Text 8070, 145 rader
Skriven 2006-09-10 23:24:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8567.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: ABC backs down on 9/1
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <99WdndtpQOEiHp7YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<C12752DC.EFC0%gabryant@fuse.net><0001HW.C1285444042A1BFEF0407530@news.verizon.net><7tudnfh8DPEidp_YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@com


"Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C128E6BD0020A9D1F0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>>On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 21:01:57 -0400, Carl wrote
> (in article <HuGdnVxiDqSb-Z7YnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
>
>>
>> "Amy Guskin" <aisling@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C128D87D001D52AFF0407530@news.verizon.net...
>>
>>> ABC is where many millions of Americans
>>> get their news, and seeing something like this on ABC, not exceedingly
>>> clearly labeled as "semi-fictional drama," is going to send a message to 
>>> a
>>> lot of people that this is 100% inassailable fact.
>>
>> ABC is also the network that shows numerous sitcoms (and given network
>> news ratings continue to slide more people watch sitcoms) and no one is
>> going to mistake this for a sitcom. ;)  <<
>
> That's because it doesn't _look_ like a sitcom.  What it _does_ look like 
> is
> a documentary.
>
>>>> This is current, this is about to be aired, and these are the untruths 
>>>> and
>>> distortions in which I'm interested.
>>
>> People are always more aware of when their side is on the receiving end. 
>> <<
>
> AAARRRGGHHH!!!! <tearing hair out>
>
> No, Carl, it is _not_ always a partisan issue!!!  I wasn't HERE in 1991 or
> 1995 when those films were new, so I didn't have a discussion here about
> their lack of factual integrity.

Wow, you're much younger than I thought!!! ;)

Now that Grammar Dominatrix comment you made goes in an entirely different 
direction.Oh oh..  ;)

> I am here NOW, this is happening NOW, it's
> addressing some extremely current events, and that's why it is of 
> interest.
>
> I'm sorry to get short, but I am very frustrated about this.  I suppose 
> the
> only way I can redeem myself in the eyes of some of you here is if I shout
> myself hoarse about how wrong the Bush assassination film is -- which I'd
> happily do, if someone here would disagree with me.  But apparently most
> thinking people think it's an ill-advised piece of trash, so I probably 
> won't
> _have_ to argue.

Amy... you don't have to "redeem" yourself to me or anyone else.
You know that.  I respect your opinions and I'm not judging you.

As to your feelings about the Bush assassination film, the most important
thing to me was that your opinion is consistent.  Either way it's your 
opinion.

> I'm also feeling a bit short-tempered about the implication from you that 
> any
> time anyone -- liberal, moderate, or conservative -- objects to something
> that is even remotely political or politicized, it's because it bashes 
> "their
> guys."  I feel very strongly about this concept of objective truth, and 
> the
> implication that it's all about partisanship demeans the efforts

That's not what I said. I said that people are more aware (or sensitive)
to such things when it's against their side.  People get defensive, dig
in their heels, etc.  I wasn't singling you out for this in any way.

> I've put in  to reading and analyzing and uncovering things on my own.
> And the efforts made by a lot of other sincere and thinking people
> on this newsgroup.

Yes you have.  In this case you've also said (or implied) that you don't 
care about
objective truth when it comes to Nixon, JFK, or Reagan, and that one could 
infer
from your comments that you care less if the subject is dead than if they 
were alive.

It also seems to matter whether the show is on network TV or not.  That has
nothing to do with objective truth either, so I'm, trying to find some basis 
by which I
can reconcile what seems to be (to me until I understand better) an 
arbitrary
set of distinctions that allow you to be outraged at this incident and not 
others.

If my comments are frustrating or disturbing you, I'm happy to switch the 
subject.

> Sure, I've got an opinion -- I think that's important, because you can't 
> take
> a stand for anything without an opinion, and you can't work for change in 
> the
> world unless you feel passionately about something.  But I do not tar
> everyone who doesn't wear a big "D" on their shirt with the same brush.

I have not accused you of such.

> There are plenty of Republicans I like, statesmen who I think have done 
> great
> things in the world.  But I'm not blind to the fact that there are also 
> some
> very bad people out there doing very bad things, and right now, many of 
> them
> happen to be of one particular stripe of ideology, and in power in this
> country.  But I look at ALL people as individuals, and I judge them on
> _their_ actions; not anybody else's who happens to be on the same "team."
>
> If I _did_ operate like that, you'd be hearing me scream about censorship
> regarding that distasteful English film, but you'll notice that you 
> _don't_.
> Please, at least _try_ to turn off that "everything is about partisanship"
> filter as you read what people have to say.  I certainly don't believe 
> it's a
> fair way to judge a good majority of the people who have expressed 
> political
> opinions here, those on _all_ ends of the ideological spectrum.

You misunderstood my position.  Probaby my fault.  In any case, since it was 
not
my intention to disturb you, another topic is in order.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Carl
                                                                               
            
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)