From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:05:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.203c0@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org>, jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.022013.12344@fid.morgan.com> dated Fri, 2 Oct 1992
>02:20:13 GMT, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
>
> > That means you're not even going to try to find proof.
>
>Give this man a cookie!  He finally figured it out!
>
>NO, I am not even going to try and find proof.  It's a waste of my time to try
>and find "proof" that will just be pooh-poohed by this crowd.
>
>However, I would just point out that of ALL the messages posted in this
thread,
>including those by people who vehemently disagree, NO ONE has provided "proof."
>This whole thread has been one message of opinion after another.  Oh, sure,
>there are vague references to this study or that study, but no one has given
>any real citations that would indicate they have done any serious research on
>the subject.  You folks who are casting stones are living in your own glass
>houses.
>
>Why don't you folks just admit that NO ONE here considers this newsgroup to be
>such an important medium of social change that we are willing to spend hours
>doing research to prove a point?  If I were asked to speak before congress on
>this subject, I'd certainly go out and find the research that supports my point
>of view (which is as close to "proof" as you're going to get in this case).
>But it's just not worth the effort simply to ward off a few flame-throwers in a
>newsgroup, that probably wouldn't change their minds regardless of what I've
>presented.  Sorry if this offends anyone, but I know a "no-win" situation when
>I see it.

Jack,  Thank you.  Your clever web of discussion has reeled me in.  I feel
like a wall-eyed pike with a hook through my jaw.
One of the posters replying (flaming, if you prefer or think ((think....may not
be quite the right word)) ) to your comments (diatribe, lecture, rantings,
ravings etc.) did indeed cite the President's commision on pornography.  I will
admit that he erred and did not cite it properly.  (BTW I am simply too lazy to
look back through the voluminous file of this thread and find out who that
was.)  However, I am familiar with the work and even read a bit of it when it
was published back in prehistoric times.  Seems to me that was a pretty seminal
work.  If it had a bias it would certainly have been to "prove" some of the
points you have been making without reference to REAL sources or REAL proof.

Your right, you are not speaking to Congress.  Most of us are smarter, better
read, and understand a bit about logic and argument.  One might get the
impression that you are fillibustering.  I would respectfully contend that were
you to try to justify most of your arguments (esp. ref. ponography begets
violence and sex crimes) using Real references and valid logic, that you would
not be able to do so because proof of same does not exist.

If you are not willing to spend time researching your topic or sharing with us
something other than emotionally concieved and ill-logically supported opinions,
we can do little more than consider them such.

As I see it these groups are set up to allow for ?free? discussion of topics
and a place where people of similiar interests can discuss a topic or two of
the day.  My institution must think they have some education value or they
would not continue to pay to support their existence.  I entered this
discussion because cable television closely affects my life and my income and
there seems to be much inaccurate information about how it works out there.  I
have been concerned about program content for 20+ years.  However cable TV
chooses their content from a limited marketplace (Hollywood, the religious
broadcasters, HBO etc) based either on their customers preferences or what the
company thinks will sell (essentially the same thing).  If they don't provide a
big enough chunk of what their subscribers want, they will disconnect.  While I
happen to enjoy Dr Gene Scott, when he was dropped from our local cable system
less than .01% of the subscribers complained.  I guess I was in the minority
and while I miss him and think there are some important elements to his message
it seems perfectly fair to me that other programming that more people wanted to
see went on in his place.
Back on track, this is a place, in fact *THE* place to share opinion.  Facts
are not required here (as should be abundantly clear from this thread).
If you won't give real citations and I won't give real citations, then maybe we
should just pack up our cookies and go home.

I am willing to be convinced that pornography begets violence.  I have been
looking for proof of same for 20 years and have yet to find it.  If you can
provide that proof through carefully researched scholarly posts to this group
you could change my opinion.  I think you're too lazy to try and are just
trypin to rile us all up out here (and have had some measure of success).  

And a blessedly final word about the infamous "FLAMETHROWERS".  In the few
groups that I follow, including this one, it seems that flamethrower is an
acronymn for "some one who disagrees with me that I want to discredit".  With
few exceptions I think those who have replied to you, Jack, have had good 
points.  Points so good, in fact, that I will believe them and agree with them
unless you can provide some serious rebuttal.
Bob Vogel

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv