Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[Kevin M.]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 2:43 PM 'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV <
tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I think this position, while admirable, faces a big uphill battle.  The
> ability of companies to police the conduct of those who work for them in
> the conduct of that work has, to my knowledge, never been seriously
> contested in this country from a free speech perspective.  Where it has
> been fought has been in areas of discrimination based on race, sex, marital
> status, pregnancy and other factors.  And those fights were relatively
> recent, and not easy for the positions that prevailed.
>
> I think this is one of many examples where the American perspective on
> capitalism triumphs over any aspirations it has regarding free expression.
> If one's free speech affects a company's bottom line (directly or
> indirectly), and that individual has some kind of economic relationship
> with that company, the relationship will be adjusted or ended.
>
> Yes, advocacy directed at these companies is also free expression, but it
> is done because those expressing their viewpoint expect the money matters
> more than any principle.  While those who coined the phrase 'marketplace of
> ideas' had something else in mind, today it's about how the ideas influence
> the dollars in the market.
>

I would add that, historically, American society/culture almost exclusively
advances only when there is economic incentive to do so. Slavery didn’t end
because it was immoral… it was always immoral. Women didn’t get the right
to vote because they suddenly became equal to men. We are now faced with
the economic reality that disinformation is profitable (hardly a new
concept, but propaganda purely for profit is less common than political
propaganda). Until companies and individuals feel economic pressure to stop
deliberately spreading lies, they won’t stop. I liken it to Big Tobacco
being forced to concede the health risks of smoking. Joe Rogan is Big
Tobacco.



> David
>
> On Friday, February 4, 2022, 01:54:45 PM PST, PGage 
> wrote:
>
>
> Again, right. Spotify is free to ban Rogan or not, Neil and Joni are free
> to demand either Rogan gets banned or they take down their music, you and I
> are free to support or boycott Spotify depending on whatever.
>
> I’m not talking about what is legal, I’m talking about what is good. I am
> arguing that those who support a free society *ought* to defend the
> expression of unpopular speech (that does not meet certain criteria of
> danger).
>
> Of course, as you say, others are free to disagree with me.
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 1:22 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 12:56 PM PGage  wrote:
>
> So, it’s true there is no violation of the 1st Amendment at stake. But
> Free Expression as a value goes deeper than that. Unpopular speech should
> be protected whenever possible. Spotify banning Joe Rogan today could
> easily become Disney banning Lin Manuel Miranda in three years.
>
>
> Spotify didn’t ban Joe Rogan, and even if they did, a company is free to
> react to public criticism. They are free to host/pay whomever they want to,
> and they are free to stop paying whomever they want to… or they were when
> Rogan was based in California… I don’t know whether Texas is an at-will
> state. Free expression includes criticism of free speech, and that’s what
> happened here. Neil Young used his freedom of speech to influence an
> outcome.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 10:05 AM Kevin M.  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:14 AM PGage  wrote:
>
> As I posted earlier, I don’t disagree with JS that much. My main
> disagreement is with his assessment that Rogan is not an ideologue (perhaps
> that word is too sophisticated to apply to Rogan).
>
> But I do agree that it is dangerous in a free society to start restricting
> speech we don’t like - even when we are right. I despise Rogan and Carlson,
> despised Limbaugh. But they have a right to spew their filth (as I have a
> right to ignore them).
>
>
> We do go round and round on this concept, but Rogan’s speech is not
> infringed.
>
> For better or worse, we purport to exist in a free market economy. Neil
> Young made a personal professional choice to not associate with a company
> responsible for promoting (in fact paying extra for) speech known/proven to
> be factually inaccurate, conspiratorial in nature, and potentially harmful
> if taken seriously. The market also responded. Then the business in
> question announced changes, the person in question pledged to change.
>
> It is a rare instance where society prompted a change. Not censorship. Not
> cancel culture. Nothing was banned. Nobody was woke. Nobody was a
> snowflake. A market correction occurred.
>
>
>
> You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, you can’t make jokes about bombs
> in an airport, so perhaps there are things you should not be able to say
> during a deadly pandemic. Let’s specify those things (perhaps something
> like: “can not present as fact health 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Whoopi Goldberg apologizes for saying Holocaust 'isn't about race' | TheHill

[Steve Timko]

ABC’s decision to suspend Whoopi Goldberg from “The View” for two weeks for
her remarks about the Holocaust has opened the network up to criticism that
its response derailed a teachable moment for the nation about a sensitive
topic often misunderstood and seldom discussed on air.


https://apnews.com/article/whoopi-goldberg-entertainment-arts-and-entertainment-media-race-and-ethnicity-b6e258bf9e014e2b4dcd88112c94a317the

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022, 7:46 AM John Edwards  wrote:

> More like "Whoopsi" Goldberg, amIrite?
>
> (I'm here all week, folks. Try the veal.)
>
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 22:52, Steve Timko  wrote:
>
>> ABC suspends Whoopi for two weeks. I dunno. Seems kind of harsh given
>> that she already apologized.
>>
>> https://apnews.com/article/whoopi-goldberg-apology-the-holocaust-jonathan-greenblatt-4a4c77055d7bb1c37662fc9b274a8869
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 6:57 PM Steve Timko  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> https://thehill.com/homenews/media/592197-whoopi-goldberg-apologizes-for-saying-holocaust-isnt-about-race
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "TVorNotTV" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yxudWQjJ7gJ%2BMQRkq%2Bp1yKji8gpHjMP%2BnjtFOsNi58adA%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> --
> John Edwards
> "You can insure against the weather, but you can't insure against
> incompetence, can you?" - Phil Tufnell
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJLXtMKvjwu19kKDex25oGAnOM4hWp5ehGAxAwM34QDJM0s5LA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yxeDGk4TNbd5m_8G5KUDLQq2ERMSUxrmw4petQPxu%2BvUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[TV orNotTV] “Book of Boba Fett” bait and switch

[Kevin M.]

Either you’ve been watching, so you know the controversy

Or you haven’t and so you probably don’t care

But spoilers ahead

The last two episodes have been entirely centered around The Mandalorian…
Fett didn’t even appear in one of the two episodes.

Here is my hot take: I enjoy Mando as a character much more in the Fett
series than in the series that bears his name. And this week’s episode,
which contained characters from every corner of the Star Wars universe, is
my favorite of the Fett series so far. Apparently I’m in the minority view.

People are saying they gave up on the Fett character, but to do what he
wants to do, he needs a team, and Mando recruiting is a natural character
choice.

My criticism of the series (which is shared) is the softening of many
races/people in the Star Wars universe. Transforming the Tuskan raiders
into an oppressed indigenous race (ie Native Americans) is incongruous with
who they’ve been. I don’t know if that’s due to Disney influence, but it’s
bad/cheap storytelling.
-- 
Kevin M. (RPCV)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4C9XaC161Ls_Fso7W6wopNnn329sqrx5y-mMsZkVDSdXg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Stormy's lawyer considering Presidential run

[Kevin M.]

I’m beginning to think Avenatti will never be president

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-jury-finds-lawyer-michael-avenatti-guilty-defrauding-stormy-daniels-2022-02-04/


On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 7:23 PM Kevin M.  wrote:

> Remember when Michael Avenatti was under consideration as a presidential
> candidate?
>
>
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-avenatti-faces-sentencing-for-trying-to-extort-millions-from-nike-11625743801
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:18 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>
>> Stormy’s lawyer is an opportunistic ambulance chaser. He’s Johnnie
>> Cochran. He could as easily defend Trump as he defends Ms Daniels. If we
>> must have a lawyer as a contender, make it one with a lifelong history of
>> social activism.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 7:47 PM Brad Beam  wrote:
>>
>>> *From:* tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Doug Eastick
>>>
>>> *>*yeah that's right.  And I'm here in a country who has a prime
>>> minister that is "hot" and various females I know would 'seriously like to
>>> f*ck him cuz he's so hot, but didn't vote for him'.Add in his past
>>> experience as a school teacher, limited experience as a politician, and you
>>> get the overall mix here in Canada.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Given the experience of their respective *peres*, I’d stick with
>>> Dreamboat Justin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (Speaking of, did we know that Fred Trump’s middle name – his mother’s
>>> maiden name – is Christ? Guess we all know what that makes his mom’s
>>> sister….)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _  _
>>>
>>> |_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV
>>>
>>> |_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> --
>> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>>
> --
> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>
-- 
Kevin M. (RPCV)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4DkRjUCzJW_HQwvLDXA4xYfox9j-n%3DMyh_Kpy%2B8GR14jw%40mail.gmail.com.

[TV orNotTV] "... Organized Crime" getting more star-studded

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

If you still consider Jennifer Beals and Denis Leary stars.

https://deadline.com/2022/02/denis-leary-joins-law-order-organized-crime-1234926974/
 (link)

B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/564f80e3-2e75-454a-ae25-4cd555640cd0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Olympics SPOILER alert

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

Correction: the male of the pair is Uyghur. B

>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/505acaaa-d15e-4860-bb2d-07bd1eb0f150n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Olympics SPOILER alert

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

1. The final torchbearers are Uyghurs, a bold statement by the Communist 
government given their mates' oppression.

2. The flame is not a giant cauldron fueled by something that someone 
thinks should be wound down in use due to global warming, but merely by 
that final torch carried by said Uyghurs, installed into a giant snowflake 
hoisted over the center of the Bird's Nest.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/04/1078234213/beijing-olympics-flame-torch-uyghur 
(link)  
B

Steve Timko, to moi, Feb 4th:

> I thought you were going to say Rudy Giuliani carried in the torch.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/3efc94b4-a2b9-44ac-bd8d-16abd96a4c55n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: How does “Senator Oz” sound?

[Paul Murray]

 

Pennsylvania Senate Republican race between Oz and McCormick turns ugly 
early

Erie, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- In the Pennsylvania Senate race, one candidate 
is accusing a rival of having "dual loyalties" to the US and a foreign 
country. In turn, that rival is charging his opponent with being too cozy 
with China.
But these aren't candidates from opposing parties. They are hedge-fund 
executive David McCormick 

 
and TV personality Dr. Mehmet Oz 
,
 
two of the leading contenders for the Republican nomination 

.

With months to go until Pennsylvania's scheduled May 17 primary, Keystone 
State Republicans are girding themselves for a long and bruising fight for 
the Senate nomination to succeed retiring GOP Sen. Pat Toomey.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/politics/pennsylvania-senate-republican-primary-mccormick-oz/index.html



On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 8:18:00 PM UTC-5 Diner wrote:

> Oz has a commercial now in PA where he pronounces "you" as "jew" and all I 
> can think about is that scene in "Annie Hall."
>
> On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 at 2:06:54 PM UTC-5 Tom Wolper wrote:
>
>> Oz has flooded TV with campaign ads. But he is not the only 
>> multimillionaire running for the GOP nomination so other candidate ads are 
>> also starting to appear. And there’s a SuperPAC putting out a ton of 
>> anti-Oz commercials.
>>
>> Tom Wolf, the current governor, also came from outside politics. But it 
>> was at most 24 hours after he announced his campaign that he already had 
>> endorsements from all of the political leaders in Philadelphia and 
>> Pittsburgh (he’s a Democrat). Oz, or his campaign manager, has ignored 
>> endorsements and it’s keeping him from getting any traction with the rank 
>> and file Republican base.
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2022, at 1:42 PM, Melissa P  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Yep, whatta blessing that he's running for public office.  Saw his poll 
>> numbers not too long ago.  Single digits.
>>
>> In the meantime, HWCNBN is running for Congress again.  So, no expected 
>> appearance on Idol this season, and apparently there's another already 
>> filmed game show episode with an uncertain future.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 12:20 AM Kevin M.  wrote:
>>
>>> I recently found myself in an environment where I was forced to watch a 
>>> few minutes of this idiot’s daytime show. It was worse than I imagined it 
>>> could be
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 9:18 PM Steve Timko  wrote:
>>>
 Dr. Oz stumbles out of the gate in Senate race

 In his first tests as a candidate, the celebrity physician fails to 
 impress Pennsylvania GOP activists.


 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/25/dr-oz-senate-race-stumbles-2056

 On Sun, Dec 5, 2021, 10:55 AM  wrote:

> It’s too early for me to get interested in the details of the race and 
> I can’t vote in the Republican primary anyway. What I have seen is that 
> at 
> least two of his challengers are fabulously wealthy and they’re all 
> preparing to spend millions on getting elected.
>
> On Dec 3, 2021, at 7:34 PM, Diner  wrote:
>
> Just saw my first Oz campaign ad, on 6ABC in Philadelphia... right 
> before Final Jeopardy.
> Guess that's the only way he can get back on Jeopardy.
> I knew he was running, of course, but I had no idea he was advertising 
> already. I've never seen advertising this early.
> And in the ad, he and his graphics scream "Washington got it wrong on 
> Covid" and spouts some pro-death slogans.
> The primary isn't until May 17. I can't believe we have five and a 
> half more months of this bullshit ahead. (And more if he wins.)
>
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 3:53:17 PM UTC-5 Tom Wolper wrote:
>
>> One thing I didn’t know was how much Oz was tied in to the Fox News 
>> universe:
>>
>>
>> https://www.mediamatters.org/dr-mehmet-oz/dr-oz-has-misled-public-medical-issues-years-now-hes-running-senate
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2021, at 2:56 PM, PGage  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> I was just about to press send on almost the same reply before I saw 
>> yours.
>>
>> As horrible a US Senator as this guy would undoubtedly be, he is an 
>> even worse physician, and thru his TV show has harmed untold millions. 
>> Getting him off the air is a pure Good.
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 10:16 AM  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2021, at 11:42 AM, Steve Timko  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently Dr. Oz"s show is shutting down entirely by mid-January.
>>>
>>>
>>> So there’s some good that will come out of this.
>>>
>>>
>>>

 -- 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

['David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV]

 I think this position, while admirable, faces a big uphill battle.  The 
ability of companies to police the conduct of those who work for them in the 
conduct of that work has, to my knowledge, never been seriously contested in 
this country from a free speech perspective.  Where it has been fought has been 
in areas of discrimination based on race, sex, marital status, pregnancy and 
other factors.  And those fights were relatively recent, and not easy for the 
positions that prevailed.
I think this is one of many examples where the American perspective on 
capitalism triumphs over any aspirations it has regarding free expression.  If 
one's free speech affects a company's bottom line (directly or indirectly), and 
that individual has some kind of economic relationship with that company, the 
relationship will be adjusted or ended.
Yes, advocacy directed at these companies is also free expression, but it is 
done because those expressing their viewpoint expect the money matters more 
than any principle.  While those who coined the phrase 'marketplace of ideas' 
had something else in mind, today it's about how the ideas influence the 
dollars in the market.
David

On Friday, February 4, 2022, 01:54:45 PM PST, PGage  
wrote:  
 
 Again, right. Spotify is free to ban Rogan or not, Neil and Joni are free to 
demand either Rogan gets banned or they take down their music, you and I are 
free to support or boycott Spotify depending on whatever.
I’m not talking about what is legal, I’m talking about what is good. I am 
arguing that those who support a free society *ought* to defend the expression 
of unpopular speech (that does not meet certain criteria of danger).
Of course, as you say, others are free to disagree with me.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 1:22 PM Kevin M.  wrote:



On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 12:56 PM PGage  wrote:

So, it’s true there is no violation of the 1st Amendment at stake. But Free 
Expression as a value goes deeper than that. Unpopular speech should be 
protected whenever possible. Spotify banning Joe Rogan today could easily 
become Disney banning Lin Manuel Miranda in three years.

Spotify didn’t ban Joe Rogan, and even if they did, a company is free to react 
to public criticism. They are free to host/pay whomever they want to, and they 
are free to stop paying whomever they want to… or they were when Rogan was 
based in California… I don’t know whether Texas is an at-will state. Free 
expression includes criticism of free speech, and that’s what happened here. 
Neil Young used his freedom of speech to influence an outcome. 




On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 10:05 AM Kevin M.  wrote:





On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:14 AM PGage  wrote:

As I posted earlier, I don’t disagree with JS that much. My main disagreement 
is with his assessment that Rogan is not an ideologue (perhaps that word is too 
sophisticated to apply to Rogan).
But I do agree that it is dangerous in a free society to start restricting 
speech we don’t like - even when we are right. I despise Rogan and Carlson, 
despised Limbaugh. But they have a right to spew their filth (as I have a right 
to ignore them).

We do go round and round on this concept, but Rogan’s speech is not infringed. 
For better or worse, we purport to exist in a free market economy. Neil Young 
made a personal professional choice to not associate with a company responsible 
for promoting (in fact paying extra for) speech known/proven to be factually 
inaccurate, conspiratorial in nature, and potentially harmful if taken 
seriously. The market also responded. Then the business in question announced 
changes, the person in question pledged to change. 
It is a rare instance where society prompted a change. Not censorship. Not 
cancel culture. Nothing was banned. Nobody was woke. Nobody was a snowflake. A 
market correction occurred. 





You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, you can’t make jokes about bombs in 
an airport, so perhaps there are things you should not be able to say during a 
deadly pandemic. Let’s specify those things (perhaps something like: “can not 
present as fact health information found to be seriously harmful to public 
health “, though even that is probably too broad. Under that, anyone advocating 
abstinence only sex education would be banned).
Once you identify a criteria, then you don’t rush to ban communicators, their 
employers warn them of violations, and repeated violations lead to termination.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:16 AM Doug Eastick  wrote:

Agreed. I've been done with him for quite a while now.


/Doug 
east...@mcd.on.ca
On Fri., Feb. 4, 2022, 4:37 a.m. 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV, 
 wrote:

I used to be a big fan of Stewart, but even in those TDS days, he constantly 
tried to both-sides almost everything. This is just the latest step in that 
evolution.
--Dave Sikula

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8 steve...@gmail.com wrote:

Jon Stewart sides with Joe Rogan.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[PGage]

Again, right. Spotify is free to ban Rogan or not, Neil and Joni are free
to demand either Rogan gets banned or they take down their music, you and I
are free to support or boycott Spotify depending on whatever.

I’m not talking about what is legal, I’m talking about what is good. I am
arguing that those who support a free society *ought* to defend the
expression of unpopular speech (that does not meet certain criteria of
danger).

Of course, as you say, others are free to disagree with me.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 1:22 PM Kevin M.  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 12:56 PM PGage  wrote:
>
>> So, it’s true there is no violation of the 1st Amendment at stake. But
>> Free Expression as a value goes deeper than that. Unpopular speech should
>> be protected whenever possible. Spotify banning Joe Rogan today could
>> easily become Disney banning Lin Manuel Miranda in three years.
>>
>
> Spotify didn’t ban Joe Rogan, and even if they did, a company is free to
> react to public criticism. They are free to host/pay whomever they want to,
> and they are free to stop paying whomever they want to… or they were when
> Rogan was based in California… I don’t know whether Texas is an at-will
> state. Free expression includes criticism of free speech, and that’s what
> happened here. Neil Young used his freedom of speech to influence an
> outcome.
>
>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 10:05 AM Kevin M. 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:14 AM PGage  wrote:
>>>
 As I posted earlier, I don’t disagree with JS that much. My main
 disagreement is with his assessment that Rogan is not an ideologue (perhaps
 that word is too sophisticated to apply to Rogan).

 But I do agree that it is dangerous in a free society to start
 restricting speech we don’t like - even when we are right. I despise Rogan
 and Carlson, despised Limbaugh. But they have a right to spew their filth
 (as I have a right to ignore them).

>>>
>>> We do go round and round on this concept, but Rogan’s speech is not
>>> infringed.
>>>
>>> For better or worse, we purport to exist in a free market economy. Neil
>>> Young made a personal professional choice to not associate with a company
>>> responsible for promoting (in fact paying extra for) speech known/proven to
>>> be factually inaccurate, conspiratorial in nature, and potentially harmful
>>> if taken seriously. The market also responded. Then the business in
>>> question announced changes, the person in question pledged to change.
>>>
>>> It is a rare instance where society prompted a change. Not censorship.
>>> Not cancel culture. Nothing was banned. Nobody was woke. Nobody was a
>>> snowflake. A market correction occurred.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, you can’t make jokes about
 bombs in an airport, so perhaps there are things you should not be able to
 say during a deadly pandemic. Let’s specify those things (perhaps something
 like: “can not present as fact health information found to be seriously
 harmful to public health “, though even that is probably too broad. Under
 that, anyone advocating abstinence only sex education would be banned).

 Once you identify a criteria, then you don’t rush to ban communicators,
 their employers warn them of violations, and repeated violations lead to
 termination.

 On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:16 AM Doug Eastick  wrote:

> Agreed. I've been done with him for quite a while now.
>
>
>
> /Doug
> east...@mcd.on.ca
>
> On Fri., Feb. 4, 2022, 4:37 a.m. 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV, <
> tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I used to be a big fan of Stewart, but even in those TDS days, he
>> constantly tried to both-sides almost everything. This is just the latest
>> step in that evolution.
>>
>> --Dave Sikula
>>
>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8 steve...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jon Stewart sides with Joe Rogan.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.rawstory.com/jon-stewart-backs-joe-rogan-as-musicians-continue-to-leave-spotify-this-overreaction-is-a-mistake/
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:25 PM PGage  wrote:
>>>
 This is such a stinking pile of bullshit.

 A. It is very unlikely that he will do even the almost
 microscopically small steps he promises to take here.

 B. This is not a case of a one man shop inadvertently putting
 dangerous material out there. He has been told over and over by ,any
 experts the information is false and dangerous, and has shown glee in
 disregarding them. If he was inviting Pro Nazi guests (and, I don’t 
 assume
 that he has not been) and got spanked by Spotify for tanking their 
 share
 value while they pay him a shit load of cash, it would certainly not be
 acceptable to vaguely promise to get 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[Kevin M.]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 12:56 PM PGage  wrote:

> So, it’s true there is no violation of the 1st Amendment at stake. But
> Free Expression as a value goes deeper than that. Unpopular speech should
> be protected whenever possible. Spotify banning Joe Rogan today could
> easily become Disney banning Lin Manuel Miranda in three years.
>

Spotify didn’t ban Joe Rogan, and even if they did, a company is free to
react to public criticism. They are free to host/pay whomever they want to,
and they are free to stop paying whomever they want to… or they were when
Rogan was based in California… I don’t know whether Texas is an at-will
state. Free expression includes criticism of free speech, and that’s what
happened here. Neil Young used his freedom of speech to influence an
outcome.


> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 10:05 AM Kevin M.  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:14 AM PGage  wrote:
>>
>>> As I posted earlier, I don’t disagree with JS that much. My main
>>> disagreement is with his assessment that Rogan is not an ideologue (perhaps
>>> that word is too sophisticated to apply to Rogan).
>>>
>>> But I do agree that it is dangerous in a free society to start
>>> restricting speech we don’t like - even when we are right. I despise Rogan
>>> and Carlson, despised Limbaugh. But they have a right to spew their filth
>>> (as I have a right to ignore them).
>>>
>>
>> We do go round and round on this concept, but Rogan’s speech is not
>> infringed.
>>
>> For better or worse, we purport to exist in a free market economy. Neil
>> Young made a personal professional choice to not associate with a company
>> responsible for promoting (in fact paying extra for) speech known/proven to
>> be factually inaccurate, conspiratorial in nature, and potentially harmful
>> if taken seriously. The market also responded. Then the business in
>> question announced changes, the person in question pledged to change.
>>
>> It is a rare instance where society prompted a change. Not censorship.
>> Not cancel culture. Nothing was banned. Nobody was woke. Nobody was a
>> snowflake. A market correction occurred.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, you can’t make jokes about
>>> bombs in an airport, so perhaps there are things you should not be able to
>>> say during a deadly pandemic. Let’s specify those things (perhaps something
>>> like: “can not present as fact health information found to be seriously
>>> harmful to public health “, though even that is probably too broad. Under
>>> that, anyone advocating abstinence only sex education would be banned).
>>>
>>> Once you identify a criteria, then you don’t rush to ban communicators,
>>> their employers warn them of violations, and repeated violations lead to
>>> termination.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:16 AM Doug Eastick  wrote:
>>>
 Agreed. I've been done with him for quite a while now.



 /Doug
 east...@mcd.on.ca

 On Fri., Feb. 4, 2022, 4:37 a.m. 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV, <
 tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I used to be a big fan of Stewart, but even in those TDS days, he
> constantly tried to both-sides almost everything. This is just the latest
> step in that evolution.
>
> --Dave Sikula
>
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8 steve...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Jon Stewart sides with Joe Rogan.
>>
>>
>> https://www.rawstory.com/jon-stewart-backs-joe-rogan-as-musicians-continue-to-leave-spotify-this-overreaction-is-a-mistake/
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:25 PM PGage  wrote:
>>
>>> This is such a stinking pile of bullshit.
>>>
>>> A. It is very unlikely that he will do even the almost
>>> microscopically small steps he promises to take here.
>>>
>>> B. This is not a case of a one man shop inadvertently putting
>>> dangerous material out there. He has been told over and over by ,any
>>> experts the information is false and dangerous, and has shown glee in
>>> disregarding them. If he was inviting Pro Nazi guests (and, I don’t 
>>> assume
>>> that he has not been) and got spanked by Spotify for tanking their share
>>> value while they pay him a shit load of cash, it would certainly not be
>>> acceptable to vaguely promise to get Nazis who dress better and to 
>>> invite
>>> some non Nazi guests after them.
>>>
>>> C. I am not in favor of banning people like Rogan from social media
>>> and network sites, unless they meet some specific “shouting fire in a
>>> crowded theater” criteria. While there is real choice between Neil and 
>>> Joni
>>> on the one hand and Rogan on the other, I do wish that those speaking 
>>> out
>>> against things like COVID and Voting and Election Misinformation would 
>>> be
>>> more specific and precise when calling for mis-informers to be banned,
>>> citing what really must be extreme cases that meet rare criteria.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[PGage]

So, it’s true there is no violation of the 1st Amendment at stake. But Free
Expression as a value goes deeper than that. Unpopular speech should be
protected whenever possible. Spotify banning Joe Rogan today could easily
become Disney banning Lin Manuel Miranda in three years.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 10:05 AM Kevin M.  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:14 AM PGage  wrote:
>
>> As I posted earlier, I don’t disagree with JS that much. My main
>> disagreement is with his assessment that Rogan is not an ideologue (perhaps
>> that word is too sophisticated to apply to Rogan).
>>
>> But I do agree that it is dangerous in a free society to start
>> restricting speech we don’t like - even when we are right. I despise Rogan
>> and Carlson, despised Limbaugh. But they have a right to spew their filth
>> (as I have a right to ignore them).
>>
>
> We do go round and round on this concept, but Rogan’s speech is not
> infringed.
>
> For better or worse, we purport to exist in a free market economy. Neil
> Young made a personal professional choice to not associate with a company
> responsible for promoting (in fact paying extra for) speech known/proven to
> be factually inaccurate, conspiratorial in nature, and potentially harmful
> if taken seriously. The market also responded. Then the business in
> question announced changes, the person in question pledged to change.
>
> It is a rare instance where society prompted a change. Not censorship. Not
> cancel culture. Nothing was banned. Nobody was woke. Nobody was a
> snowflake. A market correction occurred.
>
>
>
>> You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, you can’t make jokes about
>> bombs in an airport, so perhaps there are things you should not be able to
>> say during a deadly pandemic. Let’s specify those things (perhaps something
>> like: “can not present as fact health information found to be seriously
>> harmful to public health “, though even that is probably too broad. Under
>> that, anyone advocating abstinence only sex education would be banned).
>>
>> Once you identify a criteria, then you don’t rush to ban communicators,
>> their employers warn them of violations, and repeated violations lead to
>> termination.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:16 AM Doug Eastick  wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. I've been done with him for quite a while now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> /Doug
>>> east...@mcd.on.ca
>>>
>>> On Fri., Feb. 4, 2022, 4:37 a.m. 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV, <
>>> tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
 I used to be a big fan of Stewart, but even in those TDS days, he
 constantly tried to both-sides almost everything. This is just the latest
 step in that evolution.

 --Dave Sikula

 On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8 steve...@gmail.com
 wrote:

> Jon Stewart sides with Joe Rogan.
>
>
> https://www.rawstory.com/jon-stewart-backs-joe-rogan-as-musicians-continue-to-leave-spotify-this-overreaction-is-a-mistake/
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:25 PM PGage  wrote:
>
>> This is such a stinking pile of bullshit.
>>
>> A. It is very unlikely that he will do even the almost
>> microscopically small steps he promises to take here.
>>
>> B. This is not a case of a one man shop inadvertently putting
>> dangerous material out there. He has been told over and over by ,any
>> experts the information is false and dangerous, and has shown glee in
>> disregarding them. If he was inviting Pro Nazi guests (and, I don’t 
>> assume
>> that he has not been) and got spanked by Spotify for tanking their share
>> value while they pay him a shit load of cash, it would certainly not be
>> acceptable to vaguely promise to get Nazis who dress better and to invite
>> some non Nazi guests after them.
>>
>> C. I am not in favor of banning people like Rogan from social media
>> and network sites, unless they meet some specific “shouting fire in a
>> crowded theater” criteria. While there is real choice between Neil and 
>> Joni
>> on the one hand and Rogan on the other, I do wish that those speaking out
>> against things like COVID and Voting and Election Misinformation would be
>> more specific and precise when calling for mis-informers to be banned,
>> citing what really must be extreme cases that meet rare criteria.
>>
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:44 PM Kevin M. 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rogan semi-apologized… claims he’ll book better guests and get
>>> better informed on topics he babbles about. I have my doubts.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/joe-rogan-apologizes-to-spotify-and-musicians.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 6:12 PM Kevin M. 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Neil Young orders Spotify to remove his music until they get rid of
 all the anti-vax garbage on the streaming service.

 

Re: [TV orNotTV] “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[Jim Ellwanger]

By the way, here's a 2012 piece from The Atlantic with the headline "It's Time 
to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote."

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
 



> On Feb 4, 2022, at 9:14 AM, PGage  wrote:
> 
> As I posted earlier, I don’t disagree with JS that much. My main disagreement 
> is with his assessment that Rogan is not an ideologue (perhaps that word is 
> too sophisticated to apply to Rogan).
> 
> But I do agree that it is dangerous in a free society to start restricting 
> speech we don’t like - even when we are right. I despise Rogan and Carlson, 
> despised Limbaugh. But they have a right to spew their filth (as I have a 
> right to ignore them).
> 
> You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, you can’t make jokes about bombs in 
> an airport, so perhaps there are things you should not be able to say during 
> a deadly pandemic. Let’s specify those things (perhaps something like: “can 
> not present as fact health information found to be seriously harmful to 
> public health “, though even that is probably too broad. Under that, anyone 
> advocating abstinence only sex education would be banned).
> 
> Once you identify a criteria, then you don’t rush to ban communicators, their 
> employers warn them of violations, and repeated violations lead to 
> termination.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:16 AM Doug Eastick  > wrote:
> Agreed. I've been done with him for quite a while now.
> 
> 
> 
> /Doug 
> east...@mcd.on.ca 
> On Fri., Feb. 4, 2022, 4:37 a.m. 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV, 
> mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
> I used to be a big fan of Stewart, but even in those TDS days, he constantly 
> tried to both-sides almost everything. This is just the latest step in that 
> evolution.
> 
> --Dave Sikula
> 
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8 steve...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> Jon Stewart sides with Joe Rogan.
> 
> https://www.rawstory.com/jon-stewart-backs-joe-rogan-as-musicians-continue-to-leave-spotify-this-overreaction-is-a-mistake/
>  
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:25 PM PGage > wrote:
> This is such a stinking pile of bullshit.
> 
> A. It is very unlikely that he will do even the almost microscopically small 
> steps he promises to take here.
> 
> B. This is not a case of a one man shop inadvertently putting dangerous 
> material out there. He has been told over and over by ,any experts the 
> information is false and dangerous, and has shown glee in disregarding them. 
> If he was inviting Pro Nazi guests (and, I don’t assume that he has not been) 
> and got spanked by Spotify for tanking their share value while they pay him a 
> shit load of cash, it would certainly not be acceptable to vaguely promise to 
> get Nazis who dress better and to invite some non Nazi guests after them.
> 
> C. I am not in favor of banning people like Rogan from social media and 
> network sites, unless they meet some specific “shouting fire in a crowded 
> theater” criteria. While there is real choice between Neil and Joni on the 
> one hand and Rogan on the other, I do wish that those speaking out against 
> things like COVID and Voting and Election Misinformation would be more 
> specific and precise when calling for mis-informers to be banned, citing what 
> really must be extreme cases that meet rare criteria.
> 
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:44 PM Kevin M. > wrote:
> Rogan semi-apologized… claims he’ll book better guests and get better 
> informed on topics he babbles about. I have my doubts.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/joe-rogan-apologizes-to-spotify-and-musicians.html
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 6:12 PM Kevin M. > wrote:
> Neil Young orders Spotify to remove his music until they get rid of all the 
> anti-vax garbage on the streaming service.
> 
> https://twitter.com/rollingstone/status/1485757517523308548?s=21 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kevin M. (RPCV)
> -- 
> Kevin M. (RPCV)
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com <>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4CXBiHXTrjscYsGguTLkj8UtHE5qK7rT7kk5F22GG3TmA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[Kevin M.]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:14 AM PGage  wrote:

> As I posted earlier, I don’t disagree with JS that much. My main
> disagreement is with his assessment that Rogan is not an ideologue (perhaps
> that word is too sophisticated to apply to Rogan).
>
> But I do agree that it is dangerous in a free society to start restricting
> speech we don’t like - even when we are right. I despise Rogan and Carlson,
> despised Limbaugh. But they have a right to spew their filth (as I have a
> right to ignore them).
>

We do go round and round on this concept, but Rogan’s speech is not
infringed.

For better or worse, we purport to exist in a free market economy. Neil
Young made a personal professional choice to not associate with a company
responsible for promoting (in fact paying extra for) speech known/proven to
be factually inaccurate, conspiratorial in nature, and potentially harmful
if taken seriously. The market also responded. Then the business in
question announced changes, the person in question pledged to change.

It is a rare instance where society prompted a change. Not censorship. Not
cancel culture. Nothing was banned. Nobody was woke. Nobody was a
snowflake. A market correction occurred.



> You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, you can’t make jokes about bombs
> in an airport, so perhaps there are things you should not be able to say
> during a deadly pandemic. Let’s specify those things (perhaps something
> like: “can not present as fact health information found to be seriously
> harmful to public health “, though even that is probably too broad. Under
> that, anyone advocating abstinence only sex education would be banned).
>
> Once you identify a criteria, then you don’t rush to ban communicators,
> their employers warn them of violations, and repeated violations lead to
> termination.
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:16 AM Doug Eastick  wrote:
>
>> Agreed. I've been done with him for quite a while now.
>>
>>
>>
>> /Doug
>> east...@mcd.on.ca
>>
>> On Fri., Feb. 4, 2022, 4:37 a.m. 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV, <
>> tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I used to be a big fan of Stewart, but even in those TDS days, he
>>> constantly tried to both-sides almost everything. This is just the latest
>>> step in that evolution.
>>>
>>> --Dave Sikula
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8 steve...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Jon Stewart sides with Joe Rogan.


 https://www.rawstory.com/jon-stewart-backs-joe-rogan-as-musicians-continue-to-leave-spotify-this-overreaction-is-a-mistake/

 On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:25 PM PGage  wrote:

> This is such a stinking pile of bullshit.
>
> A. It is very unlikely that he will do even the almost microscopically
> small steps he promises to take here.
>
> B. This is not a case of a one man shop inadvertently putting
> dangerous material out there. He has been told over and over by ,any
> experts the information is false and dangerous, and has shown glee in
> disregarding them. If he was inviting Pro Nazi guests (and, I don’t assume
> that he has not been) and got spanked by Spotify for tanking their share
> value while they pay him a shit load of cash, it would certainly not be
> acceptable to vaguely promise to get Nazis who dress better and to invite
> some non Nazi guests after them.
>
> C. I am not in favor of banning people like Rogan from social media
> and network sites, unless they meet some specific “shouting fire in a
> crowded theater” criteria. While there is real choice between Neil and 
> Joni
> on the one hand and Rogan on the other, I do wish that those speaking out
> against things like COVID and Voting and Election Misinformation would be
> more specific and precise when calling for mis-informers to be banned,
> citing what really must be extreme cases that meet rare criteria.
>
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:44 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>
>> Rogan semi-apologized… claims he’ll book better guests and get better
>> informed on topics he babbles about. I have my doubts.
>>
>>
>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/joe-rogan-apologizes-to-spotify-and-musicians.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 6:12 PM Kevin M. 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Neil Young orders Spotify to remove his music until they get rid of
>>> all the anti-vax garbage on the streaming service.
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/rollingstone/status/1485757517523308548?s=21
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>>>
>> --
>> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[PGage]

As I posted earlier, I don’t disagree with JS that much. My main
disagreement is with his assessment that Rogan is not an ideologue (perhaps
that word is too sophisticated to apply to Rogan).

But I do agree that it is dangerous in a free society to start restricting
speech we don’t like - even when we are right. I despise Rogan and Carlson,
despised Limbaugh. But they have a right to spew their filth (as I have a
right to ignore them).

You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, you can’t make jokes about bombs
in an airport, so perhaps there are things you should not be able to say
during a deadly pandemic. Let’s specify those things (perhaps something
like: “can not present as fact health information found to be seriously
harmful to public health “, though even that is probably too broad. Under
that, anyone advocating abstinence only sex education would be banned).

Once you identify a criteria, then you don’t rush to ban communicators,
their employers warn them of violations, and repeated violations lead to
termination.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:16 AM Doug Eastick  wrote:

> Agreed. I've been done with him for quite a while now.
>
>
>
> /Doug
> east...@mcd.on.ca
>
> On Fri., Feb. 4, 2022, 4:37 a.m. 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV, <
> tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I used to be a big fan of Stewart, but even in those TDS days, he
>> constantly tried to both-sides almost everything. This is just the latest
>> step in that evolution.
>>
>> --Dave Sikula
>>
>> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8 steve...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jon Stewart sides with Joe Rogan.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.rawstory.com/jon-stewart-backs-joe-rogan-as-musicians-continue-to-leave-spotify-this-overreaction-is-a-mistake/
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:25 PM PGage  wrote:
>>>
 This is such a stinking pile of bullshit.

 A. It is very unlikely that he will do even the almost microscopically
 small steps he promises to take here.

 B. This is not a case of a one man shop inadvertently putting dangerous
 material out there. He has been told over and over by ,any experts the
 information is false and dangerous, and has shown glee in disregarding
 them. If he was inviting Pro Nazi guests (and, I don’t assume that he has
 not been) and got spanked by Spotify for tanking their share value while
 they pay him a shit load of cash, it would certainly not be acceptable to
 vaguely promise to get Nazis who dress better and to invite some non Nazi
 guests after them.

 C. I am not in favor of banning people like Rogan from social media and
 network sites, unless they meet some specific “shouting fire in a crowded
 theater” criteria. While there is real choice between Neil and Joni on the
 one hand and Rogan on the other, I do wish that those speaking out against
 things like COVID and Voting and Election Misinformation would be more
 specific and precise when calling for mis-informers to be banned, citing
 what really must be extreme cases that meet rare criteria.

 On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:44 PM Kevin M.  wrote:

> Rogan semi-apologized… claims he’ll book better guests and get better
> informed on topics he babbles about. I have my doubts.
>
>
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/joe-rogan-apologizes-to-spotify-and-musicians.html
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 6:12 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>
>> Neil Young orders Spotify to remove his music until they get rid of
>> all the anti-vax garbage on the streaming service.
>>
>> https://twitter.com/rollingstone/status/1485757517523308548?s=21
>>
>> --
>> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>>
> --
> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4CXBiHXTrjscYsGguTLkj8UtHE5qK7rT7kk5F22GG3TmA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
 --
 Sent from Gmail Mobile

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKNGVMbgh%2B_hBwOR-08KHQLBG%2Bcj%2BELCeJvWSnUZ4GF1A%40mail.gmail.com
 
 .

>>> --
>> You received this message 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: Olympics SPOILER alert

[Steve Timko]

I thought you were going to say Rudy Giuliani carried in the torch.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022, 6:34 AM 'Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV <
tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> And, a surprise, but totally expected given the times, at the end. Email
> me if you care that much. B
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/47c2f6ba-d5ff-42be-90e1-b52c6faa751en%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8yzaw7UB9PTMjnijm7nt%3DSZoD52Qy5NN6YQ4mnHdz-gbBw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Fantasia is back

[Jon Delfin]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2022, 10:16 AM 'Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV <
tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> She'll star as Celie, the role invented years ago by Whoopi


Alice Walker on line two for you.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CABCcf4dv8UFrSwRz36AMANcK29nTGR8ttwUCpdd_9TpRDLBWKQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[TV orNotTV] Fantasia is back

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

She'll star as Celie, the role invented years ago by Whoopi, in a musical 
remake of *The Color Purple,* adapted to the big screen from the Broadway 
adaptation of the 1985 Spielberg nonmusical flick based on Alice Walker's 
novel ()

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/fantasia-barrino-the-color-purple-movie-musical-1235042026/
 (link)

B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/ceae6070-4f42-42a8-8606-26fd8cede5e8n%40googlegroups.com.

[TV orNotTV] Re: Olympics SPOILER alert

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

And, a surprise, but totally expected given the times, at the end. Email me 
if you care that much. B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/47c2f6ba-d5ff-42be-90e1-b52c6faa751en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

[Doug Eastick]

Agreed. I've been done with him for quite a while now.



/Doug
east...@mcd.on.ca

On Fri., Feb. 4, 2022, 4:37 a.m. 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV, <
tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I used to be a big fan of Stewart, but even in those TDS days, he
> constantly tried to both-sides almost everything. This is just the latest
> step in that evolution.
>
> --Dave Sikula
>
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8 steve...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Jon Stewart sides with Joe Rogan.
>>
>>
>> https://www.rawstory.com/jon-stewart-backs-joe-rogan-as-musicians-continue-to-leave-spotify-this-overreaction-is-a-mistake/
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:25 PM PGage  wrote:
>>
>>> This is such a stinking pile of bullshit.
>>>
>>> A. It is very unlikely that he will do even the almost microscopically
>>> small steps he promises to take here.
>>>
>>> B. This is not a case of a one man shop inadvertently putting dangerous
>>> material out there. He has been told over and over by ,any experts the
>>> information is false and dangerous, and has shown glee in disregarding
>>> them. If he was inviting Pro Nazi guests (and, I don’t assume that he has
>>> not been) and got spanked by Spotify for tanking their share value while
>>> they pay him a shit load of cash, it would certainly not be acceptable to
>>> vaguely promise to get Nazis who dress better and to invite some non Nazi
>>> guests after them.
>>>
>>> C. I am not in favor of banning people like Rogan from social media and
>>> network sites, unless they meet some specific “shouting fire in a crowded
>>> theater” criteria. While there is real choice between Neil and Joni on the
>>> one hand and Rogan on the other, I do wish that those speaking out against
>>> things like COVID and Voting and Election Misinformation would be more
>>> specific and precise when calling for mis-informers to be banned, citing
>>> what really must be extreme cases that meet rare criteria.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:44 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>>>
 Rogan semi-apologized… claims he’ll book better guests and get better
 informed on topics he babbles about. I have my doubts.


 https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/joe-rogan-apologizes-to-spotify-and-musicians.html



 On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 6:12 PM Kevin M.  wrote:

> Neil Young orders Spotify to remove his music until they get rid of
> all the anti-vax garbage on the streaming service.
>
> https://twitter.com/rollingstone/status/1485757517523308548?s=21
>
> --
> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>
 --
 Kevin M. (RPCV)

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4CXBiHXTrjscYsGguTLkj8UtHE5qK7rT7kk5F22GG3TmA%40mail.gmail.com
 
 .

>>> --
>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKNGVMbgh%2B_hBwOR-08KHQLBG%2Bcj%2BELCeJvWSnUZ4GF1A%40mail.gmail.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/74288ca0-2899-47ef-9569-2924fbce06a4n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAK5Q1BoBQ8sgKt4tzm1TUM_cCKOBrYnaCZcNAN65y-mPv%2B-eEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[TV orNotTV] Olympics SPOILER alert

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

"Russia" was reportedly right before the Americans, but got moved up in the 
Parade of Nations.

B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/59255384-e24b-4a05-91e9-316860d2ba31n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: “You and have Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both”

['Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV]

I used to be a big fan of Stewart, but even in those TDS days, he 
constantly tried to both-sides almost everything. This is just the latest 
step in that evolution.

--Dave Sikula

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 2:51:12 PM UTC-8 steve...@gmail.com wrote:

> Jon Stewart sides with Joe Rogan.
>
>
> https://www.rawstory.com/jon-stewart-backs-joe-rogan-as-musicians-continue-to-leave-spotify-this-overreaction-is-a-mistake/
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:25 PM PGage  wrote:
>
>> This is such a stinking pile of bullshit.
>>
>> A. It is very unlikely that he will do even the almost microscopically 
>> small steps he promises to take here.
>>
>> B. This is not a case of a one man shop inadvertently putting dangerous 
>> material out there. He has been told over and over by ,any experts the 
>> information is false and dangerous, and has shown glee in disregarding 
>> them. If he was inviting Pro Nazi guests (and, I don’t assume that he has 
>> not been) and got spanked by Spotify for tanking their share value while 
>> they pay him a shit load of cash, it would certainly not be acceptable to 
>> vaguely promise to get Nazis who dress better and to invite some non Nazi 
>> guests after them.
>>
>> C. I am not in favor of banning people like Rogan from social media and 
>> network sites, unless they meet some specific “shouting fire in a crowded 
>> theater” criteria. While there is real choice between Neil and Joni on the 
>> one hand and Rogan on the other, I do wish that those speaking out against 
>> things like COVID and Voting and Election Misinformation would be more 
>> specific and precise when calling for mis-informers to be banned, citing 
>> what really must be extreme cases that meet rare criteria.
>>
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 12:44 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>>
>>> Rogan semi-apologized… claims he’ll book better guests and get better 
>>> informed on topics he babbles about. I have my doubts.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/joe-rogan-apologizes-to-spotify-and-musicians.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 6:12 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>>>
 Neil Young orders Spotify to remove his music until they get rid of all 
 the anti-vax garbage on the streaming service.

 https://twitter.com/rollingstone/status/1485757517523308548?s=21

 -- 
 Kevin M. (RPCV)

>>> -- 
>>> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4CXBiHXTrjscYsGguTLkj8UtHE5qK7rT7kk5F22GG3TmA%40mail.gmail.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> -- 
>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "TVorNotTV" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYKNGVMbgh%2B_hBwOR-08KHQLBG%2Bcj%2BELCeJvWSnUZ4GF1A%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/74288ca0-2899-47ef-9569-2924fbce06a4n%40googlegroups.com.