Texsox

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 11:21 PM) so what is your suggestion as to a solution? let anything go on tv regarless of what market a network is targeting, or censor the hell out of everything? or is your solution somewhere in between? im just wondering what you propose, cause it bothers me when people complain when they have no constructive advice The solution that Rex is talking about is for people to stop thinking there is a vast conspiracy, that all homosexuals are in on, to undermine America, and turn everyone ghay. To understand gay men and women are people like everyone else. What I find funny is we don't seem to care about the sex lives of of heterosexual friends or else we'd hear, Sally, Bob, are you to having sex regularly? I only have friends that have "traditional American values" and I need to know you are having sex 2.1 times per week in the missionary position. You two aren't into anything kinky like anal, bondage, autoerotic, etc.? Who cares what your friends do in the bed room?

Happy Birthday!

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:15 AM) I'm not really interested in doing it, I prefere a natural debate instead of a set up one, I'm really bad with set up ones for some reason. But wouldn't it be easier if it was in a chat room, that way people wouldn't have as much time to think about stuff and it'd be more like a live debate? Who knows though, I'm not in it so I shouldn't really worry about it. A live chat debate would be a great event.

Do I think there is an evil marketing program designed to recruit homosexuals and expand the numbers? No. Do I think that these programs show homosexuals in a positve light, perhaps even show them as humans like everybody else? Yes. By showing homosexuals in a non sexual way, people won't be so freaked out by having a gay neighbor. That promotes people getting along.

How to Be a Curmudgeon on the Internet Last week in my Times column , I referred to the five-note "Intel Inside" jingle often heard in TV ads. At least a dozen readers e-mailed me to inform me that the jingle is actually four notes, not five. As I've come to expect, some of these readers expressed, ahem, somewhat more anger than the circumstances might have seemed to require. "If you have that much trouble counting on one hand," one wrote, "you shouldn't be reviewing technology. Maybe a four-year-old can help you out next time." I replied to this reader that I'm including the first "ping" in my tally. In that case, there ARE five notes in the jingle, as you can hear here . But my correspondent never wrote back. That, of course, would violate the rules for being an Internet pill, reprinted here in their entirety, courtesy of the Pills of the American Internet Neighborhood Society (PAINS): RULES FOR TROLLS AND PILLS WHEREAS, 95 percent of all the e-mail received by critics and columnists is civil, friendly or respectfully constructive; but WHEREAS, this is the Internet age, and we're all anonymous and can avoid making eye contact forever; and WHEREAS, there's so much information overload, a little heat and drama on your part may be necessary just to be heard above the din; and WHEREAS, many of those who fire off potshots are missing out on some of the best techniques for effective snippiness; THEREFORE let us now post the rules for membership in the Pills of the American Internet Neighborhood Society. 1. Use the strongest language possible. Calling names is always effective, and four-letter words show that you mean business. 2. Having a violent opinion of something doesn't require you to actually try it yourself. After all, plenty of people heatedly object to books they haven't read or movies they haven't seen. Heck, you can imagine perfectly well if something is any good. 3. If it's a positive review that you didn't like, call the reviewer a "fanboy." Do not entertain the notion that the product, service, show, movie, book or restaurant might, in fact, be good. Instead, assume that the reviewer has received payment from the reviewee. Work in the word "shill" if possible. 4. If it's a negative review, call the reviewer a "basher" and describe the review as a "hatchet job." Accuse him of being paid off by the reviewee's *rival*. 5. If it's a mixed review, ignore the passages that balance the argument. Pretend that the entire review is all positive or all negative. Refer to it either as a "rave" or a "slam." 6. If you find a sentence early in the article that rubs you the wrong way, you are by no means obligated to finish reading. Stop right where you are--express your anger while it's still good and hot! What are the odds that the writer is going to say anything else relevant to your point later in the piece, anyway? 7. If the writer responds to your e-mail with evidence that you're wrong (for example, by citing a paragraph that you overlooked), disappear without responding. This is the anonymous Internet; slipping away without consequence or civility is your privilege. 8. Trolling is making a deliberately inflammatory remark, one that you know perfectly well is baloney, just to get a rise out of other people. Trolling is an art. Trolling works just fine for an audience of one (say, a journalist), but of course the real fun is trolling on public bulletin boards where you can get dozens of people screaming at you simultaneously. Comments on religion, politics or Mac-vs.-Windows are always good bets. The talented troll sits back to enjoy the fireworks with a smirk, and never, ever responds to the responses. 9. Don't let generalities slip by. Don't tolerate simplifications for the sake of a non-technical audience. Ignore conditional words like "generally," "usually" and "most." If you read a sentence that says, for example, "The VisionPhone is among the first consumer videophones," cite the reviewer's ignorance and laziness for failing to mention the prototype developed by AT&T for the 1964 World's Fair. Send copies of your note to the publication's publisher and, if possible, its advertisers. And there you have it: the nine habits of highly effective pills. After all: if you're going to be a miserable curmudgeon, you may as well do it up right! Join a discussion of David Pogue's columns. This week's Pogue's Posts blog. Visit David Pogue on the Web at /DavidPogue.com http://www.davidpogue.com.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 06:31 PM) Rex, come on. If this had anything to do with a Republican, it would be front page news the next day. See Tom DeLay. Different circumstances, same point. Kap, come on. The press and the public couldn't get enough of the Lewinsky stuff. The Swifties were everywhere. I can't believe anyone can believe there is this great conspiracy to help the Dems by the media. If you are liberal, you see the media to your right, if you are conservative, you see them to the left. If you are a Sox fan you see everytime they are the #3 story on Sportscenter. Anyone notice the media bias against the Colorado Rockies?

I don't think on a corporate level it is homophobia or "fundamentalist"phobia, it's boycott and negative publicity phobia. Obviously this show would have been fine on Bravo, they have done well with programs that would not necessarily be on Focus on the Families list of great TV, (re: Queer Eye). Other networks would be worried about a potential backlash. But it is just like Spike TV wouldn't want to air the same programming as Oxygen or Lifetime. Rex, we'll disagree on this on in that a homosexual couple winning does "promote" homosexuality, in fact any positive stories do. Sam, we'll disagree, because I don't care that it does.

Jim, In this round, I am allowing each person to state their personal opinion. I am hoping with the question round some differences will emerge. I also picked a question that shouldn't be too hot. The second round will heat up. I'll debate Kap in an exhibition. Someone pick a topic/question.

I guess it depends on how you define "best". If by best you mean albums that millions of people would buy, then this list is pretty damn good. If you mean best by something that only hundreds, even thousands of people would buy, then this isn't a great list. What I find silly is the notion that as soon as millions of people like it, it must suck.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 05:46 PM) Hey, wait for me! I guess I'm not loved. I think I forgot to explicitly say I was in. Sorry, I didn't think you wanted in.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 05:00 PM) Since the threads are already out there, has the 24 hours started? Yes, but I think we may need to be loose with the first round of posts because I didn't set a starting time.

Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is: Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?

Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is: Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?

Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is: Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?

Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is: Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?

Round 1 will be: Group A: FlaSoxxJim vs. NorthSideSox72 Group B: Sox4lifeinPA vs. Wong&Owens Group C: Rex Kickass vs. Sam Clemens Group D: mreye vs. whitesoxin' Round 2 will be Winner of A vs. Winner of D Winner of B vs. Winner of C Round 3 will be for the meaningless title. Again here is the format. I will create threads for each of the 4 debates. Hopefully other posters will not post in the thread, if they do, it will be moved. Each poster will have 24 hours to post an opening statement. After both posters have posted an opening statement, they will ask one question of the other poster. After answering, they may make a rebutal statement. After each poster has asked, answered, and rebutted one question, they may ask another. After the second question, they will have 24 hours to post a closing statement. Posts will be limited to 500 words or less. Grammer, civility, clarity of thought, persuasivness, will all count, since this is about opinion, no value will be placed on if the judges agree with your opinion or not. Icons will count as 1 word, pictures 100 words. Two human judges will vote and the readers will also have a vote. Any questions?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 08:25 AM) Always good to see another FZ fan. There are still a few of us lurking about. And if this was a 'favorite 10' list, my list would be chock full of Beatles, Frank, Todd Rundgren (maybe Something/Anything should be on the list anyway), Jethro Tull, Hendrix, Elvis Costello, etc. The You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore anthology, along with Playground Psychotics and Ahead of Their time, is about the best historical live audio rock documentation out there. When I listen to Stage Vol. 2 (Heksinki) and hear that group pulling off Inca Roads, Montanna, etc. at those breakneck speeds, I really appreciate the insanely great musicianship of that lineup. Damn, when we have the soxtalk rave, you are so in charge of the tunes

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 08:43 AM) if by "religious right" you mean the average american family that has a husband, wife, and at least one child, then yes, Disney panders to the "religious right" a.k.a. average american families, most of who do not favor homosexuality being taught and/or promoted to their children (and you cannot deny that this is a majority). Just like ESPN targets 18-40 males. Just like the Oxygen channal targets women. Same thing. Well almost. The average American family did not boycott Disney when religious groups demanded it. The average American family doesn't send thousands of emails in an orchestrated demonstration and attempt to blackmail a company if they show a homosexual couple in a positive light.

Last call for debaters. So far I have: Looks like we are full. NorthSideSox72 FlaSoxxJim Sox4lifeinPA Wong&Owens Rex Kickass mreye whitesoxin' SamClemens I enlisted an English teacher, someone who has not posted here, to judge. She will be looking at grammer, how well the posts are structured, clarity of thought, etc. The second human is a poster here, and will be looking at civility, clearness of thought, and how well the posts reflect desired Soxtalk. Poster votes will be the third vote.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 08:16 AM) You're right about the Beach Boys ommision. Pet Sounds should be there. I'd drop Clapton from the list to add Beach Boys.

If the Governor and Mayor, were diehard Cub fans, the Sox would have been gone. As noted, the stadium deal was only completed when Gov. Thompson kept pushing the clock back.

Damn you PA. I was just fixin' to make an alcohol and her saying yes joke, and I see the pictures and read the evening and you are da man. Nice job.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 07:25 AM) you see the thread title, don't you? haha. excellent.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 07:28 AM) we all should Nice PA. I too think most reality shows suck. Wanted Ted or Alive or Cowboy U, for pure comedic value are the exception for me. But three or four episodes are about my limit. Is it possible the show just sucked? Yes. Is it possible that possible public outcry, was at the root? Yes. Did it all come down to money? Of Course YES. They figured they could make more money for the corporation by not airing the show. They do not have a legal responsibility to air a show or to help any group. They do have a legal responsibility to make money for their shareholders.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 03:40 AM) As for the media ... what's the use. You wouldn't listen anyway. YASNY, not only will I listen, I promise not to reply so this truly isn't bait of any kind. How does a newspaper become nuetral in your eyes? If they are writting a story about Monica Lewinsky or Prison abuse, how do they balance that? The order in which they report facts will become an issue. Do they look for positive articles to balance? Do they add up the colum inches and see how many are positive and negative? Do they endorse the exact same number of Dem and GOP candidates? If you have the choice of reading the Trib or Sun-Times is Chicago "balanced"? What I don't understand is how anyone could pull up one article and point to it and say it shows a widespread media bias. What seems to happen is the same thing when you decide to buy a car. Suddenly you see that car everywhere. The GOP has told their supporters to not believe the Press and their supporters have agreed. Talk about insulating themselves from criticism. BTW, Astros fans are still b****ing about the WS coverage bias. They point to how the Sox are the media darlings and received all the press coverage dating back to the regular season. A possible Sox collapse received more attention than the amazing surge by the Astros. I am so sick of hearing Hillary and '08. The Dems will not nominate a woman, and she has zero chance of winning. The GOP keeps hyping her and trying to get Dems to believe it. They know they could get anyone elected if she is the opponent.