TV violence and fundamental Christianity

[dan1123]

I read tiassas post in a recent thread about television violence, and would have liked to fork the thread there, but since this board does not support that, I decided to post.

The objections to groups promoting legislation to media in modern first-world countries (particularly broadcast television and movies promoted to children), come in the form of adults wanting to be free to watch what they wish.

Those who want to watch what they wish accuse the groups--particularly Christian groups--of attempting to "legislate morality", which is assumed to be impossible. Adults will do what they wish, and you can't have the thought police coming after you, right? Also, some go further into peoples' sense of human rights and declare that they should be free from people who wish to censor any type of material, whether it be considered, pornographic, violent, or low in character. The fact that the motive for the censorship is for childrens' sake is openly mocked in some forums, and seen as being patently false.

Also, this debate is considered to be a modern one--that it has only been in recent times that groups have attempted to censor media, books, etc. for their moral message. However, if one peruses Plato's Republic, one would come across this passage:

You know also that the beginning is the most important part of any work, especially in the case of a young and tender thing; for that is the time at which the character is being formed and the desired impression is more readily taken.

Quite true.

And shall we just carelessly allow children to hear any casual tales which may be devised by casual persons, and to receive into their minds ideas for the most part the very opposite of those which we should wish them to have when they are grown up?

We cannot.

Then the first thing will be to establish a censorship of the writers of fiction, and let the censors receive any tale of fiction which is good, and reject the bad; and we will desire mothers and nurses to tell their children the authorised ones only. Let them fashion the mind with such tales, even more fondly than they mould the body with their hands; but most of those which are now in use must be discarded.

Plato advocates a censorship of literature here, for the purpose of protecting the children. But how far does such a censorshp go? And what is the reasoning behind this censorship? Plato continues:

Neither, if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of
quarrelling among themselves as of all things the basest, should any word be said to them of the wars in heaven, and of the plots and fightings of the gods against one another, for they are not true. No, we shall never mention the battles of the giants, or let them be embroidered on garments; and we shall be silent about the innumerable other quarrels of gods and heroes with their friends and relatives. If they would only believe us we would tell them that quarrelling is unholy, and that never up to this time has there been any, quarrel between citizens; this is what old men and old women should begin by telling children; and when they grow up, the poets also should be told to compose for them in a similar spirit. But the narrative of Hephaestus binding Here his mother, or how on another occasion Zeus sent him flying for taking her part when she was being beaten, and all the battles of the gods in Homer -- these tales must not be admitted into our State, whether they are supposed to have an allegorical meaning or not. For a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable; and therefore it is most important that the tales which the young first hear should be models of virtuous thoughts.

Plato's reasoning is that "a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable". I remember a science teacher bemoaning the awful science taught to young children and how the false scientific notion would be cemented in their mind if they were taught it before age 12. Things children are told are pushed into their minds. So Plato's solution is to have things that are not virtuous out of childrens' reach.

So what does this have to do with television? The tales of what gods and goddesses do were the entertainment of the Greek times. They were the shows, plays, books, and music of the time. Plato also realizes here, that such an example, even in entertainment, is harmful to children, and should be removed from public discourse:

...even if they were true, ought certainly not to be lightly told to young and thoughtless persons; if possible, they had
better be buried in silence.

And Plato here was not simply talking about the conversation from one person to another, but the poetry which came from the poets of the time. What most people who push for the freedom to view what they wish do is put the blame on to the parents of a child. That the parents should watch their own children and not allow them to view bad things on television or in movies. However, this is not what Plato advocates. Instead Plato says the following:

I said to him, You and I, Adeimantus, at this moment are not poets, but founders of a State: now the founders of a State ought to know the general forms in which poets should cast their tales, and the limits which must be observed by them, but to make the tales is not their business.

Plato advocates the government to censor these poets (or their form of media) for the sake of the children.

Now the argument goes back to 360 BC. And not to some Christian or religious fundamentalist, but to a respected Greek philosopher. And I agree with him. Entertainment which is put into the public should be censored for their moral content for the sake of the children in modern society.

 

[Xev]

Morality is completely subjective to the point of being nonexistant.

Plato advocates a censorship of literature here, for the purpose of protecting the children. But how far does such a censorshp go? And what is the reasoning behind this censorship? Plato continues:

Plato was a moron who should have spent more time shagging Alcibiades and less time writing the trite drivel that passes for great philosophy.

Plato is a bore. --Fredrich Nietzsche

Plato's reasoning is that "a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable". I remember a science teacher bemoaning the awful science taught to young children and how the false scientific notion would be cemented in their mind if they were taught it before age 12. Things children are told are pushed into their minds. So Plato's solution is to have things that are not virtuous out of childrens' reach.

Wow. If a person can't reject the stories of their childhood, they're really, really, REALLY stupid!

They would still believe in Santa Claus, the easter bunny, and the monsters under their bed.

Now the argument goes back to 360 BC. And not to some Christian or religious fundamentalist, but to a respected Greek philosopher. And I agree with him. Entertainment which is put into the public should be censored for their moral content for the sake of the children in modern society.

Exactly. And my moral standards dictate that nothing but Tiffany Minx flicks and science programs ever be shown on tv. The only programs I find moral are either porn or good science shows.

You see the problem here, I hope?

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by dan1123
The objections to groups promoting legislation to media in modern first-world countries (particularly broadcast television and movies promoted to children), come in the form of adults wanting to be free to watch what they wish.

No they come from the very obvious problems in determining whose moral values are being allowed and whose are being rejected.

Those who want to watch what they wish accuse the groups--particularly Christian groups--of attempting to "legislate morality", which is assumed to be impossible.

Legislating morality is impossible; or can you think of a law that hasn't been broken?

whether it be considered, pornographic, violent, or low in character.

Again, considered by whom?

Plato's reasoning is that "a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable".

Our understanding of formative psychology has developed a bit in the last 2362 years. Plato is a bit outdated to use as a psychological reference.

That the parents should watch their own children and not allow them to view bad things on television or in movies.

Exactly. If you wish to censor what your children are exposed to based upon your personal moral values then go ahead but you have no right to assert your morals on the public in general. Or how would you feel if based upon my moral standards I decided to censor your children from hearing about or reading the Bible?

~Raithere

Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but unlike charity, it should end there. - Clare Boothe Luce

 

[dan1123]

Plato was a moron who should have spent more time shagging Alcibiades and less time writing the trite drivel that passes for great philosophy.

Vizzini: I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
Westley: You're that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Westley: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.

Why have a cogent argument when hubris will do the job?

Exactly. If you wish to censor what your children are exposed to based upon your personal moral values then go ahead but you have no right to assert your morals on the public in general. Or how would you feel if based upon my moral standards I decided to censor your children from hearing about or reading the Bible?

I'm sure you wouldn't want someone to put bestial sex onto billboards along the highway, and I'm sure a court would get such an image removed and have the people who did it fined. Why? Because it offends most people. We already assert our morals onto the general populace. If you think for a second, you would realize that all that is being argued is the degree to which this occurs.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Entertainment which is put into the public should be censored for their moral content for the sake of the children in modern society.

Umm. It is...hence no porno on ABC.

If you think for a second, you would realize that all that is being argued is the degree to which this occurs.

Yes, it is a question of common moralities. I suspect your morality is not in line with most others, which gives reason to this post.

You see, most people do not have a problem with tv and movie content. That's why we do not see picket signs and laws being changed. If something is on that the parents do not want their children to see, they do not allow their children to watch it. Its pretty simple.

You are the one that has the minority opinion and yet you call for censorship! Hah!

 

[dan1123]

Umm. It is...hence no porno on ABC.

Actually, if you go back a few decades and compare Playboy to some of the stuff on ABC, then you have a pretty good match. But since the definition of pronography has slid along in the meantime, you can declare that there is no porn on network television. And if things continue as they have, when full frontal nudity is shown in sitcoms and just stop short of actual sex, then our definition of pornography will probably have slid enough to accomodate this as "normal" and not "pornography".

You see, most people do not have a problem with tv and movie content. That's why we do not see picket signs and laws being changed.

I think you would need statistics to back up your case, like these:

• About 82 per cent of the American public considers movies too violent, 72 per cent finds that entertainment television has too much violence, and 57 per cent thinks television news gives too much attention to stories about violent crime.
• Eighty per cent of Americans think that television violence is "harmful" to society. The number who think it is "very harmful" increased from 26 per cent in 1983 to 47 per cent in 1993.

http://www.mediascope.org/pubs/ibriefs/apomv.htm

The real issue is who should solve it. And we have been burned by the government in the past, so many are more afraid of getting the government involved than of the effect of violence on the culture. I think, though, that Plato had it right, and that the government should be more involved in censoring the media with the goal of making a more virtuous populace.

 

[julia christa]

dumbing down

Sometimes I think about politics and the prison systems
and whetherornot I ought to eat meat

and then I feel the eternal in me
infinitude in time, confused and sublime

"lord, forgive them for they know not what they do"

The hindu's had their A-U-M to dwell upon.

I meditate on the unknowable, unspeakable, ungraspable phantom. The All of it All. The void. The void beyond the void. The god which exists and doesn't exist. Which is beyond the wall of seeming opposites. Beyond paradox. Beyond politics.

My mantra goes: D-u-mmmm.

There is nothing to save. Very few are truly looking for a cure. Most simply want relief. Kierkegaard laid it out with the Either/Or. Either God exists, Or he doesn't. Sink or swim.

If he does, perfection looks a lot like this: Buildings falling, children dying, prisons, violence, confusion, love making, sunshine, roses, electric chairs, horses and trees, earthquakes and typhoons, gentle oceans and breeze and your mother and your lover and your pets.

I read somewhere, "there are only two emotions, love and fear"

They should have a smiley face icon that's got an expression of sheer terror, like a little Munch screaming the whole world vibration.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by dan1123
I'm sure you wouldn't want someone to put bestial sex onto billboards along the highway, and I'm sure a court would get such an image removed and have the people who did it fined. Why? Because it offends most people. We already assert our morals onto the general populace. If you think for a second, you would realize that all that is being argued is the degree to which this occurs.

Nope, I still disagree. Here's the difference: A billboard is intrusive in the sense that anyone driving down the road has no control over the billboard. I can't decide it offends my morality and turn it off. The only choice I would have is to cover my children's eyes or take a different road. Yes, billboards and similar things should be regulated because the individual cannot do so.

However, television, movies, and books are a different matter. These are things a parent has almost complete control over if they are so inclined. A parent should know what their children are watching and censor as they see fit. Ban the children from watching, get the freaking v-chip, or better yet watch what the children watch. Know what they're exposed to. Even a program that is not morally offensive may be wrong for a child for different reasons. Growing up my parents banned certain cartoons such as Speed Racer not for any moral offense but because it was pure and utter crap. Today I thank them for censoring such mind-numbing, meaningless spunk. And let's face it, due to the censors most of today's child oriented programming has been reduced to puerile drivel. We're truly hitting the lowest common denominator with the rubbish they're producing today.

Now granted, even well governed children will occasionally slip through one's guard and expose themselves to something you would rather not have them see. This is healthy though. It is normal and proper for children to continually test their boundaries and explore new areas. The most important factor is consistency. It is repetition that young children respond to (this is why they watch the same movies, want you to read the same book, and sing the same songs until you're ready to throw up). It is also good that the child get measured doses of reality. How many children were fucked up by watching the Brady Bunch? How many children saw this picture perfect, 1950's middle America morality, white family and became confused and distraught that their family wasn't like that? What's wrong with watching an episode of the Osbournes with your 10 year old and then maybe discussing their all-too-apparent dysfunctions? Try teaching your values yourself rather than relying upon pre-packaged, government regulated pap?

There is also the threat supported by many historical examples of how this kind of attitude gets out of control. Once a society begins down this path it usually just keeps building up steam. Eventually we can all have book-burning parties in the streets. The PC lobby has us all so sensitized that people take offense so quickly and completely that the effort becomes counter-productive. This is how "Huckleberry Finn" gets pulled from library shelves because it contains the "n word", even though if anyone bothered to read the book they would find that Twain was dead-set against bigotry. Even here I find myself euphemizing the word because I'm afraid that Wet1 would be forced to censor my post otherwise... how pathetic is that?

On top of all this, how far do you trust the government to do this censoring with anything even approaching a reasonable and rational method or basis of judgment? We already have censorship and look at the job they're doing so far. I had to laugh my ass off one night when I saw a cop movie on broadcast TV. The censors edited out the word bullshit just before the cops unloaded into the guy and we got to see him flip over backwards from the impact and twitch on the ground in his death-throes. No, trusting the government to do this will result in the intellectual equivalent of government-cheese at best and is more likely to reflect the staunch moral foundation of the congress. (Yes, cynicism is denoted here.)

Finally though, I must come back to the parents and say, "Do your own damm parenting and take some personal responsibility. If you don't like what your children are watching then by all means turn off the fucking television and give them a good book to read." Maybe they'll stretch a brain-cell or two.

~Raithere

 

[overdoze]

Originally posted by dan1123
And if things continue as they have, when full frontal nudity is shown in sitcoms and just stop short of actual sex, then our definition of pornography will probably have slid enough to accomodate this as "normal" and not "pornography".

Nudity is a spurious western invention. There are entire tribes still alive today that go nude 24/7, from birth to death, and see nothing wrong or subversive about it.

You're trying to push your perverse Puritan "morality" on the rest of us and wonder why we call you crazy.

As for violence, modern industrialized societies are not any more violent than any society in history. Probably less violent, in fact, due to higher standards of living.

If a book offends you, don't read it. If TV offends you don't watch it. Ditto for music, films, theater productions or comedy standup. It's a free country; you're free to refuse. But if the material that offends you is being produced, then in a capitalist society that means there's a demand for the material. So tough, deal with it.

As for the poor impressionable children, your little Platonic theory is wrong. Knowledge has never hurt anyone, old or young. Real factors that damage children for life involve abuse of some form (especially on a continuous basis), dysfunctional family, criminal role models, malnutrition, real violence on the street, and other such social ills having nothing to do with art, information or entertainment.

And if you wanted to fix those problems, you might want to start with a more equitable distribution of wealth and property, a vastly better education system, and tighter integration between child care and family services. Most of the violence exists in poor communities, strongly indicating that poverty (and all that it entails) is the real culprit. Anything else is a straw puppet.

 

[Xev]

dan:

Why have a cogent argument when hubris will do the job?

Exactly! I'm glad you have recognized the problem with Plato - not many do.

BTW, Aristotle and Socrates were fine philosophers. I especially like Nietzsche's treatment of Socrates, and while the Nicomachean ethics is dull as dull gets, I admire Aristotle for trying to codify morality.

I'm sure you wouldn't want someone to put bestial sex onto billboards along the highway,

Actually, I wouldn't care. *Shrugs*

And if I go to church on sunday
And a honky tonk, all day monday
Welll, it ain't nobody's business if I do

and I'm sure a court would get such an image removed and have the people who did it fined. Why? Because it offends most people. We already assert our morals onto the general populace. If you think for a second, you would realize that all that is being argued is the degree to which this occurs.

Where might is right there is no right.

Are you willing, having rejected belief in absolute morality - in letting the herd decide - to accept that one day the herd may decide that televangelists are obscene and that prime time should be dominated (no pun intended) by sadomasochistic porn flicks?

If you do, I shall say that you have balls.

Of course there is no objective "right" or "wrong". But do you deny that the idea of inherent human rights is useful?

julia christie:

My mantra goes: D-u-mmmm.

Funny, I think that is what slave-moralists like certain posters like dan use as their mantra, too.

Only it goes like "I'm dummmmmmmmbbbb"

I read somewhere, "there are only two emotions, love and fear"

Damn straight. And I fear Kirkegaard.

*Runs and hides under bed*

No seriously, I don't think emotion truely exists in such easily definable categories.

Oh, and welcome to sciforums.

overdoze:

If a book offends you, don't read it. If TV offends you don't watch it. Ditto for music, films, theater productions or comedy standup. It's a free country; you're free to refuse. But if the material that offends you is being produced, then in a capitalist society that means there's a demand for the material. So tough, deal with it.

Well said.

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by overdoze


Nudity is a spurious western invention. There are entire tribes still alive today that go nude 24/7, from birth to death, and see nothing wrong or subversive about it.

Please tell me whee are they?........ Tribes?..........How far are they? . Sorry can't resist the temptation.

 

[overdoze]

Ain't Discovery Channel wonderful?

Yup, that's where I saw some documentary on tropical peoples somewhere around the equator living in jungles butt-naked (apart from ceremonial/religious garb like various "jewelry".) Also there's National Geographic that covered a similar thing once. Of course the point of these stories wasn't the nakedness per se; it was merely part of the description of the tribe(s).

Now, for the life of me I can't remember where these peple are supposed to live, but I think either in the Amazon, or Indonesia/Malaysia/etc. Reason I exclude Africa is because I remember they didn't look African (faces.)

In Africa though there are its own tribes still going around bare-chested (men and women both), with prepubescent children running around naked. There are some tribes in Africa still where men wear nothing but a penis sheath and a robe over the shoulder.

edit:

Ooh, found some for you. Not the same ones I saw in the documentary though, but now I recall reading about these in National Geographic as well (Irian Jaya, Indonesia):

(WARNING: pictures of nude and mostly nude people at this link)

http://www.sonic.net/~josephb/DANI PHOTOS/DaniPhotos.htm

 

[Tiassa]

What is wrong with people?

I think you would need statistics to back up your case, like these:

• About 82 per cent of the American public considers movies too violent, 72 per cent finds that entertainment television has too much violence, and 57 per cent thinks television news gives too much attention to stories about violent crime.
• Eighty per cent of Americans think that television violence is "harmful" to society. The number who think it is "very harmful" increased from 26 per cent in 1983 to 47 per cent in 1993.

And yet people watch television in this country in a way that proves Karl Marx wrong.

Religion is no longer the opiate of the masses. Seriously, I have nothing against, say, Monty Python, but when Ticking Scotsman is, literally, the best thing on the air at that moment, I will take the time to worry about the collective "taste" of American society.

Ever notice that controversy raises ratings and sales in this country? The flap over Banned in the USA tripled sales almost overnight; several death metal bands were exposed to thousands of young people who otherwise would never have heard them, and controversial novels like American Psycho were pushed on the public as masterworks.

People have complained over time: rap is no better, Bret Easton Ellis still sucks, and television has managed to go downhill.

This is the fine result of the American pseudo-capitalism. Mob mentality is generally considered stupid unless it's a buying frenzy.

Think about "the public", though. It made:

• Britney Spears #1; same with N'Sync, Backstreet, and others
•_GWB jr and Al Gore the only two viable presidential candidates
• Joan Collins, Bret Easton Ellis, and Nicholas Sparks into bestsellers
• A blowjob cost $40m (by proxy of electing such bright people to Congress)
• The stock market what it is--a pure fiction
• NYPD Blue a highly-rated show

This is, of course, the same public of whom so many find movies (82%) and television (72%) to be too violent while also making the violent, oversexed shows into ratings bonanzas. The same public that, while it finds television violence "harmful" still tunes in every bat-Friday or whatnot to catch the latest.

See, that's the problem with such statistics: when you stop to consider the state and psyche of the American people, mass killing doesn't seem like such a bad idea as it otherwise would. Face it: "the public" in this country is insane.

All anybody has to do is turn it off.

Like Xev, for instance. Such an offensive little hussy, yet the best thing to do would simply be to "turn her off", or ignore her.

It's a very simple choice.

Pick up the remote, turn off the TV.

Don't get in line, don't buy the ticket.

Just because it's what's in front of you doesn't mean it's all that's there. All anyone has to do is look around for something better. Usually, it's not too hard to find.

Like Xev, for instance. It's not too hard to find something better to read than that horsesh@t. An illiterate monkey with a crayon, for instance.

All anyone has to do is turn it off. Don't spend the money. Don't give patronage to the people who make TV and movies too violent. It's not your "right" to have something to watch.

And if you must get your stories in the video format, well, a camera and an iMac are all you need so what's the excuse?

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[overdoze]

Another one with a Xev fixation

Hi Tiassa,

The trick is turning it off in your head as well.

But wait, before you turn me into another monkey I'll contribute something more meaningful. Namely, sciforums. Our own version of "opiate"?

Hell, we're all addicts one way or the other...

 

[Xev]

Another one with a Xev fixation

Damn straight. First it was Tony1 he would always rant about. Then Tony1 left and he started with Adam.

Now apparently it's me. Ooooh, I'm soo lucky!

Tiassa luv, mind the irises when you stalk me. I had a problem with Joeman stepping on them while prowling about my house.

Like Xev, for instance. Such an offensive little hussy, yet the best thing to do would simply be to "turn her off", or ignore her.

Back on topic, this is well said. If one has not fortitude to turn the tv off or put Xev on one's ignore list, one really isn't qualified to make laws.

 

[Tiassa]

Click

The trick is turning it off in your head as well.

True enough, but Sciforums has no box office receipts and no Nielsen ratings.

But wait, before you turn me into another monkey I'll contribute something more meaningful. Namely, sciforums. Our own version of "opiate"

Only you can turn yourself into a monkey.

And of Sciforums as an opiate, quite well pointed.

Hell, we're all addicts one way or the other...

Indeed.

Damn straight. First it was Tony1 he would always rant about. Then Tony1 left and he started with Adam

Sorry, Xev, dear. If you'd like to spend your life as a liar, that's fine with me. But it's not going to improve the intellectual standing of your posts.

Oh, and I'm quite sure you can provide documentation of that? No? Why am I not surprised?

Besides, when I think back to you telling me not to get into a fight with atheists, I still wonder why you're telling me not to start what someone else has started. And when I think of your riding crop response a few threads ago, and compare it with your conduct in the current topic, well, it seems you're not actually getting any better at posting information.

Now apparently it's me. Ooooh, I'm soo lucky!

Not lucky. Just idiotic.

Funny, I think that is what slave-moralists like certain posters like dan use as their mantra, too.

Only it goes like "I'm dummmmmmmmbbbb"

Like this. I'll tell you what I told Tony1: Do better.

Tiassa luv, mind the irises when you stalk me

Wow, what a fantasy, Xev. I think I'll offer you your own advice here: go get laid. Such destructive "stalker" fantasies will only get you hurt if you carry them into the real world; your rhetorical metaphor is mere posturing. A couple of orgasms will help alleviate such self-destructive fantasies.

Back on topic, this is well said. If one has not fortitude to turn the tv off or put Xev on one's ignore list, one really isn't qualified to make laws.

Click.

You have been separated, Xev; some of us prefer the wheat to the chaff.

It is by bashing that we separate the wheat from the chaff. It is by bashing that we progress to the truth. (Xev, Wicca Stuff, 4.14.02, 11.17 PT)

--Tiassa

 

[Xev]

Tiassa:

Besides, when I think back to you telling me not to get into a fight with atheists, I still wonder why you're telling me not to start what someone else has started. And when I think of your riding crop response a few threads ago, and compare it with your conduct in the current topic, well, it seems you're not actually getting any better at posting information.

You're never going to let me live that itty bitty little reference down, are you?

Fine, I'll go back to refering to a' Becket and his hair shirt, how's that?

Not lucky. Just idiotic.

I love you, Tiassa. I can just see you typing this furiously, a blush coming to your face, biting your lower lip in concentration.

You finish your post and proofread. Your hand guides the mouse and the cursor hovers over the "submit reply" button.

BUT WAIT! You recall that ages and ages ago, Xev said something that pissed you off. What was it?

Your brow wrinkles in concentration. OH! A flash of insight strikes you.

You open a new window in your browser and search for the reference.

THERE!

It is by bashing that we separate the wheat from the chaff. It is by bashing that we progress to the truth. (Xev, Wicca Stuff, 4.14.02, 11.17 PT)

You smile contentedly as you add this to your post, and submit the reply. A small sigh of satisfaction leaves your lips.

BTW, are you ever going to reply in Karlokovi?

 

[overdoze]

Xev,

You really should consider a career in standup, or at least write some scripts for comedies. Your talent is going to waste on these boards.

 

[Tiassa]

Lucky Xev

BTW, are you ever going to reply in Karlokovi?

Lucky you, I chose to smoke a cigarette and put two cents in on another topic before clicking ignore.

Good point, though I admit there's not much to respond to in your post. I'll take another look at it, though, and see what I can come up with.

You're never going to let me live that itty bitty little reference down, are you?

I'd be happy to if such childishness wasn't a standard part of your presentation. That, truly, is the primary detractor from whatever qualities you might be trying to convey. Perhaps if you worried more about the information and perspective you're attempting to broadcast and not so much about stylistics, I might respect your intellect more. Your intelligence is generally obvious, your sense of wisdom not so.

Substance, Xev, not style.

Technically, there's nothing to forgive or let you live down. However, as long as you choose to be a style child, I have a limited number of options; I'm on the verge of choosing the simplest, and endmost.

And if style is really that important to you, try subtlety. Doonesbury, for instance, is funnier than Garfield. Why? Subtlety, to say the least. Sure, content helps, but subtlety is a necessary element of substantial content in communication. I mean, come on: I hate Mondays versus Rod McKuen and Watergate "reunion" jokes? Or, to come forward to the present-day, I hate Mondays or the little buttery waffle that stood for Bill Clinton?

Conduct yourself with a little more integrity, and a bit more consistently, Xev, and any conflicts I see 'twixt you and I disappear. I'll stop pointing out the anemia of your vicious humor when you stop making it such a mainstay of your communicative process.

Woo-hoo, Xev can make a juvenile joke. So can most of us.

Now, what else is there?

--Tiassa