Or, you can try to understand my point was that the RIAA is not paid per resale, which was my whole point. I was saying that how is buying a used CD any different from downloading if in both cases the RIAA isn't getting paid? (Well, ignoring the profits of the resale store. I'm not saying they are bad, but rather that from the RIAA's perspective, they are the same)
I will admit my original wording was, at best, poor, but what I was attempting to say was that the legality of such things is questions. A police officer will not raid your house for downloading an advanced screening of a movie. Especially given the further confusion of fair use. (What if you already own a movie/CD and download it?) These matters are very rarely, if ever, resolved by the government. They are almost always a matter of private lawsuits.
For another example, fan fiction and fan art, except where explicitly approved by the creators, are in fact acts of copyright infringement. You're using established and copyrighted characters and stories for your own use. However, companies find this to be free advertising in many cases, or too trivial to worry about. Yet we don't have police attempting to shut down fan-fiction.net. Why isn't DeviantART being pulled down for numerous charges?
This is why I said, though poorly, it was not illegal. Personal use, as opposed to ripping DVDs/CDs and selling them on a market somewhere, is often a very disputable act.
Yes, but my insinuation was that they're not paying the RIAA/artists for those CDs. Hence, I buy a new CD for $15. I sell it to a store for $5. Store sells that used CD for $10. Even though it's been sold twice, only once has the artist been reimbursed for the CD. Otherwise the money just goes between consumers/the stores.
Wow. You're not only a troll, but a pretty lousy one at that. (And please, for the love of God, don't play the persecuted minority card.) But let me give you a simple link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_efforts_against_ file_sharing#Criticism A list of people who have been sued for downloading songs when they didn't own a computer, know how to use one, weren't even 13, and had no clue as to either how to use a computer or the consequences of downloading. Hey, they've even tried to sue dead people!
And this list is obviously incomplete. And let me ask you: How did the RIAA find out about who took what? It obviously isn't very effective. And considering that they've gone to courts to ask for permission to lie to customers to snoop for information, they've threatened ISPs into handing over data, etc.
Honestly, if a company wanted to read your mail and check your packages for stolen goods without any warrant, would you be fine with that? I fucking wouldn't, that's for sure. So why should we put up with it in our digital mail?
And hey, here's ANOTHER question. How do you know these threatened students are guilty? You seem to have a pretty clear attitude of "guilty until proven innocent."
I mean, suppose for a second that ALL these kids are innocent. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. We don't know. But for the sake of argument, let's say they are. How, exactly, are they going to get out of this? Hire a good lawyer? Yeah, because a bunch of college students can hire a great lawyer to match wits with the RIAA's team of lawyers. Their choices include settle for thousands of dollars or... well, that's it, really.
It'd be one thing if they WERE just protecting their "rights." But they're doing so by taking wild shots in the dark, forcing people into expensive settlements, and trying to bend or break the law into their own will. That's a FUCK ton worse than downloading Paris Hilton or whoever the fuck is out there's latest overpriced shit.
And yeah, copyright infringement is NOT theft. That's why it's CALLED infringement, NOT THEFT. Theft involves taking something. I take the money from your wallet. That's stealing. I hijack your car. That's stealing. I COPY your book. That's infringement. (Notice how in all but one example you lose the ability to use the object? That is a key point)
Wait, so, this guy's plan gets EVERYBODY $9+?! SOLD!
And, hmmm, when you buy a CD used, no one but the store gets money. Clearly, these used record stores aren't supporting the artists. Do I smell money in the air?
In fact, new idea. When you play a CD more than once, you're diminishing the amount the artist makes per performance. If you play 10 songs 10 times, for a $15 CD, that means the band played 100 songs for.15 EACH, or $1.50 for the album! You, awful, horrible slavedriver! Obviously, a band should be paid at LEAST $15 per performance, so from now on, all CDs are a 1-time use item. After you play it, it self-destructs. Everyone wins!
Practice what you preach. They "broke the law?" No, they did no such thing. They allegedly "infringed on a copyright." They are two separate things for a reason. copyright infringement != theft. That's why people aren't locked up for it. They're sued.
And mind you, many of these words may be buzzwords, but at their heart, can you honestly say this is not intimidation? How many people who have NOT downloaded anything illegally have been sued? How many laws (note, LAWS) has the RIAA tried to bend/break in order to GET information on people?
And one last bit that gets said over and over again: When you pay for that System of a Down CD, 95% of that money (number made up off top of my head, point is, vast majority) goes to... the RIAA/its affiliates. Bands make money off of tours, merchandise, etc.
And for the record, no, I don't pirate music. Or anything, really. I simply don't really care for most music, and my last album (Weird Al's Straight Outta Lynwood) I did get in physical form.
This says to me that the reason women don't go into IT fields is partially cyclical. *Insert obvious PMS joke here* But seriously. Women don't go into the IT field because there's so many men that they are outnumbered, and there's so many men because women don't go into the IT field.
Also, I feel there's too much misogyny in the IT field. Dames are going to need more support and chocolate or else they'll get their fragile feelings hurt and'll stain their dresses with tears. You know broads can't take that.
At the same time, I've seen instances, quite a few, where a company produces two varieties of the same item: One for a "normal" store The other for Wal*Mart. The difference being that the Walmart version is always inferior at some level.
Personally, this does not surprise me, but it worries me. People have a hard enough time dealing with computers now. How well with the average Joe deal with them when Wal*Mart sells them a cardboard box full of rocks and calls it a PC?
If I HAD to guess what his problem, as well as the problem with his supporters, was, I'd have to say it's stupidity, greed, or, more than likely, both.
Respect him for his tenacity? If I watched a man ram his head a thousand times into a skyscraper in order to knock it down and kill everyone inside, I'm not going to admire his tenacity, I'm going to call him a fruitcake with a death wish.
The only difference is the fruitcake ramming his head into a brick wall has a slightly higher chance of surviving than the fruitcake trying to sue Microsoft.
Rather than repeat what I said above so many times, I'll shorten it: I was wrong about Imus and I apologize.
But, do I expect consistency in Democrats? I don't expect consistency, or morality, or selflessness, or progressiveness, or anything like that from any politician anywhere.
I don't like or trust any of them. Though I admit it is often a matter of which do I distrust less?
Curiously, could you provide an example of a "modern great artist," and a great work he/she/they have created? I mean, we certainly aren't in the age of Leonardo da Vinci. What construes a "great" work today? Thinking of movies and music, most of those make the most money they ever will by far in their first year. I mean, how much money is the average movie going to make after 10 years?
Me, I think of Looney Toons. Most of those cartoons were made in the 30's, the 40's, the 50's, etc. It's been over half a century, and the characters and acts have been ingrained into our culture. Look at Star Wars as well. It's been, what, 30 years since episode IV came out? Star Wars jokes and parodies and tributes are all over mass culture. Should George Lucas still have a firm grip on those works, just to alter them and repackage them to sell them over again?
I don't know. Stuff like that just does not sit well with me. I mean, if Lucas WANTS to repackage it and sell it, sure, let him. But shouldn't the original be available to the public? Of course, the means of making it available are rather difficult to think of.
In my defense, that was what he was called by people I spoke to about the whole issue. That does not make what I said any less ignorant, but... we form opinions all the time on subjects we don't understand. But if I were to try and take an action against Imus, I would certainly have learned more about him.
Or in other words, I was wrong, and I'm sorry, but I'm only human.
I think part of the problem with defining someone as a "liberal" or "flaming liberal" or "conservative," etc. is no one seems to be sure what any of them mean anymore. (Lewis Black put it well, defining a neo-conservative, "My guess is that when he watches 'The Matrix' he thinks it's real.") So, perhaps I was wrong about Imus's political views.
But yeah, I'd certainly say a lot of what he says seems to be taken out of context. And personally, I know if I were on the radio, I'd be trouble very quickly. Mostly because I subscribe to the George Carlin "you can joke about anything" school of morality. In my mind, rape can be funny. (Doesn't mean I support it, but I believe you can joke about it) Same goes for race, religion, sex, etc. Doesn't mean I believe you should judge someone based on those things, but I have no problem with racial slurs or jokes in themselves.
So, yeah, if nigger jokes were the worst he's done, who gives a fuck? I go to a community college, and I can hear the word "nigger" more times per day than I care to remember. So unless someone's actually suggesting we start lynching black people again, who cares? (Far too many people, apparently.)
Actually, as of late, I find myself watching less and less television. I've already stopped listening to the radio entirely. This is because I don't really agree with ANY of the messages it tries to push on us (that most of what's on the news is actually news, that celebrities are important people, and that we're all going to die from public enemy of the week #N).But I don't try to ban the crap from airing. Besides, I'd much rather have such stupidity removed from the airwaves a much nicer way: People just stop viewing it.
Sorry for the rant, but I just don't get why people feel the need to make their moral standards the requirement for TV and movies. I hate gory films, so I don't see them. I hate sitcoms, so I don't watch them. Ann Coulter is a stupid slutty bitch and Bill O'Rielly is an idiot if the highest caliber, so I don't buy their books, watch their shows, or listen to their programs. Why do we need to go beyond this?
Well, I was trying to hint at that spanking COULD be seen as abuse by some. Not sane people, mind you, but some nonetheless. I actually seem to remember him getting spanked sometimes, but not a whole lot.
When I was still a little kid, my brother went through what we call his "rage" period. He'd get so insanely jealous and angry over the smallest things, he'd get into a fury and break things, smash down my door, and even though I was a year older, he could easily beat me to a pulp. I was so afraid he was going to kill me.
Years later it turns out he has a number of mental conditions and it's taken years of therapy, but now he's a semi-normal boy....Okay, so I still say he's an idiot with problems out the wazoo, but that's a sibling thing. But what could my parents have done? They took him to therapy, they took him to the hospital, they punished him by taking away possessions, what else could they do? Hitting him would certainly result in reports of abuse. It really can be that some kids are just fucked up in the head.
What I'm about to say goes against just about everything modern society says to us, but I believe it's the truth: PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. WHAT WORKS FOR ONE WILL NOT WORK FOR ANOTHER. When I was a child, I was rather... obedient. If my mother said "do this" or "don't do this," I did or didn't do it, respectively (I'm sure if she said "kill a man," I might have had some objections, but thankfully, such requests were rare). I didn't really need much discipline. And when I did, taking away my games or a time out always seemed to make me feel guilty, and I apologized, etc. All in all, physical violence was not needed.
My brother, though, as I've explained, was an altogether different story. Can it be that even though we are siblings, we are quite different, and thus require different methods to develop properly? *LE GASP!*
I theorize (though I am not a psychiatrist) that some kids can learn discipline through a time out. Some may require a little yelling or a slap on the wrist. Some kids might need a good boot or a belt to their backsides. And some kids... well, some kids are just rotten, and no sweet talking or belt slapping is going to change that.
Is this view that bizarre? Whatever happened to "Some people are just naturally selfish jerks?"
I didn't mean to sound like that. Honestly, I didn't even really know WHAT he said. Mostly, because I just don't care. Why should I? Maybe it makes my opinion of him "uneducated," but the difference is, I'm not willing to threaten to sue him, or pull funding from him, or anything. He just sounded like an asshole, which is absolutely nothing new in the media.
And yes, the fact that advertisers got threatened and then threatened to pull funding is just amazing. Honestly, what percentage of the American market would boycott Pepsi or Nike or what have you because they advertise through a corporation which owns a radio channel which features one show of some stupid old coot? I'd think they'd ger MORE support if they stood up against criticism, taking a "Free speech" stance. Or maybe that's just being naive.
By the same token, I think 101% of the shows on MTV are designed for and by retarded chipmunks on acid. But I'm not willing to tell companies to stop advertising to MTV. I just... don't watch the station. I don't care, and I don't make demands. Is this really so unreasonable?
Yes, yes, I remember Yoda's exact words, but hate ALSO leads to the Darkside. It's always been my view that the suffering Yoda speaks of is caused by the Dark Side. So, I was not going for his exact phrase...
But the point is, unless we stop China from adopting Linux, then we have lost our last hope... (Unless... there is another... OSX Maybe? [Also note that this quote, too is inaccurate, but I'm simply adjusting it to context. Is that okay?])
At this point, I'm reminded of that Imus guy, or whatever his name is. That white trash old conservative radio host that made all those comments about some black girls basketball team. The thing was, yes, IMHO, he was a racist old coot. Essentially, he was what happens when you give that ranting old "GET OFF MY LAWN!" type his own radio show.
The thing is, that's what he was HIRED for. He was there to appeal to other like-minded old coots. The basketball team he offended didn't actually seem to care about what he said at first. Why should they? They're about my age, and if they're anything like me even remotely, they hadn't even heard of the guy before. And I'm pretty sure his regular listeners weren't offended. The only real explanation seems to be people who don't like him but know about him got offended. So, why should that have mattered?
At this point, would someone hire Ann Coulter without expecting her to suggest that raping, killing, and forcing religion onto some ethnic/religious/political group is not the solution to all the world's problems? Would someone hire Al Sharpton without expecting him to blame all the world's problems on racism and inequality between races?
Extremists exists on all sides, and when you hire them, you have to realize some people are going to be offended. Heck, even the not-so-extremes will still be faced by SOME outrage. But the question is, is this outrage from your target audience? If I said sliced bread sucks, should slashdot ban me under pressure from the sliced-bread lobby? My guess is that the two demographics have little overlapping.
So, this is a roundabout way of saying, longtime Opie and Anthony fans probably know that this is how they act on the show, and likely didn't care. The people who DO care don't listen to XM radio to begin with. So, where exactly was the problem?
Slashdot Mirror
Or, you can try to understand my point was that the RIAA is not paid per resale, which was my whole point. I was saying that how is buying a used CD any different from downloading if in both cases the RIAA isn't getting paid? (Well, ignoring the profits of the resale store. I'm not saying they are bad, but rather that from the RIAA's perspective, they are the same)
I will admit my original wording was, at best, poor, but what I was attempting to say was that the legality of such things is questions. A police officer will not raid your house for downloading an advanced screening of a movie. Especially given the further confusion of fair use. (What if you already own a movie/CD and download it?) These matters are very rarely, if ever, resolved by the government. They are almost always a matter of private lawsuits.
For another example, fan fiction and fan art, except where explicitly approved by the creators, are in fact acts of copyright infringement. You're using established and copyrighted characters and stories for your own use. However, companies find this to be free advertising in many cases, or too trivial to worry about. Yet we don't have police attempting to shut down fan-fiction.net. Why isn't DeviantART being pulled down for numerous charges?
This is why I said, though poorly, it was not illegal. Personal use, as opposed to ripping DVDs/CDs and selling them on a market somewhere, is often a very disputable act.
Yes, but my insinuation was that they're not paying the RIAA/artists for those CDs. Hence, I buy a new CD for $15. I sell it to a store for $5. Store sells that used CD for $10. Even though it's been sold twice, only once has the artist been reimbursed for the CD. Otherwise the money just goes between consumers/the stores.
Wow. You're not only a troll, but a pretty lousy one at that. (And please, for the love of God, don't play the persecuted minority card.) But let me give you a simple link:_ file_sharing#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_efforts_against
A list of people who have been sued for downloading songs when they didn't own a computer, know how to use one, weren't even 13, and had no clue as to either how to use a computer or the consequences of downloading. Hey, they've even tried to sue dead people!
And this list is obviously incomplete. And let me ask you: How did the RIAA find out about who took what? It obviously isn't very effective. And considering that they've gone to courts to ask for permission to lie to customers to snoop for information, they've threatened ISPs into handing over data, etc.
Honestly, if a company wanted to read your mail and check your packages for stolen goods without any warrant, would you be fine with that? I fucking wouldn't, that's for sure. So why should we put up with it in our digital mail?
And hey, here's ANOTHER question. How do you know these threatened students are guilty? You seem to have a pretty clear attitude of "guilty until proven innocent."
I mean, suppose for a second that ALL these kids are innocent. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. We don't know. But for the sake of argument, let's say they are. How, exactly, are they going to get out of this? Hire a good lawyer? Yeah, because a bunch of college students can hire a great lawyer to match wits with the RIAA's team of lawyers. Their choices include settle for thousands of dollars or... well, that's it, really.
It'd be one thing if they WERE just protecting their "rights." But they're doing so by taking wild shots in the dark, forcing people into expensive settlements, and trying to bend or break the law into their own will. That's a FUCK ton worse than downloading Paris Hilton or whoever the fuck is out there's latest overpriced shit.
And yeah, copyright infringement is NOT theft. That's why it's CALLED infringement, NOT THEFT. Theft involves taking something. I take the money from your wallet. That's stealing. I hijack your car. That's stealing. I COPY your book. That's infringement. (Notice how in all but one example you lose the ability to use the object? That is a key point)
Wait, so, this guy's plan gets EVERYBODY $9+?! SOLD!
.15 EACH, or $1.50 for the album! You, awful, horrible slavedriver! Obviously, a band should be paid at LEAST $15 per performance, so from now on, all CDs are a 1-time use item. After you play it, it self-destructs. Everyone wins!
And, hmmm, when you buy a CD used, no one but the store gets money. Clearly, these used record stores aren't supporting the artists. Do I smell money in the air?
In fact, new idea. When you play a CD more than once, you're diminishing the amount the artist makes per performance. If you play 10 songs 10 times, for a $15 CD, that means the band played 100 songs for
Practice what you preach. They "broke the law?" No, they did no such thing. They allegedly "infringed on a copyright." They are two separate things for a reason. copyright infringement != theft. That's why people aren't locked up for it. They're sued.
And mind you, many of these words may be buzzwords, but at their heart, can you honestly say this is not intimidation? How many people who have NOT downloaded anything illegally have been sued? How many laws (note, LAWS) has the RIAA tried to bend/break in order to GET information on people?
And one last bit that gets said over and over again:
When you pay for that System of a Down CD, 95% of that money (number made up off top of my head, point is, vast majority) goes to... the RIAA/its affiliates. Bands make money off of tours, merchandise, etc.
And for the record, no, I don't pirate music. Or anything, really. I simply don't really care for most music, and my last album (Weird Al's Straight Outta Lynwood) I did get in physical form.
This says to me that the reason women don't go into IT fields is partially cyclical. *Insert obvious PMS joke here* But seriously. Women don't go into the IT field because there's so many men that they are outnumbered, and there's so many men because women don't go into the IT field.
Also, I feel there's too much misogyny in the IT field. Dames are going to need more support and chocolate or else they'll get their fragile feelings hurt and'll stain their dresses with tears. You know broads can't take that.
At the same time, I've seen instances, quite a few, where a company produces two varieties of the same item:
One for a "normal" store
The other for Wal*Mart.
The difference being that the Walmart version is always inferior at some level.
Personally, this does not surprise me, but it worries me. People have a hard enough time dealing with computers now. How well with the average Joe deal with them when Wal*Mart sells them a cardboard box full of rocks and calls it a PC?
If I HAD to guess what his problem, as well as the problem with his supporters, was, I'd have to say it's stupidity, greed, or, more than likely, both.
Bad analogy. In SotC, the giant(s) were noble, but fierce creatures of dignity. Also, the hero was... well, heroic, intelligent, and clever.
Respect him for his tenacity? If I watched a man ram his head a thousand times into a skyscraper in order to knock it down and kill everyone inside, I'm not going to admire his tenacity, I'm going to call him a fruitcake with a death wish.
The only difference is the fruitcake ramming his head into a brick wall has a slightly higher chance of surviving than the fruitcake trying to sue Microsoft.
No, but I did hear his voice is a lovely tenor. Disney has a copyright on all tenor voices, as well as evey g note.
Would the Disney company like to throw their Mickey Ear hats into the ring, too?
I think that's a poor analogy. When Arthur finished the Black Knight, he had a torso and a head left.
Jack Thompson picking on Microsoft? A better fight analogy would be a paralyzed Chihuahua versus a steamroller.
Rather than repeat what I said above so many times, I'll shorten it: I was wrong about Imus and I apologize.
But, do I expect consistency in Democrats? I don't expect consistency, or morality, or selflessness, or progressiveness, or anything like that from any politician anywhere.
I don't like or trust any of them. Though I admit it is often a matter of which do I distrust less?
Me? Mate?
You must be new here.
Hmmm. Well, perhaps then, the length of copyright should be inversely proportional to the income it makes? (Like a tax bracket)
Curiously, could you provide an example of a "modern great artist," and a great work he/she/they have created? I mean, we certainly aren't in the age of Leonardo da Vinci. What construes a "great" work today? Thinking of movies and music, most of those make the most money they ever will by far in their first year. I mean, how much money is the average movie going to make after 10 years?
Me, I think of Looney Toons. Most of those cartoons were made in the 30's, the 40's, the 50's, etc. It's been over half a century, and the characters and acts have been ingrained into our culture. Look at Star Wars as well. It's been, what, 30 years since episode IV came out? Star Wars jokes and parodies and tributes are all over mass culture. Should George Lucas still have a firm grip on those works, just to alter them and repackage them to sell them over again?
I don't know. Stuff like that just does not sit well with me. I mean, if Lucas WANTS to repackage it and sell it, sure, let him. But shouldn't the original be available to the public? Of course, the means of making it available are rather difficult to think of.
In my defense, that was what he was called by people I spoke to about the whole issue. That does not make what I said any less ignorant, but... we form opinions all the time on subjects we don't understand. But if I were to try and take an action against Imus, I would certainly have learned more about him.
Or in other words, I was wrong, and I'm sorry, but I'm only human.
I think part of the problem with defining someone as a "liberal" or "flaming liberal" or "conservative," etc. is no one seems to be sure what any of them mean anymore. (Lewis Black put it well, defining a neo-conservative, "My guess is that when he watches 'The Matrix' he thinks it's real.") So, perhaps I was wrong about Imus's political views.
But yeah, I'd certainly say a lot of what he says seems to be taken out of context. And personally, I know if I were on the radio, I'd be trouble very quickly. Mostly because I subscribe to the George Carlin "you can joke about anything" school of morality. In my mind, rape can be funny. (Doesn't mean I support it, but I believe you can joke about it) Same goes for race, religion, sex, etc. Doesn't mean I believe you should judge someone based on those things, but I have no problem with racial slurs or jokes in themselves.
So, yeah, if nigger jokes were the worst he's done, who gives a fuck? I go to a community college, and I can hear the word "nigger" more times per day than I care to remember. So unless someone's actually suggesting we start lynching black people again, who cares? (Far too many people, apparently.)
Actually, as of late, I find myself watching less and less television. I've already stopped listening to the radio entirely. This is because I don't really agree with ANY of the messages it tries to push on us (that most of what's on the news is actually news, that celebrities are important people, and that we're all going to die from public enemy of the week #N).But I don't try to ban the crap from airing. Besides, I'd much rather have such stupidity removed from the airwaves a much nicer way: People just stop viewing it.
Sorry for the rant, but I just don't get why people feel the need to make their moral standards the requirement for TV and movies. I hate gory films, so I don't see them. I hate sitcoms, so I don't watch them. Ann Coulter is a stupid slutty bitch and Bill O'Rielly is an idiot if the highest caliber, so I don't buy their books, watch their shows, or listen to their programs. Why do we need to go beyond this?
Well, I was trying to hint at that spanking COULD be seen as abuse by some. Not sane people, mind you, but some nonetheless. I actually seem to remember him getting spanked sometimes, but not a whole lot.
When I was still a little kid, my brother went through what we call his "rage" period. He'd get so insanely jealous and angry over the smallest things, he'd get into a fury and break things, smash down my door, and even though I was a year older, he could easily beat me to a pulp. I was so afraid he was going to kill me.
...Okay, so I still say he's an idiot with problems out the wazoo, but that's a sibling thing. But what could my parents have done? They took him to therapy, they took him to the hospital, they punished him by taking away possessions, what else could they do? Hitting him would certainly result in reports of abuse. It really can be that some kids are just fucked up in the head.
Years later it turns out he has a number of mental conditions and it's taken years of therapy, but now he's a semi-normal boy.
What I'm about to say goes against just about everything modern society says to us, but I believe it's the truth:
PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT. WHAT WORKS FOR ONE WILL NOT WORK FOR ANOTHER.
When I was a child, I was rather... obedient. If my mother said "do this" or "don't do this," I did or didn't do it, respectively (I'm sure if she said "kill a man," I might have had some objections, but thankfully, such requests were rare). I didn't really need much discipline. And when I did, taking away my games or a time out always seemed to make me feel guilty, and I apologized, etc. All in all, physical violence was not needed.
My brother, though, as I've explained, was an altogether different story. Can it be that even though we are siblings, we are quite different, and thus require different methods to develop properly? *LE GASP!*
I theorize (though I am not a psychiatrist) that some kids can learn discipline through a time out. Some may require a little yelling or a slap on the wrist. Some kids might need a good boot or a belt to their backsides. And some kids... well, some kids are just rotten, and no sweet talking or belt slapping is going to change that.
Is this view that bizarre? Whatever happened to "Some people are just naturally selfish jerks?"
I didn't mean to sound like that. Honestly, I didn't even really know WHAT he said. Mostly, because I just don't care. Why should I? Maybe it makes my opinion of him "uneducated," but the difference is, I'm not willing to threaten to sue him, or pull funding from him, or anything. He just sounded like an asshole, which is absolutely nothing new in the media.
And yes, the fact that advertisers got threatened and then threatened to pull funding is just amazing. Honestly, what percentage of the American market would boycott Pepsi or Nike or what have you because they advertise through a corporation which owns a radio channel which features one show of some stupid old coot? I'd think they'd ger MORE support if they stood up against criticism, taking a "Free speech" stance. Or maybe that's just being naive.
By the same token, I think 101% of the shows on MTV are designed for and by retarded chipmunks on acid. But I'm not willing to tell companies to stop advertising to MTV. I just... don't watch the station. I don't care, and I don't make demands. Is this really so unreasonable?
To be fair, I never really looked into his background. I simply spoke to my family and they said he was a "conservative." Whatever that means anymore.
But yeah, whatever you call him, he had his demographic. As long as he was appealing to that demographic, then there really isn't a problem, is there?
Yes, yes, I remember Yoda's exact words, but hate ALSO leads to the Darkside. It's always been my view that the suffering Yoda speaks of is caused by the Dark Side. So, I was not going for his exact phrase...
But the point is, unless we stop China from adopting Linux, then we have lost our last hope... (Unless... there is another... OSX Maybe? [Also note that this quote, too is inaccurate, but I'm simply adjusting it to context. Is that okay?])
At this point, I'm reminded of that Imus guy, or whatever his name is. That white trash old conservative radio host that made all those comments about some black girls basketball team. The thing was, yes, IMHO, he was a racist old coot. Essentially, he was what happens when you give that ranting old "GET OFF MY LAWN!" type his own radio show.
The thing is, that's what he was HIRED for. He was there to appeal to other like-minded old coots. The basketball team he offended didn't actually seem to care about what he said at first. Why should they? They're about my age, and if they're anything like me even remotely, they hadn't even heard of the guy before. And I'm pretty sure his regular listeners weren't offended. The only real explanation seems to be people who don't like him but know about him got offended. So, why should that have mattered?
At this point, would someone hire Ann Coulter without expecting her to suggest that raping, killing, and forcing religion onto some ethnic/religious/political group is not the solution to all the world's problems? Would someone hire Al Sharpton without expecting him to blame all the world's problems on racism and inequality between races?
Extremists exists on all sides, and when you hire them, you have to realize some people are going to be offended. Heck, even the not-so-extremes will still be faced by SOME outrage. But the question is, is this outrage from your target audience? If I said sliced bread sucks, should slashdot ban me under pressure from the sliced-bread lobby? My guess is that the two demographics have little overlapping.
So, this is a roundabout way of saying, longtime Opie and Anthony fans probably know that this is how they act on the show, and likely didn't care. The people who DO care don't listen to XM radio to begin with. So, where exactly was the problem?