OT - 10 steps to fascist police state

"Jose" wrote in message
...

quo where pictures of Cho draw viewers, which equates to higher ratings,
which equates to higher ad revenue, which equates to higher salaries for
the executives?...

I don't even know (or care) who "Cho" is. Why? Because I choose what I
watch. Do you? If you don't, that is a problem. But if you do, then why
do you want to choose what =I= and everybody else watches?

Settle down. Nobody said anything about choosing for you.

You want to make movies about how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are
genuinely bad, go make them. It's not all that hard.

LOL! Hell, movie making is cheap and easy, isn't it?


-c

I don't even know (or care) who "Cho" is. Why? Because I choose what I
watch. Do you? If you don't, that is a problem. But if you do, then why
do you want to choose what =I= and everybody else watches?
Settle down. Nobody said anything about choosing for you.

Uh.... that's not quite the case. You said:
Should stick with the status quo where pictures of Cho
draw viewers, which equates to higher ratings...

The status quo comes about because we, collectively, are choosing it.
Further you state:

Movies about how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are genuinely bad would
be better than Snoop Dog's Girls Gone Wild extravaganza and all its
miscellaneous internet-porn spinoffs...

While that is a neutral statement of opinion, its relevance only comes
from the fact that we, collectively, are choosing differently from this
opinion. The post implies this is a Bad Thing. By implication, you
would have us choose differently, or be chosen for differently.

You want to make movies about how drugs, violence and promiscuous sex are
genuinely bad, go make them. It's not all that hard.

LOL! Hell, movie making is cheap and easy, isn't it?

1: Yes, it is. Look at YouTube.
2: If it isn't, then you need money. That means you need viewers or
backers. Viewers mean you're back making what viewers want to see.
Backers mean you're making what the backers want us to see.

Grab a super-8 camera and =make= the movie you want us to see. Then put
it on YouTube and see if we =do= want to see it.

It's cheaper than flying.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
I don't even know (or care) who "Cho" is. Why? Because I choose what I
watch. Do you? If you don't, that is a problem. But if you do, then
why do you want to choose what =I= and everybody else watches?
Settle down. Nobody said anything about choosing for you.

Uh.... that's not quite the case. You said:
Should stick with the status quo where pictures of Cho draw viewers,
which equates to higher ratings...

The status quo comes about because we, collectively, are choosing it.


"GRESHAM, Ore. (AP) - A 15-year-old boy charged with attempted aggravated
murder after a shooting shattered some windows at a high school told police
he was influenced by a television documentary on the 1999 Columbine
shootings in Colorado."
http://www.katu.com/news/6982432.html

I'm just sayin'...

Why do we know the names and faces of Clebold, Harris, Malvo, Muhammed, Cho,
Whitman, Manson, Bundy.... but we'd have to do an internet lookup to
recall the name of the Holocaust-survivor professor who gave his life
protecting his VT students?

-c

"gatt" wrote:


I'm just sayin'...

Why do we know the names and faces of Clebold, Harris, Malvo, Muhammed, Cho,
Whitman, Manson, Bundy....

Because that's what "we" WANT to know. If people did not have these morbid
interests, TV networks could not make money pandering to them.

It bears occasional repeating:

"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
-H. L. Mencken

Dan Luke wrote:

"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
public." -H. L. Mencken

Just look at the intellectual treasure trove of material at the supermarket
checkout stands!!

Dan Luke wrote:

"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
public." -H. L. Mencken

The quote say "..underestimating the GULLIBILITY.."

Also, Mencken made it famous, but he got it from P.T. Barnum

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Dan Luke wrote:

"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
public." -H. L. Mencken

The quote say "..underestimating the GULLIBILITY.."

Also, Mencken made it famous, but he got it from P.T. Barnum


Johnny Carson once ask George Carlin what he thought of America's dope
problem, to which Carlin quickly (and very accuratly) replied " I'll have to
agree with you Johnny, we have far too many dopes."

As for the supermarket check out line, I want one of those tosters the burn
a crucifix image on the toast. They say they are posessed, but I think it
would be just the touch for Sunday morning breakfast.