PDA

View Full Version : Those bad old TV blues again! :-(



CP/M User
May 2nd, 2007, 04:07 AM
Better stand-back cause I've been bottling this one all day (no thanks to Morning Telivision).

I've had a gut full of this stupid media crapping on about Male Vs Female superiority. Yes it's true Females are smarter, but why do they have to keep rambing on about this? Do they think that if they keep on this bandwagon everyone will notice - yes I've still have people which expect a male to work hard and talk at the same time - do other people (prefibly males) agree to work and talk at the same time is unsustainable to a male?

These commercial TV stations must be thinking the only people watching are Robots - I mean everyone has feelings and to pick on a group is what society doesn't want - yet they do this on TV, how can that be within the public interest?

It's crap I tells ya, absolute crap.

CP/M User.

CP/M User
November 9th, 2007, 12:22 AM
We'll now the media seem to have slightly fixed that issue.

So what are they doing now? They want to endorse teenage kids and idiots who do all kinds of pranks (in public places) on video by showing it on TV. As a result more kids and idiots are following those people who practiced it in the first place and the media are responcible for spreading this through the aid of a Television. The media are sillier than the people who cause this and the only simple message I have for Media is Pictures are stronger than words!

Druid6900
November 9th, 2007, 10:27 AM
Good, maybe it will remove some of them from the (shallow) end of the gene pool.

CP/M User
November 9th, 2007, 01:21 PM
Druid6900 wrote:

Good, maybe it will remove some of them from the (shallow) end of the gene pool.

As long as it doesn't have an impact on innocent lives.

CP/M User.

Mad-Mike
November 11th, 2007, 01:32 PM
Good, maybe it will remove some of them from the (shallow) end of the gene pool.

I agree on all counts with you on this one. There is no better population control than the natural act of Darwinism. However, I belive that the line should be drawn where it starts infringing on other's personal safety. I have no problem with someone blowing their hands off with fireworks, but if you're going to drop one of those sticks into my laptop bag, you'd better run like a mofo, because if your prank did not do you or me in, I will react in an act of self-defense and on behalf of the other's you've messed with!

As for the men vs. women debate, much of it is pollitical, on one side, you have a group of people who believe women should just cook and clean and men should be the soul breadwinners, but don't say anything because it's a sexist statement, on the other hand, you have a group that say women are equal, but in truth enjoy pushing across some silly "Fact" that they are superior to men, when in truth, neither one is better than the other, and until we can get this damn balance back into society, we're only hurting ourselves, that's how I see it.

Yes, there are differences, but they are only geared toward reproduction and survival of that one of the species. Neither one is any better than the other, they are just there. As far as the war of the sexes goes, I'll just leave it at this: Us human beings are our own worst enemies. The rest outside of instinct and hormones is freedom of choice, and that will almoist NEVER be the same for 2 people regardless of sex.

Terry Yager
November 11th, 2007, 02:00 PM
Unfortunately, Darwin's theory doesn't apply to human beings. It only concerns itself with natural selection. Whenever the breeding process is interfered with by humans, the selection is by definition, un-natural, especially as long as humans tend to select breeding partners based on factors which are not associated with survivability of the species, such as prettyness or skinniness, (a fat person has a better chance of surviving in times of famine), etc.

--T

CP/M User
November 11th, 2007, 02:28 PM
Mad-Mike wrote:

As for the men vs. women debate, much of it is pollitical, on one side, you have a group of people who believe women should just cook and clean and men should be the soul breadwinners, but don't say anything because it's a sexist statement, on the other hand, you have a group that say women are equal, but in truth enjoy pushing across some silly "Fact" that they are superior to men, when in truth, neither one is better than the other, and until we can get this damn balance back into society, we're only hurting ourselves, that's how I see it.

Yes I agree with you there. I feel that TV though has dug a little too deep on a couple of occasions though I reckon to drop even a subtle hint (which is what TV tries to normally do) it looks silly and stupid in itself. The problem is they want to do this on a Male Vs. Female case by case basis, rather than a person by person basis. In the end it should be about an individual abilities to do something. For me it took me quite some time to work out what I was good at and where my real interests are and getting work in that field.
Tonight for example A Current Affair want to talk about the people who haven't been working for years and how easy it is to get a "Job", while they might have a point there, I feel it's their right to get a "Job" which they feel right doing and it mightn't necessarily be something which there is a lot of. But the show probably has a point in that if you can do something you should go for it and when the right job comes around by all means apply for it (anyway it'll be interesting to see I guess what happens).
For me I started working on mail and data processing and while it was a job carried out by the numbers I personally got tired of it after a couple of years, I then went to a job agent who in turn had determined I had a whole heap of other interests which I could use into a job though it took me years to pursue the right kind of job because I was so involved in learning about the environment as a volunteer and student. It seems to have been beneficial though some friends of mine want to see me with a degree or something.

Like someone has said you can achieve anything you want to, though it has to come down to somebodies instinct as to what they want to do.

Thrashbarg
November 14th, 2007, 12:10 AM
Tonight for example A Current Affair want to talk about the people who haven't been working for years and how easy it is to get a "Job", while they might have a point there, I feel it's their right to get a "Job" which they feel right doing and it mightn't necessarily be something which there is a lot of. But the show probably has a point in that if you can do something you should go for it and when the right job comes around by all means apply for it (anyway it'll be interesting to see I guess what happens).

Going way off topic, why do you think unemployment is so low? If you're a qualified engineer and you can't find work, it's policy to make you take the first available job on offer. Even if it means you're stacking shelves or driving a fork lift.

The unemployment figures only measure how many people have a job, they don't measure if people are in the *right* job.

As for Natural Selection if you're one of these cluess half-wits then the only thing you're going to rely on is what comes naturally, that is to say nothing based on actual logic or rationality. So if you're going to hold a fire cracker and let it off or pour petrol allover yourself and set it on fire then you're obviously not thinking rationally and must be thinking on impulse - if at all.

That may sound like I'm saying these people think like animals when they're being stupid but what I mean is, like it or not, we are still the product of evolution and it can still have an effect on us.

"Why not just remove all the safety lables off everything and let the problem sort itself out?"


especially as long as humans tend to select breeding partners based on factors which are not associated with survivability of the species, such as prettyness or skinniness, (a fat person has a better chance of surviving in times of famine), etc.

A lot of birds base breeding on whoever has the nicest feathers. Is that in the interest of the species? I've read that good looks can be linked to firtility, and the whole point of natural selection is the survival of genes.

And on the men vs women debate - women who want to be equal to men lack imagination.

CP/M User
November 14th, 2007, 01:42 AM
Thrashbarg wrote:

Going way off topic, why do you think unemployment is so low? If you're a qualified engineer and you can't find work, it's policy to make you take the first available job on offer. Even if it means you're stacking shelves or driving a fork lift.

The unemployment figures only measure how many people have a job, they don't measure if people are in the *right* job.

Yes I wonder about this too. In addition I'm not sure if it's true or not, though some people say that people who 'Work for the Dole' aren't counted as unemployed.

Once I saw a potential subject which would make it easier for me to find work in, I decided I needed to go back to school and get that piece of paper - that has made it easier for me to get work in that field. It's a bit sad Australia has gone a little bit like this, though my voluntary work during the last couple of years prior to my studies really assisted me to the point where I could get a head start so to speak.

When I saw that ACA documentary the other day I was somewhat surprised the fields they were looking at. Hospitality work always seems to be in abundance and walking around seems to be the best way to find those jobs "if your into those kinds of jobs", the work itself can be quite sporadic and you may even need two jobs to earn a livable wage. There was some office work in there as well which maybe tricky to get (usually that was only me because I felt I had no dress sense right for the office, they probably saw me as a larrikin too), those kids wouldn't have a chance with what they were wearing on that show! :-o And they had some Factory work - again lots of Factory work, I looked a couple of times though felt it wasn't my scene! :-o I tried many kinds of jobs like Nursery hand, Farm hand jobs, some maintenance work for example before going back into studies, of all that the Farm hand work was fine and was happy to go with it, though I'm unsure how long I could carry on with it and the guy I worked for probably felt the same. I don't feel the kids portrayed on ACA wanted to offer anything to society except "think" that the Government pays them, I have no idea what background they would some from if I were to guess it would have to be from a battlers background.

As for Natural Selection if you're one of these cluess half-wits then the only thing you're going to rely on is what comes naturally, that is to say nothing based on actual logic or rationality. So if you're going to hold a fire cracker and let it off or pour petrol allover yourself and set it on fire then you're obviously not thinking rationally and must be thinking on impulse - if at all.

I sort of wonder where things like Drugs comes into play with that, some people claim that Drugs makes people do what they do which, otherwise might have a different outcome to if Drugs make people act more like Androids without emotions or if it screws with their mind to the point they don't even recall what they have done.

That may sound like I'm saying these people think like animals when they're being stupid but what I mean is, like it or not, we are still the product of evolution and it can still have an effect on us.

Ah, though is it an evolutionary process which is still continuing?

I could be incorrect by saying that a persons surroundings could lead them down the wrong path, though it's very hard not to notice where the upper crust live and where the poor reside, not that I'm suggesting for a minute that poor people are bad people, I know of a few upper crust families which have kids (or young adults) up to no good as well, I generally try to look further into the other people (friends) somebody associates with, though there could be other factors involved as well. I cannot somehow feel that if teenagers in particular blend in with troublesome teenagers it could lead them into how they become later on.
I'm unsure if this is fully responsible for how somebody becomes though - for instance I met an old acquaintance a few years back who had got some work in the Environmental field, though I knew them when we were going to Secondary school together and I always felt the people they were budding up with were trouble, though perhaps that's always being something they have being interested in, they were perhaps more than surprised to see myself doing something for the environment - they probably just thought I was some Computer Crazed nut at school. The environmental thing was simply a big coincidence for myself and something worth pursuing.

"Why not just remove all the safety lables off everything and let the problem sort itself out?"

A lot of birds base breeding on whoever has the nicest feathers. Is that in the interest of the species? I've read that good looks can be linked to firtility, and the whole point of natural selection is the survival of genes.


And on the men vs women debate - women who want to be equal to men lack imagination.

Ah you've got me there - I simply leave that kind of debate for Harry Belafonte to decide (I'm still unsure what that means though).

Terry Yager
November 14th, 2007, 09:32 AM
Theoretically, perhaps the brightly-feathered birds could contribute to survivability of the species. Since the most visible birds are more likely to fall prey to predators, and since they are usually male, are more expendable for breeding purposes, they might use themselves as bait to draw attention away from the nest, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for the ol' battle-axe & rugratz. IOW, mebbe it isn't the brightly colored male genes that contribute to survivablilty, but the better camoflage & concealment of the females'.

I recently had the pleasure of watching a sandpiper playing 'broken-wing', so I knew I was somewhere near the nest. After awhile, I figgered out just about where it was by observing the general area that the parent(s) were avoiding.

--T

Terry Yager
November 14th, 2007, 09:35 AM
Ah you've got me there - I simply leave that kind of debate for Harry Belafonte to decide (I'm still unsure what that means though).

Mebbe if you substitute Barry White for Harry Belafonte, it would be more relevant to our generation.

--T

CP/M User
November 14th, 2007, 10:16 PM
Terry Yager wrote:

Mebbe if you substitute Barry White for Harry Belafonte, it would be more relevant to our generation.

Not really, it would only make it a generation debate rather than a gender debate. According to Belafonte though "Man Smart".

If people want a generation debate, then I could probably turn it into a technological debate which would no doubt turn into a Vinyl Vs. CD debate! :-o In the end it's upto the consumer to choose which.

CP/M User.

CP/M User
April 4th, 2008, 12:32 AM
Those rotten media are back at it again - Male Vs. Female, we're getting stories about some "Test Tube" Bloke having babies and stories about women having babies without the aid of a male.

Who is the sick twisted individual that wants to keep males and females apart and separate families and create doom and gloom for the world, what kind of world is the friggin TV trying to create now - Bloody Media, there always want to change and once it's done it friggin stinks the joint out.

Ladies -ARE- smarter, though now it seems the TV wants Ladies can be totally dependant from having a male role, in fact don't have one - sure I'll buy that and instead let has a bunch of Bastards roaming the streets.

All I can say is there's some sick people running the TV network - if it wasn't for the ABC (Australia) and DVD the TV might just of had a brick where the screen sits!

Terry Yager
April 11th, 2008, 09:23 AM
Don't get me started ranting about my "Great Homosexual Conspiracy" theory, we could be here all day!

--T(Back from the Twilight Zone)

CP/M User
April 11th, 2008, 03:31 PM
Terry Yager wrote:

Don't get me started ranting about my "Great Homosexual Conspiracy" theory, we could be here all day!

Actually I never ever thought about it like that. I was thinking more about somebody simply having a thought about this and using TV as a way to brainwash the community with this junk - it's seems to be happening during certain times within the year and then it disappears, before rearing it's ugly head next year. What I'd really like to know is what kind of impact it's having on the community and what's it doing to the Australian families. Families are getting it hard (or that's the way TV portray's it) and then it backflips and suggests Men should be outcasted from families and that the lady can have it all without the aid of man! It's simply a sick perverted world out there and TV wants to have a piece of it with media simply going to extremes (that they know they can get away with), with the garbadge produced.

My question is why don't they address real issues with real people instead of tripe which seperates people and brings hate and disrespect into the community - it should be an offence to promote this garbadge.

Personally I don't watch or try to avoid watching Commercial stations because they are the real culprits - if there's any news worth reporting it's the garbadge they endorse and yet nobody is locked away for using TV in this manner. If the government owned ABC did this I think they would loose a few viewers (including myself) and at least have more concern for the environment than the other 3 commercial stations put together. Even shows like Can We Help (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/canwehelp/) are bringing people on who are encouraging the use of Native plants from their region to have in their gardens (if you have broadband or something you can watch the show online - it was on last nights episode (Episode 9 - 11 April 2008). Least they care!

Terry Yager
April 11th, 2008, 03:52 PM
I find my television spends most of it's on-time locked into the 'commercial free' Turner Classic Movie channel, where I find very little material to offend me, with perhaps the blatant exception being the old westerns, and especially their treatment of Native Americans (and to a lesser extent, Mexicans & blacks). I don't mind the treatment of the Japanese in the WWII propaganda films because I view them as a lesson in propaganda techniques. Some of the stereotypes are so over-the-top as to be almost comical (although I'm sure no "Jap" (one of the nicer terms used) would agree, especially with the references to monkeys and such). Sorry to hijack your rant, but I still don't wish to address the sexist issue.

--T

CP/M User
April 11th, 2008, 05:48 PM
Terry Yager wrote:

I find my television spends most of it's on-time locked into the 'commercial free' Turner Classic Movie channel, where I find very little material to offend me, with perhaps the blatant exception being the old westerns, and especially their treatment of Native Americans (and to a lesser extent, Mexicans & blacks). I don't mind the treatment of the Japanese in the WWII propaganda films because I view them as a lesson in propaganda techniques. Some of the stereotypes are so over-the-top as to be almost comical (although I'm sure no "Jap" (one of the nicer terms used) would agree, especially with the references to monkeys and such). Sorry to hijack your rant, but I still don't wish to address the sexist issue.

Then I guess the Sergio Leone "Fist Full of Dollars" movies are out?

In some ways I love those films because of the characters in them, sure there's the bad guys and more bad guys, though those films don't seem to me to degrade any of the characters in those films. I probably love Mexicans more than anything now! :-D

I can sympathise with you on the Native Americans though. I heard Michael Caine say on Parkinson that they were going to remake the film Zulu, though they were going to show it from the other cultures point of view, I thought that would be interesting though I've never seen the original (done in the 60s), of course it's a film I've heard a bit about though!

Terry Yager
April 11th, 2008, 07:23 PM
Yes, very Anglo-centric...

--T

Terry Yager
April 12th, 2008, 02:17 PM
Again?

--T

CP/M User
April 13th, 2008, 02:08 AM
Terry Yager wrote:

Again?

Wouldn't that mean shows like Allo', Allo' should be banned?
I guess Peter Sellers is to blame for that?

The movie which strikes me as horribly incorrect is Firefox with Clint Eastwood. In parts of the movie he's talking to some Russian in English and American accent to boot! ;-) I guess we're supposed to only imagine Clint talking in Russian (which we does in small parts of the film) though the accent still seems to sound dodgy (or perhaps it's just me). At least Sean Connery in The Hunt for the Red October is a little bit more convincing! :-D

Erik
April 13th, 2008, 07:41 AM
Terry Yager wrote:

Again?

Sorry. Terry was replying to a spam post which I deleted. I don't think his comment was intended for this thread, per se. :D

Terry Yager
April 13th, 2008, 10:36 AM
Terry Yager wrote:

Again?

Wouldn't that mean shows like Allo', Allo' should be banned?

As a staunch advocate of free speech, I would'nt necessarily 'ban' anything directed at appropriate audiences, but I do wish they would raise the intelligence level of material aimed at highly evolved creatures such as ourselves.

--T

Terry Yager
April 13th, 2008, 10:39 AM
Sorry. Terry was replying to a spam post which I deleted. I don't think his comment was intended for this thread, per se. :D

Hmmn, does look a little odd now, doesn't it? Appears as if I'm replying to my own comment. (Really, folks...I only talk to the voices in my head, never to myself).

--T

CP/M User
April 14th, 2008, 01:27 AM
Erik wrote:


Sorry. Terry was replying to a spam post which I deleted. I don't think his comment was intended for this thread, per se. :D

Ssh, I thought it fit quite beautifully.



Terry Yager wrote:

As a staunch advocate of free speech, I would'nt necessarily 'ban' anything directed at appropriate audiences, but I do wish they would raise the intelligence level of material aimed at highly evolved creatures such as ourselves.

Wouldn't that mean that the Loonie Tunes are out ;-(

I love Loonie Tunes - I'll probably still love them when I'm old and Grumpy!! :-o

Terry Yager
April 14th, 2008, 10:15 AM
As a GrumpyOldPerson(TM) myself, I find that my taste for slapstick has waned considerably over the ages, although I've come to appreciate higher forms of comedy, such as camp, even more. I still enjoy such things as classic Betty Boop et.al.

--T

CP/M User
April 14th, 2008, 10:42 PM
Terry Yager wrote:

As a GrumpyOldPerson(TM) myself, I find that my taste for slapstick has waned considerably over the ages, although I've come to appreciate higher forms of comedy, such as camp, even more. I still enjoy such things as classic Betty Boop et.al.

I vagerly recall hearing about some controversial happening about Betty Boop - of course it's probably tame now, though it's strange how perception changes through the generations, even stuff when I was watching as a kid like Dr. Who is sometimes regarded as Violent or horrific by todays standards.

My Dad is grumpy too, though still seems to appreciate a good ol' Slapstick comedy! :-D

Terry Yager
April 15th, 2008, 11:40 AM
I dunno, I think there's a limit to how many two-finger eye pokes you can see, or nyuck-nyuck-nyucks you can hear before it occurs to you that it's no longer funny...

--T