Discussion:
why do so many u.s. serials lack swear words?!
(too old to reply)
s***@hotmail.com
2007-11-14 22:09:03 UTC
Permalink
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
moviePig
2007-11-14 22:17:21 UTC
Permalink
why do so many u.s. serials lack swear words?!
Because "snap, crackle, and motherf**king pop" curdles the milk...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Obveeus
2007-11-17 02:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by moviePig
why do so many u.s. serials lack swear words?!
Because "snap, crackle, and motherf**king pop" curdles the milk...
All kinds of serials use the word 'Nuts', 'Fruit', 'Berries', 'Puffs'.
Apple 'Jacks'
Cinnamon 'Mini-buns'
'Pokemon'
'Franken Berry'
'Yummy Mummy'
There was even that health food serial call 'bear naked'.

So, there are serials that have fracken swear words. ;-)
Taylor
2007-11-14 22:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
Why does crappy BET (Black Entertainment Television) censor their
(society-damaging) videos? 'Cause their parent corp, Viacom, are
gutless.

MaxTrax (digital audio-only music channels) does the same. I was
listening to The Black Eyed Peas' "My Humps" at 4 in the morning and
they need to mute the word "ass". I was thinking to myself: You know,
I think they're right. THAT'S why people subscribe to satellite radio
(XM, Sirius). Fergie's just a druggie, btw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Eyed_Peas
s***@hotmail.com
2007-11-14 22:36:06 UTC
Permalink
actually this reminds me of that curb your enthusiasm episode
greg2468
2007-11-14 22:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
You want realistic? Then why are you watching Lost?
r wiley
2007-11-14 22:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
"The Unit" and "24" are the new "Rambo" and "Dirty Harry". The
old "If we could just ignore the Constitution, Geneva Accords, etc
we'd be invincible" scam.

Kind of like Pakistani dictator General Pervez Musharaff's excuse
that the "War On Terror" is more important than democracy.

rw
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2007-11-14 23:12:28 UTC
Permalink
r wiley wrote:

[deletions]
Post by r wiley
Kind of like Pakistani dictator General Pervez Musharaff's excuse
that the "War On Terror" is more important than democracy.
Gee, I wonder whom he learned that wheez from?
--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
Sofa-Spud
2007-11-14 22:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
"Dead Like Me" has wince making effing and blinding in it . No sex or
violence but the language is from the barrack room I kid you not.
Mark A
2007-11-14 23:38:40 UTC
Permalink
"Dead Like Me" has wince making effing and blinding in it. No sex or
violence but the language is from the barrack room I kid you not.
Deadwood was better (or worse) though.

Regards

Mark
steeler
2007-11-14 23:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark A
"Dead Like Me" has wince making effing and blinding in it. No sex or
violence but the language is from the barrack room I kid you not.
Deadwood was better (or worse) though.
Both of which were on cable.
Jeff Lawrence
2007-11-15 15:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark A
"Dead Like Me" has wince making effing and blinding in it. No sex or
violence but the language is from the barrack room I kid you not.
Deadwood was better (or worse) though.
Many HBO programmes (Curb YE, Sopranos, Deadwood) are full of really
bad language with a fair sprinking of "cunts" among them. I can't
remember that word being used too often on UK TV. Certainly not for
the
main story-line of a high-profile comedy show as it was in the
"Beloved Aunt" episode of Curb YE.
Cheers
Jeff
Alan Hope
2007-11-16 07:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark A
"Dead Like Me" has wince making effing and blinding in it. No sex or
violence but the language is from the barrack room I kid you not.
Deadwood was better (or worse) though.
Brilliant. Chinese guy whose only word of English is cocksucker.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Enzo Matrix
2007-11-15 00:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sofa-Spud
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
"Dead Like Me" has wince making effing and blinding in it . No sex or
violence
Wot about dropping pianos on heads, stabbing people with swordfishes and
smacking people in the head with canoes?
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Rob Cypher
2007-11-15 04:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enzo Matrix
Post by Sofa-Spud
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
"Dead Like Me" has wince making effing and blinding in it . No sex or
violence
Wot about dropping pianos on heads, stabbing people with swordfishes and
smacking people in the head with canoes?
That would be "The Three Stooges" you're looking for.
--
robcypher.livejournal.com
Paul Hyett
2007-11-15 08:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sofa-Spud
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
"Dead Like Me" has wince making effing and blinding in it . No sex
or violence
Unless you count the people who die in horrible accidents every
episode...
Post by Sofa-Spud
but the language is from the barrack room I kid you not.
I guess that show was exclusive to Cable in the US?
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
William December Starr
2007-11-15 08:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sofa-Spud
"Dead Like Me" has wince making effing and blinding in it . No sex
or violence but the language is from the barrack room I kid you
not.
"Blinding?" (Sorry, I'm an American; I don't know what that means
in this context.)
--
William December Starr <***@panix.com>
Enzo Matrix
2007-11-15 09:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by William December Starr
Post by Sofa-Spud
"Dead Like Me" has wince making effing and blinding in it . No sex
or violence but the language is from the barrack room I kid you
not.
"Blinding?" (Sorry, I'm an American; I don't know what that means
in this context.)
"Effing and blinding" is a peculiarly British expression denoting the use of
strong language. The "effing" portion is self explanatory.

The "blinding" has two possible explanations. "God blind me!" was at one
time considered to be very strong langauge indeed. A corrupted version of it
is now used as a minced oath - "Cor blimey!" Another explanation is that it
is a reference to the old wives tale that swearing would make you blind, as
in "he cursed himself blind".
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
D***@nomail.
2007-11-15 13:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sofa-Spud
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
"Dead Like Me" has wince making effing and blinding in it .
?
Post by Sofa-Spud
No sex or
violence but the language is from the barrack room I kid you not.
Originally it was on Showtime (a channel you have to pay extra to get) and that
is why they could use the dirty language. When they showed on the SciFi Channel
most of the language was taken out.
PumpkinEscobar
2007-11-14 23:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
'Neo-con libertarian' is an oxymoron, you cross posting ignoramus.

--
s***@hotmail.com
2007-11-15 01:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by PumpkinEscobar
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
'Neo-con libertarian' is an oxymoron, you cross posting ignoramus.
--
no; it's called redundancy, you moron.
Neil Hopkins
2007-11-15 18:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by PumpkinEscobar
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
'Neo-con libertarian' is an oxymoron, you cross posting ignoramus.
--
no; it's called redundancy, you moron.
If they were libertarian, why would they be trying to regulate swearing
on TV?
--
neil h
google brights
s***@hotmail.com
2007-11-16 20:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Hopkins
Post by s***@hotmail.com
Post by PumpkinEscobar
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
'Neo-con libertarian' is an oxymoron, you cross posting ignoramus.
--
no; it's called redundancy, you moron.
If they were libertarian, why would they be trying to regulate swearing
on TV?
--
neil h
google brights
libertarian is an embarassed neo-con

neo-con and libtards could not exist without the protestant work
ethic.

favouing the powerful/those with money is in a libtard's genetics,
just like in a neo-con's.
record hunter
2007-11-16 23:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by PumpkinEscobar
you cross posting ignoramus.
--
Yeah, and you're Alfred Escobar Einstein, douchette.
r***@vt.edu
2007-11-14 23:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
Because a show that goes out over the air on a network is too
constrained by the threat of FCC fines. I say by the threat
because the FCC does not define in advance what is acceptable or not,
but only imposes fines after the fact based on a complaint. Of course,
there is *always* someone who will complain on even the mildest
of swear words.

So, if a show is produced to be broadcast in the US, they will
almost always be over cautious about using any swear words because
the FCC will not tell them which words and in what situtations
a violation of "decency" will occur until after the show airs and
they impose a fine.

Shows produced for cable networks are less constrained, but
even some of them are worried the FCC will be given jurisdiction
over their content if they get too many blue hairs complaining
to their congressmen.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Paul Hyett
2007-11-15 08:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@vt.edu
So, if a show is produced to be broadcast in the US, they will
almost always be over cautious about using any swear words because
the FCC will not tell them which words and in what situtations
a violation of "decency" will occur until after the show airs and
they impose a fine.
Shows produced for cable networks are less constrained, but
even some of them are worried the FCC will be given jurisdiction
over their content if they get too many blue hairs complaining
to their congressmen.
I'm guessing that the US probably has even more 'Mary Whitehouse's' than
Britain does - people with such sad empty lives that they have nothing
better to do than trawl TV shows specifically to find things to be
'offended' at.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
Ed
2007-11-15 10:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by r***@vt.edu
So, if a show is produced to be broadcast in the US, they will
almost always be over cautious about using any swear words because
the FCC will not tell them which words and in what situtations
a violation of "decency" will occur until after the show airs and
they impose a fine.
Shows produced for cable networks are less constrained, but
even some of them are worried the FCC will be given jurisdiction
over their content if they get too many blue hairs complaining
to their congressmen.
I'm guessing that the US probably has even more 'Mary Whitehouse's' than
Britain does - people with such sad empty lives that they have nothing
better to do than trawl TV shows specifically to find things to be
'offended' at.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
It's a religious problem. The christian lobby has so much power in the
US and any show seen to be swearing on network TV will immediately get
pulled off air. It shows how fucked up america is how mental they went
when they say Janet Jackson's tit at the superbowl, and you cant buy a
scissor sisters CD (although i have no idea why you would) at Walmart,
yet they'll quite happily sell ammo for your gun!
George Peatty
2007-11-15 14:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
It's a religious problem. The christian lobby has so much power in the
US and any show seen to be swearing on network TV will immediately get
pulled off air.
You're watching a different set of TV shows, and maybe living in a different
US as well. The television network shows are filled with profanity, and
it's everywhere. I am part of the Christian lobby you disparage, and, trust
me, none of us feel this power we're supposed to have, not compared to the
power we once had .. And, that is the trend: the erosion of political power
of Christians as Christians in American politics and mores ..
Kingo Gondo
2007-11-15 15:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Ed
It's a religious problem. The christian lobby has so much power in the
US and any show seen to be swearing on network TV will immediately get
pulled off air.
You're watching a different set of TV shows, and maybe living in a different
US as well. The television network shows are filled with profanity, and
it's everywhere. I am part of the Christian lobby you disparage, and, trust
me, none of us feel this power we're supposed to have, not compared to the
power we once had .. And, that is the trend: the erosion of political power
of Christians as Christians in American politics and mores ..
Full of shit (as usual), George. Are you just ignorant for Christ or a liar
for Christ? Both traits seem native to your type.

There are numerous recent instances of films/shows having to be re-edited
from editions broadcast just a few years--the "Saving Private Ryan"
rebroadcast being the most famous (and shameful).

PBS could not possibly broadcast much of the stuff it showed in fucking
SEVENTIES, for Christ's sake (or so we are told). I saw a BBC production
about the Chicago Seven trial on PBS in the mid-70s--no fucking way HALF of
it could get shown today. And the unedited "I, Claudius" would not make it,
either.

Try not to fib so blatantly, you idiot.
Howard Brazee
2007-11-16 02:37:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:26:01 -0500, George Peatty
Post by George Peatty
You're watching a different set of TV shows, and maybe living in a different
US as well. The television network shows are filled with profanity, and
it's everywhere. I am part of the Christian lobby you disparage, and, trust
me, none of us feel this power we're supposed to have, not compared to the
power we once had .. And, that is the trend: the erosion of political power
of Christians as Christians in American politics and mores ..
The Bible proscribes taking the Lord's name in vain. But that's not
what they seem to be objecting to. Using the wrong synonym for
"poop" or "procreate" doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.
Alan Hope
2007-11-16 07:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:26:01 -0500, George Peatty
Post by George Peatty
You're watching a different set of TV shows, and maybe living in a different
US as well. The television network shows are filled with profanity, and
it's everywhere. I am part of the Christian lobby you disparage, and, trust
me, none of us feel this power we're supposed to have, not compared to the
power we once had .. And, that is the trend: the erosion of political power
of Christians as Christians in American politics and mores ..
The Bible proscribes taking the Lord's name in vain. But that's not
what they seem to be objecting to. Using the wrong synonym for
"poop" or "procreate" doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.
The Christian Right envies the Taliban because they had no trouble
taking over a whole country once, and they won't have too much trouble
next time, either.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Victor Velazquez
2007-11-16 15:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:26:01 -0500, George Peatty
Post by George Peatty
You're watching a different set of TV shows, and maybe living in a different
US as well. The television network shows are filled with profanity, and
it's everywhere. I am part of the Christian lobby you disparage, and, trust
me, none of us feel this power we're supposed to have, not compared to the
power we once had .. And, that is the trend: the erosion of political power
of Christians as Christians in American politics and mores ..
The Bible proscribes taking the Lord's name in vain. But that's not
what they seem to be objecting to. Using the wrong synonym for
"poop" or "procreate" doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.
Whoops, beat me to it. I hope one of us gets an answer.
George Peatty
2007-11-16 22:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
The Bible proscribes taking the Lord's name in vain. But that's not
what they seem to be objecting to. Using the wrong synonym for
"poop" or "procreate" doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.
No it doesn't, but Christians are not limited to issues directly related to
their faith in choosing what they object to.
Victor Velazquez
2007-11-16 22:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Howard Brazee
The Bible proscribes taking the Lord's name in vain. But that's not
what they seem to be objecting to. Using the wrong synonym for
"poop" or "procreate" doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.
No it doesn't, but Christians are not limited to issues directly related to
their faith in choosing what they object to.
Of course they aren't, it just seems odd to base your morality on one
specific text, push that morality as "good for the country" and then throw a
bunch of stuff in there that isn't in said text. I'm just sayin'!
George Peatty
2007-11-17 01:16:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
Of course they aren't, it just seems odd to base your morality on one
specific text, push that morality as "good for the country" and then throw a
bunch of stuff in there that isn't in said text. I'm just sayin'!
If you want me to buy that reasoning, you should declare your thoughts on
what is and is not in said text.
Neil Hopkins
2007-11-17 11:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
Of course they aren't, it just seems odd to base your morality on one
specific text, push that morality as "good for the country" and then throw a
bunch of stuff in there that isn't in said text. I'm just sayin'!
If you want me to buy that reasoning, you should declare your thoughts on
what is and is not in said text.
If that is the case, then you should also say why you ignore large parts
of the biblical laws (you know, all of the ones about mixed fibres,
dreadlocks, sacrifices and shellfish et al) and gleefully quote all of
the bits of Leviticus that condemn homosexuality.
--
neil h
google brights
Victor Velazquez
2007-11-17 16:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
Of course they aren't, it just seems odd to base your morality on one
specific text, push that morality as "good for the country" and then throw a
bunch of stuff in there that isn't in said text. I'm just sayin'!
If you want me to buy that reasoning, you should declare your thoughts on
what is and is not in said text.
I'm just thinking of the Ten Commandments. Does it mention swearing
elsewhere?
Howard Brazee
2007-11-17 20:19:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:42:52 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
I'm just thinking of the Ten Commandments. Does it mention swearing
elsewhere?
"Swearing" is an odd word used to describe profanity. I can sort of
see how that word evolved.

But the commandment is only about taking the Lord's name in vain.
erilar
2007-11-17 21:38:26 UTC
Permalink
What's so wonderful about lack of imagination?
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo
Sam Nelson
2007-11-17 21:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by erilar
What's so wonderful about lack of imagination?
I'd rather have no imagination than be a cunt.
--
SAm.
Mike Henry
2007-11-17 23:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by erilar
What's so wonderful about lack of imagination?
"Swearing is a really important part of one's life; it would be impossible
to go through life without swearing, and without enjoying swearing. There
used to be mad silly prissy people who used to say swearing was a sign of
a poor vocabulary; such utter nonsense! The people I know who swear the
most tend to have the widest vocabularies, and the kind of person who says
swearing is a sign of a poor vocabulary usually has a pretty poor
vocabulary themselves. The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in
any way a sign of a lack of education or of a lack of verbal interest is
just a fucking lunatic.

I haven't met anyone who's truly shocked at swearing, really. They're only
shocked on behalf of other people. Well, you know, that's preposterous. Or
they say "it's not necessary". As if that should stop one doing it! It's
not necessary to have coloured socks. It's not necessary for this cushion
to be here. But is anyone going to write in and say "I was shocked to see
that cushion there, it really wasn't necessary". No! Things not being
necessary is what makes life interesting - the little extras in life.
-- Stephen Fry, August 2007"
It's the Principle!
2007-11-18 15:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Henry
Post by erilar
What's so wonderful about lack of imagination?
"Swearing is a really important part of one's life; it would be
impossible to go through life without swearing, and without
enjoying swearing. There used to be mad silly prissy people who
used to say swearing was a sign of a poor vocabulary; such utter
nonsense! The people I know who swear the most tend to have the
widest vocabularies, and the kind of person who says swearing is a
sign of a poor vocabulary usually has a pretty poor vocabulary
themselves. The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any
way a sign of a lack of education or of a lack of verbal interest
is just a fucking lunatic.
I haven't met anyone who's truly shocked at swearing, really.
They're only shocked on behalf of other people. Well, you know,
that's preposterous. Or they say "it's not necessary". As if that
should stop one doing it! It's not necessary to have coloured
socks. It's not necessary for this cushion to be here. But is
anyone going to write in and say "I was shocked to see that
cushion there, it really wasn't necessary". No! Things not being
necessary is what makes life interesting - the little extras in
life. -- Stephen Fry, August 2007"
You obviously pulled that out of your butt trying to make yourself
sound knowledgeable and to alleviate your guilt for swearing and the
way it makes you feel powerful and aggressive when you do it.

However, the most mild of efforts will cause google to bring up a
great deal of real academic research that suggests swearing is a
lower brain function. The higher brain function that processes
speech is required to actually use and process language, while
swearing comes easily from the lower brain function and with little
effort. That's why people with brain damage often cannot
communicate well, but can swear like drunken sailors.

Therefore it's very easy to conclude that use of profanity in place
of true language is a function of laziness and lack of linguistic
ability that comes from lower intelligence, lack of education, or
brain damage. Or you're a drunken sailor on leave. If that's the
way you want to be viewed, fine by me. You just need to be careful
because there is a great deal of law in place that, while not often
applied, will get you arrested and fined if someone wants to press
the issue.

Decent people just don't swear. They use words and communicate.
--
Brandy Alexandre

The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew
he never would be found out. -- Thomas Babington Macaulay
Victor Velazquez
2007-11-18 06:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:42:52 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
I'm just thinking of the Ten Commandments. Does it mention swearing
elsewhere?
"Swearing" is an odd word used to describe profanity. I can sort of
see how that word evolved.
But the commandment is only about taking the Lord's name in vain.
That's why I'm confused about dammit being okay but not fuck. Dammit seems
far more transgressive.
Anim8rFSK
2007-11-18 16:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Victor Velazquez
Post by Howard Brazee
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:42:52 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
I'm just thinking of the Ten Commandments. Does it mention swearing
elsewhere?
"Swearing" is an odd word used to describe profanity. I can sort of
see how that word evolved.
But the commandment is only about taking the Lord's name in vain.
That's why I'm confused about dammit being okay but not fuck. Dammit seems
far more transgressive.
I don't know the basis of it, but it's certainly widespread. A Mormon
friend of mine watched a Robin Williams concert on cable with his wife.
She was HORRIFIED at the language, and was comforted by her certainty
that I couldn't even speak such words. It didn't help her when I
quietly explained that I could speak any word I could pronounce; words
don't bother me. I told her I wouldn't say them around HER, but only
because it would upset her.

Another Mormon friend had me turn off FORD FAIRLAINE because of the
language.
--
Jitterbug phone works! (Third time's a charm!)
Except the first bill is $100 high. Heavy sigh.
Howard Brazee
2007-11-18 17:05:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:41:17 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
Post by Howard Brazee
But the commandment is only about taking the Lord's name in vain.
That's why I'm confused about dammit being okay but not fuck. Dammit seems
far more transgressive.
Agreed.

Most Righteousness has nothing to do with God - it's all about what
you accept as the normal way things should be. The words you grew
up hearing must be OK (poop). The ones you didn't hear must be bad.
Remember that the Pareses were Righteous - and Jesus argued with them,
preferring to be good. But it is so easy to be Righteous - we all do
this (even animals do it - as it is an easy way to survive in a world
we don't really understand). The danger is when we commit evil
because others have different Righteous values. Modern wars are
fought with Righteous people on both sides, for instance.

And it isn't just the Right that is Righteous - the left try to
enforce their values as well. (Their excuses are usually different)
Victor Velazquez
2007-11-18 17:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:41:17 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
Post by Howard Brazee
But the commandment is only about taking the Lord's name in vain.
That's why I'm confused about dammit being okay but not fuck. Dammit seems
far more transgressive.
Agreed.
Most Righteousness has nothing to do with God - it's all about what
you accept as the normal way things should be. The words you grew
up hearing must be OK (poop). The ones you didn't hear must be bad.
Remember that the Pareses were Righteous - and Jesus argued with them,
preferring to be good. But it is so easy to be Righteous - we all do
this (even animals do it - as it is an easy way to survive in a world
we don't really understand). The danger is when we commit evil
because others have different Righteous values. Modern wars are
fought with Righteous people on both sides, for instance.
And it isn't just the Right that is Righteous - the left try to
enforce their values as well. (Their excuses are usually different)
Great explanation. I have to admit I do know exactly what righteousness
feels like and it can feel soooo, well, right.
Neil Hopkins
2007-11-16 23:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Howard Brazee
The Bible proscribes taking the Lord's name in vain. But that's not
what they seem to be objecting to. Using the wrong synonym for
"poop" or "procreate" doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.
No it doesn't, but Christians are not limited to issues directly related to
their faith in choosing what they object to.
Why would they object to somebody saying "shit" or "fuck" then?
--
neil h
google brights
George Peatty
2007-11-17 01:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Hopkins
Post by George Peatty
No it doesn't, but Christians are not limited to issues directly related to
their faith in choosing what they object to.
Why would they object to somebody saying "shit" or "fuck" then?
What part of vulgar don't you understand?
Neil Hopkins
2007-11-17 11:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Neil Hopkins
Post by George Peatty
No it doesn't, but Christians are not limited to issues directly related to
their faith in choosing what they object to.
Why would they object to somebody saying "shit" or "fuck" then?
What part of vulgar don't you understand?
Where is the objection to simple vulgarity? It's been part of the
English language since Anglo-Saxon times, and it has a valid place in
everyday speech and writing. It seems strange that using one word for
the same act (of defecation, or copulation) is "bad" while using a
euphemistic alternative is "good". The act is the same in either case,
surely?
--
neil h
google brights
record hunter
2007-11-16 23:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Christians are not limited to issues directly related to
their faith in choosing what they object to.
I should say not.
Howard Brazee
2007-11-17 03:13:54 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:08:32 -0500, George Peatty
Post by George Peatty
Post by Howard Brazee
The Bible proscribes taking the Lord's name in vain. But that's not
what they seem to be objecting to. Using the wrong synonym for
"poop" or "procreate" doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.
No it doesn't, but Christians are not limited to issues directly related to
their faith in choosing what they object to.
Neither does anybody else - but sometimes we all need to be reminded
when they don't make sense.
moviePig
2007-11-17 03:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Howard Brazee
The Bible proscribes taking the Lord's name in vain. But that's not
what they seem to be objecting to. Using the wrong synonym for
"poop" or "procreate" doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.
No it doesn't, but Christians are not limited to issues directly related to
their faith in choosing what they object to.
Blessed are the wheels that squeak, for they shall obtain grease...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Alan Hope
2007-11-16 07:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Ed
It's a religious problem. The christian lobby has so much power in the
US and any show seen to be swearing on network TV will immediately get
pulled off air.
You're watching a different set of TV shows, and maybe living in a different
US as well. The television network shows are filled with profanity, and
it's everywhere. I am part of the Christian lobby you disparage, and, trust
me, none of us feel this power we're supposed to have, not compared to the
power we once had .. And, that is the trend: the erosion of political power
of Christians as Christians in American politics and mores ..
Let's all stand and give a big round of applause to the erosion of
power of the nutjobs who think a big guy with a beard who lives in the
sky has some right to tell the rest of us how to live.

Taliban = religious right of any stripe. They're all the fucking same
under the robes.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
George Peatty
2007-11-16 22:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Taliban = religious right of any stripe. They're all the fucking same
under the robes.
If you think modern day Christians bear any resemblance whatsoever to the
Taliban, you are delusional ..
Wordsmith
2007-11-16 22:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Alan Hope
Taliban = religious right of any stripe. They're all the fucking same
under the robes.
If you think modern day Christians bear any resemblance whatsoever to the
Taliban, you are delusional ..
There aren't too many Christians strapping bomb to their bodies,
yelling
"Jesu Ackbar!" and blowing up children.

W : )
Neil Hopkins
2007-11-16 23:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wordsmith
Post by George Peatty
Post by Alan Hope
Taliban = religious right of any stripe. They're all the fucking same
under the robes.
If you think modern day Christians bear any resemblance whatsoever to the
Taliban, you are delusional ..
There aren't too many Christians strapping bomb to their bodies,
yelling
"Jesu Ackbar!" and blowing up children.
They shoot doctors working in abortion clinics ...
--
neil h
google brights
Alan Hope
2007-11-17 01:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wordsmith
Post by George Peatty
Post by Alan Hope
Taliban = religious right of any stripe. They're all the fucking same
under the robes.
If you think modern day Christians bear any resemblance whatsoever to the
Taliban, you are delusional ..
There aren't too many Christians strapping bomb to their bodies,
yelling
"Jesu Ackbar!" and blowing up children.
Not too many Taliban doing that either.

Can you not read or what?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
r wiley
2007-11-18 19:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wordsmith
Post by George Peatty
Post by Alan Hope
Taliban = religious right of any stripe. They're all the fucking same
under the robes.
If you think modern day Christians bear any resemblance whatsoever to the
Taliban, you are delusional ..
There aren't too many Christians strapping bomb to their bodies,
yelling
"Jesu Ackbar!" and blowing up children.
W : )
A terrorist is a person who has a bomb but no airplane or missile to
deliver it.

rw
Neil Hopkins
2007-11-16 23:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Alan Hope
Taliban = religious right of any stripe. They're all the fucking same
under the robes.
If you think modern day Christians bear any resemblance whatsoever to the
Taliban, you are delusional ..
Yes, because modern Christians are so tolerant of homosexuality ...
--
neil h
google brights
Alan Hope
2007-11-17 01:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Alan Hope
Taliban = religious right of any stripe. They're all the fucking same
under the robes.
If you think modern day Christians bear any resemblance whatsoever to the
Taliban, you are delusional ..
I take it you're one of them. Tell us again what a fun-lovin guy
Jeebus was.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Victor Velazquez
2007-11-16 15:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Ed
It's a religious problem. The christian lobby has so much power in the
US and any show seen to be swearing on network TV will immediately get
pulled off air.
You're watching a different set of TV shows, and maybe living in a different
US as well. The television network shows are filled with profanity, and
it's everywhere. I am part of the Christian lobby you disparage, and, trust
me, none of us feel this power we're supposed to have, not compared to the
power we once had .. And, that is the trend: the erosion of political power
of Christians as Christians in American politics and mores ..
What is the deal with Christians being upset about swearing? I get the
whole "thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain" but what's wrong
with "cocksucker"? I mean, we get Jack Bauer yelling "DAMMIT" and that's
okay but "motherfucker" isn't? What's up with that?
George Peatty
2007-11-16 22:21:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:16:03 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
What is the deal with Christians being upset about swearing? I get the
whole "thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain" but what's wrong
with "cocksucker"? I mean, we get Jack Bauer yelling "DAMMIT" and that's
okay but "motherfucker" isn't? What's up with that?
Do you really have to ask? Certain words are vulgar. We don't like filling
our ears with the sound of vulgarisms ..
Victor Velazquez
2007-11-16 22:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:16:03 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
What is the deal with Christians being upset about swearing? I get the
whole "thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain" but what's wrong
with "cocksucker"? I mean, we get Jack Bauer yelling "DAMMIT" and that's
okay but "motherfucker" isn't? What's up with that?
Do you really have to ask? Certain words are vulgar. We don't like filling
our ears with the sound of vulgarisms ..
I read your other post, indicating that this particular offense has nothing
to do with being a Christian so I think I get it, people who are more
sensitive in nature (and that was not meant in a pejorative sense) might be
more interested in the whole church experience in the first place.
Neil Hopkins
2007-11-16 23:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:16:03 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
What is the deal with Christians being upset about swearing? I get the
whole "thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain" but what's wrong
with "cocksucker"? I mean, we get Jack Bauer yelling "DAMMIT" and that's
okay but "motherfucker" isn't? What's up with that?
Do you really have to ask? Certain words are vulgar. We don't like filling
our ears with the sound of vulgarisms ..
Vulgarity has its place in vernacular speech. The church still conducted
services in latin until the 1960s FFS!
--
neil h
google brights
Jeff Lawrence
2007-11-16 23:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Hopkins
Post by George Peatty
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:16:03 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
What is the deal with Christians being upset about swearing? I get the
whole "thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain" but what's
wrong with "cocksucker"? I mean, we get Jack Bauer yelling "DAMMIT" and
that's okay but "motherfucker" isn't? What's up with that?
Do you really have to ask? Certain words are vulgar. We don't like filling
our ears with the sound of vulgarisms ..
Vulgarity has its place in vernacular speech. The church still conducted
services in latin until the 1960s FFS!
Yes, and look what's happened to church attendances since they changed to
English, they've plummeted. A coincidence? I think not!
Cheers
Jeff
r wiley
2007-11-18 19:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Hopkins
Post by George Peatty
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:16:03 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
What is the deal with Christians being upset about swearing? I get the
whole "thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain" but what's wrong
with "cocksucker"? I mean, we get Jack Bauer yelling "DAMMIT" and that's
okay but "motherfucker" isn't? What's up with that?
Do you really have to ask? Certain words are vulgar. We don't like filling
our ears with the sound of vulgarisms ..
Vulgarity has its place in vernacular speech. The church still conducted
services in latin until the 1960s FFS!
Vulgarity is common speech according to Webster.

Main Entry:
vul·gar
Pronunciation:
\'v?l-g?r\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin vulgaris of the mob, vulgar, from volgus, vulgus mob, common people
Date:
14th century
1 a: generally used, applied, or accepted b: understood in or having the ordinary sense <they reject the vulgar conception of
miracle - W. R. Inge>2: vernacular <the vulgar name of a plant>3 a: of or relating to the common people : plebeian b: generally
current : public <the vulgar opinion of that time> c: of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind4 a: lacking in cultivation,
perception, or taste : coarse b: morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate : gross c: ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or
display : pretentious5 a: offensive in language : earthy b: lewdly or profanely indecent

rw


begin 666 audio.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK>=Y>I8&6:'8D
3IT[I>K9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P``
`
end

record hunter
2007-11-16 23:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:16:03 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
What is the deal with Christians being upset about swearing? I get the
whole "thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain" but what's wrong
with "cocksucker"? I mean, we get Jack Bauer yelling "DAMMIT" and that's
okay but "motherfucker" isn't? What's up with that?
Do you really have to ask? Certain words are vulgar. We don't like filling
our ears with the sound of vulgarisms ..
Fuck the living shit out of yourself with your boy george's dick,
cuntforbrains, then clean yourself up with one of Patsy Robertson's
wigs.
Alan Hope
2007-11-17 01:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:16:03 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
What is the deal with Christians being upset about swearing? I get the
whole "thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain" but what's wrong
with "cocksucker"? I mean, we get Jack Bauer yelling "DAMMIT" and that's
okay but "motherfucker" isn't? What's up with that?
Do you really have to ask? Certain words are vulgar. We don't like filling
our ears with the sound of vulgarisms ..
Imagine our dismay at seeing you use two dots to make an ellipsis. Oh,
the horror.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Howard Brazee
2007-11-17 03:14:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:16:03 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
What is the deal with Christians being upset about swearing? I get the
whole "thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain" but what's wrong
with "cocksucker"? I mean, we get Jack Bauer yelling "DAMMIT" and that's
okay but "motherfucker" isn't? What's up with that?
"Poop" is OK, "Shit" isn't.
Neil Hopkins
2007-11-17 11:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:16:03 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
What is the deal with Christians being upset about swearing? I get the
whole "thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain" but what's wrong
with "cocksucker"? I mean, we get Jack Bauer yelling "DAMMIT" and that's
okay but "motherfucker" isn't? What's up with that?
"Poop" is OK, "Shit" isn't.
It's funny, because it's true ... :-)
--
neil h
google brights
Victor Velazquez
2007-11-17 16:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:16:03 -0600, "Victor Velazquez"
Post by Victor Velazquez
What is the deal with Christians being upset about swearing? I get the
whole "thou shalt not take the name of thy lord in vain" but what's wrong
with "cocksucker"? I mean, we get Jack Bauer yelling "DAMMIT" and that's
okay but "motherfucker" isn't? What's up with that?
"Poop" is OK, "Shit" isn't.
How feculant.
record hunter
2007-11-16 23:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
You're watching a different set of TV shows, and maybe living in a different
US as well. The television network shows are filled with profanity, and
it's everywhere. I am part of the Christian lobby you disparage, and, trust
me, none of us feel this power we're supposed to have, not compared to the
power we once had .. And, that is the trend: the erosion of political power
of Christians as Christians in American politics and mores ..
Oh, you poor, pitiful Christians have it so motherfucking hard. I
could cry for you. No fucking shit, I could just cry for you, you
disingenuous piece of skinless dog dick.
George Peatty
2007-11-17 01:40:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:56:13 -0800 (PST), record hunter
Post by record hunter
Oh, you poor, pitiful Christians have it so motherfucking hard. I
could cry for you. No fucking shit, I could just cry for you, you
disingenuous piece of skinless dog dick.
You do not know enough about me to call me disingenuous .. Take your vulgar
putdowns back to the grade school playground where they belong, and let the
grown ups talk in peace ..
Paul Hyett
2007-11-15 18:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by r***@vt.edu
Shows produced for cable networks are less constrained, but
even some of them are worried the FCC will be given jurisdiction
over their content if they get too many blue hairs complaining
to their congressmen.
I'm guessing that the US probably has even more 'Mary Whitehouse's' than
Britain does - people with such sad empty lives that they have nothing
better to do than trawl TV shows specifically to find things to be
'offended' at.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
It's a religious problem. The christian lobby has so much power in the
US and any show seen to be swearing on network TV will immediately get
pulled off air. It shows how fucked up america is how mental they went
when they say Janet Jackson's tit at the superbowl
That one was understandable... :)
Post by Ed
, and you cant buy a
scissor sisters CD (although i have no idea why you would) at Walmart
Why not?
Post by Ed
,
yet they'll quite happily sell ammo for your gun!
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
r***@vt.edu
2007-11-15 18:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by r***@vt.edu
So, if a show is produced to be broadcast in the US, they will
almost always be over cautious about using any swear words because
the FCC will not tell them which words and in what situtations
a violation of "decency" will occur until after the show airs and
they impose a fine.
Shows produced for cable networks are less constrained, but
even some of them are worried the FCC will be given jurisdiction
over their content if they get too many blue hairs complaining
to their congressmen.
I'm guessing that the US probably has even more 'Mary Whitehouse's' than
Britain does - people with such sad empty lives that they have nothing
better to do than trawl TV shows specifically to find things to be
'offended' at.
I don't know if we have more percentage wise, but it only seems to take
one crank preacher to set up a "Christian watchdog group" of a few hundred
people, and they seem to get way more political sway than their numbers
would normally dictate. There are a lot of small independent churches
that will jump on the bandwagon with these groups and have their followers
send in form letters of complaint. The hoopla over Janet Jackson a few
years ago is a perfect example.

A lot of it is just fear on the part of the show producers. They just
don't want the hassle of defending some dialog before the FCC and so
they prefer to err on the side of caution.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Alan Hope
2007-11-16 07:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@vt.edu
A lot of it is just fear on the part of the show producers. They just
don't want the hassle of defending some dialog before the FCC and so
they prefer to err on the side of caution.
That's exactly how totalitarians work. Why censor the masses when you
can scare the masses into censoring themselves?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
George Peatty
2007-11-16 22:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
That's exactly how totalitarians work. Why censor the masses when you
can scare the masses into censoring themselves?
[*plonk*]

Loser ..
Alan Hope
2007-11-17 01:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Alan Hope
That's exactly how totalitarians work. Why censor the masses when you
can scare the masses into censoring themselves?
[*plonk*]
Loser ..
Fucking arsehole plonks someone on a crosspost.

Yeah, have fun filtering my posts which never come to you anyway,
cry-baby.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Paul Hyett
2007-11-16 09:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@vt.edu
Post by Paul Hyett
I'm guessing that the US probably has even more 'Mary Whitehouse's' than
Britain does - people with such sad empty lives that they have nothing
better to do than trawl TV shows specifically to find things to be
'offended' at.
I don't know if we have more percentage wise, but it only seems to take
one crank preacher to set up a "Christian watchdog group" of a few hundred
people, and they seem to get way more political sway than their numbers
would normally dictate.
Just the opposite in Britain - nobody takes any notice of religious
objections.

Actually, that's not quite true - thanks to bloody political
correctness, more attention is paid to objections by non-Christians than
by the CoE majority...
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
steeler
2007-11-14 23:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
'cause it is network and they would get fined off the air?
Richard Brooks
2007-11-15 08:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by steeler
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
'cause it is network and they would get fined off the air?
That's strange because and episode of Scrubs that would have been shown
on ABC1 (owned by ? :-) ) in the early afternoon in the UK would not be
cut whereas the same episode when shown on E4 would be hacked to ribbons.
Kurious Oranj
2007-11-15 08:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
Apart from the fact that they aren't libertarians, no.

The USA works from a simple point of view. You can watch whatever you
want, however offensive. What you can't do is allow others to see it
(that then imposes on their liberty).

So, what's on cable is allowed because that's an active choice (handed
over your money) you've made, where network TV is over the air and could
be seen by someone inadvertedly.

The UK is more censored. Whilst you can see nudity and swearing on TV,
ultimately, the government decides what you can see. You may not be able
to see Bumfights on US TV, but you can buy a copy of it.

We have the BBFC that bans things from being seen (Manhunt 2, and
historically Nunchukas and various movies on video). That means not only
can you not see it on TV, but you can't even buy it on DVD.
Paul Hyett
2007-11-15 18:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurious Oranj
The UK is more censored. Whilst you can see nudity and swearing on TV,
ultimately, the government decides what you can see. You may not be
able to see Bumfights on US TV, but you can buy a copy of it.
We have the BBFC that bans things from being seen (Manhunt 2, and
historically Nunchukas and various movies on video). That means not
only can you not see it on TV, but you can't even buy it on DVD.
Plus political correctness enters more & more into it.

When I recorded Dambusters on video, maybe 15 years ago, they didn't cut
the name of Guy Gibson's dog, but nowadays...
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
Alan Hope
2007-11-16 07:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurious Oranj
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
Apart from the fact that they aren't libertarians, no.
The USA works from a simple point of view. You can watch whatever you
want, however offensive. What you can't do is allow others to see it
(that then imposes on their liberty).
So, what's on cable is allowed because that's an active choice (handed
over your money) you've made, where network TV is over the air and could
be seen by someone inadvertedly.
Yeah, because nobody in the US has any control over the Off switch.
Post by Kurious Oranj
The UK is more censored. Whilst you can see nudity and swearing on TV,
ultimately, the government decides what you can see. You may not be able
to see Bumfights on US TV, but you can buy a copy of it.
We have the BBFC that bans things from being seen (Manhunt 2, and
historically Nunchukas and various movies on video). That means not only
can you not see it on TV, but you can't even buy it on DVD.
Yeah right.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
M***@gmail.com
2007-11-15 16:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
First the goal of these TV programs is to entertain not offend. So
the program directors attempt to craft a program that maximizes the
entertainment value while minimizing the offensive content. The
reason for this is simple - profits.

It appears your concern is that these programs are not "real" enough.
To which I would respond, if you think you can produce a better
product (one that is more real) then go ahead and do so. Watching TV
programing of a certain bent is not a "right" nor is producing TV
programs a state governed social endeavor (although sometimes it does
seem to cross the line). It is a business.
Paul Hyett
2007-11-15 18:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@gmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
First the goal of these TV programs is to entertain not offend. So
the program directors attempt to craft a program that maximizes the
entertainment value while minimizing the offensive content. The
reason for this is simple - profits.
It appears your concern is that these programs are not "real" enough.
Lots of reality TV shows around now.

Although I only like the police video ones, especially where the fleeing
criminals smash their cars into a tree, or get their heads blown of in
self-defence by their victims! :)
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
Alan Hope
2007-11-16 07:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@gmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
First the goal of these TV programs is to entertain not offend. So
the program directors attempt to craft a program that maximizes the
entertainment value while minimizing the offensive content. The
reason for this is simple - profits.
There's not a single occurence of the word "fuck" in the entire output
of Charles Dickens. I wonder how he managed.
Post by M***@gmail.com
It appears your concern is that these programs are not "real" enough.
To which I would respond, if you think you can produce a better
product (one that is more real) then go ahead and do so. Watching TV
programing of a certain bent is not a "right" nor is producing TV
programs a state governed social endeavor (although sometimes it does
seem to cross the line). It is a business.
And the businessmen all fear the Taliban.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Neil Hopkins
2007-11-16 23:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by M***@gmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
First the goal of these TV programs is to entertain not offend. So
the program directors attempt to craft a program that maximizes the
entertainment value while minimizing the offensive content. The
reason for this is simple - profits.
There's not a single occurence of the word "fuck" in the entire output
of Charles Dickens. I wonder how he managed.
"Please sir, can I have some more?"

"Fuck off, Twist!"
--
neil h
google brights
curmudgeon
2007-11-15 19:01:55 UTC
Permalink
"Speech is the index of the mind"

*Seneca* 4th century BC
Alan Hope
2007-11-16 07:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by curmudgeon
"Speech is the index of the mind"
*Seneca* 4th century BC
Sennapod, I think you'll find. Ooh, matron.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
Jethro
2007-11-16 22:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
I know *network* TV is quite heavily regulated in the US, but tbh I
think that overall it's a plus ... it makes scriptwriters work harder,
and can result in some quite effective acting, since you can't display
anger by going "oh fuck!".

Anyone here remember "Dream On" from the 90s ? It used to tickle me
that it was shown on UK *network* tv - something which could never
happen in the US.
Jerry Brown
2007-11-17 11:34:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:49:33 -0800 (PST), Jethro
Post by Jethro
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
I know *network* TV is quite heavily regulated in the US, but tbh I
think that overall it's a plus ... it makes scriptwriters work harder,
and can result in some quite effective acting, since you can't display
anger by going "oh fuck!".
Anyone here remember "Dream On" from the 90s ? It used to tickle me
that it was shown on UK *network* tv - something which could never
happen in the US.
ISTR that they made alternate versions of certain scenes, so that they
could assemble network and cable versions of each episode. C4 showed
the first 2 or 3 seasons of the US cable version (which featured
nudity and swearing), while Sky One showed the remaining episodes of
the network version (which didn't).

The Dream On production team then went on to make Friends, which was
somewhat less controversial (but probably earned a _lot_ more money).

BTW, I emailed you a few months back using the hotmail address in
your usenet headers. Did you get it?

Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

<http://www.jwbrown.co.uk>
Paul Hyett
2007-11-17 18:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Brown
Post by Jethro
Anyone here remember "Dream On" from the 90s ? It used to tickle me
that it was shown on UK *network* tv - something which could never
happen in the US.
ISTR that they made alternate versions of certain scenes, so that they
could assemble network and cable versions of each episode. C4 showed
the first 2 or 3 seasons of the US cable version (which featured
nudity and swearing), while Sky One showed the remaining episodes of
the network version (which didn't).
I recorded several seasons of it a couple of years back, then got
bored...
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
r wiley
2007-11-18 19:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jethro
I know *network* TV is quite heavily regulated in the US, but tbh I
think that overall it's a plus ... it makes scriptwriters work harder,
and can result in some quite effective acting, since you can't display
anger by going "oh fuck!".
Anyone here remember "Dream On" from the 90s ? It used to tickle me
that it was shown on UK *network* tv - something which could never
happen in the US.
Post "nipplegate" basic cable operates under the same restraints as broadcast.

rw
record hunter
2007-11-16 23:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
It's the Ameriban, gosh darn it.
It's the Principle!
2007-11-17 15:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
I don't know what kind of trailer park lowlifes you hang out with, but
the company I keep is more refined, with a larger vocabulary that
allows us to more definitively express ourselves. Mature, intelligent
adults do not need to resort to what has become catch-all swear words
to fill in for an obvious lack of vocabulary and ability to express a
thought.

I'm happy and refreshed that television is largely without swearing,
and when certain cable series are permitted a few "shits" here and
there, they run around using the word so much like a 9-year-old
thinking he's "tough shit." Otherwise intelligent characters look like
total morons at that point.

It's not that I don't swear--I do. And when I do, people know I mean
it. Something has happened, someone crossed the line, and so on. My
personal language isn't so diluted with low-class verbal substitutes
that hearing me utter one is cause for attention. It's one of those
"just because you can doesn't mean you should" issues. That's the way
it should be.
--
Brandy Alexandre

The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he
never would be found out. -- Thomas Babington Macaulay
m***@googlemail.com
2007-11-17 16:04:42 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Nov 2007 15:34:42 GMT, "It's the Principle!"
Post by It's the Principle!
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
I don't know what kind of trailer park lowlifes you hang out with, but
the company I keep is more refined, with a larger vocabulary that
allows us to more definitively express ourselves. Mature, intelligent
adults do not need to resort to what has become catch-all swear words
to fill in for an obvious lack of vocabulary and ability to express a
thought.
I'm happy and refreshed that television is largely without swearing,
and when certain cable series are permitted a few "shits" here and
there, they run around using the word so much like a 9-year-old
thinking he's "tough shit." Otherwise intelligent characters look like
total morons at that point.
It's not that I don't swear--I do. And when I do, people know I mean
it. Something has happened, someone crossed the line, and so on. My
personal language isn't so diluted with low-class verbal substitutes
that hearing me utter one is cause for attention. It's one of those
"just because you can doesn't mean you should" issues. That's the way
it should be.
Too fucking right!
Alan Hope
2007-11-17 21:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by It's the Principle!
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
I don't know what kind of trailer park lowlifes you hang out with, but
the company I keep is more refined, with a larger vocabulary that
allows us to more definitively express ourselves.
Not large enough for you to know what "definitive" means, though.
Post by It's the Principle!
Mature, intelligent
adults do not need to resort to what has become catch-all swear words
what *have* become catch-all swear words, you mean.
Post by It's the Principle!
to fill in for an obvious lack of vocabulary and ability to express a
thought.
"Fuck you" expresses the thought perfectly.
Post by It's the Principle!
I'm happy and refreshed that television is largely without swearing,
and when certain cable series are permitted a few "shits" here and
there, they run around using the word so much like a 9-year-old
thinking he's "tough shit." Otherwise intelligent characters look like
total morons at that point.
It's not that I don't swear--I do. And when I do, people know I mean
it. Something has happened, someone crossed the line, and so on. My
personal language isn't so diluted with low-class verbal substitutes
that hearing me utter one is cause for attention. It's one of those
"just because you can doesn't mean you should" issues. That's the way
it should be.
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
curmudgeon
2007-11-17 22:51:05 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
lost four seasons without a single *fucking* swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?


"Speech is the index of the mind.'
*Seneca* 4 century BC

"It is a wonder her own spilt don't poison her."
*Dorothy L.Sayers* 1893 - 1957

"Profanity is the last refuge of the inarticulate prick."
*Lenny Bruce* 1925 - 1966


"A foul mouth is the sign of a foul mind"
*CUR*
Kevin
2007-11-14 23:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.com
lost four seasons without a single fucking swear word, how realistic
is that? not to mention the laughable fascist the unit. are the neo-
con libertarian lobbies in power again to blame?
Because there are actually some standards that are policed by the FCC.
Saying things like "Fuck", "Shit", "Cocksucker", and so on, when on
broadcast television, are intensely frowned upon by the FCC. I don't
support these standards. Personally, I think you should be able to say
anything you want on television, in public places, in the john, standing in
line at Starbucks or anywhere else. But, you have exercise some degree of
control and restraint.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...