Arthur wrote:
> ...I find it interesting that you are against something you haven't
> seen but only heard about.
It's an admitted shortcoming. But there are too many things to be
interested in and learn about. I guess if I had a working TV that
would receive Fox, I'd have a look. I'm against coke and smack
although none of my acquaintances have been junkies. After rubbing
elbows with the druggie culture in the 60s and reading Naked Lunch,
I'm willing to forego further research and go with my admittedly
abridged knowledge.
> Sometime you should tune in to TV and watch some of the children's
> programming.
In 1960-61, I roomed in the home of a nice Christian, middle-class
engineer. I was appalled that their pre-school kids were babysat by
the TV for 3 or four hours a day. Really nice people who went out of
their way to make 4 student roomers comfortable and happy but they
plugged their kids into the tube 20 or more hours a week. Is current
kiddie fare so glaringly worse that I'm inadequately shocked and
appalled by contemporary kiddie-tubing?
I'm as much in favor of freedom of religion as of freedom of speech,
yet the (putative) Church of Scientology is (in Pete's words) so
viscerally offensive that I can hardly object if it's declared a
criminal enterprise nor be very happy when it's granted status as a
recognized religion.
Well, I don't want to make a prolonged debate out of this. I just
don't see depriving the vendors of "vile small-minded content" of
regulatory imprimatur as culpable censorship.
- Mike
--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~.
/V\
[email protected] /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
