HIGHLA-L Digest - 28 Jan 2006 to 29 Jan 2006 - Special issue (#2006-22)
HIGHLA-L automatic digest system (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:31:44 -0500
There are 18 messages totalling 809 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!! (13)
2. DVD Technical problems?
3. Debbie? Debbie? RE: HL Alum HI Debbie!! (3)
4. OT major:!! Have a Trojan Worm on my laptop aries
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:29:06 -0500
From: kageorge <kageorge1@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
Kamil wrote:
>Trust me when I say I'm on no one's side in this particular kerfuffle, but
>regarding the short-lived "Book of Daniel" a simple google search on "Book
>of Daniel" + boycott yields these results:
>
>
<snippage of a story relating that, while NBC insisted it was poor
ratings that caused the cancellation, the radical religious right was
declaring it a victory>
I didn't watch the first episode because it had gotten abysmal reviews
and I didn't want to waste my time. I heard others comment that it was
interesting, however, and watched the last two episodes. I found it
*nothing* like what the reviews had commented. It was amusing (although
not "funny"), it played the "We're going to delve deeply into hot-button
issues" card a little too heavily, but it was also pretty well written
and well acted. It was, on the whole, not great, but better than about
70% of the comedy/dramas that are usually offered up in today's
entertainment world, and deserved significantly more of a trial than it got.
I am convinced that, just based on its merits of premise, writing and
acting, while it was no "West Wing" (first two seasons), it would never
have been cancelled so soon were it not for the fire-breathing radical
bigots who seem to think that they have the right, if not the
obligation, to force their values and beliefs on the rest of the world.
(Isn't that what the radical Muslims are accused of? My, my, my. At
least they have something in common.)
Next thing you know, they'll be passing laws telling us who we can and
can't marry based on *their* religious beliefs. (Oops, they're already
doing that.)
MacGeorge
(Have I offended anyone? I certainly hope so.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:34:15 EST
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
In a message dated 1/28/2006 10:31:15 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
kageorge1@verizon.net writes:
>>(Isn't that what the radical Muslims are accused of?
Yes, but of course if the sitcom had been about Muslims there would have
been a "holy" war uprising and if about Jews then the anti defamation league
would have been out in full force. Christians, of course, are considered "safe"
candidates for ridicule and abuse.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:45:25 -0500
From: kageorge <kageorge1@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
Dotiran@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 1/28/2006 10:31:15 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>kageorge1@verizon.net writes:
>
>
>
>>>(Isn't that what the radical Muslims are accused of?
>>>
>>>
>
>Yes, but of course if the sitcom had been about Muslims there would have
>been a "holy" war uprising and if about Jews then the anti defamation league
>would have been out in full force. Christians, of course, are considered "safe"
>candidates for ridicule and abuse.
>
>
And see, that's exactly what I mean. Any thoughtful discussion in a
religious context that actually looks at issues like homosexuality and
pre-marital sex the way that actually exists, rather than just wholesale
condemnation of anything of which they do not approve, are all instantly
labeled "ridicule and abuse." That's patently absurd, like saying the
world is flat and covering your ears and singing, "La, la, la!" to
pretend you don't hear.
Religious fervor that is incapable of humor, incapable of acknowledging
and grappling with some of the inherent inequities and inconsistencies
that are built into that belief structure, is at the heart of
fanaticism, IMO, and is inherently unhealthy.
MacG
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 22:52:54 EST
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
In a message dated 1/28/2006 10:46:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
kageorge1@VERIZON.NET writes:
>>>Religious fervor that is incapable of humor, incapable of acknowledging
and grappling with some of the inherent inequities and inconsistencies
that are built into that belief structure, is at the heart of
fanaticism, IMO, and is inherently unhealthy.
Applause. I totally agree. My question remains however. Why is it that we
tolerate poking fun at Christians [well earned fun] but the sensitivities
are so massive among Jews and Muslims that we don't dare [only the Jewish
comedians on the old Borsch circuit could get away with doing it in the "olden
days." Even today they wouldn't fare as well. And as the current "Finding humor
in a Muslim world" show is finding out, it isn't easy or possible.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:54:08 -0600
From: Kamil <kamilaa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
On 1/28/06, Dotiran@aol.com <Dotiran@aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/28/2006 10:31:15 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> kageorge1@verizon.net writes:
>
> >>(Isn't that what the radical Muslims are accused of?
>
> Yes, but of course if the sitcom had been about Muslims there would have
> been a "holy" war uprising and if about Jews then the anti
> defamation league
> would have been out in full force. Christians, of course, are
> considered "safe"
> candidates for ridicule and abuse.
Err, no, not so much. The boycotts and calls to boycotts that are linked
show that Christianity is not "safe" to ridicule and abuse. The rising of
the masses (the AFA thinks the masses sucessfully rose; the "victory" over
NBC and BoD is the top linked story on its main website) proves as much.
And that's presuming that the show ridiculed and/or abused anyone. I didn't
see it, myself (my friday nights belong to CBS' trio) but I know MacG and
I'm pretty sure she's not going to find merit in a show that practices
ridicule and abuse of anyone.
Not speaking for you, as you are more than capable of speaking for yourself=
,
MacG, just borrowing you for a moment. <g>
I can't tell you how many times lately I've watched a story on the news and
wanted to say "Ayatollah much?" to the protagnist of the story. Now that
I've read the story behind it all, the killing of BoD by the AFA is another
of those times.
--
Kamil
You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his
tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand
this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they
receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat. --Albert
Einstein
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:09:35 -0500
From: kageorge <kageorge1@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
Dotiran@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 1/28/2006 10:46:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>kageorge1@VERIZON.NET writes:
>
>
>
>>>>Religious fervor that is incapable of humor, incapable of acknowledging
>>>>
>>>>
>and grappling with some of the inherent inequities and inconsistencies
>that are built into that belief structure, is at the heart of
>fanaticism, IMO, and is inherently unhealthy.
>
>Applause. I totally agree. My question remains however. Why is it that we
>tolerate poking fun at Christians [well earned fun] but the sensitivities
>are so massive among Jews and Muslims that we don't dare [only the Jewish
>comedians on the old Borsch circuit could get away with doing it in the "olden
>days." Even today they wouldn't fare as well. And as the current "Finding humor
>in a Muslim world" show is finding out, it isn't easy or possible.
>
>
>
It has been said any number of times by people far smarter than I, that
a movement (religious, social or political) can only be said to have
truly matured when it can laugh at itself. People who are in the
minority, who live every day with being negatively stereotyped and
judged based on factors that have nothing to do with *who* they are, but
with what other people *assume* they are based on surface factors of
race or religion, have very good reason to be ultra-sensative about
promulgation of those negative stereotypes by the powerful, the monied,
by those who are on the outside of their world, looking in.
White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants cannot claim that ground. To do so is the
height of hypocracy.
MacG
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:57:31 EST
From: Bschep@aol.com
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
I've been trying to condense some of the thoughts I've had after reading this
conversation.
1. "Why is it that we tolerate poking fun at Christians but the sensitivities
are so massive among Jews and Muslims that we don't dare."
I hear this argument a lot. It seems to be one of the phrases that some
people tend to accept as true --- but it doesn't seem to be verifiable. The truth
is, if someone makes fun of Islam, a group of people will stand up and protest.
If someone makes fun of Judaism, a group of people will stand up and protest,
and if someone makes fun of a branch of Christianity, a group of people will
stand up and protest.
2. The Book of Daniel was poking fun at Christians.
I don't get this claim. It was my understanding that this show was about
an Episcopal priest living and struggling with his faith in a complicated
world -- and talking things out with someone we're supposed to assume is Jesus. A
physical* representation of a conversation sort of the way some people think
of as prayer. I didn't get the idea it was any kind of second coming -- or
that "Jesus" was someone anyone else could see. Was it a sit com? Was it satire?
I didn't think so.
What --reallly-- worries me is that some Christian groups are so intolerant
of the religious expression of other Christian groups.
3. Attempting to force off the air a television show with a religious faith
theme because it's not your expression of faith -- In other words, refusing to
let anyone else enjoy a television program just because you don't like it.
Does anyone remember A Clockwork Orange? Remember that part where people were
trying to cure a man of his sadistic tendencies? If I recall correctly, they
strapped him to a chair, constrained his head, glued or pinned open his
eyelids and forced him to watch hours of films of sadistic cruelty while injecting
him with something that made him sick. The theory was that in the future, any
time he imagined performing any type of cruel activity, he would become
physically ill.
Now, If someone were to strap me into a chair like that and force me to watch
Survivor or Ice Dancing with Celebrities, well, I would not be in favor of
that. There are lots of nights when I don't think there anything good on
television. I can deal with not watching television.
4. Laws against so-called "Hate Speech" are making people afraid of going to
court for doing religious satire.
If someone has been arrested for religious satire, I would like to know where
and when and the context. But to me there is a VAST ocean of a difference
hate speech and satire. Still, we all need to be vigilant about freedom of
speech, and expression, and religion.
(*Is Debbie a metaphorical representation of a list moderator?)
B
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:20:33 -0700
From: Firefly <tcboo.ringnut@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DVD Technical problems?
On 1/27/06, Gregory Mate <gmate@rogers.com> wrote:
> I don't know what the price for a season is in US dollars, but in Canada
> they are going for between $90 and $125 a season, putting them near the
> tope end in terms of price with other shows' season-DVD collections.
I was at Sam's Club today and they had all seasons of HL for 36
something each (US).
Barbara
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 01:23:50 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? RE: HL Alum HI Debbie!!
John Mosby opines:
>I think it's everyone's right to be happy when a show they actively,
>passionately like is kept on air or when a show they actively, pasionately
>hate is taken of air.
If one "actively, pasionately hates" a tv show, one might need to get a
little persecptive in their life. Or perhaps a little
self-control. Change the gorram channel or turn the tv off already!!!
Heck, if I could make all the shows I find distasteful or boring
disappear, there would be a great silence in TV land. There would
probably be a whole bunch of unhappy people, missing their favorite
shows. Different strokes, folks.
>But there has been an intersting point raised here. I'm all for having fun
>and humour about religion and race as long as it's somewhat clever ie:
>satricial at concepts rather than merely racist or spiteful. For example:
>The KKK aren't funny, but there's jokes to be ame at their expense and how
>many Jewish people think Jackie Mason is a racist beause of his style?
>It's all about context and intent and timing. I haven't seen The Book of
>Daniel, so I can't common that specifically, but it's always been my view
>that large religious institutions should be able to handle the slings and
>arrows of outrageous satire. Any God I believe in can surely take a joke.
>Life of Brian is inherently hilarious because it's NOT about Christ, it's
>about the nature of humans and building a fledgling *religion*.
Book of Daniel didn't satirize Christianity or religion. It was a
comedy/drama about the nature of humans, and address some of the hot issue
in the country today. It dared to not only portray an Episcopalian
minister as human, but to give him a sense of humor as well. From what
I've heard, many Christians who objected to the show did so because they
disagreed with it's portrayal of Christ. (Dotiran: "But if the Christian
God is portrayed as a wimp") Note that the show never made fun of Christ
or Christians in any way. What it boils down to is that they disagreed
with the show's religous view. In their opinion, that was a capital crime
for which the show had to die. IMO that screams of arrogance.
[DEBBIE! We're talking about religion!! ]
Pat L.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:52:11 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
From: <Dotiran@AOL.COM>
> kageorge1@verizon.net writes:
>
>>>(Isn't that what the radical Muslims are accused of?
>
> Yes, but of course if the sitcom had been about Muslims there would have
> been a "holy" war uprising and if about Jews then the anti defamation
> league
> would have been out in full force. Christians, of course, are considered
> "safe"
> candidates for ridicule and abuse.
One word - bullshit.
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
("reply to" is spamblocked)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:52:55 -0500
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
Dotiran:
> My question remains however.
> Why is it that we tolerate poking fun at Christians
Coming in late (but better late than never)(unless it involves walking
into a lecture hall):
Beginith a rant.
So far as I can see in America today, poking fun at Christians is *not*
tolerated and is, in fact, a very high risk venture. Hell, just
disagreeing with (certain) Christians on a wide range of issues is
downright dangerous.
Think abortion should be legal, safe and easily attainable? Be prepared
to be vilified as a baby killer, threatened with physical harm and just
forget running for public office in 95% of the USA. (Note: If having an
abortion is a sin in your religion - don't have one. But don't try to
force your religious opinion on everyone else who may have a different
religious view.)
Think prayer doesn't belong in classrooms of public schools? Be prepared
to be called un-American, anti-Christian, and if you're in public
office, be prepared to watch your votes walk over to the guy supporting
tattooing the Ten Commandments on every kid's forehead. (Note: If you
want to pray in class...go ahead. Just do it in your head. God will hear
you)
Think evolution is a scientific theory and "intelligent design" is a
thinly-veiled attempt at teaching creationism? Get ready for a court
battle. Be prepared to have someone suggest your mother was a monkey.
Watch some minister turned politician (or politician turned minister)
tell his enraptured audience that the whole idea of dinosaurs is silly
since the world is only 6000 years old and the Bible doesn't mention
Stegosauruses. See them believe it too. (Note: if you believe God
created the world and everything in it in 7 days, great. Teach that to
your kids in Sunday School. Leave the *reality* to real schools)
Think gay people are human beings with the same rights as straight
people? Good luck! And, again, forget about running for public office.
Watch the Christian Right quote some obscure Bible verse as if *that* is
a basis for making a law that covers everyone in America. (Note: If
homosexuality is a sin in your religion- then don't do it. But don't try
to force your *religious* view on people who don't share your faith.)
The Christian Right is well on its way to turning America into a de
facto (and soon de jure) theocracy by convincing way too many people
that Christianity (their particular brand, of course) and America are
the same thing.
"The Book of Daniel" wasn't great TV. But it wasn't an attack on
Christianity by the godless hordes of Hollywood. Frankly, after
listening for the past 30 years to people claiming to have a personal
relationship with Jesus (WWJD?) I thought it was interesting to see that
idea put into play on TV. I hear people (real people, not TV talking
heads) tell about asking Jesus for advice and getting answers. I know
people who go through their days having private conversations with
Jesus. Why then is a minister who talks to Jesus so odd? The fact that
there was a physical representation? No... it was the fact that this TV
Jesus didn't say what some Christians wanted him to say. But ...who is
to say what Jesus would say in any given situation (assuming he exists
and is capable of saying anything?) Talk about being presumptuous!
("Excuse me, NBC, I just spoke to Jesus and he says that BoD is getting
it wrong.")
The swift and successful Christian campaign to force BoD off the air
says that it *isn't* allowable to poke fun at Christians. No..that's not
really true... the attack on BoD shows that it isn't allowable to
portray Christians and their personal Jesus in any way that isn't in
line with what some Christian leaders want portrayed.
The truth is that all religions are funny if looked at from the
"outside". And anything that takes itself too seriously can be made fun
of. The solution isn't to stop people from making fun- the solution is
to stop taking yourself so seriously.
Here endith the rant.
DEBBIE! I'M BASHING RELIGION!!
Wendy(God may or may not be dead but I'm beginning to think DEBBIE is.)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:08:47 EST
From: Evelyn Duncan <BrandyKitt@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
In a message dated 1/29/2006 10:54:11 AM Central Standard Time,
Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net writes:
<<
God may or may not be dead but I'm beginning to think DEBBIE is.
>>
Maybe our Debbie doesn't exist anymore and has been replaced
by a computer (á la Star Trek), and something's happened to the
computer?
Evelyn Duncan
brandykitt@aol.com
Oh, crumbs!
-- Penfold
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:35:09 +0200
From: TMar <tmar@polka.co.za>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
>Maybe our Debbie doesn't exist anymore and has been replaced by
>a computer (á la Star Trek), and something's happened to the computer?
Or she went swimming in Florida and got duplicated. Now her
duplicate has forgotten about the list.
- Marina. (WAY too much science fiction. WAY.)
\\"A poop question, Sir?! They're gonna||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// think I'm the sanitation engineer!" || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ - Trip Tucker; Enterprise ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//===========tmar@polka.co.za==========|| \\
\\========Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie========//
"People think I'm polite when really I'm comparing them to gorillas
in my head." - Ginger
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:47:32 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
At 11:52 AM 1/29/2006, Wendy wrote:
>Beginith a rant.
And what a righteous rant it was!
All hail Wendy... she who speaketh truth plain old common
sense!! (DEBBIE!!!! Wendy's bashing Christians!)
-- Sandy (of the common sense Christian sect)
(why do all these so-called Christians -- the ones who wear their religion
on their sleeves -- spout hate and censorship when Jesus tolerated neither?)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:40:50 EST
From: Freddy V <Tecnogypsy3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? RE: HL Alum HI Debbie!!
Pat writes:
:Christians in any way. What it boils down to is that they disagreed
with the show's religious view. In their opinion, that was a capital crime
for which the show had to die. IMO that screams of arrogance.
[DEBBIE! We're talking about religion!! ]
The Odd thing is at all in the New testament Bashing other Christian groups:
Paul's group of Christian's slapping Peter's following of Christians,
James, the brother of Jesus, had a group, that slapped around the other two
groups, Mary Mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalen, lover of Jesus (Imo), had NO SAY,
like women then and to day.
Old testament IS MUCH MORE SURPRISING just starting off its earlier days
Starting with the Age of Moses: there are THREE groups of Jews (not more until
much, much later NOT TAKE IN the account of the "12 Tribes" Just political
groups) Moses' group, Another group that was anti-Moses because they
believed his teaching came from Jethro. Jethro is one a few names given to one of
Moses' father-in-law, the father of Moses' wife, Zipporah. Jethro was a HIGH
Priest of Media, What did Jethro teach Moses?
The Jews Till this time never seen anything like angels, the Devil, an
afterlife (unless afterlife the Egyptians.) Read the about the ARK of the Convent
Two special angels covering the Ark.The Cerubims.
How did Moses know? Jethro taught MANY things.
The third group, the much cooler offspring of Moses' and his second wife.
They live among, with the marker Gene, The High Priest Gene that marks every
Jewish male from this family' Moses, sons'. . .Only if you saw them, you
would NOY know them
(Aw damn you guys made me dig out a Bible on a Sunday no less, I would
rather, really handle rattlesnakes they are more kinder and lovable once they get
to know you)( MY Ex wife thanks you all, my kids thank you. many years since
I help a Bible in my hands, take years before the burnt in scar marks in my
hands fade away
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:52:55 -0500
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? "Book of Daniel" DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!
I said:
> >Beginith a rant.
Sandy:
> And what a righteous rant it was!
Thank you. I enjoyed it.
> All hail Wendy... she who speaketh truth plain old common
> sense!! (DEBBIE!!!! Wendy's bashing Christians!)
I wouldn't say I'm bashing Christians. Or at least not *all* Christians.
I'd say I'm bashing that possibly uniquely American brand of Christian
who is too stupid or too brain-washed to see that the fact that *they*
believe something doesn't mean that they have a right to impose that
belief on everyone else. Who don't seem to understand that not everyone
wants to, or should be forced to, live by the rules *they* have decided
to live by. Who think "sin" is a universally agreed upon set of
behaviors that should be legislated against. The fat, smug, grinning
self-righteous types who would happily light the fires of a million
stakes in their crusade to make true religious freedom a thing of the
past. The ones who are every bit as evil as any suicide bomber despite
the fact that their weapon of choice is the lobbyist and the paid-for
politician and the Sunday morning TV revival instead of the bomb. The
ones who won't be happy until everyone in America (and then the world)
is on their knees on Sunday morning saying the exact same prayer at the
exact same moment as everyone else.
OBHLR:Duncan
Wendy(I want freedom *from* religion...not just freedom *of*
religion.)(But mostly I want DEBBIE to answer her God damn email!)(Don't
make me get really offense, Debbie, please.)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:57:02 -0800
From: Danni Butterfuss <bfuss@wbcable.net>
Subject: OT major:!! Have a Trojan Worm on my laptop aries
Sorry if you get this message more than once. i seem to have a Trojan
Worm. if you get any mail from my address that doesn't have my cat's
name in subject line, delete it. i will try to stay in touch from master
desk top computer and if I don't put brat boy's real name on the
message delete it. ladies and gents on my fdw list, same same. no brat
boy's name, I didn't send it. Wish me luck. Got to get a hold on my bill
paying sites and credit card sites tomorrow!! Oh joy :-( :'( . laptop
is down until i can get if figured out or give up and call Dell. I
swear, the last 2 months have really been a pain online. first DeeDee
gets the Trojan Viking worm took her 4 days w/ 2 of her online friends,
she deleted a 32 exe of some sort Friday night and now me. Norton
Internet security. So far that is where i am at right now and a migraine
and winter storm warning, w/ flooding rain. damn, i thought we got out
of jan clean w/ the weather. Could you send this on to any one I haven't
got on this email. my lap top has all my addresses. Was going to back up
my online address email book and print my USPS address out hard copy,
should have, would have, could have! I don't want to get any one
infected, so I will be using my netscape free mail address for now:
dbutterarb1@netscape.net
Thanks for any and/or all help w/ getting our friends warned.
Damn, I just thought of an old Beritta sp? saying Tony Blake used to say
on the show: When you give a dance you got to pay the band. Now I have
that damn show's theme song running throughout my head. Some one please
shoot me! Jubie could you let Merrie know? I don't have her address, my
mind is a blank on her email.
Thanks All,
Danni
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:31:39 -0000
From: John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? RE: HL Alum HI Debbie!!
As said previously, I don't have a problem with a show that people watch,
don't like, find objectionable and vocalise that feeling - after all, we
bluntly encourage people to express their passion FOR a show if they want to
keep it on air, so we can't deny the same right for those who dislike a
show. But I do think campaigns *against* things need to be scrutinised
closely and explained carefully, because there IS something of a difference
between asking for a show to be given a second chance so more people can get
the chance to judge it ...and asking for a show to be pulled from air so
that no-one else gets a chance to judge it. I utterly respect Rottie's
right to like and dislike any show she chooses, whether we agree with the
same list or not - and for her to vocalise that opinion. But in a world of
several billion people I'm not sure being personally offended with something
actually means it SHOULD be banned, even if you truly hate it... simply
because that cancellation does impact others' rights, not just one's own.
However, The Book of Daniel seems to be a show against which people started
campaigning BEFORE the show even made it to air and, in that case, mostly by
people who hadn't seen it but objected to a brief description and outline.
That's NOT fair. For instance, as respected writer Peter David pointed out
on his site... "Critics and commentators loved demonizing concepts such as
that the titular minister "popped pills" without bothering to mention it
wasn't speed or uppers or downers but pain killers...an addiction he was
wrestling with rather than being glorified. Or that his daughter "dealt
drugs," without bothering to mention that it was a stupid mistake she was
busted for in the first five minutes of the show, and she quickly gave it
up...Nor did anyone ever bring up the many scenes where the family was shown
as a loving, caring group who never hesitated to display that love for one
another."
The BoD's messiah apparently didn't have a problem with a character being
gay. Though I occasionally get a little tired of some shows almost
exhibiting their gay credentials like a flag (gay, not gay, I don't
care...if it's not that important an issue and people want to be judged as
individuals, neither side should treat being gay as being THAT important).
That factor seems to have pissed off some people too. I can appreciate that
homosexuality divides aspects of the church, but there are three options
here: 1) NEVER referencing homosexuality in connection with any show
addressign faith 2) treating homosexual people as individual people will
all the same foibles, qualities etc or 3) Having a 'You'll burn in
HELL!!!!' modus operandi for your story. Not sure I'm comfortable with 1)
or 3). Maybe BoD is just not 'funny'. then again, I never 'got' Seinfeld.
Kramer's hear was obviously demonic.
I am wary of the 'cancel this before it corrupts' mentality, one that seems
to suggest that a properly schduled program will somehow corrupt intelligent
people who should be able to decide for themselves. Most shows (good or bad)
fail because not enough people are watching them. A campaign to get a show
off air suggests that a person/group doesn't believe that the show will die
a natural death, but needs an extra push... which kinda suggests they think
there's enough people out there who might want it on air to keep it on air -
so, really, there's a certain irony at work there. A person wants a show off
because it offends them and that's more important than another person's
right to watch something because it doesn't? We're back to the why not use
the Off button argument again.
So here's the thing.
* The Swan offends me. I think it trivialised self-esteem, builds people up
to take a fall, makes voyeurs out of us and turns self-image into a
competition. It's lowest common-denomenator and potentially dangeorous TV
and yet I never saw a campaign organised with the ferocity that The Book of
Daniel got?
* Buffy, one of the cleverest, morally-compassed, heart-searching shows on
TV frequently got attacked for having magic as a series staple and having a
lesbian character in a warm, loving relationship. There were calls for it to
be banned. Maybe they had a point... I mean I actually saw a white man kiss
a black woman at one point.. there goes the neighbourhood.
* Touched by an Angel. I found it saccarine and over-simplified view on
faith. Suppose I found it so bad that I believed it's 'just trust in God and
he'll make things right' mentality might be potentially dangerous in a world
where life is rarely a 44 minute morality play? I doubt I'd get much support
and I'm wondering how many people who actively campaigned for BoD's
cancellation would afford me the same rights and respect if I was gunning
for a more conventional safe show. Or would I be lambasted for it?
I DO think ALL religions should be treated with both a degree of respect and
a dose of irreverence. (My God believes in a morality, but his existence
isn't threatened by a TV show and I'm sure the entity who designed the
duck-billed platypus and allows the FOX News centre to remain in existence
can take a joke, even if its a bad one). And I find it interesting that
there's often more people out there creating an atmosphere of over-caution
than actually finding offence (In the UK, the recent lack of Christmas Cards
in some shops was down to the fact that some councils felt that muslims
might be offended - most muslim leaders found that reasoning bizarre!)
We should never be afraid to express our opinions, but equally we can't all
walk around on tiptoes fearing we'll offend someone (we always will, it's
part of life). It's not that I don't care if I offend someone (far from it),
it just seems to me that people often don't care if their decisions offend
me.
And for the record, if anyone here actively campaigned to get Firefly taken
off the air, I'm coming to get you.
John
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 28 Jan 2006 to 29 Jan 2006 - Special issue (#2006-22)
******************************************************************************