From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #117 Reply-To: ammf@smoe.org Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Friday, July 17 1998 Volume 01 : Number 117 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: CDA (was: greetings from Alberta!) ["Demetriou, Melanie" ] Re: Moxy Tshirts [Chad Maloney ] RE: CDA (The sky is falling!) ["Demetriou, Melanie" Subject: RE: CDA (was: greetings from Alberta!) On Tuesday, July 14, 1998 6:53 PM, dot0926@aol.com [SMTP:dot0926@aol.com] wrote: > i agree with you 100% that childeren should not be downloading pornography off > the internet or something to that extent, however, have you ever watched a > typical cartoon? in under a minute there is usualy a shooting, someone falling > off a cliff, someone getting knocked on the head with a mallet, etc. would > this fall under the violence category? Yes, it does. Older cartoons, and imho, current ones, are very violent. My daughter doesn't watch them. > what about mature themes? in your typical archie comic book we see our teenage > hero lusting after various scantily clad buxom young women. Same answer. Sexism in any form is offensive to me. > these examples point out how hypocritical society has become, that through one > supposedly tame media such things are allowed, yet in another, are called > obsene. "Society" is completely hypocritical. That's because the individuals who make up society are a) hypocritical personally and b) different from each other. America especially seems to be having trouble defining what it wants for itself. By the way, society didn't just suddenly become hypocritical. I won't say it's human nature (even tho' it is), but think about the Victorians, the Crusades, & the Declaration of Independence, to name of few examples of societal hypocrisy in action. It will not be eliminated, any more than anger, defensiveness or a desire to look good to others will be eliminated. It must be dealt with, worked around. It's not going away. > now, you mentioned the "latch key kids", who have no parental figures at home > to oversee their activity. if these children are finding inappropriate material > ( define it if you can), that is simply a symptom of the much greater disease > of neglect. most people are under the great misconception that children are > constanly being lured into pornographic sites, or accidentaly stumble upon > them, but the fact is that the vast majority of these kids go to these sites on > purpose. in that case, the issue is not with the internet, rather the child. > instead of attacking the medium, we should commit ourselves to getting to the > true root of the problem, which is parental ignorence and apathy. This is a blanket statement that is not completely correct. The root of the problem is that we are not protecting our children. Every child doesn't live in a nice middle class home, or have parents that give a damn about their mental health or emotional growth. There isn't always a parent to educate. The children of these people deserve our protection too. Putting "adult" programs on TV late at night doesn't help the kid whose parent leaves them alone in the bedroom with a TV and doesn't monitor what he/she is watching. The idea that you can cure this type of neglect by educating the parents is a fantasy. How can I say this?... To foster the continued development of society as a whole, towards a better global future, *all* children must be accorded the same respect, nurtured & protected as necessary, given their independence as appropriate, when the child is ready. At present, this is not the case. I believe with all my heart in the deep involvement of parents in their child's life, but I am not fooled into thinking that this will always happen. In fact, I know it hardly ever does. The government cannot take the place of parent in any meaningful way. But what we can do, as a society and a government, is take care to protect children from the onslaught of input that is inappropriate for them. Get the violence & sexism out of children's TV. Put the adult programming somewhere where only adults can get at it. Clean up our language. Honestly, it's depressing me just thinking about it. It's such a huge mountain, I don't know how we'll ever climb it. after > destroying internet freedom, and realizing that it hasn't changed anything the > next step for those who support this attitude will be to censor anything and > everything that they feel contributes to the corruption of america's youth. > only when there's nothing left to censor will they realize that they've > accomplished nothing, because they ignored the root of the problem. we must > educate today's parents, as well as the parents of the future how to truly care > for their children. as wild bill said, "education not censorship". Try to understand this: preventing certain material from reaching children is not censorship. Prevent an artist from working or distributing said work is censorship. > >I don't have any answers. Just a hope that we can find a way to allow > >everyone to be free, without burdening the next guy with that freedom... > > i think that is a beautiful statement. Glad you liked it. I meant it. I left it in here because I'd say it all over again at this point. The interesting thing to me about this whole discussion is that, while participants have expressed widely ranging points of view, we all seem to have a common goal. I think that's cool. Melanie ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:51:38 GMT From: "Colin 'Cal' Stanutz" Subject: Re: Moxy Tshirts Hey All, Cal here. If the price of Moxy Früvous shirts is higher than usual, it usually has to do with the venue tacking on their own percentage, which I think is a disgusting policy, myself, especially when we supply our own seller. Some venues take as much as 35%. That, to me, is just gouging the consumer. Remember, if you see concert shirts selling for 25 or 30 bucks, about a fifth of that actually goes to the band after all the greasy music-idustry types grab their share. CAL See ya @ the next one! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:50:26 -0500 From: Chad Maloney Subject: Re: Moxy Tshirts JustaBNLfan wrote: > I paid $25.00 (plus Tax) for my tshirt last week in toronto. That's canadian, right? What is that, like $4 american? *grin* > Dont you think that is a little much!? I boght the blue one, with the > definition of Moxy Fruvous on the back... Well, at most mainstream concerts, shirts are $25US. I think the Ben Folds Five "Kiss my *ss" shirt was $25 bucks, and that's why I didn't buy it. When I can get 3 CDs for the price of a shirt, I draw the line. But I'd guess that the printing costs are pretty high on the shirts. They are good shirts with nice printing and such. Now they just need to work on having some XXL for the larger Fruhead. They got those baby T's. How about some specialized monster T's? I mean, I know we all love canadian boys, but we aren't all as svelte as Jered... - Chad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 16:22:01 GMT From: "Demetriou, Melanie" Subject: RE: CDA (The sky is falling!) On Wednesday, July 15, 1998 11:35 AM, wahrend@my-dejanews.com [SMTP:wahrend@my-dejanews.com] wrote: > I have a big thing about people who use the computer as a baby sitter and the > like and then say the internet is a dangerous place... I think I've clarified this in earlier posts, but if not, I'll say it here: The children of these people still deserve to be protected from inappropriate material. I'll save my arguing for their parents, with whom I, too, have a problem. But don't let their kids' butts hang out in the wind until their parents can be "educated", which day may never come. > Like most things a computer can be made resonably "safe". What I mean by > that is that you can download free software that can lock your computer so > that your child can't just wander on while you're not home and surf to all > those nasty sites. There are also software packages like net nanny and surf > watch or something like that. Hell, you can do something like remove the > monitor cable when you're not home. You don't leave a kid home with a loaded > gun in the house, do you? Where do you live??? Plenty of people do this. People who look and act like rational, caring, decent folks. Now their kids, and their neighbors' kids, are dead. My point is, the world is a dangerous place, and > its really dangerous if you're stupid. You wouldn't let a kid drive your car > without teaching them, would you? Then why let them use your computer? I > can't stress education enough. My point is, since the world can be a dangerous place, and the learning curve takes a while to complete... what happens in the meantime? We expose children to violence, sex and anything else you can think of while we're waiting for their parents to get with the program? How many kids should die before all the parents figure out they shouldn't keep a loaded gun in the house? At what point do we figure out that hey, maybe nobody needs to die while we're educating the parents? Who's rights prevail: the parent's right to be a moron, or the child's right to *live*? This is an example of what I'm talking about when I say that society has an obligation to protect our children. In my estimation, what is required is immediate measures to protect the kids, then start on a long term process of raising the level of consciousness of all adults (not just parents). Once that happens, the stop-gap protection can end, because all adults will be on the same page. Then I woke up. :-) Melanie ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 19:44:38 GMT From: wahrend@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! In article <35af3818.822963@nntp.bu.edu>, dacilen@bu.edu wrote: > On 16 Jul 1998 21:28:21 GMT, dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926) wrote: > > >no, human nature (according to me at least) is a system of beliefs that all > >human commonly share, every single one....it clearly doesn't and cannot exist. > > Why should it be a system? Why not just a quality inherent in all of > us? Example given: if you're hungry, truly hungry, and you haven't > been that hungry before, you'll do a LOT to satisfy your hunger. You > will do whatever it takes, it's an instinctive thing, a survival > thing. Another, more societal example: I simply don't believe > there's one completely alturistic person on this planet. Richard > Dawkins, in his book _The_Selfish_Gene_, talks about that quality as a > genetic predisposition to make sure one's genes (the only really > long-lasting thing we have) are passed on. I usually take that to a > more mundane level and assert that you can't point out a person to me > that has NEVER selfishly wanted something and done anything they could > to get it. Think, hungry baby in the middle of the night. Is the > baby going to be considerate and let the poor parents sleep til the > morning? No, of course not, the baby hasn't been taught the social > tenet yet, and of course s/he can't get out of bed and get food, so > s/he'll scream at the top of her/his lungs. The survival instinct is not a quality that humans have, its an instinct. And as a counter example to your hungry baby analogy, consider that the parents haven't slept in a week. You think that the poor parents are going to get up and feed the child? I think not. But even the survival instinct gets over ridden. For example people who commit suicide. If survival was something that part of human nature, then there would be no suicide, it wouldn't be in our nature do so. Let me put it to you this way, there are NO rules. As soon as you define them, something breaks them. Its all chaos and choas theory. A complex system will exhibit random behavior on some level. *sigh* Think I need to reduce my caffiene.... "wild" Bill (nothing under this sleeve :-)) - -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #117 ********************************************