> From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The Fool wrote: > > > > > From: Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > > > Behalf Of The Fool > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Eh? How is this an attack on free speech? I don't agree with the > > > > tactics, > > > > > but I don't exactly see Fox as a great defender of free speech, > > either. > > > > > > > > It's an organization that is attacking forms of speech (in this > > example, > > > > among others, TV shows), that they do not agree with, by any and all > > > > means possible. > > > > > > It's *just* a boycott. That's hardly "any and all means possible." > > Your > > > hyperbole undermines the credibility of your argument. > > > > It's more than a boycott, it goes well beyond just being a boycott. They > > are not just boycotting the show, they are boycotting those who dare to > > advertise during the show. They put pressure on these advertisers and > > use and means necessary to dissuade them from running advertisements > > during the show (I am not a fan of advertising). When you have a large > > network of fanatics that are willing to create excessive amount of bad > > publicity for an advertiser, they can pretty much blackmail and extort > > any major advertiser away from anything they consider, baa-ad. They also > > use other sleazy tactics to attack, this is just one example. I think > > the boondocks example is perhaps a better example. Last year a bunch of > > conservative fanatics got the strip knocked off of a whole lot of > > newspapers. They are doing the same thing now. > > I may have found one more flaw in your "religious fanatics" argument for > the organization in question. > > I know a number of people that you would deem to be religious fanatics > who would be *opposed* to "Sabrina, the Teen Age Witch" on the basis of, > well, she's a witch.
Depends on the religious group. Some will say x, is bad, but not y, particularly when the author of y was some kind of believer, like tolkien. Tolkien get praises, but rowlings gets derision. I don't see that the occult aspects of either are all that different. But some religious people somehow do. Did you read the synopsis of 'buffy'? Notice the word occult? (This group also supports any and everything that PAX (a religious channel) shows). > (I know someone who won't let her kids go > trick-or-treating because Halloween is a Satanic holiday. No joke.) There are certain denominations that are that way. JW's, SDA's frex are extremely against halloween (among other things). > Yet it is rated #3 in the "Top 10 Best Shows". I think that if they > were as religiously-driven as your original subject line made me > initially think, that show would *not* be anywhere *near* the Top 10 for > Best Shows. The same people who give praise to the likes of 'cinderella' or 'mary poppins' which are the same as any other "occult" movies. > Now, I don't agree with their pressuring to get shows taken off the air, > but I think that there are a number of religious people who aren't going > to be entirely on board with this, and a number of people who don't > consider themselves to be religious who are actively participating in > this. > > Not all crusades are religious ones. Venn Diagram. AFAIK religious people are the only ones actively opposed to the 'occult'. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
