--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 191 FILM Ref: F5W00004 Date: 05/16/98 From: MAT HOUGH Time: 03:57pm \/To: LEE AYRTON (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Dvd LA>One fine Tue in May, Mat Hough wrote to Terry May: MH> (And not having to put in a second disc for the last ten or MH> twenty minutes of a movie is HEAVEN!) LA>I don't have any disk machines here, but I find this a curious design f LA>Do you have any idea why they didn't design the system to hold a comple LA>feature on one disk? The analog world of laser couldn't accommodate more than an hour per side in CLV formet. Why, I can't answer since I'm definitely not a scientific type. Due to its compression techniques, DVDs hold about 138 minutes per layer, and each side can have two layers. The amount of information distilled on a typical DVD, though, is astounding with two or three soundtracks, widescreen and standard visual versions of most movies, two or three types of captions, etc. Some (like CONTACT) also contain THREE commentary tracks which play along with the film. ___ * PW * --- Maximus/NT 3.01b1 * Origin: Win32 Support BBS Charlotte, NC 1.704.588.2669 (1:379/1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 191 FILM Ref: F5W00005 Date: 05/16/98 From: MAT HOUGH Time: 03:59pm \/To: LEE AYRTON (Read 0 times) Subj: Alien Terminator RN> Some people go to the well once too RN> often. "Alien 4" has to be just as bad, but I won't see it RN> until it comes to cable. LA>It's out on video now. I understand that it tanked at the box office. It certainly didn't make back its costs in US rentals, but adding in its worldwide take probably allowed it to break even or even show a little profit. It was a much bigger hit around the world than it was here. The video release profits will probably be gravy for Fox. ___ * PW * --- Maximus/NT 3.01b1 * Origin: Win32 Support BBS Charlotte, NC 1.704.588.2669 (1:379/1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 191 FILM Ref: F5W00006 Date: 05/12/98 From: ERIC THOMPSON Time: 11:14am \/To: TERRY MAY (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: stuff ET> It does make me wonder... Are we really so addicted to ET> television that the idea of getting rid of our TVs is so ET> unthinkable? :) TM>You don't even have to go that far. If you don't trust TM>your kids, simply put a lock on the TV while you're away. TM>Most newer TVs, VCRs and cable boxes offer this ability. Thank you, Terry. This has been exactly my point. :) Eric ___ X SLMR 2.1a X "Compared to power, crack is Fruitopia" - Dennis Miller --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Tarkin's Rift (1:106/6) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 191 FILM Ref: F5W00007 Date: 05/12/98 From: ERIC THOMPSON Time: 11:25am \/To: DAVID MASTERS (Read 0 times) Subj: Little note on DVD ET>>> This may be of interest to those keeping an eye on the DVD ET>>> format. At my last "monthly team meeting" (an excuse to ET>>> roust employees out of bed on a Saturday at 7am), it was ET>>> announced that Best Buy had sold over one million DVD movies. DM>> As compared to how many videotapes and laserdiscs during the DM>> same time period? (I still need to find this out.) TM> I'm guessing it's compared to 0 laserdiscs, since Best Buy doesn't TM> sell them (at least around here). DM>Huh... standard demographics. Announce sales, but be damn careful not DM>to compare them to anything. As I said before, this was an internal announcement, not a PR notice or advertisement. ...Unless you're accusing me of being a corporate shill (in that case, I want that in writing so I can take it to management and get extra pay). Eric ___ X SLMR 2.1a X Wizard Guild Parking ONLY! Violators WILL be toad! --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Tarkin's Rift (1:106/6) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 191 FILM Ref: F5W00008 Date: 05/12/98 From: ERIC THOMPSON Time: 11:37am \/To: GLENN CHRISTENSEN (Read 0 times) Subj: And On And On ET> Another gripe of mine. I was of age long before Houston started ET> their curfew, but it annoys me. Same about mandatory "sweep" ET> drug-testing in the schools. GC>I agree with you there. Both activities really suck. So you *do* hate rights-violating legislative placebos, except when they're *your* rights-violating legislative placebos? :) Eric ___ X SLMR 2.1a X I came real close to seeing Elvis, then my shovel broke. --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Tarkin's Rift (1:106/6) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 191 FILM Ref: F5W00009 Date: 05/12/98 From: ERIC THOMPSON Time: 12:27pm \/To: GLENN CHRISTENSEN (Read 0 times) Subj: stuff 1/ GC>Actually, no. Nothing is censored. Believe it or not, some laws serve GC>useful purpose, ET> I believe it, but unfortunately that has nothing to do with what ET> we're talking about. Instead of trying to paint my views as ET> anarchistic, why not discuss the issue? GC>You've lost me. Forcing the company (via law) to put in the V-Chip is GC>the part of the discussion you brought up. Yes, and you'd made a few remarks that seemed to straw-man my position as anarchic. GC>I simply asked the question GC>why were they only putting it in a certain percentage of the sets. Actually, you hadn't brought that up, but the original effort was to put the V-chip in *all* new TVs. It's been hampered by opposition. GC>and I think one giving parents more control over what GC>their kids are watching is nothing but good. ET> What gives you the idea that the v-chip provides this? All the ET> v-chip does is block out every program that someone *else*, not ET> the parent, decided is inappropriate for their age group. If ET> some show the parent thinks is unacceptable *isn't* rated any ET> more "adult" than, say, any other afternoon cartoon, then the ET> system won't block it without blocking everything down to the ET> 5-year-old level. And if parents think that one show in a ET> higher-maturity rating is acceptable for their children, but ET> none of the others, they can't set the TV to show them just that ET> one (it's not in the specs). GC>I don't see the beef. Naturally, no one system is gonna fit all. Then the system isn't a solution in the first place, and the government shouldn't be imposing it, even if it *was* a valid action. GC>But to GC>feed the kids 10 plates of crap so you can let them have one plate of GC>peas, in the interest of "choice" is nonsense. The only crap being fed is the government's position that the V-chip serves any purpose. ET> Keep in mind that the v-chip is *not* like any of the other ET> parental-blocking devices or services people have been able to ET> buy - if they choose - for years. GC>No. It's a heck of a lot easier to use. What, have you been on the beta-test team for it? AFAIK, no device with a V-chip has *ever* been produced. It's about one step easier to use than the off switch, and about one step more precise. GC>People keep pointing the finger GC>at parental responsibility - i.e., get it right or sink. But in the real GC>world there are people who will starve to death before eating a grub, GC>and there are parents who won't go TOO far out of their way to keep crap GC>tv from their youngsters. Pointing the figure at them isn't good enough GC>and doesn't solve the problem - as they next kid their kid shoots may GC>be yours. Children living in crumbling public housing in gang-ridden, violent, inner-city ghettos get the same TV as kids living in stable situations in the suburbs of those very same cities. And, yet, one set of children commits far more violence... If people really want to solve this problem, it's incredibly obvious that efforts would be better spent elsewhere than regulating TV. GC>I think the V-chip kind of targets these people, the vast GC>majority, in my opinion, and makes this aspect of the problem much GC>easier to handle. If I thought *that* poorly of the vast majority of human beings, I suppose I might not give a whit about their rights, either. But I don't have quite that level of contempt. And I don't accept the easy excuse that we can blame the violence in our society on TV and movies. It's a symptom, not a cause, if it's anything. GC>How are you going to find the time to research the wealth of material GC>that comes in every day on the set in order to decide whether or not y GC>want your kids to watch it? It is the flood of stuff coming in that GC>makes parents throw up their hands, not lack of parentile GC>responsibility. ET> My parents did, and they both worked jobs. If I or my ET> brother weren't allowed to watch a show, we couldn't. GC>So what? That some people managed to do this says nothing about the GC>majority out there. It says that if they genuinely tried to, they could do it. And I fundamentally refuse to help anyone with something who isn't trying. GC>Whether or not a law should exist depends on the scope of the problem, GC>and in my opinion the problem is huge. ET> The problem, truthfully, is only in the mind. GC>It's in the mind, alright, as most of the learning by mammals is. And GC>that learning comes from role models and conditioning. However, even in this media-saturated age, all the evidence shows that children get most of that conditioning from the people around them, not from the people on TV. And, frankly, if a parent can't exercise some control over that, they shouldn't have custody of their child. GC>It is impossible for me to imagine a tool more suitable to letting GC>people watch what they want which still gives parents easy control ove GC>content. ET> Why not a device that lets you block channels or specific time ET> slots on channels with a password? What an amazing invention! ET> It's lucky that there is an entire niche industry putting that ET> function in cable-boxes and separate set-top boxes. GC>Wait a minute! What's the difference from the V-chip - except that it GC>isn't as easy to use. Wait a minute - when have you used a device with a V-chip? GC>If you are going out for the evening, maybe GC>something exists in a blocked channel worth watching by the kids. Or on a rating level you've blocked. Except that while you can selectively un-block a channel (or even just one show on that channel!) with one of the current systems, you can't selectively un-block a show or channel with the V-chip. >>> Continued to next message ___ X SLMR 2.1a X You can do anything thou wilt at Aleister's Restaurant. --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Tarkin's Rift (1:106/6) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 191 FILM Ref: F5W00010 Date: 05/12/98 From: ERIC THOMPSON Time: 12:27pm \/To: GLENN CHRISTENSEN (Read 0 times) Subj: stuff 2/ >>> Continued from previous message GC>As to programming by time slots, I am just going to have to be shown GC>that every time a parent goes to leave the house they are gonna sit down GC>with a guide and go through that kind of bull. It just isn't going to GC>happen. They don't have to do that. They can set a block and leave it on as long as they want. If the parents wish to watch something on a channel or time slot that they've set as blocked, they can use a password to temporarily disable the block. GC>I would require that state highway workers put up signs if a bridge wa GC>washed out. What's wrong with requiring signs that say something isn't GC>suitable for children? ET> Because that's a judgement call that's different for almost ET> every parent? GC>Maybe so, but the problem is the same for everyone, whether they know it GC>or not. To put it bluntly, but as politely as possible, that's excrement. The "problem", as you describe it, of TV mind-controlling children into violent psychopaths, doesn't exist. Leave the judgement call of what things parents shouldn't let their children watch...to the parents. If people making movies, TV shows, CDs, computer games, etc., want to create advisories to warn parents that they might not want to let their children watch a show/listen to a CD/play a game, that's fine. Legislating that they must do it or be punished is wrong. GC>In fact, a larger requirement exists for the GC>latter than for the former, as so many lives are p*ssed away as kids GC>emulate tough guys on the tube. ET> OK...so it's more inportant to protect against the nebulous ET> possibility that people's minds may be "corrupted" than against ET> the likely *death* of human beings? Interesting viewpoint. GC>Think about it again. It is these corrupted minds out there that are GC>CURRENTLY shooting people to death. There is nothing "likely" about it. And your evidence that this has ANYTHING to do with TV is...? GC>And the pschologists do not consider this corruption a "nebulous GC>possibility." And for every single psychologist who says that TV causes violence, you can find a handful who disagree and one or two who aren't sure. In the psychological field at large, it's an issue that is *far* from settled. Kinda like multiple personality disorder. Something that's been in the literature for *decades* is now being given great scrutiny... Because a growing contingent of psychologists think it may just be delusion primarily *caused* by psychiatric treatment. GC>We force manufacturers to do all kinds of things, in case you haven't GC>noticed. ET> True, but that really doesn't serve as any sort of justification. GC>??? I was answering your point where you indicated it was "bad" that we GC>"force" this on the companies. Read it again. The fact that we already force manufacturers to do certain things does not serve as any sort of justification for forcing a manufacturer to do other things. It's a non- sequitor. GC>Business is not, generally, where one finds a lot of honorable GC>people. ET> No more and no less than the population at large, thank you. GC>Well, I wouldn't be able to find figures to support a conclusion, but I GC>tend to disagree. In my OPINION, a larger percentage of the GC>population at large will "do the right" thing, even at a cost to GC>themselves, then business will. *laugh* Yeah, right! GC> It IS the same people, but the business person has a different GC> set of pressures to respond to. With no disrespect intended, that is one of the more ludicrous statements I've recently. A person who will lie and cheat at work will lie and cheat at home. GC>Not that it should be any other way, after all, if you don't GC>work on the assumption that the business "comes first," then you are GC>likely to go under. ET> Business certainly comes first, except when you start harming ET> other people or infringing on their rights... Because, at the ET> most pragmatic level, people *sue*. GC>People couldn't sue until the laws were made/supported to the point GC>where they could. They certainly could (in theory; in practice, the legal profession, even now acts as a bar to many exercises of the common law - something I'm against). Even now, people sue for many things that have nothing to do with any law ever written. GC>But, if in the interest of freedom you would remove these GC>restrictions, then you can watch people you know die of tainted GC>foods they bought on their 50 cent an hour in wages. ___ X SLMR 2.1a X You can do anything thou wilt at Aleister's Restaurant. --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Tarkin's Rift (1:106/6) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 191 FILM Ref: F5W00011 Date: 05/12/98 From: ERIC THOMPSON Time: 12:52pm \/To: GLENN CHRISTENSEN (Read 0 times) Subj: stuff 2/ ET> And you're trying to say that these restrictions actually stop ET> that? Funny, you keep hearing about people dying from bad ET> burgers, even in this super-regulated environment. The only ET> difference from an unregulated environment is that whenever ET> something like that happens, people don't bother to stop going ET> to restaurants or chains that have these incidents: they trust ET> in the politicians to fix the problem. GC>Restrictions never STOP anything. But they sure do make certain GC>practices less prevalent and increase your chances of survival GC>tremendously. I'd like that if it *were* true. Unfortunately, it's just a comforting little mantra. Watch the restaurant inspection reports on the news once in a while, and you'll realize just how many places don't meet health department guidelines and only *temporarily* change their practices when they get a bad evaluation. (Of course, this assumes they don't simply bribe the inspectors.) GC>I can't wait until I'm poisoned to find out if I should go GC>to a restaurant or not. Neither can I. That's why I keep an ear out for reports of people who get sick from food at restaurants and don't go to places with a reputation for unhealthy food. Or I get poisoned myself and don't go again, which has happened. Yes, even at places that got a clean bill of health... GC>And yes I trust the the politicians to do what GC>they can to fix the problem. *laugh* I'd say you deserve what you'll get, Glenn, but I like you. GC>This is the kind of thing we hire politicians to do. And then, later, wonder why they didn't magically fix it. ET>And as to wages, well, I happen to think that if your labor is ET>only worth $0.50 an hour, then why should you be paid for $5+? GC>I don't know? Can you think of any reasons? Can you think of any labor GC>worth .50 cents an hour? Labor that produced just enough value to the employer to justify such a low wage would be vanishingly rare. GC>ET>(And if labor costs were dropped, people could actually buy GC>ET>burgers on that salary.) GC>No they couldn't. The first part of the industrilized age showed quite GC>conclusively that unregulated employers were quite willing to pay GC>starvation wages. I still have that photograph of a 6 year old girl who GC>stood in the dark in a coal mine opening the door every time she heard a GC>cart coming - for 16 hours a day. Yeah, when you have a plentiful supply of workers you can afford to treat like expendibles, and the government actually works to unconstitutionally prevent those workers from unionizing and taking other measures to protect their rights GC>Market pressures have never led any country to a free and fair GC>society. Not true, but I'm not going to have a completely untopical debate on libertarian theory here. GC>Why would anyone think they could? Because all the remotely free and fair societies have the least amount of restriction on the free market *and* individual freedoms. GC>They do lead to recurrent revolutions and the consequent lose of GC>many lives - in the name of freedom and fairness - but the actual GC>goals are never fully reached, and then only temporarily. And I challenge you to identify a single country with a free and open economic market (as opposed to one with groups and individuals favored by the government getting all the money) that had such a revolution. (But I think we might better take this sub-topic to netmail, if you care to discuss it.) GC>Well, I believe that the welfare of everyone's butt belongs to GC>themselves also. However, I do not extend this belief to children. I GC>would remove the seat belt laws. Conversely, if a parent had a child d GC>in a wreck and that child wasn't wearing a seat belt, I would get the GC>parent for neglect and abuse. ET> OK, would you also punish the parent if the car didn't have ET> passenger-side or side-impact airbags? Or if the car were not ET> up to some arbitrary standard of impact-hardiness? In other ET> words, would you punish people for getting cheap Fords and not ET> Volvos? GC>Come on, Eric. Naturally, this could be continued on into nebulous gray GC>areas to the point where both of us would get lost in the murk, but it GC>seems rather pointless. You've already dragged us DEEP into there. GC> We have, in the violence of our society, a very "clear" problem. No, we have an identifiable problem with no clear and total solution. I could give a few suggestions that *I* think would help significantly, but I'm not of the illusion that the problem would ever be completely solved. GC>The difference between no seat belt and a seat belt GC>represents a VERY large gap. The difference between a seat belt and GC>plus/minus air bags is much smaller. Actually, not as small as you think. And when you factor the structural strength of the car in, numerable types of crashes are completely survivable in certain cars - while the same crashes are completely UNsurvivable in many small cars, no matter how many seat belts and air bags you have... GC>I think there are grounds for GC>neglect (think GROSS, if you must) for not buckling up a kid. After GC>that, it just depends upon how much safety one wants to pile on. I can't GC>envision putting people in jail for driving Fords rather than Volvos. But you set up a slippery slope. Seat belts are a fairly reasonable and cheap-to-get safety feature. But take it a single step beyond that, and you fall deep into the murk of doing just that. ___ X SLMR 2.1a X Veni, Vidi, Vestibule (I came, I saw-I hid in the closet) --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Tarkin's Rift (1:106/6) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 191 FILM Ref: F5W00012 Date: 05/12/98 From: ERIC THOMPSON Time: 01:20pm \/To: GLENN CHRISTENSEN (Read 0 times) Subj: stuff 1/ GC>And, while I recognize the bait you are GC>setting out, yeah, I might be able to extend that view to parents who GC>failed to use the V-Chip. If I look into a yard and saw a 5-year-old GC>playing with a rifle I would certainly call the cops. And damage from GC>such instances has to be very rare compared to the damage unfettered GC>media is inflecting. ET> Ok, so what you're saying is that you would, given your ET> druthers, extend the scope of the v-chip law from the silliness ET> it is now to some government dictation of what shows parents may ET> permit their children to watch? Oh, wait, no, the networks set ET> the ratings, so that makes all the difference. Sure. Yeah. GC>???? Let's go over that again: GC>And, while I recognize the bait you are setting out, yeah, I might GC>be able to extend that view to parents who failed to use the V-Chip. ET> Ok, so what you're saying is that you would, given your ET> druthers, extend the scope of the v-chip law from the silliness ET> it is now to some government dictation of what shows parents may ET> permit their children to watch? If you're willing to punish parents for not using the V-chip, you do just that. GC>address the V-Chip use directly as currently in place. The V-Chip is GC>nothing but a sophisticated OFF knob. ET> Funny, a lot of people - even the ones who can't set their VCRs ET> - seem to understand how to use the old, unsophisticated one. GC>I suppose you still use a rotary telephone also? What do you have GC>against progress? Ha-ha. That's just sidestepping the issue. When a perfectly good solution exists (the off switch), why *impose* a new one? GC>However, it doesn't work if the GC>broadcasters don't feed us the necessary information for it to work on Actually, the information you need is "I don't like this show and/or I don't want my kids to watch it." Sorry if the broadcasters can't read your mind... [mutual silliness trimmed] ET> Well, why not buy one of the existing parental-control devices, ET> which will work better, anyway? Why blindly trust some network ET> exec to accurately rate a show that he's trying to sell to the ET> public, particularly when you distrust them so much? GC>Here is another point of consideration. Where do so many get the idea GC>that ratings would vary so much from one person to the next? Maybe because people have VERY different opinions on what shows are appropriate for children? I don't have a problem with, say, SOUTH PARK for 11-year-olds and up (the worst risk there is your kid turning into a potty-mouth, but kids have been that way for decades out-of-hearing of their parents), but I wouldn't let impressionable children watch *anything* on the Trinity Broadcasting Network without supervision and discussion. Other people's opinions may differ. GC>For GC>practically everyone, ratings revolve around just two things - violence GC>and sex. Mostly sex, for a lot of people. GC>Is it really going to be so difficult to get say, most of the GC>people to agree on what constitutes a reasonable rating system? I don't GC>think I've ever seen ANY rating system, in use or proposed, that didn't GC>basically cover the playing field. Have you? A rating system can be a decent *guide*, as the movie rating system is, but many ratings will be disputed. Many people complained that the original BATMAN got a too-low rating, for instance. DOC HOLLYWOOD had full-frontal nudity (and was PG-13) You can't always rely on a ratings system as "protection". GC>With that in mind, I can hardly be too concerned over what comes forth. GC>But if what comes forth should turn out not to be to my liking, I GC>certainly haven't given up my right to makes noise about it, vote, or GC>whatever it takes to get it changed or repealed. After all, when the gov GC>brings pressure to bare, it is usually because people are putting GC>pressure on their elected reps. But once a government system is established, it becomes a LOT of work to change or remove it. It may be a lot more than you'd be able to muster. GC>The basis of my opinion rests in my experience. When I was a preteen, GC>youngsters my age wanted to be Supermen, Lash Larues, Durango Kids, GC>Tarzans, etc. We emulated what we saw in the picture house. Honor, GC>dignity, fortitude, courage, etc., was all we saw. Today, with the GC>anti-hero being watched for an average of 5-6 hours every day, you can GC>play hell trying to find kids with any kind of ideals. ET> Let's expand upon this, since it's the only part of our debate ET> that is truely topical. Specifically, what anti-heroes do you ET> object to? GC>It sure would of been easier if you had asked me, in the context of GC>today's movies, which heros I approved of . But to clarify before GC>we get off on another tangent, I DON'T object to ANY anti-heros GC>EXCEPT in the context of viewing by youngsters. With children in GC>mind, my definition of "anti-hero" becomes VERY broad. GC>Consequently, when Bruce Willis says, "Yeah, let's nogotiate," GC>then walks out and shoots everyone down, and asks, "Anyone else GC>wanna nogotiate?" then we have an anti-hero. Every adult in the GC>theatre chuckles. For most children under 10, a room full of GC>adults just approved of lying and shooting-up a bunch of people. But this is not a children's TV show or a children's movie, correct? Any child under 10 in an R-rated movie or PG-13 movie only got in with an adult. I was specifically going for something on *TV*. GC>Bill Hickcock shoots a man down for messing with his hat. Young GC>people kill other young people for invading their turf. Well, I think it's a lot worse when kids see that last bit in *real life*. GC>Numerous GC>violent people are recruited for a job that ordinary people are too GC>"soft" for (escape from L.A. etc.) People beating each other to a GC>pulp for money. Drugs and prostitution as comedy. Killing for fun, GC>blah blah blah. As above, all the examples you brought up were movies aimed at adults. GC>Heck, that would be a monster list, Eric. Lots of good stuff there for GC>adults - but not for those who's genes are still requiring them to look GC>about for approved role models. >>> Continued to next message ___ X SLMR 2.1a X "Are you hyperventilating?" "No, I'm English." --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Tarkin's Rift (1:106/6) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 191 FILM Ref: F5W00013 Date: 05/12/98 From: ERIC THOMPSON Time: 01:20pm \/To: GLENN CHRISTENSEN (Read 0 times) Subj: stuff 2/ >>> Continued from previous message GC>mammals have to be taught how to live with other mammals. Some would GC>call this brain-washing, and maybe it is, but it is also a damn good GC>thing. ET> It's also the responsibility of the *parents* of said mammals. ET> Those basic skills are taught by *parents*, not by TV shows, ET> whose only highest goal has ever been to sell commercial time. GC>No arguement except that even among mammals the hardest lessons are GC>seldom learned from parents. Those are dealt out by society. Society being the people they interact with, not TV. GC>When business uncaringly feeds us sh*t that causes turmoil, then GC>I feel perfectly justified in fighting back. ET> By boycotting their products? By not watching their shows? ET> Something that would be effective? No, by silly legislation. GC>What is the point of constantly pointing out what should be done, when GC>what should be done is not going to get done? Those tools work, but GC>they are not going to be used, and I see no prospect of their being GC>used in a meaningful way. That's your fault, not mine. I boycott places I disapprove of. Remember the problems Texaco had a while back? It does work. Laziness is not an excuse. GC>I surely am not going to let myself be covered with a pile of it just GC>so they can have the freedom to do as they wish in enlarging the GC>bottom line. ET> If they can't have their freedom, you can't have your freedom. ET> That's the paradox of a free society. GC>Everything requires compromise to work. There is no such thing as a GC>totally free society, never has been, and never will be. There will always be restrictions; the distinction is that some are unreasonable, and unreasonable restrictions harm us all. This restriction is unreasonable. GC>Likely similararguements were made by butchers who didn't want to GC>package meat setting out where flies could get to it. (Oh no! GC>Tainted meat again! ) You mean before plastic wrap was invented? And, even if it were allowed, how much fly-ridden meat do you think they could sell when grocery stores can offer plastic-wrapped meat? Cost isn't really an issue, since the plastic wrap is incredibly cheap. GC>Anyhow, I guess it is safe to say that you think the V-chip GC>provides little at a high risk. Actually, I think it provides almost nothing at the cost of a genuine harm. GC>Conversely, I think it provides a lot at little risk. And you're welcome to your opinion until the opinion-censoring O-chip comes out. ;) Eric ___ X SLMR 2.1a X "Are you hyperventilating?" "No, I'm English." --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Tarkin's Rift (1:106/6)