Well, everyone should make up (and be allowed to make up) their own mind about what's immoral and not just follow other people and that includes what's written down in some book.

I do enjoy "Lost" very much as it is, because it has a little bit of everything. There's certainly not too much "sex" for my taste and your gain would be my loss. Don't know "Smallville" or "Everwood", but I've tried "Stargate", "Sex and the City" and "Desperate Housewives" and they didn't appeal to me.

Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:00 pm

Graceland Gardener wrote:

Some people today want/insist that previously immoral taboos
(dope-usage, whoredom and queerdom) must now be accepted.

They don't have to be accepted.


GG: You promised you would never mention my youthful indiscretions! :x

Geoff :oops:

Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:12 pm

jeffreyjames wrote:I guess I must say I'm totally shocked at the ways I've been attacked on this thread.
jeff R


I didnt read that part, you really have the nerve to say that we are attacking you? You are the one that call Colin immoral.

Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:19 am

I think, Francesc, that Colin B can make up his own mind and talk straight to me as he has on this and many threads. Colin B and I have seen things differently for years on this board. We have also agreed on many, many things through the years. I respect him very much. I just don't agree with him on certain things as he doesn't with me.

I did not start this posting to be attacked or to attack others. I'm guilty on the latter part and in that I'm sorry. But, I do stand up for my own feelings about things throughout this thread and after reading through the postings again I do see that some people were very honest and did say nice things. Everyone didn't attack me and I was in error stating just that.

jeff R

Fri Nov 25, 2005 4:10 am

Thank you ! :lol: