From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<BCR.92Sep22110506@hpl3sn02.cern.ch>
	<1992Sep25.30329@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:32:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.30329@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
>  Bill, I would agree with you except for one thing.  When you are going up and
>  down through the channels with a remote control, it pauses on each station for
>  a second or two.  If an explicit sexual act happens to be on the screen for one
>  or two seconds as that channel is passed, it will certainly leave an image in
>  the mind that will last far beyond the time that the TV has moved on to another
>  channel.
>
>  In other words, it is just too easy to accidentally view a few seconds of that
>  stuff if it's available.
>

Sorry I forgot that not all TV's and VCR's are programable (i.e. Both my U.S.
and European TV's allow me to program what channels are tunned in and thus available
by remote control).  Purhaps it would be better for the FCC to mandate this from 
the television producing industries than all these useless UHF channels.

>  Also, I believe that it is wrong to put temptation in someone's path (the Bible

I have to agree with you.  But, I don't consider this as delibertly putting
temptation in someone's path anymore than not locking my front door is tempatation
for someone to go into my house, kill me, and take everything I own.  I might tell
my kids not to go outside when it is raining.  Am I putting temptation in thier
path if I don't lock them in thier room?  Furthermore, what you consider a sin is
not neccisarily what I consider a sin.  The Holy-Spirit does not tell me it is sin
to admire the human body anymore than it is a sin to admire the flowers that grow 
in my yard.  (They are both creations of GOD.)

>  Personally, I think that the Biblical standards should be used... not

If I do agree with you, this is still to general to be of significant legal use.
Take for example adultry.  Thier was a time when it was thought the only aproprate
way to interpret the Bible is to stone them.  Jesus, taught us that is not what the
lord intended.  One part of the leason you clearly grasp is that we shouldn't
necessarily use old testament punishments.  The less clear leason is that nothing
is black or white.  Thier is a lot of grey out there.  Consider the following:

1) Tyding:  Some say this means 10% to the Church no if ands or buts.
   I say this means a good share of your income, more than you think you
   can spare, but less than you can actually spare should willing go for the
   good of others and the public good.  The U.S. government interprets this:
   You must pay your taxes.
2) Sabith:  Some say this means, 1) only rest on Sunday, 2) only the Lord's
   work on Sunday.  My interpretation is that part of your time should be
   devoted to the Lord's work every week.  I don't really believe the lord
   cares what sort of calendar you keep.  The state of North Dakota interprets
   this: Everything but essential businesses must close on Sunday.

Your oppinions my agree or disagree with mine or the law.  My point is simply
that thier are different interpretations and no-one will every completely
agree with what ends up in the law.

>  Generally speaking, I hate government intrusion into my private life as much as
>  the next person, but it really scares me that we are turning out a generation
>  with no real moral foundation.

Here! Here!


                                             Bill




Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv