Calm act

[G.T.]

I wish I could understand someone being that lazy that they'd make a rule like this. I just can't.

It's not about "laziness," and you're being slightly indignant by continually describing it that way. It's about tolerance of a nuisance.

No, I think it's about laziness. Non-tolerance requires pressing a button. Laziness is requiring a company, by law, to meet your personal standards of volume when you already have the means to control it yourself.

 

[Cuyo]

I wish I could understand someone being that lazy that they'd make a rule like this. I just can't.

It's not about "laziness," and you're being slightly indignant by continually describing it that way. It's about tolerance of a nuisance.

No, I think it's about laziness. Non-tolerance requires pressing a button. Laziness is requiring a company, by law, to meet your personal standards of volume when you already have the means to control it yourself.

Post 130. In my case, by the time I realize how loud it is, the damage is done.

I don't think we're going to find common ground here. Unusual. I can agree it's probably not necessary if you can agree it won't do any harm. Fair enough?

 

[Cuyo]

I have a question.

A company called Space Marketing, Inc found a way to make an illuminated billboard that could be shot into low orbit over the earth, and would be visible from earth with roughly the size and brightness of the moon. In 1993, congress passed a law banning obtrusive space advertising, with one commenter noting "It would turn our evening skies into the moral equivalent of the side of a bus (paraphrased)." (TRUE story!)

Does anyone think that law is an overreach by the government? After all, if you don't want to see the Pepsi sign in the sky as big as the moon, you don't have to look at the sky, right?

Same thing, albeit different scale. It's not that people are too lazy to just not look at the sky, it's just that they don't want the nuisance there in the first place.

 

[JBeukema]

If this is an issue in your life, you are watching waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too much TV.

It's only an "issue" when it startles me from what I'm in the middle of.

turn off the tv if its a distraction

Asshole. Which is the whole point. Idiot. Anything else? Stupid?

You're acting like a child:
-you can't focus
-you don't wanna turn off Barney
-you can't use the remote
-you're crying 'cause it's too loud
-you want the nanny to fix everything for you
and
-everyone else is a stupid doodie head

Grow the fuck up.

Hi, you have received -99 reputation points from MaggieMae.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Fuck you. Ol\' Soggy insults me on a regular basis, so I give it right back to him. And now I shall do it to you, too. Hee hee hee... \"Growing up\" means realizing that two can play the same game, moron.

Regards,
MaggieMae

Note: This is an automated message.

Fail.

Growing up means learning what personal responsibility is and not acting like a child.

 

[G.T.]

It's not about "laziness," and you're being slightly indignant by continually describing it that way. It's about tolerance of a nuisance.

No, I think it's about laziness. Non-tolerance requires pressing a button. Laziness is requiring a company, by law, to meet your personal standards of volume when you already have the means to control it yourself.

Post 130. In my case, by the time I realize how loud it is, the damage is done.

I don't think we're going to find common ground here. Unusual. I can agree it's probably not necessary if you can agree it won't do any harm. Fair enough?

I disagree, because it does harm to the the companies effected by said law, it does harm to the morale of those who feel the Government's a little overbearing with its rules lately in a supposedly "free" country, and the consumers already have recourse without the Law and so the Law is a waste of time and money. Not buying the Commercial's products, turning the volume down or on mute or just changing the channel. I also don't agree there's "damage done" when the commercials come on.

 

[G.T.]

I have a question.

A company called Space Marketing, Inc found a way to make an illuminated billboard that could be shot into low orbit over the earth, and would be visible from earth with roughly the size and brightness of the moon. In 1993, congress passed a law banning obtrusive space advertising, with one commenter noting "It would turn our evening skies into the moral equivalent of the side of a bus (paraphrased)." (TRUE story!)

Does anyone think that law is an overreach by the government? After all, if you don't want to see the Pepsi sign in the sky as big as the moon, you don't have to look at the sky, right?

Same thing, albeit different scale. It's not that people are too lazy to just not look at the sky, it's just that they don't want the nuisance there in the first place.

It's not the same thing. With the TV one, you can change the volume. With the sky one, there's only one sky, the integrity of the Global environment is compromised. They're hardly related.

 

[JBeukema]

So by your logic, if your neighbor likes to fire horse shit out of a cannon towards your house, there's no harm done. After all, you can just move to a new house, right? You don't want big nanny government to step in then either, right?

Ahhhhh yes. Replying with a picture of a retarded person. That's always productive.

Beukama I find that I agree with you more often then not, yet in this thread (in addition to being very childish and trollish) you sound like "The T" or some other dimwit with all this overreaching omnipresent scary government rhetoric. So I have to ask, exactly how do you describe yourself, politically?

You are a retard if you think you turning on your tv and your neighbor flinging poo at your house are even remotely comparable

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jbeukema+"I'm+a"+site:usmessageboard.com

 

[Cuyo]

No, I think it's about laziness. Non-tolerance requires pressing a button. Laziness is requiring a company, by law, to meet your personal standards of volume when you already have the means to control it yourself.

Post 130. In my case, by the time I realize how loud it is, the damage is done.

I don't think we're going to find common ground here. Unusual. I can agree it's probably not necessary if you can agree it won't do any harm. Fair enough?

I disagree, because it does harm to the the companies effected by said law, it does harm to the morale of those who feel the Government's a little overbearing with its rules lately in a supposedly "free" country, and the consumers already have recourse without the Law and so the Law is a waste of time and money. Not buying the Commercial's products, turning the volume down or on mute or just changing the channel. I also don't agree there's "damage done" when the commercials come on.

Whatever.

I still want a reply to 143. Didn't that law "Do harm" to the companies who could have profited by advertising in space?

 

[JBeukema]

So by your logic, if your neighbor likes to fire horse shit out of a cannon towards your house, there's no harm done. After all, you can just move to a new house, right? You don't want big nanny government to step in then either, right?

Ooooh, don't let Sarah see you posting pics like that...

Why?

Is she gonna spank me?

 

[G.T.]

Post 130. In my case, by the time I realize how loud it is, the damage is done.

I don't think we're going to find common ground here. Unusual. I can agree it's probably not necessary if you can agree it won't do any harm. Fair enough?

I disagree, because it does harm to the the companies effected by said law, it does harm to the morale of those who feel the Government's a little overbearing with its rules lately in a supposedly "free" country, and the consumers already have recourse without the Law and so the Law is a waste of time and money. Not buying the Commercial's products, turning the volume down or on mute or just changing the channel. I also don't agree there's "damage done" when the commercials come on.

Whatever.

I still want a reply to 143. Didn't that law "Do harm" to the companies who could have profited by advertising in space?

Already answered. It's a ridiculous comparison. Your TV is yours, you have control. The sky is everyone's.

 

[Ravi]

I disagree, because it does harm to the the companies effected by said law, it does harm to the morale of those who feel the Government's a little overbearing with its rules lately in a supposedly "free" country, and the consumers already have recourse without the Law and so the Law is a waste of time and money. Not buying the Commercial's products, turning the volume down or on mute or just changing the channel. I also don't agree there's "damage done" when the commercials come on.

Whatever.

I still want a reply to 143. Didn't that law "Do harm" to the companies who could have profited by advertising in space?

Already answered. It's a ridiculous comparison. Your TV is yours, you have control. The sky is everyone's.

Except...you don't have control if you are having to adjust the volume constantly.

 

[Cuyo]

Ahhhhh yes. Replying with a picture of a retarded person. That's always productive.

Beukama I find that I agree with you more often then not, yet in this thread (in addition to being very childish and trollish) you sound like "The T" or some other dimwit with all this overreaching omnipresent scary government rhetoric. So I have to ask, exactly how do you describe yourself, politically?

You are a retard if you think you turning on your tv and your neighbor flinging poo at your house are even remotely comparable

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jbeukema+"I'm+a"+site:usmessageboard.com

Because it _IS_ the same thing. The argument is that advertisers have a right to do it even if it's a nuisance to others. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. OF COURSE it's not the same degree of nuisance, but it's the same argument.

Here's something on a closer scale to what's being discussed.

I don't know how you feel about censorship in general, but you're not allowed to say fuck shit ass **** bitch on certain channels and/or certain times of day, or show nudity or gratuitous violence. This is so children won't be exposed to things they shouldn't be seeing. Would you then make the argument that if there was nudity on Nickelodeon, no big deal because they could just change the channel? By the time you're able to change the channel, the kid's already seen the nudity, not?

 

[G.T.]

Whatever.

I still want a reply to 143. Didn't that law "Do harm" to the companies who could have profited by advertising in space?

Already answered. It's a ridiculous comparison. Your TV is yours, you have control. The sky is everyone's.

Except...you don't have control if you are having to adjust the volume constantly.

Adjusting the volume, would be the control.

 

[JBeukema]

The issue's not the money, you twits.

It's the entire nanny-state mindset that says 'We're too mentally deficient to use a remote; we all need some bureaucrats somewhere to run our lives for us'. It's the principle of you idiots- 1/3 of respondents- wanting to always increase the size, authority, and power of the Fed for the dumbest fucking reasons just so you don't have to show some semblance of competence when it comes to life itself. It's not just this bill- it's the same nanny-state mindset that says 'we're too stupid and incompetent to be parents; we should have been sterilized in the first place but now it's too late. Please, Nanny state, tell me what to eat, what music to let my kids listen to, and whether I can buy a can of Four Loko, because thinking for myself and being responsible is too hard'

But I don't suppose you people can grasp such concepts as 'principle' and 'personal responsibility', can you? Too many syllables? Do you need a government agency to to read those big words for you, too?

 

[G.T.]

Ahhhhh yes. Replying with a picture of a retarded person. That's always productive.

Beukama I find that I agree with you more often then not, yet in this thread (in addition to being very childish and trollish) you sound like "The T" or some other dimwit with all this overreaching omnipresent scary government rhetoric. So I have to ask, exactly how do you describe yourself, politically?

You are a retard if you think you turning on your tv and your neighbor flinging poo at your house are even remotely comparable

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jbeukema+"I'm+a"+site:usmessageboard.com

Because it _IS_ the same thing. The argument is that advertisers have a right to do it even if it's a nuisance to others. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. OF COURSE it's not the same degree of nuisance, but it's the same argument.

Here's something on a closer scale to what's being discussed.

I don't know how you feel about censorship in general, but you're not allowed to say fuck shit ass **** bitch on certain channels and/or certain times of day, or show nudity or gratuitous violence. This is so children won't be exposed to things they shouldn't be seeing. Would you then make the argument that if there was nudity on Nickelodeon, no big deal because they could just change the channel? By the time you're able to change the channel, the kid's already seen the nudity, not?

flinging poo at your house is vandalism. there's already a law which prevents it.

 

[G.T.]

Ahhhhh yes. Replying with a picture of a retarded person. That's always productive.

Beukama I find that I agree with you more often then not, yet in this thread (in addition to being very childish and trollish) you sound like "The T" or some other dimwit with all this overreaching omnipresent scary government rhetoric. So I have to ask, exactly how do you describe yourself, politically?

You are a retard if you think you turning on your tv and your neighbor flinging poo at your house are even remotely comparable

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jbeukema+"I'm+a"+site:usmessageboard.com

Because it _IS_ the same thing. The argument is that advertisers have a right to do it even if it's a nuisance to others. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. OF COURSE it's not the same degree of nuisance, but it's the same argument.

Here's something on a closer scale to what's being discussed.

I don't know how you feel about censorship in general, but you're not allowed to say fuck shit ass **** bitch on certain channels and/or certain times of day, or show nudity or gratuitous violence. This is so children won't be exposed to things they shouldn't be seeing. Would you then make the argument that if there was nudity on Nickelodeon, no big deal because they could just change the channel? By the time you're able to change the channel, the kid's already seen the nudity, not?

I dont think there needs to be censorship, at all.

If you know a channel shows nudity, block it. There's easy child-proofing on TV these days. If all channels show nudity, disallow television. You're the parent, not the FCC.

 

[JBeukema]

Ahhhhh yes. Replying with a picture of a retarded person. That's always productive.

Beukama I find that I agree with you more often then not, yet in this thread (in addition to being very childish and trollish) you sound like "The T" or some other dimwit with all this overreaching omnipresent scary government rhetoric. So I have to ask, exactly how do you describe yourself, politically?

You are a retard if you think you turning on your tv and your neighbor flinging poo at your house are even remotely comparable

Because it _IS_ the same thing.

Scenario A:

you buy a tv
you buy cable access (optional)
you turn on the tv


Scenario B:

I fling poo at your house

If you still can't see the difference, you should you should remove your sexual organs before you further spread your feeblemindedness throughout the population- you are the reason for America's decline and a great many of the world's ills.

The argument is that advertisers have a right to do it even if it's a nuisance to others.

Don't like it? Turn off the TV.

I don't know how you feel about censorship in general, but you're not allowed to say fuck shit ass **** bitch on certain channels and/or certain times of day, or show nudity or gratuitous violence. This is so children won't be exposed to things they shouldn't be seeing. Would you then make the argument that if there was nudity on Nickelodeon, no big deal because they could just change the channel?

There's a thread on it. Content and volume are two different things.

Don't like it? Turn off the TV or use a volume normalizer- just as you can use the v-chip to keep the kids from watching the channels/shows that are only for mommy and daddy.

I know, that whole 'personal responsibility' thing is so hard, isn't it?

 

[JBeukema]

I have no clue, but I'm not willing to give a one thousandth of a penny to something that I feel is beyond the "holy fucking shit" threshold of being lazy.

Write your congressman.

But just to clarify, we're not talking about something that can be rectified simply by "Adjusting the volume." We're talking about low volume on programming, followed by noticeably louder volume on the commercials. Unless you can predict the moment such a commercial is going to come on, you can't adjust it for every commercial.

Plus, it's an obnoxious practice used by advertisers and shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. IMO.

It doesn't matter if you can predict it or not, when it appears too loud, you click the down button for christ's sakes.

If only there were some kinda 'shutup, tv' button

I wonder what this button does...

 

[JBeukema]

I wish I could understand someone being that lazy that they'd make a rule like this. I just can't.

It's not about "laziness," and you're being slightly indignant by continually describing it that way. It's about tolerance of a nuisance.

It's stupidity and failure as a human being

 

[Cuyo]

You are a retard if you think you turning on your tv and your neighbor flinging poo at your house are even remotely comparable

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jbeukema+"I'm+a"+site:usmessageboard.com

Because it _IS_ the same thing. The argument is that advertisers have a right to do it even if it's a nuisance to others. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. OF COURSE it's not the same degree of nuisance, but it's the same argument.

Here's something on a closer scale to what's being discussed.

I don't know how you feel about censorship in general, but you're not allowed to say fuck shit ass **** bitch on certain channels and/or certain times of day, or show nudity or gratuitous violence. This is so children won't be exposed to things they shouldn't be seeing. Would you then make the argument that if there was nudity on Nickelodeon, no big deal because they could just change the channel? By the time you're able to change the channel, the kid's already seen the nudity, not?

flinging poo at your house is vandalism. there's already a law which prevents it.

If there wasn't a law, it would be legal, get it? If you think preventing a nuisance is never OK if it inconveniences somebody else, you are an anarchist.

That's all I'm saying. You guys keep insinuating that I'm proclaiming the scenarios as equivalent levels of nuisance. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that something _CAN_ be illegal to protect the interests of most people, even if it inconveniences others.