[Refreshed]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Refreshed, we need to get a "Plonker" medal just for you.

Translation: I can't debate Refreshed so I'm going to insult him.

[Refreshed]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You need to learn to read. You're angry at words YOU put in my mouth. Let it go or I WILL explain it to you and make you look more foolish than you already do. And you also need to learn the tone used by adults when speaking to one another.

OK I get it. iPods don't have speakers or headphones built in. There's nothing on the iPod itself to make sound. Har har!

[Canadian_Mind]

Refreshed Refreshed:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Refreshed, we need to get a "Plonker" medal just for you.

Translation: I can't debate Refreshed so I'm going to insult him.

I think you just like to go against the grain just for the attention. You should thank EB for giving you enough of his time to come up with the idea of a new medal just for you. It's what you wanted.

Refreshed Refreshed:

Lemmy Lemmy:

You need to learn to read. You're angry at words YOU put in my mouth. Let it go or I WILL explain it to you and make you look more foolish than you already do. And you also need to learn the tone used by adults when speaking to one another.

OK I get it. iPods don't have speakers or headphones built in. There's nothing on the iPod itself to make sound. Har har!

Actually, the only Ipods that don't have built in sound systems are the old Ipod Classic (think new one has it), and the Ipod Shuffle

[Lemmy]

Dumbass: I'm aware that you can listen to digital music through a home stereo. But are the HORDES of people walking about with IPODs using them through speakers? The goddamn IPOD logo is a dude using the fucking thing with headphones. It's iconic.

Let's pretend I said "I don't like getting blowjobs by chicks with braces", would you immediately have assumed that I was dismissing all blowjobs?

I play digital music all the time. When I download, I make sure I search out good rips. I play it through my Yamaha with PSBs. It's sounds amazing. But for every person like myself (and you, I'm guessing) that listens to high quality digital music on our home stereos, there's thousands that never listen except through earbuds, and listen to shitty 128K downloads. That's what I meant when I said "I don't like music through IPODs." I think everyone else that read my post understood what I meant. But just for you, sister, I'll retract my statement and a replace it with "I don't like the sound of shitty digital files played through cheap-ass Chinese made ear buds. I prefer to listen to music amplified through quality loudspeakers"? Would that have been clear enough for you or was your intention to pick gnat shit out of pepper from the get-go? That question was rhetorical. Now go piss up a rope.

[Refreshed]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Let's pretend I said "I don't like getting blowjobs by chicks with braces", would you immediately have assumed that I was dismissing all blowjobs?

I see your point, but that's not the equivalent of what you said. The equivalent of what you said would be something like "Getting blowjobs is an awful way of..." in which case yes then I might wonder if you liked them or not, and then if I was interested in knowing (which I'm not) I'd ask you to clarify in which case if you refused and became indignant, as you did, you couldn't rightfully expect me to understand. I'm not a mind-reader.

Lemmy, you picked a gnat out of pepper by calling me out on the semantics of my "awful way to enjoy music" comment. Look back to how our conversation started. If you're going to call others out on poorly-worded sentences you should try avoid doing it yourself maybe. Now you're getting angry and resorting to immature name-calling just because you had to clarify.

[Lemmy]

You were trolling. It was my mistake to feed you.

[Refreshed]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You were trolling. It was my mistake to feed you.

So says the guy who prefers ad hominen attacks over actual discussion.

If disagreeing with you equals trolling, then guilty as charged!

[Canadian_Mind]

I wish I quoted for truth when I had the chance...

[SprCForr]

Refreshed Refreshed:

You said I'm OK with a bureaucrat deciding what word I'm allowed to hear, which is a strawman I took exception to. Now you're changing it to "someone decided what word I can hear on the radio only." That's better.

Check the wider meaning of the word "bureaucrat." I could have used panel, or committee or group. How about apparatchik? Regardless, the idea I was conveying remains the same.

Refreshed Refreshed:

If you heard your toddler repeat a word like "nigger" or "cute" and found out they got it from the TV or radio while you were in the kitchen making lunch, I bet you'd be mad, wondering how stuff like that could slip through. If not you, I bet at least half the posters here on your side hypocritically would. I used to be against censorship on the radio or daytime TV too (as early as five years ago) but that all changed when I realized how easily and how readily children repeat words they overhear. They don't know proper context, and I doubt the average listener does these days either.

Again with the strawman? And again, I'll decide what I think is and isn't appropriate thanks and you can decide for yourself.

Refreshed Refreshed:

You said a bureaucrat, which would be government or its agent, has decided what words I'm allowed to hear, like the word was banned period, like it was Big Brother 1984 or something paranoid like that. That's different than private enterprise deciding what words are acceptable or not on the radio for voluntary member radio stations. Very different.

Again, check the wider meaning and yes, the word has been banned from that song. The CBSC has decreed that word to be removed from that song. If another complaint just as frivilous as this was made against your Eminem song, that too would be subject to the same action by the CBSC. Let me play your word smithing game: It isn't private enterprise making the decision. It's a council. Very different. And it's still some group deciding what words I can and can't hear within a 25 yr old song.

Refreshed Refreshed:

I never said the song was homophobic.

I didn't claim you did. You said:

Refreshed Refreshed:

...some people here don't feel gays deserve the same dignity and respect other demographics do.

My response:

I I:

Trying to stick a charge of homophobia to all this is astonishing.

You allude that protesting the decision is based on homophobia.

Refreshed Refreshed:

I'm going to say to you the same thing I said to Canadian_Mind a few posts back... go back and read my past posts in this thread and then come back and try telling me I'm taking the song out of context. What I did say was that basically the lop-sidedness in people's opinions on the severity of the word "faggot" compared to other bad words can only be explained by a sense of feeling (in some people, not all) that homosexuals don't deserve the same respect as other demographics. I've spoken to many people that admit it, and I've heard many nonsense reasons for it, so I'm not going to be convinced that such mindset doesn't exist. I don't know which people here it is, because I don't know anyone here, so I can't point fingers at individuals quite yet, if at all. It might not be you. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not one of them, so for sake of argument, don't take me as calling you a hypocrite.

Wow, that's quite the ramble. I'm calling you the hypocrite, and you are. You support the removal of the word 'faggot" from a song because it offends some within the GBLT community, but you listen to other songs by other artists with that same "slur"! So whatever that mish mash above has to do with censoring a word from a Dire Straits song, I don't know. Your lack of faith in people's ability to discern the meaning of "bad" words is illuninating. Your rush to judge people is as well. No wonder the nanny state is alive and well.

Refreshed Refreshed:

I'm comfortable with the idea of a private panel advising member private radio stations what words are acceptable or not, just like I am with television.

Advising? Hardly. They render decisions. They are expecting compliance. Not just that particular song, but [uh oh!], your Eminem song is now affected...

From the CBSC: "It is also expected that a similar violation will not recur; that is, the broadcaster will not air similar material in the future. It is up to the broadcaster to determine the appropriate means to ensure that the offending type of broadcast does not recur."

Note the inclusion of the words "similar material"...

Refreshed Refreshed:

SprCForr SprCForr:

I'm not comfortable with government or anybody else determining overall what words are acceptable for me or any other adult, nor am I comfortable with buearcrats or any other non-elected government agents doing anything other than administration.

If only adults listened to the radio, maybe I'd agree.

I don't know what the hell your game is, but ascribing comments to me that I didn't make isn't on. That sound you hear? That was the sound of you kicking the last of your credibility to the curb.

[ShepherdsDog]

This is all too surreal. I'm going to rewatch season 1 of All in the Family.

[Refreshed]

SprCForr SprCForr:

Again with the strawman? And again, I'll decide what I think is and isn't appropriate thanks and you can decide for yourself.

You didn't answer the question. In my example you didn't get to choose for yourself and neither did I. Lack of censorship allowed it to flow through. You call this a strawman, I call it a dodge.

If anything this gives people the choice by removing the opportunity for it to be forced upon unwilling listeners, while still allowing people (if they so choose) to listen privately to whatever they want. I know you'll now say people have the choice to turn off the radio, but what if I told you I've heard from people who have to hear that song at work, even school, and don't like it? Or parents who have had their children repeat those words, or similar words, not understanding the proper context of the song?

The irony of you being a moderator on a censored board without true free speech doesn't escape me. The rules of this board indicate censorship, yet you volunteer to uphold it, all the while disagreeing with it. I don't disagree with that in itself, but I do notice the hypocrisy, which yes I do disagree with.

[Guy_Fawkes]

[Guy_Fawkes]

In the end all this is going to do is turn more people away from the CBC. Eventually the organization will be privatized and will likely go bankrupt of they continue this bullshit.

[Refreshed]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

In the end all this is going to do is turn more people away from the CBC. Eventually the organization will be privatized and will likely go bankrupt of they continue this bullshit.

Oh it's the CBC now that we need to be mad at?

I can't keep up.

[Guy_Fawkes]