From: sam@rmtc.Central.Sun.COM (Sam Falkner)
Subject: religious stations
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 16:23:00 GMT

okay, this is another pathetic attempt on my part to get people to
CHANGE THE STINKING SUBJECT LINE!!!

maybe if i post a stupid juvenile flame on jack, he'll hit `f', and
won't bother to edit the subject line.  then, he will flame me, someone
else will flame him back, etc.  then, i'll put this in my kill file...

jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:

>On 28 Sep 92, Jack Decker wrote to All:

>This is not in response to any one message that has been posted here, but
>rather to several I have received.

great, glad you kept the same subject line.  it's SOOO relevant.  it has
so much to do with the `cable consumer protection act of 1992'.

>You liberals really are showing your true colors, especially in netmail.  I
>wish that netiquette would allow me to cross-post some of the responses I've
>received. Two things have become very apparent to me:

netiquette?  isn't it generally good netiquette that your subject line
reflect the content of your message?

>First, there are a few of you who are true hypocrites.  You want total freedom
>of speech for any manner of filth that may come across the cable lines, but in

filth?  you mean like dr. gene scott?

>the next breath you want to censor the religious channels.   In your mind you
>justify this as okay because SOME of the religious channels pay SOME cable
>system operators a small amout to carry their channels (at least this is the
>claim that some of you are making), and for some reason you perceive this as
>some sort of great evil.

great evil?  if it weren't for christianity, we would have had men on
the moon around the year 500.  don't believe me?  check out
deutoronomy 25:11-12.

>Reading between the lines, though, what you really object to is the "waste" of
>a channel that could be used for something that YOU want to watch.

like the voodoo channel?

>Folks, get a clue... those stations simply WOULD NOT EXIST if nobody watched
>them.  Not only do people watch those station, but in many cases they even send
>in money to help support them.  If some of that money happens to find its way
>back to your local cable system, it might help finance their next channel
>capacity expansion (then again, it might not, but that's the decision of the
>cable company, not the broadcaster).

jack, get a clue ... heroin and crack cocaine simply WOULD NOT EXIST if
nobody used them.  not only do people use these drugs, but in many cases
they even pay money to support their habits.  if some of that money
happens to find its way to the coffers of your local church, it might
help finance their next revival (then again, it might not, but it's the
decision of the minister, not the drug user).

>Maybe you object to a viewer-supported station.  Fine, do you also complain
>about PBS stations?  Your local PBS station runs fundraisers and I'll bet that
>they do NOT send a token payment to your local cable system.

maybe you object to illegal drug use.  fine, do you also complain when
drug users pay sales tax when they buy beer?

>Some of you are just displaying plain old anti-Christian bigotry when you
>object to the religious stations.  You want to be a bigot, that is your choice,
>but please recognize that you are objecting to religious stations mainly
>becuase of their content, which you don't like, and not because of their method
>of support or the fact that they pay the cable system to carry them.  I'll bet
>that if the sci-fi channel paid your local cable system to carry them, there
>wouldn't be a peep of objection out of any of you.

so, you're saying that all people with a background in science and/or
fiction are anti-christian?

>The second thing is that some of you just can't stand to hear anyone take a
>stand for old fashioned morality without tilting, so you send netmail flames
>hoping to get that person to shut up.  Look, you have the right to hold the
>opinion that I'm full of baloney, but you DON'T have the right to say that I
>cannot express my opinions about something just because they don't agree with
>yours.  Nor do you have the right to demand that I back up each statement I

no, but we do have the right to a decent Subject line.

>make in excruciating detail.  When I make some statement of obvious fact (for
>example, that viewing porno incites some people to commit sex crimes), that's
>partly only common sense, which some of you apparently don't have.  But if you
>want to be contentious about it, YOU can spend your time going down to the
>library and researching the subject.  I have no intention of getting into a
>"battle of the experts" here.

but if you do, please use a relevant Subject line.

>(What's a "battle of the experts?"  That's where I go and get data to support
>my position, and you go out and get data to support yours, and then you say my
>sources [the "experts" I'm quoting] are no good, and I say the same about
>yours, and then we waste bandwidth arguing over whose "experts" are more
>reliable.)

that would really suck if we wasted bandwidth.  good thing you're not
going to do THAT.

>So I WILL express my opinions, where appropriate, but I am going to ignore
>netmail flames that are basically intended to try and convince me that I don't
>know what I'm talking about and should shut up.  I know better, at least in
>this case.  However, at the same time, I think this thread has pretty well run
>its course, and I have to go out of town for a few days anyway (with no net
>access during that period) so hopefully this thread will purge itself.

darn, you're leaving town?  i'm going to miss this thread.  at least
the Subject line might change.

>I'd just like to talk to some of you in about ten or twenty years and see if
>you've changed your minds.  When I was 20, I thought exactly as some of you do
>now (and was just as obnoxious about stating my views, which is why I can't be
>TOO hard on some of you).  After seeing what has happened to society in the
>last 20 years, I have done almost a 180 degree turn in my thinking.  For some
>of you, the realization will come when you have children, and realize what sort
>of world you're sending them out into.

i'm too tired for a snide remark here.

>Of course, some people never seem to grow any wiser as they get older, and THAT
>is the truly sad part.

or here either.

- sam
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv