Slashdot Mirror
Feature: Ticket Booth Tyranny (Part Two)
How to strike back against the petty harassment of kids trying to see movies like "South Park?, " and the usurping of decisions that should be theirs and their parents?
- Hit them in their pocketbooks. " If movie chains are going to refuse admission to movies that contain explicit sexual imagery or profanity, MP3 them. Download the movies on ICQ or Hotline, or other sites where they are becoming readily available, just as many kids did with the postponed "Buffy" finale. Watch how quickly they'll lighten up on ticket-booth vigilanteism. Harmless, funny, or overtly rebellious and political movies - "South Park," "American Pie," " Something About Mary" - are not in any sense dangerous to kids over the age of nine, or probably, even under. They are bristling with outsider geek humor and nerd sensibility.
- Squawk. Complain to theater managers; call and write movie chains. Tell them we don't want them making moral judments about what kids should see, that adults ought not be forced to intrude on their children's privacy or buy tickets to movies they don't want to see because theater chains and film studios are too dumb or cowardly to stand behind the things they make and sell.
- Improvise. Remember that the restrictions on young moviegoers are usually led by teenagers themselves, the employees of the movie chains. No studio CEO would be caught dead near an actual ticket booth talking to kids who see movies. These adolescent guardians and the movie theaters they work at can be hacked. Tell them you're a priest or minister demonstrating the pervasive reach of evil. Tell them you have a stomach disorder and have to leave the theater frequently. Tell them you're a Balkan refugee who speaks no English and doesn't dare leave the theater alone.
Also remember that, being teenagers, they are easily distracted. The kids stationed outside theaters to keep children out invariably drift off, get a snack, yak with their friends. They don't really care about the dumb rules they're enforcing.
- Kids: Be patient. Hang near the video game and wait for your chance. Ask adults leaving the theater if you can borrow the ticket stub for the movie you want to see, so that once inside, you can show it if an usher demands it. If they notice it's for the wrong time, burst into tears, whine, howl. Demand that they stop picking on you. Businesses hate scenes, especially with kids. Or buy tickets for "Tarzan," then, when the ushers stop paying attention, dart into the verboten movie. If you get caught or expelled, tell them you made a mistake, go back into "Tarzan" and try it again.
- Or get a few of your friends together and demonstrate against especially rigid theaters. Write nasty letters about them to the local paper. The very idea of protesting these silly restrictions would make news. There is no publicity a movie chain wants less than to have local kids picketing them, charging violations of their freedom.
-- Adults: Fight Ticket Booth Tyranny. Observe Take A Geek Kid To A Restricted Movie Day this Labor Day. Find a smart 13-year-old who wants to see something off-limits and take him to a movie, or, once during that long weekend, go to a nearby movie theater and help kids trying to get in. Even better, volunteer to take kids you know, too. Buy a ticket to "South Park," walk them in, then watch for a half-hour. It's a funny, biting movie, and the ushers have usually wandered off by the time you want to leave. If they haven't, tell them you're a physician, you got paged and you have an emergency appendectomy to perform. Big corporations like movie chains and video stories (studios, too) hate trouble. They're restricting access to movies because they think it will shut block-headed politicians up. If movie-goers make more noise than the politicians, they'll fold, and quickly. If all else fails, then the Web will become the world's biggest movie chain, a process already underway. Note to entrepeneurs: Time to sell popcorn and Twizzlers online.
I agreed with almost of all of Part I of this; now, I find myself disagreeing with almost all of part II. Certainly, if the kids' parents come to the theater and say "Yes it's perfectly acceptable to me that my children watch this movie that I'm buying the tickets for", the theater has no business contravening that. I for one don't think that South Park is appropriate fare for the average 14-year-old, and probably wouldn't let my kids see it if I had any, but it's very much not my decision to make on behalf of anyone else's children.
What Katz is advocating in Part II, however, is exactly that - that we usher minors into the theater, regardless of whether their parents want them to see the film. It would be a different thing if he were saying, "Find someone whose mother wants him to see the movie, but doesn't want to watch it herself, and take him in (i.e. fulfill the "Guardian" part of "Children under 17 not admitted without Parent or Guardian" - which, were it applied rationally across the entire film spectrum, I would have no quarrel with), but by suggesting that we bring in random teenagers who are likely to be at the theater in defiance of parental order, we become guilty of the same offence as the system he wants us to flout.
I will, however, make a point of going to a non-General Cinema theater if I ever get around to watching the movie for myself.
I quite agree. Sorry, I got carried away a little. Bill Gates is a powermad psychopath and only _as_ appropriate as Katz for posting stories and personal essays and crusades to Slashdot. He is not _more_ appropriate than Katz, and I retract the implication. >:)
Absolutely. It's an absolute slap in the face to be confronted with this sort of thing on Slashdot. It's hardly new to get it from Katz, but as of late the man has become messianic, and it's only funny to the extent that it's not maddening: I'm not ready to assume that there's no value to having a degree of cluefulness for story posters, or (God help us) _authors_ who will inevitably come off as official Slashdot party line definers, whether or not that is the intent.
Jon Katz _demands_ followers now. He wants a crusade. I'm not a Slashdot power figure, I'm just a reader, but I demand this: better writers. I don't care how many silly articles are _pointed_ to on the net- it's always interesting to see Slashdotter reactions to some weird concept- but I rebel, not against movie theaters as Katz demands I do, but against Katz's value system, and against the notion that he is at all appropriate for producing articles for Slashdot.
For God's sake, we are now watching a pitched battle between AOL and Microsoft over internet messaging that could leave the WHOLE FIELD completely immobilized in patents and litigation, as well as balkanizing it- and it's possible that only Slashdotters (and their ilk) can truly see where this leads, and why it is so horribly wrong no matter _who_ 'wins' each battle- and we're supposed to 'crack' into MOVIES? I could make a damned good argument that Katz is a MOLE for this sort of thing, intentionally dissipating and confusing the most public web Nerd meeting place at the behest of some powerful industry force. I don't care that he's presumably just a fool- get rid of him!
The problem is that it isn't a technical error. It's a metaphor. Perhaps you heard about those things in your high school english class. Maybe he should've spelled it out more clearly for the slashdot folks. "mp3 'em" does not mean "download the movies in mp3 format," it means "do to the movie industry with asf/mpeg/avi/mov what people already do to the record industry with mp3." It's a tactic, not a format.
Geez, slashdot people are too hung up on technical issues. The mp3 format itself is pretty irrelevant. It's a crappy-sounding format mired in patents. The underlying issues are what's important.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You can't have him arrested as a theater owner because he isn't breaking any laws. What he is doing is violating the theater's policy of not allowing children under 17 into an R-rated movie without a legal guardian. This is merely a violation of theater policy, not of any sort of law. They could kick him out without refunding his ticket, but that's about it.
If kids sneak in on their own (without Katz), the same applies. If they buy a ticket for one movie and go to another, they could theoretically be charged with trespassing, for entering a theater they didn't buy a ticket for, but most likely would just be kicked out, or made to go back to the movie they bought a ticket for.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
First off, you haven't gotten it through your head yet, you are not a "geek". No matter how much you try to be one of "us" you are below the social status of "geekdom" and have fallen directly to the rank of loserville.
So what makes you the arbiter of this "social status"?
Secondly, those rules are in place so children can go to the theaters without parents tagging along. I should be able to drop my kids off so they can have fun without "dad" tagging along, and hopefully assume that the theaters are going to enforce the legal obligation they have to bar youngsters from R rated movies. This is not something they made up, this is law.
Incorrect. Theaters have no legal obligation to bar youngsters from R rated movies. It is a voluntary thing the theaters do to prevent government regulation. The government encourages it, but does not mandate it (they merely threaten that they will if the theaters stop doing it "voluntarily"). Either way, it is not law. It is indeed something the theaters made up. Please get the facts before rambling on.
Why not suggest that 12 year olds should be able to buy cigarettes?
Cigarettes cause cancer. Movies do not.
What a dumb jerk. This guy is probably the biggest lump of dead weight holding slashdot back from greatness.
Rob disagrees with you, and it's his site. I personally enjoy the majority of Katz's articles.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I have no idea why this was moderated up. It contains blatantly false information (the MPAA ratings system is not government-run or mandated).
Hey, maybe I'll try it.
Linux is owned by Bill Gates!
Maybe I'll get a score of 3 now.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
So, because the theatre won't let them in to see this great South Park movie, they should punish the creators of South Park financially. Am I missing something?
I have a feeling that neither Trey nor Matt would be too upset about kids pirating South Park or sneaking in to see it. Sneaking in to see an R-rated movie was part of the South Park movie in the first place.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You make the same mistake that many of your fellow Katz-haters accuse him of making. You speak of "we" as if you are some sort of spokesperson for slashdotters. You are not.
Katz has the support of the majority of slashdotters. There was a poll a while back, in response to criticism of his writing, regarding whether he should stay or not. It was overwhelmingly decided that he should stay.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Listen, KatzDot fan. The simple point is that how can a man who probably can't even swap faulty hard drives be a "spokesman" for the oh so oppressed geek community?
I wouldn't consider him a spokesperson for this "community," but he is an interesting writer. Slashdot readers overwhelmingly agreed in a poll near the beginning of his tenure here that he should stay, despite the mostly negative postings in the comments area. Apparently there's a relatively small, but extremely vocal, minority of Katz-haters.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The poll was after three or four of his articles drew a ton of criticism in the comments. It was decided to put it to a vote, and the vote was overwhelmingly in his favor, despite the mostly negative comments.
The same thing seems to happen here.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Perhaps he'd lose, perhaps not. I agree that this particular story is fairly unpopular, but several of his recent stories, particularly those soon after Columbine, were quite popular, even among those who weren't regular visitors to slashdot.
He has the support of Rob, however, and that's pretty much all that counts.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You never even watched South Park, did you. Or if you did, you never recognized the message that was throughout.
Thw whole point of the movie is that parents do not take adequate responsibility for their actions, or their kids. Had Stan's mom just said "these are the reasons why Terrence and Philip are bad for you" and outlined them, everything would have been solved. But the movie would have been about 10 minutes long and not that funny. But no, the "blame everyone but me" that seems rampant through the country is what made the movie so timely and funny.
The movie theater is trying to make a buck while enforcing the laws that let them operate. You may remember a month or two ago when Washington and the Movie Theater Lobby agreed on ID checks for R movies. Turns out South Park is the first movie that really falls under this since up till now, it's been the same ol boring "Notting Hill" and "Wild Wild West". Oh, and that Star Wars movie. As it is, the theaters barely make $1 off your $8.50 movie ticket. The rest goes to the movie house. That's why they're always willing to hand out free tix, and why the concession is always so darn expensive. Watching the movie in MOV or AVI format is not only (still) illegal, but won't really hit the theater all that much.
Jon, you are an insult to anyone with a technical bone in their body. All you're doing is providing fodder to RIAA and making those of us who actually own CDs and rip them for strictly personal use look bad. Thanks for nothing.
I've always been baffled at the multiple contradictory definitions of adulthood in the United States. Most countries agree that only adults should be legally allowed to:
Vote
Marry/have sex
Operate a motorized vehicle
Join the military
Consume alcohol and tobacco
View "adult" material
Well then, wouldn't it make sense to simply say, "OK, at this age, you are legally an adult, and are allowed to do all of the following"? I think practically every civilized country does just that, and they set the age sensibly at eighteen.
Except the United States. Sixteen to drive, seventeen to join the army, eighteen to vote and smoke, twenty-one to drink. It's completely absurd.
And the worse ones are at the ends of the scale. I think if the driving age and drinking age were both set to eighteen, it would go a long way to reduce drunk driving among the young.
But they'll catch on when it hits rental and therental places report that they can't get enough copies to fill demand for weeks on end.
As a side effect, maybe it'll send a message about theatre prices as well.
It will only take two or three movies following that pattern for Hollywood to start looking for an answer.
If people take all of my advice and boycott ALL movies at theatres with bad policy, the reletive ranking of movies won't change, only the totals. When Hollywood execs find out the lost revenue is a result of theatre policy, heads will roll, I assure you.
Of course, the problem will likely correct itself first, after all, theatres can't afford empty seats either. If enough people really care about this enough to do something, I'd give the theatres two weeks to get the message.
I will participate, but since the last movie I saw at a theatre was 'The X-Files", I doubt they'll notice.
That is true, the 'appropriate' films will see a reletive improvement.
I still suspect that the overall loss will get their attention, and the quirkey rental figures will point them to the answer. They already know they can't make as much money by making only 'appropriate' films, or that's all they would make now. They will look for an answer that restores the totals to pre-boycott level.
Hitting them in the pocket is the only solution that will work. If you help kids get into the movie, you risk violating their parent's wishes.
Also, the managers win if you help the kids get in. That way, they get the money, AND get to claim moral superiority (right or wrong).
Protesting is too likely to get the wrong media spin with the manager portrayed as the victim.
What will work, is 100% legal, and runs no risk is for adults and kids to boycott the theaters that do this. If all of them do it, wait for the movie to come out on pay per-view or rental. Nothing speaks louder than a theatre full of empty seats. If they won't let you decide to let your kids see an R rated movie there, don't go there for ANY movie. After all, just because they're not causing a problem for a G rated movie doesn't mean their attitude has improved. Why support them at all?
Orderly picketing could work in conjunction with a boycott, but leave as soon as confrontation becomes an issue. The objective is to inform others, not cause a scene.
- Hit them in their pocketbooks. " If movie chains are going to refuse admission to movies that contain explicit sexual imagery or profanity, MP3 them. Download the movies on ICQ or Hotline...
So, because the theatre won't let them in to see this great South Park movie, they should punish the creators of South Park financially. Am I missing something?
-- Adults: Fight Ticket Booth Tyranny. Observe Take A Geek Kid To A Restricted Movie Day this Labor Day. Find a smart 13-year-old who wants to see something off-limits and take him to a movie, or, once during that long weekend, go to a nearby movie theater and help kids trying to get in.
If you're got the time and energy fight for a "cause", then PLEASE use that valuable initiative to do something USEFUL, instead of annoying minimum-wage employees while they're working. Go volunteer at a shelter, pick up litter, anything.
This is the lamest rant I've ever seen. Did venting some frustration over silly policy at a theatre really require a two-part article on slashdot?
The movie ratings were a Good Thing. Operative word, were. When they bgan, they were a tool for parents, just like anything else. The idea was that a parent would have to decide if their child was mature enough to see an R-rated movie, with that decision being evidenced by the parent paying for the ticket. The scheme would have worked great, but it failed for several reasons, two of which are the most prominent:
1) Parents got lazy and wouldn't do any research on the movies their kids wanted to see. They took the ratings as gospel, offloading their responsibility onto a ratings board.
2) Movie theaters wouldn't enforce the ratings, by and large (and why would they; it meant lost ticket revenue and no one was forcing them to enforce the ratings anyway). This rendered it ineffective, which parents saw. If people don't think it's effective, it's not effective.
I see two things as needing to be done with the system. First of all, it needs to move to something more content-based, like the TV ratings systems of today. Some would say that this encourages lazy parenting even more. But the fact is that parents should at least know something about the movies their kids are seeing, and if this is the only way to get even semi-meaningful information into the parents' heads then so be it.
Second, the ratings system needs to be enforced by movie theaters again. I know, I'm going to get flamed for this (which wasn't the intent). But I'd also be willing to bet that less than one percent of Slashdot readers, if even that, are over the age of 13 and that the vast majority of those have forgotten what it was like to be a kid. We weren't always mature adults; hell, some of us still aren't (as evidenced by all the FIRST POST-ers). There are some things which most kids simply haven't developed the maturity to handle seeing yet. Those who have can still see the movies, even by this system. It simply takes the consent of the people who one would hope would be mature enough to judge maturity and know the child well enough to do so accurately: the parents.
And think honestly; doubtless we all would have liked to be able to see any movie we wanted as a kid, but when you were eight or even thirteen years old would you have been able to handle Eyes Wide Shut or South Park or even American Pie? Or even if you could, would you have been able to really appreciate any of these? Perhaps a geek audience isn't the best to ask, since I'd imagine most of us were much brighter and more mature than average as kids, but you get the idea...
- it's probably illegal. Inciting a criminal action is probably against the law; I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure you can get busted for this.
- More importantly, you just doing it wrong. The correct method to protest an bad rule or law is not by petty theft, but through civil disobediance. Civil disobediance in short, demands that you get caught, and then relies on the publicity to expose the foolishness of the authority. In this case, if you go to a theatre and have a complaint about ridiculous policy, you would follow a procedure something like:
- decide the exact manner in which you are going to break the rule
- notify the press that you intend to do this, provide a date and time
- notify the theatre
- notify the police
- proceed with the action, and hope that the publicity forces reasonable action upon the theatre
petty crime will not bring about change, it will just get your ass busted. the best method for toppling an unpopular authority is through lots of publicity.--sam
--sam
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Take a geek kid to a restricted movie
Why only geek kids?
--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
I may not be as eloquent as Jon, but as a parent, it is *I* or my wife that makes the decision as to which movies my daughters (ages 10 and 11) can see. Right now, they'd love to see South Park, but my wife dislikes the show, so we'll wait for it to come out on video. They have shown no interest in American Pie, and they laughed at Something About Mary last year (they didn't understand some of the scenes).
Right now, we are kind of lucky in that whatever intrigues the girls is something that either my wife or I would like to see. Otherwise, we try to convince the kids to wait until it comes out on video... this is usually a short wait.
Will I take them to see Eyes Wide Shut? Perhaps not. We made a similar decision years ago with Sliver.
But in each and every one of these cases, it was my wife and I that made the decisions as to the suitability of a movie for our children. We don't necessarily trust an MPAA rating; they are inconsistantly applied. There are other services right here on the web such as Screen It which gives a lot more information about a particular movie than any single R or PG13 could do.
Perhaps Clinton and Congress are bemoaning the lack of parental responsibility in this country. I may be the exception rather than the rule in how I make my judgments; I cannot talk for other parents.
Having the MPAA's rating system "enforced" by theatre managers is silly, and is deserving of all the contempt you can give it.
However, Jon's suggestion that adults hang out and pick up minors to "escort" them to see a movie sends chills up and down my spine. If I were to see that, I'd probably alert the authorities.
That's just my opinion.
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
The problem isn't that little kids can't get into R-rated movies by themselves. Frankly, I agree with that point of view. The problem is that R is way to broad a rating.
"R" can mean anything from too interesting and mature for little children, to gorry violence with sex scenes. I used to see R rated movies with my father all the time when I was younger. And none of then had any content that anyone would feel funny about letting anyone see. They really need to divide the R rating so that most such movies can be viewed by anyone over 15. (without parents.) At 15, anyone is mature enough to see most R rated movies.
I was really ticked off by the theater when I saw Southpark with one of my friends. We both had to show ID (he's 17 and I'm 18) when entering the theater. Then, once seated, some guy came in to check our stubs! And we look our ages.
but it is just really grating every time I see him use the word 'geek' the way he does. I'm not saying this because I take it as stereotyping, though there is some truth to that.
I'm saying this because he has thrown the word around way too many times. Geek is now the word that means "all things that do not go parallel with the grain of the system" apparently. Here's a little refresher on the word, in case somebody forgot: geeks were the kids 20 or 30 years ago that played D&D, talked constantly about Star Trek, carried pocket protectors, were skinny and pale and wore thick taped together glasses, and above all, were antisocial. Various combinations of the above were called geeks.
Here on slashdot, people have done a remarkable job of taking this stereotype, and whittling it down to the essence of what geeks really were (are) - creative, smart, usually quirky people that are fascinated by logic, discovery, fantasy, and the like.
Katz has managed to take this bare-bones description and add things like "anyone who questions authority" so that now the hyperactive troublemaker in class that laughs himself into a fit if you say "vagina" near him and the loser that collects porn behind his parent's back and gets himself into fights at school and the class clown that stands on his desk and sings to annoy the teacher are all suddenly "geeks". And after all, we all love geeks here on slashdot, don't we? So what could be more natural than to take all these kids that are being kept out of movies and make it our crusade to take them all to see it?
Anything less would be censorship and conformity, and would add up to squelching the lofty dreams and aspirations of all those "geeks" out there.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
In general, I tend to agree with most of Katz' writing. But in this article, he first advocates "hitting them in the pocketbook", by NOT going to the movies and finding other ways of seeing them, claiming that this is a good way to fight back, since the declining profits would force theaters to take notice. Then he goes on to say "Take a Geek Kid to a Movie", essentially, "Give the Theaters More Business than they Legally Deserve". These points really conflict. You can't fight a war on conflicting fronts. If you are going to take a position and make a stand, that's fine, but this article falls apart in its attempt to show diverse methods of attack.
The other problem here is Quality of Life crimes. It's a big issue that at least the NYC government has been working to combat. It has been shown that turnstile hoppers, and guys who run red lights often have other criminal records. In other words, if someone breaks the law, they have a tendency to really BREAK THE LAW. Katz is advocating kids sneaking into theaters, taking stubs for other showings (not paying), and adults showing them that lying to break the law is a Good Thing. Since his recent theme is that parents need to show their kids the Right Way to act, and teach them to be Good People, this is completely against everything he seems to stand for. I advocate complaining, writing to congressmen, and making a scene, but blatant disregard for rules and the law is no way to teach kids the Right Way to live.
I urge Jon Katz to put a little more thought in before he writes his articles to make sure he isn't just writing popular ideas and reactionary statements, but really making a quality point.
Squawk. Complain to theater managers; call and write movie chains.
Tell them we don't want them making moral judments about what kids should see
Buuut...didn't this whole thing start when the "right-minded"
decided that they didn't like what was possibly going on
(god forbid they actually see the offending movie) and start complaining to the theatre owners,
movie studios, etc.?
How useful is complaining when the fools have already had their say
and the studios et al are knuckling under?
This whole "protect the children" crap has gone too far, and most theatre owners
would probably deal with not letting kids in than having the local PTA/church/whatever
keep hounding them.
But, by all means, go for it!
Hell, I got carded when I went to see Heat for god's sake!
Not only was I 24 at the time, but I was seeing it out in the sticks (some mall in Oshawa, ONT).
If I had seen it back in Toronto, there was no way they would have looked twice at me.
So, carding has been in place at some theatres, apparently.
POpe
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Actually, it is NOT the law. The Motion Picture Association ratings system is a set of guidelines, not a part of U.S. law. You can't get arrested for going to a movie you don't aren't old enough for. The worst they can do (if you have at least bought a ticket to SOMETHING showing at the theater) is to make you go to the movie your ticket is for. If they should decide to eject you from the premises, they must refund the purchase price of the ticket!
Is this going to work? I can tell you right now that a lot of people in the "geek community" are only idealistic to a certain point - and I'm not certain it extends all the way to "Take A Geek Kid To A Restricted Movie Day", petitions and demonstrations.
Movie ratings just aren't oppressive enough to anger people. We're lazy about this sort of thing.
A shame, really.
We should fight all forms of opression, and be fanatic to the point of being unreasonable about it. Maybe then we'll be heard. They sure listen to other fanatics. (see "decency guardians")
--- Your superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons
And let the kids buy cigarettes, too! And porno mags, and alcohol! Hey, why should the storeowners try to restrict the kids, isn't that the parents job? Bring your kid up right and he won't want cigarettes, right?
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
Yesterday, myself and 2 coworkers of mine wanted to go see Blair Witch Project. One of the guys was taking a training class that was only a mile or so away from the theater, so he went to go pick up tickets for all of us (it's been sold out constantly around here). They told him he couldn't buy multiple tickets because he's only 20, and they had just instituted a policy that you must be 25 or older to purchase tickets. Never mind that he was buying the tickets for people older than himself (I'm 22, the other guy is 23). Being quite angry at this, we started looking for ways around it. The theater was too far away to possibly make a lunch-hour ticket run.
We called up Moviephone, and purchased 3 tickets with absolutely no problem in 1 order. Anyone with a credit card could do this. At the theater, they asked for the ID of the guy who ordered them, but didn't ask to see my ID or the ID of the other guy I was with. And we weren't too obviously together, we had stood aside while he went through the line to get the tickets.
Now you're probably saying this is all fine and dandy because we were able to see a movie we were legally allowed to see without too much more trouble. And I'd agree. Except that Moviephone charges a $1.50 service charge _per ticket_. Yeah, that's not a lot of money, but it's the principle of the thing. We had to pay extra to see something perfectly legal and allowable for us to see because of a damn stupid rule.
The children don't need any protection mandated by government or corporations. If you don't want your kids to see it, that's fine. If they manage to see it anyway, then you need to work on your parenting skills.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Hey, if you're a reasonably mature teen-ager in the Dallas area, send me a note. I've been wanting to see South Park anyway. You don't have to wait until Labor Day. Heck, you don't even have to be a "geek" (is that ok Katz?).
/* Whew! That's enough anarchic pseudo-rebellion for today. Tune in tomorrow and watch me burn my library card to protest the "man". After that, we'll all go to Sam Goody and pay $13.95 for a Rage Against The Machine CD. */
A few stipulations:
My spouse wants to go, too.
I've already suffered through Eyes Wide Shut and I have no desire to see it again. Don't even _think_ about it. Sometimes, being underage keeps you from wasting 7 bucks.
Your parent(s) or guardian(s) must approve.
You're paying for your ticket.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
I have seen There's Something About Mary and South Park. I didn't really like either; the laugh-to-groan ratio was way too low (much like the latest Austin Powers flick; nowhere near as good as the first). The real issue, though, is when Katz states that they are fine for nine yr. olds.
Pardon? I don't think that a nine yr. old needs to see a fellow jacking off, or Saddam Hussein waving penises at Satan. Granted, I can see little wrong with letting a sixteen yr. old in; by the time one hits that age one is pretty used to the world. But nine is way too young. Hell, when I was nine I still thought girls had cooties (man was I wrong...).
For that matter, I didn't need to see them. I watched TSAM on a trans-Atlantic flight, so it was basically wasted time anyway. SP was just a complete waste of time and money IMHO. I've enjoyed the show (Heidy-ho Kyle! Respect my authority! OMGTKK! YB!) to a certain extent, but the movie was a) over the top b) inordinately crude and worst of all c) just not funny enough. I can forgive just about anything if the movie ends up being funny, but SP just wasn't. I realise that I am in the minority here.
But back to my prev. point: kids twelve and under shouldn't be let in to see R movies. There's generally a reason why they're R. Granted, some movies get the wrong rating, but I cannot recall the last such one.
The idea that a movie cannot harm is false for several reasons. The biggest is this: GIGO. Yes, just like a computer, our own output is a function of the inputs we have received over the years. If we've grown up watching our fathers beat our mothers, we too are likely to do the same (or poss. become extremely non-violent; the point is that it affects us). If we grow up watching propaganda we are likely to believe it (e.g: how many people now believe that the Serbs are a) evil and b) allied with the Nazis in WWII?). If we grow up watching violent movies filled with filth, gore, perversion and debauchery, then our threshold for that sort of thing is raised.
No, going to see Pulp Fiction does not make anyone (well, hardly anyone--the mentally unstable are another matter entirely) a murderer. But it raises the threshold just a hair. Add that up over the years and you get a very definite coarsening effect.
I may sound ridiculous. Ask any parent about how kids behave after seeing a movie. Even teenagers get more or less agressive for days to weeks after seeing movies. I am not advocating a ban on movies. For all sorts of reasons that would be a bad idea. But a reasonable sense of restraint is in order.
Jon Katz seems incapable of exercising that restraint.
OK, Jon, Part 1 had a good point - that movie theaters were restricting kids who obviously had parental permission because they weren't following some silly rule.
However, in Part 2, you lost out. What kind of crap is this? Take 13 or 9 year olds to movies like SP or American Pie? Kids - lie to anyone and everyone! It's OK! Parents - lie, cheat and steal rather then spend time with your kids. Here's a clue, Jon - just because a kid WANTS to see something doesn't mean that he or she is mature enough or ready to see it. That's one of the reasons that these restrictions are in place - to make sure that parents know what their children are watching, so that they can keep an eye on them. You've got this idea stuck in your head that people are mature enough from Day One, or that somehow, people become mature at a young age, like four. That's absolutely nuts. And, what is this crap about lying to get into the theater? What the hell kind of moral message is that? "Here, kids, it's OK to do whatever you want to get whatever you want! It's OK! Adults! Lie as well! Pretend you're a priest! Or a doctor! Hell, pretend you're a cop and arrest them! That'd be a great day!" C'mon, Jon. This has got to be one of the dumbest things that you have ever written. If kids want to see a film, and their parents won't let them, who are you to decide they are wrong? If the parents do care, they can sit through the movie for a couple hours. Yeah, it'd be spending time with them, which a lot of parents today would rather pull out their teeth then do, but maybe, for once, they could actually find out what their children are really like.
He means bootleg the movies in whatever format you want to... just like making an MP3 of a song and putting it on the net is bootlegging. He's not suggesting you put the movie in MP3. Frig, you people have narrow, literal minds...
When do you *have* to be responsible. We all know people in their twenties who are irresponsible, and there are millions of irresponsible people in their 30s, 40s and older. Age doesn't mean responsibility. I am 18 but I work full time during the summer, take all honors and AP classes. I would say I am more responsible than the 39 yr old deadbeat dad or lifelong welfare recipients.
Will the starter of this subthread gain a sudden burst of responsibilty and maturity when he reaches 17 that he wouldn't have now?
Realistically at 13 kids, especially geek kids, have seen the worst the media can through at us. I saw From Dusk 'til Dawn when I was around 14 or 15, and I was less disturbed by it than my parents, who saw parts of it in passing(the movie is R rated and has some nudity and is one of the more violent movies I've seen). I turned out fairly decently.
Studies that say movies harm people are always fundamentally flawed 3 ways. First, they aren't scientific, but thats minor since it would be nigh impossible to make it so. Second, cause is mistaken for effect. For instance, some studies show that serial killers have a fascination with violent movies, and suggest that the movies cause their violent tendancies. Their prejudices make them overlook the obvious-they like violent movies because they are violent. That's effect, not cause. Third, The sample groups are always the violent. From their data, it could easily be concluded that breathing causes violent behavior. Looking at all that see violent movies would show that a tiny percentage of the viewers turn violent. But then having
I'm not asking for less violent movies. Obviously, not everyone is since they tend to be very popular, whether its Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Rocky or the latest Jackie Chan. Please speak for yourself.
Yes, I sympathize with Jon's concern that noone should be setting silly rules concerning what we can see and what we should see. He made that case well, and enough has been said on that point. The anecdote of his effort to salvage a working mother's "theatre as babysitting" plan was amusing and I honor his chivalric efforts on her behalf.
On the other hand, this "call to arms" trivializes real and meaningful civil liberties issues, and worse, risks alienating virtually every moderate who had not already arrived at a position on the issue. On the scale of importance, this issue is *NOT CLOSE* to the CDA, Export Restrictions, Filter-Fads and other real and meaningful horrors of the Censorship Cabal.
Calling for criminal activity as a form of "protest," particularly in this commercial context where mere "voting with your pocketbook," is louder than any amount of lobbying is both irresponsible and counterproductive. Worse, some of the conduct advocated (helping minors to see movies without their parent's permissions) is dangerous, corrupt and irresponsible. Others have already written about the errors of these ways, so I shall not repeat those arguments here.
What I did want to add is my thought that such conduct eventually cedes the moral high ground to the censors, and fuels their position. The thrust of the pro-CDA movement is the, compelling to some, argument that we need to protect our children from the "bad stuff," whatever that might be. People are genuinely concerned for their kids' well-being, terrified that they are impotent to stop the dangers and are fed the idea that merely voting for censorship will make their children safe. This is a very effective sell to the masses, and should not be underestimated by those of us who know better.
Imagine the PR that would issue as anti-censorship folks become identified with conduct that is (or is perilously close to) a form of kidnapping. Far worse can happen to the movement should some lunatic pedophile ever do harm to a child after taking him or her to some risque film in the "name of liberty."
My point is that calls for illegal or fringe conduct in response to a purely commercial endeavor is not only a bad idea, but that it is futile and counterproductive. Ultimately, such actions play into the hands of those who advocated the foolish rules with respect to which you are protesting.
Mr. Katz advocates conduct here that is petulant, puerile and foolish. While the conduct he decries is likewise silly, nothing good will come from following his program. To the contrary, it is far more likely than not to lead to even sillier rules and restrictions from the powers-that-be.
So let's see, Katz now advocates illegal acts (like copyright violation and illegally sneaking into movies) as well as a hands-off parenting approach? Doesn't sound like libertarianism, sounds like anarchy.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
Weren't the movie rating put in place to avoid laws? I think the problem is deeper than Theater studio policy. We are, to paraphrase you, getting way too close to a "kinder, gentler" USSR.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
My boyfriend and I just spent last Saturday helping a friend of ours move for the second time in two months. The first time was when his parents kicked him out for not mowing the lawn.
He's 21. He is a night shift manager at a convenience store. They didn't understand that after coming home at 10 AM because the next guy didn't show till then, he needed to SLEEP before being expected to do anything useful.
But behind all that: He's a long-haired, black-trenchcoat-wearing, RPG-playing, pagan techno-geek. His dear old dad is a Bible-thumping, hellfire and brimstone fundie who has been screaming "SATANIST!" at him for several years now.
I had a similar run-in with my mother four and a half years ago when I came out to her as bisexual. And she's pretty liberal -- were I to have told her I'm a lesbian, that would have been fine. But obviously bisexual = screws anything that moves (um, NOT!)
Yet another friend of mine, one I looked upon as a kid-sister in college, was disowned by her parents for changing her major from a curriculum she was failing to one she understood. The real kicker here is, she's adopted. And they used that against her, no less. "Adopted kids tend to have mental problems because a stable mother wouldn't have given a child up for adoption, or even had sex before marriage" yaddayaddayadda.
And I won't even get into all the teenagers I've talked to in ISCA's support forum who are being physically and/or sexually abused by family members, or alternatively who are in the middle of a nasty custody battle between their parents where one side is accusing the other of same.
Walk a mile in the other folks' shoes, people. And while you're at it, try not to step in the "Father Always Knows Best" manure.
Sorry. This is just unusually immediate to me right now.
Seriously, folks. I can think of a lot of parents with kids my age or slightly younger who have nice, open, friendly relationships with them. Mom and I have pretty much mended our rift, and Dad's always been supportive of me regardless of what craziness I'm into -- everything from modeling school to student activism. He rocks.
And again, if the parents are giving permission, what the hell is wrong with a 15-16 year old kid belonging to the local Rocky cast? Beats hanging out on the streets, folks. But NOOOOO, RHPS is an R-rated movie, and all of a sudden won't let anyone under 17 in even WITH a parent. Bwah? I don't get it. This is completely inane.
Father doesn't necessarily know best; neither does Big Brother. Kids handle all kinds of stuff in everyday life that most of us would rather not think about or remember. How, praytell, is a string of cuss words or a naked breast or *gasp* a lesbian kiss scene going to do any further damage?
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Heh, me too.
True story:
New Year's Eve 1988/89. Just me, Mom, and Dad. Dad is blenderizing these yummy-looking things made out of champagne and orange sherbet, which I am staring longingly at. Dad smiles at me and says "Go ahead, have as much as you want!" Over the course of the night, I proceed to have three full glasses of the stuff.
Bear in mind that as this is going on I was 11 years old, just under 5' tall, and pretty skinny. But it tasted good
True story, Part II:
As I've mentioned before, I went away to college quite young. One of my friends from MBC/PEG is an immigrant from Eastern Europe, and the laws are a bit different there. Her mom sent me a care package as a 16th birthday present that, much to my amusement, included a bottle of wine.
Dad took one look at the label and said, "I'd let you have it, but that's not very good wine. Want me to get you something better?"
*heh* My father is an awesome guy
As I got a bit older (though not technically "legal"), I developed my own "rules" for how to handle alcohol: It had to be something that tasted good to me anyway (not that this is difficult -- I can be talked into trying new things quite easily), I cut myself off after two drinks unless I was around people I trusted, and over time with said trusted people I learned where my "limits" were. Oh, and I did more than my share of the taking-keys-away drill.
The drinking age has always been this irritating little thorn in my side because most of my friends turned 21 waaaaaay before I did and many of them "dumped" me for the bar scene. My best friend (and now-housemate) was nearing 22 and pretty much over that when we first became close, and I was not quite 17 at that point. Via Jason and similar-aged friends, I could get all the alcohol I could possibly want.
What I couldn't do (except in this one place that was incredibly lax about carding, yet somehow not frequented by most of the college kids) is sit down with my friends and have a drink. One drink. And now I have a younger boyfriend who is still underage, so I still don't go out to bars -- haven't been in one since my birthday, in fact.
(And in an amusing bit of irony WRT this thread, half the time I don't even get carded in restaurants or grocery stores -- only in liquor stores themselves. And I just turned 21 last October! The aforementioned bar was the place I was taken for my birthday and THEY didn't card me, either! Then again, considering the huge crowd that turned up, and my "It's my birthday -- who's buying?" pin, they probably knew. *chuckles*)
Disclaimer: I actually don't drink very much these days. Wine or a cocktail with meals out if I'm in that sort of mood (which happens maybe once or twice a month), the odd Killian's or cider when hanging out with friends, and this lovely homebrew mead that my friend Michael makes, if he's willing to share some
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
*rolls eyes*
First of all, buddy, there's a difference between just "working" at a convenience store and being the shift manager (read: Buck-Stops-Here Person) for the store. ESPECIALLY the night shift manager.
Secondly, he's probably doing more actual WORK than either you or I are doing, considering that we're posting to
And I didn't loan him ANY money
The situation as a whole is much more complex than I have any business getting into here, but it sure as hell ain't "Clerks." And it's not like his parents were exactly going to spring for school, either.
I've MET his parents. They are scary and screwed up people. I honestly believe they kicked him out because they thought he was going to be the next Eric Harris and wanted nothing to do with him. After all, he wears a black trenchcoat and is in possession of an air rifle and a not-very-sharp katana.
I don't care if you pulled yourself up from abject poverty or if you were born with a silver foot in your mouth like George Bush -- not everyone is you. And you're STILL wrong.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Issue #1 is the original incident that Jon Katz witnessed, and others like it. In other words, not allowing kids to see movies they HAD the permission to see, but that the parent wasn't going to stay for. This could have easily become an issue in my life; Mom had no interest in The Crying Game (she likes romantic comedies to the exclusion of almost all else) but had absolutely no problem with her 15-year-old daughter watching it. Dad was actually interested in seeing it, but he's a workaholic who might not have found the time while still in the theaters. ("No, really, two tickets to see this R-rated movie, for me and my Dad. He'll be here any minute
Issue #2 is that ADULTS are getting screwed with here. If I'd had to put up with that nonsense when I was picking up opening-night tickets to Elizabeth for myself (21) and my boyfriend (20), I would have been quite irritated. To say the least.
Issue #3 is closed-minded parents who scream at their kids for wanting to see a movie that happens to be rated R rather than forming independent judgments. As per my previous rant, Father doesn't always Know Best. I was incredibly blessed to have a father who was relatively into the same sort of entertainment that I was (lots of deep symbolism, lots of satire, British humour is way up there, etc) and remembered to share it with me as soon as it would do anything other than completely go over my head.
Issue #3A is that teenagers in this country are, in general, guilty until proven innocent. That there link that I just posted is about a miscarriage of justice that pre-dates Columbine by nearly six years, and has yet to be rectified. As I've posted on yesterday's thread, there is a real problem with folks assuming that your basic "oddball" teenager is going to be Conducting Depraved Satanic Rituals and Committing Heinous Crimes for Satan.
Foolish hysteria like what we are now witnessing WRT movie theaters tends to have very nasty results. Read everything on that link if you don't believe me. Three guys about my age are in jail for a crime that occurred six years ago that they clearly did not commit; one of them is on Death Row. Every time I see someone using that lovely catch-all bogeyman "Satanism" as part of what kids shouldn't see, I cringe, because I remember the West Memphis Three case.
And thanks to Littleton, something like the WM3 case is much more likely to happen again. This is an outrage. Here's a clue: Quit treating teenagers like lobotomized children, and 99% of them won't act like they are! Hello??
*sigh*
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
All of the above working together, and yes this includes the kids, dammit! After all, who does it concern most, if not them?
With respect to the filtering/censorware debate, I will NOT support CyberSitter and the like. I *do* support programs like SafeSurf and RSACi. I know that my pages are likely to contain "adult" themes (case in point: Kindred Spirits, my Amber fanfic), but it's certainly no worse than the VC Andrews novels that were passed around by my 9th grade classmates and available in our school library. I don't think my pages, at least not those pages, are much of a threat to anyone who has read the original Amber series in the first place. (Die-hard storyline purists hate me, but that's beside the point.)
As far as R-rated movies go, I thought the original rating standard was "under 17 must have permission of parent or guardian." I could be wrong, but in practice, that was how many theaters operated, and it seems to me to be the most sensible practice. Parents could give kids permission to see certain R-rated movies or all R-rated moves, and that could be on file with the theater. Perhaps the kids would have to bring a "movie card" with their name on it like a video rental card, and would have to "sign" for tickets. For those who are under 17, and whose parents will allow them to see the movies, I think that is a reasonable compromise.
Unfortunately, I've dealt with enough unreasonable parents that I worry. The Baron of my SCA group is a high-school English teacher, and he was flat-out told to stop teaching a certain book because something ridiculous like two parents in the entire school system objected. Not only that, the book was then yanked from the school library. He had no chance to defend himself, no chance to even respond, he was just told "you upset a parent and you can't do that."
This is lunacy. Jennifer's parents have no right to tell Jason and Jessica what they can't read -- Jason and Jessica don't belong to Jennifer's parents. At best, Jennifer's parents have the right to control what Jennifer reads, and I'd say that that falls apart as soon as Jennifer's old enough to walk or bus to the library by herself, or at minimum as soon as Jennifer's got the spending money saved up to buy whatever book she wants at Borders or via amazon.com.
The same thing frightens me here that frightens me with censorware and other such things. The people who are going to be reasonable human beings and discuss things rationally with their kids aren't the people who are going to feel the need to use CyberSitter and its ilk. At most, they'll set up a RSACi or SafeSurf filter for their young kids, or just tell them to keep out of porn sites.
The ones who want this stuff are the nuts. Remember from a few years back the "child molestor" on AOL who turned out to be a 19-year-old guy who fell in love with the (IIRC) 16-year-old gay son of some very homophobic parents?
I don't know precisely how to fix it. But it would be a big help if people talked to their kids and actually LISTENED to them instead of kneejerk reacting to "bad things" (like assuming that someone's support of medical marijuana means that s/he is a stoner him/herself -- blah). And unfortunately, the ones who don't want to be open with their kids about anything are the ones who want the censorware and the carding at R-rated movies.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
While some of them are perfectly good suggestions, I REALLY have to question some of what's being said here. DOWNLOAD the movie? Advocating pirating a movie just because a theater won't let you see it on the big screen? Sneaking into a movie you haven't paid for?
There are much better ways to handle the situation. Ones that aren't illegal. If a theater won't let the parent leave the children, talk to the manager, and let them know you're not returning if they keep this up. And be loud when talking to them so others know what's going on. Make people aware that the theater is being like this, then go elsewhere.
If no theater will let you do this, just wait a few months and purchase the video/DVD. And make sure to write the offices of the theaters and complain, and get others to do so.
Look, it's just a movie. There are limits as to how far this should be taken. And none of it is worth breaking the law.
I do like some of these, however. I can only smile with the thought of a group of people picketing a theater. I wonder how long it would take to get them to do something - I'm sure they wouldn't like that publicity.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
So after 6 years of being VERY verbal in interviews (though not telling anything about the movie, as with the lost AI. I was impressed) he changed his mind at the last minute? It's possible. But he often said he wouldn't edit it to avoid a rating. If you want I can post the interviews (I'm sure I could find them again). That leads me to believe that he buckled under pressures of his production company, or distributor. And from what I've been told, they removed ONE scene.
;-)
Which goes back to my point. Why is it acceptable for European audiences and not American? Because we don't want to parent. And we don't want to have to police every theater every day. Maybe the facist/nazi film patrol will allow MORE films to be made with art in mind rather than popular aceptance. But I doubt it.
Oh, and I do pay attention, but only to the information I see. I can't know EVERYTHING
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
What about the non-consenting parents? That's the issue at hand here. Everyone has to suffer because no one wants to parent anymore. I snuck into movies when I was a kid. I saw alot of stuff I prolly shouldn't have, or should have had a parent there do discuss it. But my parents didn't care, and I ended up an anti-social geek posting irrelevant comments on /. ;-)
Sure. Take a geek kid to a movie. But make sure the parents decide they should see it. And make sure they understand what they saw. Some 13 year olds can handle it. Some cannot. It happens that way. I wish it didn't, but it does. And I couldn't morally be in that position to say.
Take for example, Eyes Wide Shut (ha! I knew I'd get a chance to discuss it!!!). If Kubrick was alive it would have gotten the NC-17 rating in the States because he was very adamant about not editing the film. But it was edited. Because theatres don't want to be responsible for 13 year olds with tickets to Tarzan sneaking in because of the higher rating. They don't want to be responsible for children watching it WITHOUT their parents consent (you remeber the Showgirls mess? That was icky EVERYWHERE). I saw the movie and I loved it. Alot of 'adults' didn't understand it, and I can see how the symbology and metaphors would be LOST on a 13 year old. So what would the point of them seeing the movie be? It was a film written for adults.
South Park is an exception. It was written with 13 year olds in mind. The humor, despite it's wide appeal is very juvenile. And the vulgarity was thrown in to appeal even MORE. The point is, a 13 year old could get MOST of it. But I still maintain that the responsible parent should discuss the movie; see what it means to the child.
I don't mean to sound preachy (I realize I do). Take the geek kid. I'm behind that. But be sure it's not behind the parents back. And if the parent doesn't want to discuss it with the kid, take that role too. Who doesn't like discussing movies? It's not the film that causes children to shoot thier classmates; it's the presentation.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
I am 20. One of my best friends is 20. We made the mistake of going to see Eyes Wide Shut at a national Amusement theatre. Because we were both under 21 (!!!!!), we could not buy any additional tickets for a friend who we were going to pick up. Their corporate policy is that to buy more than one ticket for a R movie you have to be over 21. I asked, what if I am a parent and want to bring my kids to the show (highly likely in this day and age, and pertinent because R is 17 unless accompanied by parent or guardian). I also asked how could they stop me from charging the tickets, as any 18 yr old can get a credit card. These queries left them dumbfounded, naturally, leaving them to parrot on about corporate policy.
I haven't formulated my attack yet tho...
matt
I thought the first part of this article was interesting. It *is* ridiculous when a parent can't make a decision about what his or her child is allowed to see. But I don't see where sneaking
other people's kids into R-rated movies is a righteous act.
I think what we need is a slightly different system. Movies like South Park and American Pie are vulgar but not truly adult. They would be better served by something like a 14 or 15 rating (no children or preteens allowed), whereas films like Eyes Wide Shut are very much adult and should be restricted to those over 18. And any parent should be able to take their child to any movie they see fit (of course, it gets tricky when you start taking 10-year-olds to see anything in the EWS -> porn spectrum).
Kook9 out.
Yes, this all leads into the grand issue of censorship, right up there with abortion and gun control.
-------------
My $0.02
-------------
Well, why does America, (and the rest of the world for that matter) have restricted movie ratings at all?
Answer: Parents that are one with the blindfold.
These are the parents to the freinds that we all had as youths that werent allowed to come over when you were sick, and had to be home by 9:30.
Polititians must satisfy even the paranoid, for they are the stronger voice. Somehow there are no paranoid on our side -- at least not yet..!.
I can understand it, so I live with it. Its sad. But Im trying to fight it.
Approach:
All these parents that stand for the paranoid clique of society want society to sheild itself from their kids. Why do we do this? What happened to majority rules?
If they want their kids to be spoon fed pre-chewed bits of food, (Thank the hacker manifesto for that one) why don't they do it themselves, and let the rest of us see our movies..!.
Polititians will argue that the freedom of choice doesnt apply to the children, as they are too young to decide. They dont have a stabilized judgement.
I am that child.
I am 15, and I have a friend that wasnt allowed to visit me in the hospital, nor are we allowed to play football on the grass when the Green-a-Lawn truck has been around, because we might eat the grass. OR we might bring the pesticides inside, and kill the furniture. GRAND.
Yes, I may be one of the more mature youngens, but I saw terminator when I was 8 and it rocked! period.
Slashdot can be so lame. i used to really enjoy this site. i still occasionally do, but that enjoyment is frequently tempered by my exasperation with those who populate it, nay, live for it. The administrators work really hard to deliver good content. For free. The people who take time out of their busy (ok, for some of you, busy is a stretch...) day to post things try to provide something cool or interesting for you. For free. Yet so many readers _demand_ that Mr. Katz isn't so literal. You're incensed that he speaks for the 'geek community' It's ironic that so many 'geeks', so many who were or are outcasts from 'normal' society, have now banded together, risen up, and smacked down, not an oppressor, but an ally.
The population of slashdot has completely forgotten about why it was so good in the first place. The great mass of people are so caught up in their own elitism, so narrow-minded about their own computing choices, so dead-set in their ways, that they have become the very same kind of people that they purport to despise.
If you don't agree with something, argue with the point. Don't attack the writer.
Have some common courtesy, and, more importantly, some common sense.