The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Time to evict Big Brothel > Comments

Time to evict Big Brothel : Comments

By Bill Muehlenberg, published 6/7/2006

Peeping toms used to be arrested. Now the Ten Network gets big money for encouraging us all to be voyeurs.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 31
  7. 32
  8. 33
  9. All
I agree that "Big Brother" is total nonsense,and worse is probably depraved as well but really, like it or not money "talks". Put simply, one doesn't have to view it and if enough people have this mind set it will surely go off the air.
Posted by schu46, Thursday, 6 July 2006 9:48:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Bill, keep your morals off our freedoms. Don't like BB, do as most of us do, don't watch. If some bozos and bogans want to get in a house with cameras 24/7 and annoy the hell out of each other for people's sad entertainment and possible prizes, what business is it of anyone who doesn't want to watch it?

Go to the other OLO item today. Personal freedoms. That means the freedom to be stupid, and the freedom to watch others be stupid. It even means the freedom to write shallow, moralistic opinion pieces about stupid people watching other people be stupid.

The BB 'incident' this week has been grossly inflated by people not involved for grubby political purposes. I put you in this category, Bill. It was not broadcast on TV. It happended in the early AM on a very blurry internet feed. It was not an 'alleged sexual assault' as those involved have not described it that way. It was a bit of stupid sexual horseplay between adults, one of whom said 'stop-enough' and it then stopped. Channel 10 did the right thing by expelling 2 males. Episode finished.
Posted by PK, Thursday, 6 July 2006 9:50:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill, my 'off' switch is working just fine. Are some people that lazy that they can't walk over to their TV set and hit the 'off' switch? How sad.
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 6 July 2006 10:10:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading the astonishing attitudes and sexually predatory behaviour deemed, not just acceptable, but admirable by some of the 8 men "of interest" in the Diana Brimble Inquest - you remember the "fat, ugly dog" remark and won't go near anything over 60kilos stuff - I see Big Brother with new eyes. Perhaps, particularly because I have two teenage daughters, its good that we get to see the kind of attitudes that are "normal" for some Aussie men and tolerated by some Aussie women. It gives me something to warn my girls about and make clear the grossness of the behaviour and the attitudes.
I don't think these attitudes are new, either. I think there has always been a strong mysogynistic streak in the sexual behaviour of some Australian men, but it was kept hidden and when seen -in pubs, clubs, parties etc - was laughed about and applauded. Look at how P&O protected the 8 men despite their predatory, indeed, fatal behaviour, pity P&O offered no such protection to Diana Brimble and her family. Ten, on the other hand, responded quickly and appropriately to protect Camilla and banish the two men. Maybe some men are getting the message now. Helped by the recent exposure of previously condoned behaviour by footballers and the inspirational coroner Jacqueline Milledge. How galling for the 60 kilo remark man to find himself facing Ms Milledge, and her having the power to pass judgement on him, for a change. Must be his worst nightmare, but it is sweet indeed for those of us women who weigh more than 60 kilos.
If this behaviour is part of common Australian behaviour - and I think it is - better we see it, talk about it and condemn it, than pretend it doesn't exist and so give it tacit approval.
Posted by ena, Thursday, 6 July 2006 10:32:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well jeez Bill,

I think Question Time in Parliament is immoral and a waste of time. Watching these people bully each other, swear and not answer the questions is also very voyeuristic.

Do as I do, watch something else. Probably something American involving a murder or two which is solved by the heroic law enforcement officers in exactly the same way as the all do in less than an hour. God invented the remote control for a reason.

The only reason "sex sells" is because people make an issue of it in the first place.

You can rest assured that just as there is an apparent audience for the mundane "murder-investigation-solution" genre of mindless tv shows that come from America, there is equally an audience bored of these that want an alternative such as big brother.

Get over it.
Posted by Narcissist, Thursday, 6 July 2006 10:41:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you Bill. The trouble with the off-switch argument is that the media pick up on all the BB "incidents" and broadcast/publish them far and wide. This means that my kids can't avoid finding out about men rubbing their crotches in the face of a young woman (unless we become hippies in the bush). If we lose the idea that the sexual harassment of women by men is NOT OK, then we are in trouble - my kids are in trouble.
Posted by Civiliseus, Thursday, 6 July 2006 11:20:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't see the management of Channel 10 self censoring their predatory, self serving sleaze. They probably need the money for their next P&O cruize.
Posted by rockhound, Thursday, 6 July 2006 11:22:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks to Bill for pointing out the hypocrisy of Channel 10 in setting up the conditions in which such sex scandals are likely to take place then expressing its innocent wide-eyed disapproval of such behaviour.

And to all those arguing that those who dislike BB should just turn it off, please remember that it is sending out a signal of what is considered acceptable behaviour. I really don't want to see our culture shaped in BB's likeness. The spate of rugby league scandals last year, plus the current Diane Brimble case all remind me that certain sorts of Aussie men really think women are nothing more than sex objects (and some women lack the self-worth to insist on better treatment). Big Brother just adds to that point of view. I heartily agree with the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Pru Goward, that this program should be taken off air.
Posted by Claire, Thursday, 6 July 2006 11:24:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill,
Are you trying to tell me that you are willing to tell me what I can and can't watch? are you limiting my rights as an Australian Citizen?

I am NOT from another western country, nor do I want to be. I have my own freedoms and liberties in THIS country and I do not want to be treated as though I have no brain and can't decide for myself.

Why is it right wing conservatives like to tell me (and my fellow Australians) what I can do, watch, say or learn? I think the words freedom of information and Adult should mean something.

Some reporters and people replying to Blogs on other online forums and newspapers believe that we are "teaching the younger generation on how to sexually harrass people". I believe that they are wrong.

Can you really teach someone to sexually harrass another human being or is it inbuilt or a reaction to peer pressure? Wether this was publicised or not, humans being humans still have the capability to treat people with disrespect.

So in a nut shell Bill, don't tell me or the Australian public what we can or can't watch, we have a mind of our own. We have morals and are quite capable of making our own minds up as to what we would like to watch. As for our children? Parents have a brain and morals too.

So Bill, turn off your television or go to another channel rather than dictating to us what is right or wrong.
Posted by LaborMan, Thursday, 6 July 2006 11:31:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clare, the 'sends out a signal' argument doesn't wash. Did you get a signal that BB behaviour is OK? I didn't. Neither did my teenage daughter. If you got such a signal, did you accept it? Apparently not, you have more class than that. The 'impressionable young minds' argument? That is what parents are for. If parents can't help their children deal with 'signals' from TV and other sources then they are already in so much trouble that whether one TV show is on air or not is not going to help them.
Posted by PK, Thursday, 6 July 2006 11:33:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After reading some of the new comments made whilst composing my reply, I noticed something that I neglected to mention earlier.

I despise anyone who harrasses someone sexually or not. If these people have done the wrong thing, then they should pay. But Bill you are helping to sensationalise the issue! Asking Politicians and "family" groups to jump up and down and "get it off the air" is making the issue worse!

Come on Bill and all you small minded people, this is the 21st Century. Kids are not dumb and neither are adults, so stop treating us like were in 1940's Europe!

In my opinion, we all have a right to make up our own minds to issues that we are faced with, or are you trying to shelter us from the 'big wide world'? Wake up! when were sheltered, were not prepared!

For all the people that reply, how many don't? Do you think that every person that doesn't reply is a supporter of your cause? Check the ratings or Big Brother and other "risky" programs. Did you jump up and down about Brokeback Mountain too?

If you want to live in a sheltered world that is YOUR decision, don't take ours away from us.
Posted by LaborMan, Thursday, 6 July 2006 11:42:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't believe Channel 10 has run another season of Big Brother. Not only is it boring drivel that poses as viewable television, it presents 'anything-goes' as legitimate, socially acceptable behaviour. I always vote with the remote and only comment now because Channel 10 needs to realize that a lot of Australians actually have standards which are offended with shows and ads of the calibre of Big Brother.

Channel 10 - not only is it time to take Big Brother off and never allow it to return, its also time you became accountable for what you air, especially your late night ads. Also don't get too upset with all the criticism, as what can you expect when you produce television that is pornographic - soft or otherwise? You've no doubt achieved one thing - ratings are up with this latest publicity! or am I just being cynical?
Posted by Joybells, Thursday, 6 July 2006 11:50:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am astounded at the number of people who openly defend such behaviour. If it really is acceptable in the public domain, maybe they might like to try it next time they are in the city mall. It is a different thing all together if they wish to hire this type of material and watch it in the privacy of their own homes, good luck to them if thats what they enjoy. Here we are talking about an indescriminate broadcast to all and sundry; children, impressionable people of all ages. Our legislators have a responsibility to ensure that proper standards of decency are upheld for the wellbeing of our society, and to date they have let us down. I wonder how the people who defend this behaviour would feel if it happened to them or someone they loved.
Posted by Uncletoothache, Thursday, 6 July 2006 11:50:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The argument that if someone is prepared to watch a program then it has a right to be on the internet doesn’t hold weight with me. There is a huge market for child pornography in this country, that doesn’t mean it should be on the internet?

I am not advocating censorship of the internet but look at who is behind this particular site, it’s not a sleezy backyard job, it’s a national media corporation! Although what Channel 10 is doing with BB is not illegal it is undoubtedly unethical. Each year BB has tightened the restrictions on participants in order to produce controversial behaviour. There are no books, writing or making marks of any kind, no singing commercial music, no clocks, no contract with the outside world, participants are encouraged to sleep and shower together, punishment is via public humiliation and both the food and alcohol are strictly rationed. Earlier in the evening of the ‘incident’ housemates asked BB for something to relieve the boredom, the answer was ‘no’.

The participants in BB are being exploited, is that ethical just because there’s a market, I don’t think so. The ‘freedom to be stupid’, interesting concept but it presupposes a level of equity in this country that I don’t believe exists.

Regarding the incident itself, the police said there was ‘not enough evidence’ of a sexual assault. Well, if a video tape of the actual incident taking place is not enough evidence then there never was an assault. Without the live streaming to the net the incident would not have needed to become public. I agree with Bill about the crocodile tears. While Gretel was telling everyone to ignore the sensationalised stories about what had happened, the 10 network itself was running allegations about sexual assault on its news updates.

I expect that this sort of garbage will always find a market – the worry that I have is that it is one of our national broadcasters that has decided to meet the demand and actively incite bad behaviour to do it.
Posted by CG, Thursday, 6 July 2006 11:59:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The show is a breeding ground for this type of behavior. The show sets out to place young, single, sexually active people into a melting pot together, the aim being to create these type of situations. Are we surprised to see this result?

This time is has come back to bite them.

The interesting thing is, there has been outrage against the two young men. While not condoning their behavior, I believe the blame must squarely sit on the shoulders of Big Brother.

As for the comments 'just don't watch it'. I don't, but just turning a blind eye to it doesn't make it right. The kids watching this show are our future leaders. What they are learning now will define Australia into the future. It affects us all, whether we watch it or not.
Posted by Doogle, Thursday, 6 July 2006 12:00:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Big Brother - Great to see a person capable of good sense reflection speaking out about this terrible trashy type of television. We suffer every day from attacks on our children and deaths caused indirectly by these programmes feeding sexual predators desires. If channel 10 is not capable of good sense broadcasting, legislation should cover this. Keep up the balanced opinion Bill, WE ARE listening out here in normal everyday life.
Posted by 1voice, Thursday, 6 July 2006 12:01:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The way to stop Big Brother and similar nonsense shows is simple:

First examine why they are broadcast - they are on the airwaves in order to make money, pure and simple.

They make their money through people 'voting' by telephone calls, which cost a premium, to either retain or remove 'contestants'. This by-passes commercial TV's normal source or revenue, advertising. This is important because no normal advertiser wants to be associated with rubbish and find their goods and services being boycotted by outraged citizenry.

Instead the weak willed and poor in intellect keep phoning up, and coughing up (generally their parents') money and vicariously live their fantasies through this so-called 'realism' television.

So the way to stop it? Make it illegal for the media organisations to directly collect revenue from viewers via telephone calls. If people still want to watch it then put this rubbish on cable or satellite TV, where people will have to pay for it up front.

At the moment those who are paying via phone calls are behaving no differently than anyone else paying for a sexual service.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 6 July 2006 12:06:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm with Bill on this one.

After hearing some young teenagers talk as if all this were harmless fun, I suffered, for my sins, a couple of hours of this junk.

With online and videotaping facilities available to young people, it's meaningless these days to have 'up late' segments of this sort of garbage. It ought to be banned altogether, and when I have a reason to watch the Channel 10 network these days - for anything at all - I pause. Rowland
Posted by Rowland, Thursday, 6 July 2006 12:06:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's a really simple principle here:

sanity, and freedom, and not mucking yourself and the rest of us that have to share the planet with you, depends on seeing and treating things according to what they are.

Eg. truck drivers treat a truck as such and not like a rally car, companies treat truck drivers as people and not as robots for profit.

When it comes to sex, then sanity and freedom and not mucking one's own head up and not abusing others depends on treating others as persons, not regarding and using others as objects.

It's really simple, you don't appreciate being used by others, then don't you use others. Long term, developing sanity will give greater happiness, better sex. Treating others as objects will keep you immature, isolated and probably long term dependent on viagra because of deleting one of the key ingredients of best sex, which is love of another person.
Posted by Newhouse, Thursday, 6 July 2006 12:11:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another God bothering Australian Family Association member trying to make a moral judgement about what we choose to do.

The desire to impose their own "ethical and moral" values on everyone else is dangerous.

BB is crud television, but ratings are the only thing that matters. When people get bored with the show it will be axed, the way it should be.

To the religious right, get out of my life.
Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 6 July 2006 12:30:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Standard regulation on televsion presentation is more helpful than censorship. This was not a failure in BB, it was a failure in the concept of self regulation standards which are not proactive.

I think some viewers legitimately watch BB curiously as a sociological laboratory. The housemates are willing guniea pigs. Love it or hate it, BB chooses a large crossection of housemates in its range, including the best and worse characters that you will find in Australian society. Particularly in a younger generation.

Perhaps this is the problem. It has been marketed as a family show for young people. Its not the kind of show for kiddies.

I'm glad they axed the "uncensored" BB. That ended up being pornography.

But I'm not convinced that the whole show should be censorsed. The house rules could include higher standards of language and behaviour. BB should have been faster in responding to the sex abuse incidence. They only had to switch on the lights!

This season already had early indicators that it was going to be a problem with the eviction of Elise first. She was only evicted because she was Asian. This sent a message to kids. Asians are rejected first. Another nasty side to our culture in real life television.

Real life television is a reflection of Australian culture, not BB. He does set them up with the double beds and drinks, and this is the problem.

The "up-late" time slot should be the actual airtime everytime for adults. Regulation for local production needs to return for prime time using actors, drama, movies: made in Australia.

If you censor BB, you will also have to censor most American crap as they often have sex and violence guns and blood in the same scenes. These are not good for children either, yet they are in prime time.

Would we rather watch Americans with their guns, violence, sex and blood than Australians, simply because can't stand our own culture? Or do we regulate how programing is presented to a higher standard?

Where do you draw the line with censorship?
Posted by saintfletcher, Thursday, 6 July 2006 12:31:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey, you only need to use the off button if you don't like it.

And it ain't my ethics, just as the laws of gravity ain't my imposition on anybody. Do you discount the basic law of humanity that says don't use others as objects?
Posted by Newhouse, Thursday, 6 July 2006 12:40:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This little 'episode' of the public conciousness is very amusing. l thought it was terrible what happened eventhough l hadnt seen the footage. But then when l did look at a clip of that 'incident' (its all over the net), that pesky thing called truth and er, reality intruded upon my sanctimonious disquiet. Since when does a victim of sexual assualt laughingly and with implicit invitation suggestively ask questions like 'you're not gonna turkey slap me are you?'... nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Then laugh and giggle all the way through the 15 second 'assault'. And since when does a vitim od sexual assault then snuggle up to one of the agressors and giggle whilst she gives him a hand job under the covers?

Sorry to burst the bubble folks, but that is what actually happened.

All this public/media outrage is a joke? A way to get up ratings possibly? You gotta be kidding right?

This thing has been blown so far out of proportion by people who havent even bothered to have a look at what ACTUALLY happened. Not like its difficult to get the footage as its all over the internet.

The real outrage here is that overt exaggeration (of an trivial incident like this one) fosters a mentality of "she's crying wolf and playing the victim" when a woman is actually the victim of a real life sexual assault.

Its also ironic that given her tacit approval and jocular invitation of the horse play, she too was not chucked off that tawdry show.

Thank small mercies that my TV stopped working 6mths ago and l havent replaced it.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 6 July 2006 12:45:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Parenting as all parents know and few singles understand, is a constant negotiation. The result of all negotiations should be a win-win for all parties and this is no different. We parents hope for a well-balanced strong and capable individual who is suitably equipped to chart their own course through life.
We also understand that in order to produce this individual, we must set and apply boundaries with clear understanding that to cross the boundary will result in consequences. The parents’ capacity to maintain control is diminished significantly once the exposure to peers and other influencing sources increases. It is at this time when we rely upon the greater community, governments and other regulatory bodies to support us in enforcing the fact that when a boundary is crossed, there will be significant adverse consequences.
Right now we are dropping the ball. The boundary is hazy at best, and the consequences are becoming insignificant or ignored all together. I look back at one of the most rudimentary rules I had taught to me, “would you like that done to you, your sister, or mother, [daughter]….?” I think it is appropriate that some of you respondents should apply that argument to your own logic.
The community is quickly becoming so complacent with regard to an individuals right to engage [or not] in activities, masked as freedom of choice, and the media is ensuring that we are increasing desensitised to the point where the consequences of our actions are made to appear insignificant. It is time that the vast majority of people, those of us with sound morals, ethics and principles stand up and say this is unacceptable and demand that the boundary be put back.
Posted by pko, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:06:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here here PKO. Nicely said.
Posted by Doogle, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:08:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Censorship = Ignorance = Dictatorship
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Bill.
I disagree with posters who seem to think that public (& private) behavior has little or no effect upon others. The 'keep your morals off my freedoms' mindset has simply not thought this through properly.

So anyone can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't affect me?
Can they just? No censorship at all, hey?
That sort of logic just never adds up. Thoughts issue in actions.
Little things influence people's behavior.

John Donne had it right - no man [or woman], is an island.

External features of an inane voyeuristic culture, often do badly affect the internal workings of a person's mind, and then in turn, their external actions. Flick back through a recent newspaper or two. Ask a few victims of crime.

Many criminals locked away for years, are the product of our own culture's demons.
They did not just 'turn up' out of the blue. Ultimately, it is "we" who breed them. Without some community regulation (even self-regulation), any society of so-called 'freedoms' will soon degenerate into a breeding ground for trouble.

Should we feed people with garbage, until they begin to act out of unreality?
Should any community feed people with stuff that demeans what it means to be human?

If showing this stuff to teenagers, (and others) - is a sign of freedom.... I say, 'pah! keep your so-called "freedoms", off our nation's hard-won, culturally-noble ways of relating'. Get rid of Big Brothel.
Posted by tennyson's_one_far-off_divine_event, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:22:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you, Bill. Great article! I can't understand what some people are griping about, claiming that `if you don't like it, turn it off' and claiming you are somehow trying to stop them watching their smut.

In this country, if people really want to watch smut, they can buy it from a sex shop or somewhere similar. There's also graphic pornography available in most newsagents.

If Big Brother were canned, all this other pornography would still be available.

What this debate about is whether or not our young people and children (who would not normally have legal access to pornography) should be exposed to this demeaning and trashy show. Are we to deny our children and young people the opportunity to have a happy and well-adjusted upbringing without exposure to sexual depravity, or are we going to sacrifice it so that some adults can get a few kicks and some big companies can make further excessive profits?

The sooner Big Brother is taken off the air, the better. In the meantime, I shall just keep on boycotting Channel 10 and all sponsors of the show such as 3 (Hutchinson), Masterfoods and Proctor Gamble and Pizza Hut.
Posted by Imperator, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:31:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that the episode was unsavoury - which is just what I expect of that show anyway. So I don't watch. BB is one of the reasons I happily pay for Foxtel.

The chorus of demands for its banning is ridiculous though. The episode just gave government leaders the chance to play the righteous role and thus shore up favour with Family First and their cohorts -- as is their response to same-sex marriage. And all this is for is to take our minds off the real issues in the country.
Posted by nowvoyager, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:31:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Censorship = Ignorance = Dictatorship

Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:10:15 PM"

Commercial TV = profits = Big Brother

To claim that Big Brother helps overcome ignorance is a pretty big call, and to say that all censorship leads to ignorance and dictatorship is damned stupid.

So Kipp, are you saying that TV networks should be free to show commercials for phone-in sex lines and brothels during the Wiggles and Hi-5? Surely not showing them at that time is a form of censorship?

If someone was willing to pay for the commercial broadcasting time to promote child prostitution surely it would be wrong to censor that, according to your definition?

If I want to watch documentaries on commercial television during prime time that had images of people being killed or tortured, you would also think that is okay? Nothing wrong with children seeing that?

Or are you just against censorship when it seems to effect what you enjoy watching?

I originally said in a previous post nothing about censorship of BB, I just commented on making those whose puerile minds are fascinated by watching it pay for it up front. As far as I am concerned BB is just like a soap opera, and indeed there is no reason why it should not be allowed to go absolutely hard core, after all, that is what people are watching it for, isn't it? Just make people pay and we shall see who continues to watch it.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:32:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KipperSnacks... your post was shallow, lazy and a waste. IMHO.

Lets analyse:

'Censorship=Ignorance'

As another poster said "big market for child porn" BUT.. we CENSOR it.

So, what right does ANYone have to prevent an adult from watching child porn ? How does it 'hurt' him/her ?

Nambla will tell us that Adult/Child sexual experiences can be 'very positive' and there was a psyhologist academic on THIS FORUM who asked why we 'stigmatize' such people ? So, does it even hurt the children ?

See how many important questions are raised just by going that far ?

CLEARLY.... "we" (the community) have to make some 'relativistic' decisions OR.. for those of us for whom such issues are absolutely clear cut, and based on Divinely revealed truth, and then say with one voice:

THIS FAR, AND NO FURTHER.

Thennnn we get the arty types.. oh nooooo.. "You are interfering with artistic freedom" blah blah.. etc etc ad absurdum, when in fact they could not give a sailors cuss about 'artistic freedom', they are just thinking of all the free publicity and the ensuing talk TV contracts.
Man on man..and they say we Bible Bashers are a bunch of 'Hypocrites'.....

One serious problem is this: "In the absense of clear cut guidelines and a shared value system based on them, HOW do we decide what is good and what is not ?"

Unfortunately, due to the freedom we enjoy in our society, there are many unscrupulous people who use the 'freedom' as an opportunity for the 'flesh' and the wallet. So they devise emotive counter censorship arguments.

=Dictatorship ? errr..yeah.. sure..whatever floats ur boat. *pat pat*....
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:36:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Bill,

I endorse your comments, this time I think Big Brother has overstepped the mark. If Big Brother thinks they have done no wrong, why did they ask the two guys to leave the house? I rest my case.

Tassie Devil
Posted by Tassie Devil, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:43:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately, BB is one trashy television show where the "off button" doesn't work. I'll admit to watching 2/3's of the first episode just out of curiosity, but my curiosity was quickly satisfied and I haven't watched a single airing of the rubbish ever since. That's my choise and I don't judge anyone who has a different opinion, but I object to living in a society whereby I can't escape from BB by simply changing channels or hitting the off button. Everywhere you turn, BB is in your face. Two hairstylists discussing BB in rapturous tones, same in the shopping mall cafe, this time a cluster of immature little girls, BB is in the papers thanks to it's scandalous ethics, it's in the television guides and discussed frequently in the workplace. BB is everywhere and I can't get away from it. That's what I object to. However, lets not jump up and down to try to force it off air, after all there are people who have the desire and the right to watch it. As one poster suggested, lets push the Government to ban the making of money from telephone calls associated with these programs. That will also rid the screens of late night advertising from the sex industry. Current affair programs will also be deprived of money made from phone polls which are being used to line their pockets. It will also test whether or not the show can stand on it's own merrits. If the ratings prove there's a need for this kind of television, then advertisers will pay for the privellige of keeping it on air, if not then we can all get back to watching appropriate television viewing.
Posted by Wildcat, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:48:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The embarrassed and angry parents of the two guys removed from Big Brother should teach us one thing very important. What a person does as a matter of 'free choice' can have unwanted and negative consequences on others. Yes! I believe in freedom but not without accountability. The QLD government, TV sponsors and Channel 10 must also be held accountable. If Aussies blokes like myself are making excuses for this kind of gutter trash and call 'entertainment' or 'alternative viewing to cop shows' then what else are we going to find acceptable, a dead drugged woman in a man's cabin.
Posted by Hawksman, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:50:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article Bill

Of course BB is just the tip of the iceberg. As can be seen by the many posts justifying one's right to turn on this garbage it shows how sick much of our society's heart is. Many want to insist on ones rights no matter how degrading and damaging it is to society.

Why should the sickness of our societies heart surprise us when we murder our unborn in the thousands just in the name of rights and convenience. BB is just a sad reflection and another step down the ladder of a decadent society.

Thank God that while many baby boomers and people who have failed in their own responibilities to their families due to being entrapped by lusts and by insiting on their own selfish rights, there are now actually many young people who reject this garbage.

Unfortunately banning this single program would achieve nothing. When many in society get sick enough of being bound by their own lusts and also facing the truth of the destruction that this garbage causes then we will see a reduction in demand for this stuff. One day our Governments might get some backbone although one would be foolish to think they would have the courage to oppose the vocal advocates who often get the say in the media.

For the meantime I think we need to champion the cause of our young people (of whom their is many) who are now choosing a better path. Thank God who are embracing the message that their is responsibility attached to sex
Posted by runner, Thursday, 6 July 2006 2:17:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agreer 100%. How can Big Brother not take resposability for what they intended to do all along. Big Brother uncut is the proof and Paradise Hotel or Temptation Island is the precedent.

Big Brother selects youth from arround the contry that are goodlooking (by media's standard) give them communal living - no opertunity for private sleeping quarters and cut them off from the outside world and see what will happen.

If Big Brother were to claim that their show is not geared for sexual misadventures - why is Big Brother Uncut aired? If they are not out to make money off of drooling sex saturated people why do they not give privacy in the showers and bedrooms?

Channel ten specifically orchestrated the show for the sex appeal. If they didnt they would have chosen a more represetative sample of young people, not the unrealistic scewed representation they have.

Survivor has more credability in who they choose for the show, Paradise Hotel and Temptation Island are specifically set up for sexual voyerism and so is Big Brother.

For Channel Ten to say they did the right thing by evicting the house mates responsable is a laugh. They wanted this to happen - maybe not in the way they did but what els do you expect.

Big Brother has a duty of care to these people to provide a safe and secure environment and they have not done that. It is a tragic condemnation of our culture when people find that form of entertainment prefferable.

The media storm that ensued after the incident showed that people in general do not see right and wrong as universalism but see right and wrong as what is good to them. By this standard all things are right - just dont get caught by the opressor.

Getting your genetils out and pushing them in the face of another person is disgusting and wrong no matter if you think its funny or not. I encourage you all to go out and do the same thing to others if you dont believe me - see what happens.
Posted by JoshRichy, Thursday, 6 July 2006 2:19:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh if only the people who say they didn't like it had the sense to turn it off. Obviously there are a lot of secretly depraved people out there because the show it still on. We are all drawn to the things we really shouldn't be - it's human nature. That's why we give kids boundaries. That's why society has rules. The ideal of a utopian society where all live in a communist dream of 'to each according to their need and from each according to their ability' has already been tried and failed dismally. While we live Godless lives it will happen.
So, 'freedom' you say? Freedom is a relative concept. What good is it without food on your table, clothes on your back and a roof over your head? Should we all be free to do exactly as we like? I don't like my next door neighbour so I shoot him? I need money for a holiday so I go rob a bank or con an old lady?
Get real. Freedom is an esoteric, ephemeral notion. Without boundaries and controls human society disintegrates - take Lord of the Flies as a literary example.
Sometimes we need someone with a little common sense to place boundaries on the mindless masses.
GET RID OF BIG BROTHER!!
I want the freedom to channel surf without being accosted by such crap (in every sense of the word).
Posted by russian_snowflake, Thursday, 6 July 2006 2:25:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done Bill. I completely agree with you.

All those posters that keep saying "if you don,t like it just turn it off" miss the mark altogether. I DO NOT watch and NEVER have watched BB but still I have been bombarded with this rubbish. Unfortunately all the other networks have picked it up and replayed and replayed it, so much so that it seems like another TV stunt just to get some free advertising. Either TEN is completly ignorant or they were apart of the event.

Ban th Big Brothel now!
Posted by Harps, Thursday, 6 July 2006 2:38:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pko

So you are complaining that your ability to CONTROL your children , “The parents’ capacity to maintain control is diminished …” is being usurped by a TV show? Setting boundaries is not necessarily a good way to raise children . Teenagers especially are testing boundaries every single day. Open and frank dialog with children is the best way to raise them, giving them a sense of right and wrong where they know themselves what to do, not hiding behind arbitrary boundaries.

Would I like what done to me? A bit of horseplay between consenting adults. There was no enquiry by the Police because nothing happened.

How dare you raise “those of us with sound morals, ethics and principles” implying that those who disagree with you lack morals, ethics and principles.

I have morals, ethics and principles that may be different to yours does that make me a bad person?

The community is also quickly becoming annoyed at moral and ethical judgements being pushed by a minority to the detriment of all.
Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 6 July 2006 2:52:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George Orwell must be turning over in his grave at the mention of the term "Big Brother" in connection with Channel Ten's nightly airing of post-modernist drivel. One can only hope that there is an afterlife and that when those involved in the current "Big Brother" do pass on, that Orwell will be there to induct the newcomers into a real Big Brother experience. The scene in Chapter Three of 1984 where O'Brien pulls out what remains of Winston Smith's front teeth might just do.
Posted by Savage Pencil, Thursday, 6 July 2006 3:28:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pornography by stealth, voyerism, ratings from rutting? You have got it all here.
Today's youth is so dumbed down they would not realise they are being exploited by channel Ten and possibly by the sponsors of this junk.
These kids are puppets in a zoo, nothing more, nothing less. They do not have the intelligence to know they are being used because everything that was once out of bounds is now sold as being the norm.
Concentrate on the sponsors , refuse their merchandise and they might find more worthy programmes to back.
Posted by mickijo, Thursday, 6 July 2006 3:35:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any community only survives when people take care of each other by shielding the vulnerable, such as children and young people, from unnecessary harm.
The very selfish attitude of "if you don't like it turn it of" is no different, and just as irresponsible, as saying "if you don't like me driving at 200 kph on the freeway keep of the road".
A society without boundaries and responsible citizens who care for others more than themselves soon descends into anarchy.
Governments have to then restrict our freedoms even more and we end up with dictatorial tyranny.
Wake up, be responsible, and then we can all live in peace.
Posted by Peter Stokes, Thursday, 6 July 2006 3:47:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill is accurate. Just put the pieces together. An impressionable type views online (or TV) that all is well to perform acts on an unsuspecting, vulnerable person as it appears a victimless crime with a comical twist. Problem is, that impressionable type then replicates this to an unsuspecting, vulnerable person out in the real world and wonders why there is a hue and cry. I expect Dante Arthurs viewed pornagraphy and got ideas from this and associated mediums.

Reality TV is in some cases about reflecting reality in the world however in the BB case, is also about creating a reality for impressionable types. Just to be clear, youth are formally considered 'impressionable' types. For this reason, merely exercising individual control & turning BB off is insufficient for the good of the whole community. Removal is the only good action for BB.
Posted by holzym, Thursday, 6 July 2006 4:23:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Know what's the most infuriating about this event?

It hasn't changed any opinions at all. (Hear me out, I'm going somewhere here)

Without exception, every single call I've heard to have the program axed has come from people who already hated the show and wear their disgust on their sleeve.

Therefore, these are the people who don't watch the program and know the least about it.
I am not condoning what happened in that house, but we all need to take note that the woman in question is. And ultimately, she has forgiven and forgotten. Maybe the public should too.
Simply assuming she is giving in to this peer pressure is an insult to her.

Could it be that she's been living with these people for weeks on end on a 24 hour basis?
Yeah, it's still not right, but those people who actually have some idea of what they're talking about would have seen that she is quite a strong willed young woman.

Just because these twentysomethings are on television doesn't make them perfect. They're young, and still entitled to be reasonably stupid, and those who take more than a casual glance would realise that one or two of them even have some brains.

You don't like it, switch off the TV and the the hell over it. I don't like it either, but there are those in my household who do, and I don't begrudge them for it.

If you're going to ban any television (and I don't think censorship is any answer) start with getting rid of violence before sex. It's much more harmful.

Ultimately, don't knock it till you've tried it, but somehow I don't think the right wingers are going to approach it with an open mind.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 6 July 2006 4:41:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When we start imposing censorship ie: On some adolescent prank, then we are on a slippery slope. Any of you seen the schoolies week on the TV news.

Hamlet talks about "sex call adverts during the wiggles" Pleeesse!

Boaz David hates everything that is not to his "religous" thinking! He probably uses the bible as a pillow.

Live and let live, and as what has already been said. If you ain't tried it, don't knock!
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 6 July 2006 5:11:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you, Bill, for championing decency.
It's pathetic that so many people equate the Ten Network's toxic sludge with "free speech".
I'm all in favour of free speech, if by that one means the free exchange of differing opinions.
There are, however, three important exceptions: (a) incitement to crime or violence, (b) giving defence secrets to one's country's enemies and (c) corrupting public morals.
The "off button" argument just won't do, especially when the more lurid parts of "Big Brother" are re-broadcast, described in intimate detail and discussed ad nauseam.
Have we sunk so low that we don't care about moral standards anymore?
Posted by Solon, Thursday, 6 July 2006 5:23:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Big Brother is a pornographic TV show which is aimed directly at children. That the producers of this show know full well that their audience is primarily composed of adolescents and young teenagers,is evidensed by the fact that "Big Brother, Uncut" is always released to coincide with the beginning of the school holidays.

Adolescents and teenagers sit glued to television screens watching a sucession of trashy youth melodramas because they are fascinated by the behaviour of young adults. Kids just don't grow up into adults, they need role models to teach them how to behave as adults. Melodramas can be useful in teaching kids how to behave in whatever contrived social situation that the movie producers think up. Most of these melodramas are pretty harmless.

But if we allow out entertainment industries to manufacture sexually explicit TV shows like Big Brother, which teaches children that sexually provocative, mysogynistic and boorish behaviour is fun and hip, then we should not be surprised when young people start acting like the young slobs implicated in Dianne Brimble's death.

If you came home and found a man in your house teaching your children that "turkey slapping" is fun, while trying to sell your kids expensive products, you would grab the rat by the scruff of the neck and march him right out of your house.

But you come home, the TV is on, and you don't think twice about it.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 6 July 2006 6:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frankly, I'm appalled, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Everywhere I go now, I see the ankles of chair legs uncovered. This sort of depravity is surely corrupting our youth and leading to the moral decay of our society.

Moving on though, I just don't buy this argument of free choice, speech or expression at all. Look, I'm all for freedom, but freedom doesn't actually mean you're free, it means you have limits, or rather, someone else has limits and like a moral person, you follow that other person's limits. Likewise, I demand that people take responsibility for this moral outrage, even if I won't take responsibility for myself. It's no one's responsibility to take responsibility for himself or herself.

I demand that the government step in and restore some moral decency, just like back in the good old days when everyone understood that a government's job was to tell us what was right, and it was our job to do that, even if we didn't understand why. Like I've already said, freedom has limits, and it's no one's responsibility to take personal responsibility. That's how we got in the mess we're in today: too many people claiming they know what's best for themselves.

While I'm at it, I should mention that I think the youth of today are immoral and impolite and dumbed down (otherwise they'd realise that freedom has limits and it's no one's responsibility but government's to take responsibility). Basically, they'll accept any drivel presented to them.

I think it's quite obvious that this is reasonable. It's for the sake of our children, after all. Well, I don't actually have any children, but I just want to let it be known that I'm morally outraged and worried about the insidious effects of Big Brother on any children that I could hypothetically have, who might, theoretically, watch Big Brother and possibly be adversely affected. After all, as I've quite clearly argued, it's not my responsibility to monitor what they might watch and also, young people don't know what's right or wrong.
Posted by shorbe, Thursday, 6 July 2006 6:50:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To those who tell Bill to get "his morals off our freedoms", you haven't thought about what you're saying. By saying that, you are imposing YOUR morals! Sorry, but God's word (the Bible) is quite clear about right and wrong and it doesn't matter what Bill's morals are (or anyone else) - it's what God has to say about it. And God condemns many of the activities on Big Brother. Bill is only standing by his Father and Lord in stating his opinion which he has every right to do. Just as those of you who support BB have the right to say so, and as do those who think Christians should shut up. :-)

Secondly, there is the comment that we can turn it off. Sure we can, but that doesn't make it stupid for us to say it should be off TV so that those who have no desire to see it even for one second are inflicted by it. And what about those with limited discretion such as children (yes, I'm aware it's on late - so??), and others. And why should I not be concerned about the damage to those who watch the show and are being (further) poisoned by it? Yes, your life is yours (in one sense), but I have as much right to have a say about society as you do, or to say nothing. I don't force you to take sides and you have no right to tell me I can't give my opinion about it.

Channel TEN, please wake up to how dangerous this program is (and others like it) and remove it from the air. Not only are you damaging those who watch, but it further corrupts our society and it's putting you under further condemnation. God is a holy God and detests sin, not because He's mean, but because sin is wrong and destructive to all. Thankfully, He's also a God of love and longs to have people desire Him, and like a loving Father, He comes running to restore and heal the wandering children who return to Him.
Posted by Grahame, Thursday, 6 July 2006 7:31:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, and how hypocritical are the people on this forum who tell Bill (and those who agree with what he says) that they can just turn it off, and without thinking twice then complain that Bill has expressed his opinion?!

Bill has EVERY right to express his opinion and to characterise that as Bill removing your freedoms is incredibly inane when the same people also seem to be saying that he could just turn the TV off. I would spit the same thing back in your face if I was a spitter. Perhaps I have and for that I apologise, but I'm appalled that I (and my "friends") have been spat at. Slow down and think about what you're really saying, please.

In no way is Bill removing anyone's freedoms by posting his comment. He's just having his say and hoping that Channel Ten will do the decent thing.
Posted by Grahame, Thursday, 6 July 2006 7:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you Bill for thinking of people other than yourself, unlike many of those posting comments.

I have three children under six years old and even they have heard of bloody Big Brother. The ads are aired at all times of the day, over and over and over. Even with limited T.V. access, they hear about Big Brother daily.

Australia is not populated solely by free-thinking, intelligent adults capable of deciding what they should and shouldn't watch. A large component of our population is under the age of eighteen and they are getting assaulted with this filth as well.

It is a rotten example for the young people of our community; and you adults who don't want to give up your right to watch garbage are the ones who need to 'get over it'. We will all be better off without it, it adds nothing of value to our lives.
Posted by Barnaby, Thursday, 6 July 2006 9:15:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree, & do you know what's even worse? It delays the motor racing broadcast, which is now too late.
This must be an attack on my freedom.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 6 July 2006 9:24:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Graham. Bill has every right to say what he thinks, and there are actually many of us who agree with him.

However, obviously we aren't the intelligent ones!?! According to many of these posts, intelligent people believe that to allow such destructive television is an expression of freedom.

As I said in my earlier post, freedom is a complex concept. I believe my chlidren have the right to grow up in a society free of depravity, free of the desensitisation that occurs through media exposure to unreal behaviour.

Such levels of violence and sexual activity as we see portrayed on TV are (hopefully) completely NOT the norm - and yet this is called reality TV.

I want my children to know what reality is, and not grow up to live as they see on TV. I hate to think of the type of society we are headed for if Big Brother is considered as an acceptable representation of 'reality'.
Posted by russian_snowflake, Thursday, 6 July 2006 10:03:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Bill for your enlightening comments. What do they expect when they get a group of young people in a house together and then manipulated to do certain things? Obviously there is a certain amount of manipulation behind the scenes to get ratings, But at what price? Young lives are being pawned for commercial gain, shame on Ch 10. Isn't it amazing how socity goes agianst what is commonly accepted in terms of psychology, voyeurism is linked to a sicknes of the mind. Does Ch 10 provide free couseling for the housemates at the end of the show. The sooner it goes the better.
bonehead.
Posted by BONEHEAD, Thursday, 6 July 2006 10:49:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First of all I don't watch any of the BB "uplate" of "Adults only" shows. I used to like the Friday night games though and everything else I found boring. However I do want to say this. I think that when there is an incidence like we have here that we ought tobe discussing what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. Turkey slaps are NOT acceptable behaviour.
As far as the P&O cruise is concerned, it is significant to point out that the young women who were shown a naked, unconscious woman on the floor and pictures of two men having sex with her, did not think that something was very wrong with that and did nothing to help the woman. When we ignore "turkey slaps" and call them "a joke that went wrong" we are desensitizing our youth to accept it as normal behaviour and this leads to the situation which happened on the cruise. Voyeurism is a sexual perversion which many of us have (apparently). That doesn't make it right or healthy.
Posted by Marsketa, Thursday, 6 July 2006 10:58:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you Bill. I agree.

Be big people and do yourself and society a favour …. turn away from your self-centred hedonistic existence and ideas and think of others for a change. You’ll find it a rewarding, growth experience.

Let’s choose the more challenging course of tough-love for self and others, over the soggy and sad sentimental preoccupation with “me, me, me”, that forever promotes individual freedom over self-denial, service and responsibility to society.

Liberal views = Lack of concern for others and self-restraint = Selfish and irresponsible behaviour = Accelerated social decline and anarchy.
Posted by Abednego, Thursday, 6 July 2006 11:45:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HERE ! HERE !
Posted by aramis1, Friday, 7 July 2006 6:37:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill is right on the money... how pitifall that I have to keep my children away from trash...and how pitiful that I have to constantly remind my children that TV demographics of reality shows in no way reflects real life....Once again Bill..you have put into words what I believe
Fritz from Tassie
Posted by Fritz, Friday, 7 July 2006 8:11:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on you Bill for speaking up and risking the criticism from people who use such simple arguments as just turn the television off and keep your morals off our freedoms.

As surely as other addictions such as gambling have become part of our culture - try telling a problem gambler to just not go to the pub! - television is one of these addictions and for some people, a real social pressure. We all have the freedom to have an opinion or agenda and it is NOT for anyone else to judge why we have this opinion. Certainly we should not discount a very good argument against this immoral program, named entertainment, due to an apparent political purpose.

I agree with Civiliseus that even if you don't watch it then you WILL still hear about it. Let's be adults here and forget our human defensiveness and agree that Bill, and other supporters have a point and that Channel 10 should listen to this as well as ratings - we know there are more responsible ways to make money!!
Posted by Meags, Friday, 7 July 2006 9:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Australian Family Association, that Bill is Vice-President of, is yet another right-wing Christian group unafraid to use any form of media to get its rather fundamentalist message out, using its 'troops'. As a long-term OLO user, my suspicion is aroused by the high number of posters whom I have never read on this site before. Sure enough, when you press the button to check out their previous posts, there are none. These contributors have never before appeared on OLO. I name Grahame, barnaby, Bonehead, imperator and there are at least 6-7 others. There are more first-time posters than regulars, and that is quite unusual for OLO. I smell a rat. Obeying 'orders' guys? What drew you to OLO? Genuine interest in sharing and exchanging opinion, or did Bill need some support? Stacking opinion blogs is not a good look. I repeat, get your morals off our freedoms.
Posted by PK, Friday, 7 July 2006 9:58:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You guys are nuts. The show is rubbish. Its not like anyone is forcing you to eat out of the rubbish bin. All this nonsense about freedom of speech and the spurious definitions and qualifications of what is a freedom are thoroughly pointless. Stop chasing the mice in your heads.

If you qualify a freedom then it 'aint a freedom.

If you qualify freedom of speech then you clearly and self evidently dont adhere to that notion. The freedom to speak means the freedom to say the unpalatable. THATS THE POINT! Freddom is a RESPONSIBILITY and its plainly obvious that many folks arent comfortable with the attendant accountability. Ironic are the call for big brother government and the nanny state to step in and impose morality (whatever that means), order and control over folks who are in the grips of being controlled by the remote control.

The freedom to speak does not obligate passers-by to listen.

The idea that one cannot avoid hearing or seeing the crap that surrounds us in this world is childish. You dont have to eat what they put in front of you. That's the challenge of life... to critically evaluate the world around us and that to which we are exposed. If you want to absolutely 'protect' the children from the ills of the world then quite simply... dont have any. Protecting people from their own minds is a bizarre notion.

And yes you can actually turn off the idiot box. Some parents dont let the kids watch the idiot box until they are around 10yrs of age. With good reason l would suggest. Mainstream media is infected with dribble. By all means you wanna eat off a dirty plate, go ahead.

Me, l will just not turn the TV on. Its not rocket science.

There are no freedoms. Its an illusion.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 7 July 2006 10:16:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australians has been called the white trash of Asia (Singapore), crude and vulgar (Indonesia), having no culture of its own (Japan) and a lot of other things. Producing and showing programs like “Big Brother” supports this impression. If we junk our kids with this sort of stuff what will we have?
Commercial television generally must lift its game; there is not much there at the moment
Posted by SILLE, Friday, 7 July 2006 10:26:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear PK,
It looks to me like a stack a fresh voices have joined OLO. Full marks for observation!

But given some of the tired old hands, that have made this forum their nest, their patch, their pulpit and - their limit - that can't be all bad.

However, is it now a case of "get your democratic right to speak some common sense, off my freedom to play "I'm a free spirit" games on OLO"?
Or, more simply, 'You can't all do this, I was here first'.

Every now and then, some idiot goes and wakes the sleeping giant of common sense.
One wonders what might happen, if he caught insomnia.
Posted by tennyson's_one_far-off_divine_event, Friday, 7 July 2006 10:29:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good stuff Bill. The same bleeding hearts complain when these sort of incidents occur in the 'real world'. Get this rubbish off the air...

Channel Ten may have been cleared of breaching broadcast rules over the Big Brother "Turkey Slap" incident but are not without blame. The Code of Practice states that, "a program or program segment will not be acceptable where the subject matter serves largely or wholly as a vehicle for gratuitous, exploitative or demeaning portrayal of sexual behaviour or nudity. Exploitative or non consenting sexual relations must not be depicted as desirable" (Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice- July 2004).

The Big Brother franchise has fallen short of these self-regulated rules regularly this year. Such programs should not be dictating our limits of acceptability. The communications minister needs to take a stand against these breaches.
Posted by MaNiK_JoSiAh, Friday, 7 July 2006 12:06:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaNiK_JoSiAh,

Could you please tell me at what time did the Ten Network air the alleged incident on one of it's Big Brother programmes.

I think you will find that the Ten Network did not put to air any such segment on Television - therefore the breach of the Telecommunications Act / Code of Conduct that you refer to did not happen.

The only times this was aired on Television was grainy pictures by opposing TV networks in their news segments, which only displayed part of the story.
Posted by Narcissist, Friday, 7 July 2006 12:23:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Narcissist,

I'm sorry that you have been misled by the fact that I overquoted the Code of Practice. The breaches were in regards to the following portion (relevant to the Mature Audience classification): "a program or program segment will not be acceptable where the subject matter serves largely or wholly as a vehicle for gratuitous, exploitative or demeaning portrayal of sexual behaviour or nudity." Your passionate defense of this program suggests to me that you have most likely watched the 'uplate' or 'adults only' programs of the BB franchise (regularly?). Can you now understand how these programs have often breached the self-regulated code?

Apologies again for my excessive quote.
Posted by MaNiK_JoSiAh, Friday, 7 July 2006 12:50:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't watch much television but I've been following the television programme Big Brother and still ask myself ..... who would have imagined that there could be huge audiences – millions - watching a group of young volunteers trapped within a totalitarian playpen in a quasi-psychology experiment?

In many respects BB is not unlike all religious playpens that are emotional control systems but in BB's case it is obviously understood as a temporary, complex test for some well screened contestants where the media is the gatekeeper between psychology and the public. Religious playpens on the other hand present the whole construction of a reality usually with the most vulnerable, but display, manipulate, coerce by insisting on a reality as if this is all there can ever be. The poor jellybeans who have been infected with such a teddy mind virus believe in nonsensical teddies (i.e. invented "big brother" gods), and fairytales of gory mythologies and magic that could not possibly be true. We can observed that virus writers maliciously hack in on the vulnerable with great success and penetrate all bases by disabling mechanisms essential to human functioning. These viruses are so well designed to the point that many victims cannot detect their presence so won't know it and may even vigorously deny it. Cruelty and control is certainly a topic on people’s minds here.

With BB I find it really interesting that most contestants say when evicted from the house, that they had an opportunity then to review what had gone on and to come to a deeper understanding of themselves and others through that experience. I find myself interrogating it for a greater understanding and perhaps the only reason and its popularity is simply because to observe human behaviour is fascinating and educational.
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 7 July 2006 12:58:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is unfortunate that when Christians or anyone who is associated with a church or para-church organisation presents a moral view, that they are then critised for presenting their opinion. Morals are of course not just the domain of Christians and if this were to be the case then we would indeed be living in a sad society.
The case with BB certainly trancends all social boundaries and persuasions, it certainly runs counter to the desires of our society in seeng men treat women with respect and honour. I grant that I have seen very little of this programme over the years but the little that I seen only makes me wonder how any parent can be happy to see their young children and teenagers watch this program which has its primary entertainment base in seeing young people debasing themselves and each other.

The fact that we as a society see the need for this discussion in the first place is in itself dissapointing.
Posted by Barry Fleming, Friday, 7 July 2006 1:02:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaNiK_JoSiAh,

Again I will ask you, when was it on TV?
Posted by Narcissist, Friday, 7 July 2006 1:21:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for the welcome. I did hear about this through other sources, not Bill, but no matter, I support him this time. The show is trash and I have to agree that turning the TV off is the best option. I have to say also that there are different people in this world who have the ability and desire to speak up about issues and not just sleep through them. Hooray for these people who shape society, get us thinking and bantering, and have potential to have a positive influence.

I really have enjoyed the banter and have enjoyed the challenges to my ideas. Looking forward to more.
Posted by Meags, Friday, 7 July 2006 1:52:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having listened to persons who were interviewed as possible contestants for BB; who stated they in the interview had to simulate the sex act with other persons. The whole immoral attitudes of the producers of the show use BB as a lead into introducing teenagers into the highly lucrative industry of porne, voyerism and prostitution.

Unless society can act with respect for one another - that means TV and media producers in the area of sexuality as with assult. Then the moral right will rise up to put laws into place with penalty to enforce respect. Probably 60% of our current youth society have been brainwashed with this type of disrespect and advantage of others for self gratification by media.

Bill keep stating the case for human dignity.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 7 July 2006 2:36:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill and fellow travellers.

Why do you think that everybody has to conform to what you consider to be moral? Who gave you the knowledge that you are correct?

From my own moral and ethical viewpoint there are many things I do not like but I do not call for them to be banned. We have a system of laws to decide these things.
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 7 July 2006 2:49:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To you Steve Madden:

How do you think we arrive at the ever-changing 'system of laws' to decide these things?
Does that 'system of laws' just appear?
I would say: 'No. The community have a say in it'. [In other places, the Koran decides].

We participate in a democracy. Participation helps form the current moral bench-mark.
Policy makers try to reflect the will of the people - (with a fair bit of their own agenda too).

Each participant has a 'value system'. You say you have one, but you don't seek to influence others with it. Why not? Why forfeit your say? Is that a virtue?
Posted by tennyson's_one_far-off_divine_event, Friday, 7 July 2006 3:02:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tennyson etc

I do try to influence people with my point of view. But I do not do this by advocating banning things that are not in anyway illegal.

The AFA on the other hand have a warped view on so many topics and have excelled at making peoples lives miserable by there misguided zeal.
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 7 July 2006 3:26:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, are we going to see another 'stack' of posts from the Bill Muehlenberg/Australian Family Association lobby like we saw following his 'Big Brothel'article yesterday? I hope not because that would damage OLO if it became a trend.

I somewhat agree with this article however I do not agree that the episode was a sexual assault or should be referred to as an 'alleged sexual assault'. Only a few people who were not involved have soalleged. A woman allowed 2 men to get into her bed, and a bit of horseplay followed. When one of the men attempted the 'turkey slap' the woman put a stop to the episode. While not edifying viewing or behaviour, if anything, it showed that even rather silly people who may have been intoxicated knew how to set and/or obey limits to their silly behaviour.

It was not seen on TV and if it were not for all the ill-advised commentary and over-reaction that followed it, exploited cynically for political purposes, it would not be worthy of any further attention.
Posted by PK, Friday, 7 July 2006 4:13:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"They are the ones who set up conditions that such activities were likely to happen as night follows day."

Are you sure it was that likely, Bill?

It did take six years.

The sun has set on the Big Brother house almost 500 times now! Please review your calculations in future before unleashing them on an innocent public. I'll be watching.
Posted by Dewi, Friday, 7 July 2006 6:27:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Trade 215

If you believe in the absolute right of Freedom of Expression, then do you also approve of child pornography, slander, libel, incitement to racial violence, snuff movies, or publicising State secrets in time of War?

If the answer is "No", then congratulations, you do not believe in the absolute right to Freedom of Expression.

Since you presumably now realise that the principle of censorship is already a fact of life which is already widely accepted, then it only remains to debate on where we draw the line.

Australia's attitude to censorship has swung from one extreme to the other. Censorship was once very onerous, so much so that even university profesors were once prevented from importing polital books which kept them up to date on the important political events happening in Europe during the 1930's.

But today, parents are aware that the entertainment industries are promoting products to children displaying once undreaned of levels of vulgarity. Images on TV, on the Internet, in vdeo shops and in newsagents are now openly promoting sexual themes to children. And parents are concerned of the effects that this is having upon their kids.

What is wrong with parents now demanding that the entertainment industries clean up their acts?
Posted by redneck, Friday, 7 July 2006 7:28:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree totally Bill! Big Brother was a disaster waiting to happen... this is not reality TV guys! The environment in the Big Brother House is like a science lab. However, in the science lab at my university we use mice, not actual human beings! Entertainment like this has a cost- these are real people.

Many people have mentioned their 'rights' to have this kind of stuff on the air, and that to put an end to it, would be a tragic end to their ' human rights'...but what about the rights of the individual to not have this kind of trash on TV? Before you say it...I know, why don’t I just turn off my TV? but why should I? I have the 'right' like you to keep mine switched on. While we all keep on voicing our rights, you have this right, I have another… lets keep in mind that while all things are permissible, not everything is beneficial! Can we just think about this for a second, remembering that these aren’t mice spinning on a wheel in some cage, these are real people. Is entertainment really worth this kind of mess!
Posted by Mich, Friday, 7 July 2006 9:19:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had a look at Big Brother a few years ago. I even had a look at the late night version. I was neither amused, entertained nor titillated. So I haven't watched it since. But, unlike the AFA and other right wing fundamentalist people, I don't regard myself as the unappointed keeper of public morality. Nor do I claim to have a direct line to God and imagine that I know what God does or does not want.

http://www.serendipity.li/cda.html#oz

'If you wish to read how the Australian government attempts to justify its role as censor then you can read their Publications Guidelines, which states:

The matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a publication include:
(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults;

Who decides what "a reasonable adult" is? Who decides what these supposed "standards" are? That pathetic excuse for a prime minister, John Howard? Or perhaps some faceless bureaucrat with a psychological problem, afraid of anything which challenges his (or her) concept of "morality"? And these "standards" are then to be imposed upon everyone in Australian society.
Different people, all of them "reasonable adults", may have widely different interests and values. This is a clear case of "the tyranny of the majority" — or actually a tyranny of a minority, since in a pluralistic society no set of "standards" is likely to be those of anything but some minority of the population, which, by means of the Office of Film & Literature Classification, is then able to impose its "standards" on everyone else. So much for freedom in Australia.'

I'm sure the AFA would just love to take on the role of public censor, "for the good of all Australians", [whether they realise it or not!].
Posted by Rex, Friday, 7 July 2006 11:05:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck,
Your last post I felt was excellent argument.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 7 July 2006 11:11:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex, whether we like it not, we need Censorship. Can you imagine what it would be like if there were absolutely no rules and everyone was allowed to do what they liked. You can see what happens when you put some people in a house together and let them do what they like - the outcome is not pretty and should never be classified as entertainment. Yes - we can turn it off, but unfortunately, many bored people don't. They watch it and they allow their families to watch it and then what do you have? Children who grow up believing that anything goes and this terrible behaviour is normal and acceptable. Even though the recent episode was restricted to computer screens - who use computers the most - our young people. Surely you are not so backward that you haven't worked that out. Why do you think there are already so many problems in our society. Unfortunately people act out what they see - and already they see enough junk without tv shows contributing to it.
What we need Rex, is more people who will stand up for decency.
Posted by Big Red, Friday, 7 July 2006 11:27:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The many "Well done Bill.", "Good on you, Bill.", "I'm with Bill .."and "Thanks Bill" posters here are first time posters to OLO ...... quite a number, more than half and an obvious jellybean lobby.

Immediately following my post, one such jellybean presented this as his first OLO post ...... "It is unfortunate that when Christians or anyone who is associated with a church or para-church organisation presents a moral view, that they are then critised for presenting their opinion." Being a curious type I then re-read this Bill's article, checked out who this Bill is and make the following few points.

BB is not reality TV but an artificial construct of a temporary nature designed so you get very extreme responses of people to situations but in the end it is entertainment, a comedy and it can’t be expected to be ethical or profound. It is not drawing a long bow in this respect of entertainment to consider Shakespeare who was just as bawdy and interested in rather low humour as well as consciously promoting interactivity involving audiences. Is this surprising when we see similar in BB? When we see emotions like fear and desire getting connected, cheeky intimacies and back stabbing, is this not the stuff of drama for a few hundred years?

Whilst the BB playpen is entertainment, religious playpens are playpens of the mind and are anything but entertainment. One could say they represent a joke of cosmic proportions if it weren't so tragic. There are no solutions in pure selfishness and ignorance. So whilst one can always be curious as to why we don't agree on certain issues with others there is always for myself a serious problem when it comes to anyone infected with a teddy ("Big Brother" god) mind virus. I just know that with these people the mechanisms essential to human functioning have been poisoned and are of no use through such obvious insecurity.
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 7 July 2006 11:51:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex, the idea of a 'reasonable' person is a concept in law: in a murder trial it is the 12 members of the jury who decide whether the actions of an accused person, say in self defence or provocation, are those of a 'reasonable' man.

That is, if a person reacts to having an orange thrown at him or her by shooting the thrower, it is up to a jury of that persons peers to decide whether the actions of shooting are those of a reasonable adult, and are therefore justified.

In the context of BB, a reasonable person is someone who not only represents the average views of the community, but also the overall mean, rather than average, views. What these views are can be gleaned from how a proportion of the ADULT population react to certain events and depictions.

They do not represent the average view of 15 year old girls, or of a conservative Anabaptist. They do not represent a single minor viewpoint that lives life vicariously through watching, and manipulating by their votes, the behaviour of abnormal young people who are willing to throw away some months of their lives in some hope of making their fortune. I say abnormal because normal people are not picked for BB. If the contestants were 'normal' they would not consent to such restrictions on such things as not being able to take reading material into the house with them. Those possible contestants who are sane and reasonable are deliberately screened out. This also says something about the audience, and those who justify this from the point of view of 'freedom'. The people who watch BB are not exercising reason, they are like porn addicts who get off on seeing others behaving abnormally.

But by all means maintain your freedom, just be willing to prove that you are over 18 and willing to pay for it.
Posted by Hamlet, Saturday, 8 July 2006 1:03:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Getting back to something that Kipp has said:

Censorship = Ignorance = Dictatorship

Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 6 July 2006 1:10:15 PM

Kipp, I have just gone over a post of yours in another topic, and it has made me think just a little.

The reduction and possible future elimination of anti-homosexual literature, the official frowning upon, and sanction again, depiction of gays as negative, and similar actions, are all a form of censorship.

If a person, or groups of persons, started a campaign of deliberate slander against the gay community, they would be censored, in the broadest sense of the word, as well as being censured.

Or are you claiming, in your three word rant describing censorship as a pathway to dictatorship, that any and all views and depictions should be allowed in the public arena, no matter how hurtful and harmful those depictions would be?

This forum itself has a practice of censorship - against flaming and the like - if you don't agree with that then what are you doing here?

Some of us feel about BB the same way that you feel about openly anti-gay sentiments expressed in the media. You are free to argue against those sentiments, with good cause. Let some of us argue, with good cause, the censorship of BB.
Posted by Hamlet, Saturday, 8 July 2006 1:16:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Philo.

Thank you for the complement.

To Big Red.

Very good point.

I would like to develop your point further. The first country to completely renounce any form of censorship was Sweden. This was done after years of campaigning by that countries left wing academics, which included that nations women's advocacy groups. But the resulting avalanche of very confronting and vulgar pornography, including child pornography, bestiality, and female degradation on public street billboards, was just too much for the Swedish public. Soon that nations women's groups were campaigning to repeal the very same law that they had passionately argued for implemenation.

Swedish women had learned an important lesson. Censorship does not equate to "ignorance" and "dictatorship". Used intelligently, and can be used to protect us from images which the vast majority find absolutely repulsive, and which we do not want our children to view.

The most idiotic argument put forward on this topic by the anti censorship people, is the one which says "who decides what should be censored?" Well, boys and girls, we the public does. That is why we are having this discussion. We, the public, decide upon what are our community standards. The furore over Big Brothel, is that most of us, supported by our Prime Minister, think that vulgarity on TV has gone too far.

If you were to invite a foul mouthed stripper to your 10 year old son's birthday party, who entertained your kids with nudity and "turkey slapping", you would rightly get arrested for child abuse. Yet TV executives can beam exactly the same material into the family home.

And THAT is the real issue here.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 8 July 2006 5:05:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't have time (nor am I allowed the room to respond to everything) so I won't for now.

PK seems overly threatened by the fact that Bill has mustered some support for his opinion. He's such a stupid hypocrite that he sees no problem in complaining that people are FREELY expressing an opinion different to his (and one that he obviously hates!) while at the same time complaining that "his freedoms" are being impinged upon. I dare say that his freedoms have not been harmed at all, for a start and secondly that we have EVERY RIGHT! PK, wake up to yourself.

Yes, Bill did send an email to supports and one of those supporters is the CDP who forwarded it to me. Praise God!! How on earth is this a threat unless Christians (and others) aren't allowed to express their opinion? What are you really saying underneath your fake appeal to "freedom"? Get a life and let us have ours. You are allowed to express your opinion (as even though it's completely inane) and so are we allowed to express ours.

I'm not ashamed of a single thing I've done thus far, except that I'm not feeling particularly loving, so, okay, you've got me on that. Sorry. I'll try harder to put up with the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. But in the meantime, don't ignore your own flaws while shooting darts at others.
Posted by Grahame, Saturday, 8 July 2006 12:15:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't like censorship, but like most of the posters on this thread [including the 'rent-a-mob' ones], I agree that it can sometimes be appropriate. The only real point of contention is where we draw the line and who makes the decisions.

In regard to 'reasonable person'. There are a number of regular posters who to me are far from reasonable on occasion and I don't believe they are necessarily capable of invariably making rational decisions on my behalf. For instance:

Those who quote the Bible and tell us all that this is God's law and must be obeyed. On the other hand, I don't approve of making fun of those who hold a religious/spiritual belief.

Those who claim that black people are intellectually inferior to white people.

Those who would deny same sex couples similar rights as heterosexual couples.

Back to censorship. We the people don't do the censoring. It's done for us by those who claim to know better, perhaps in response to unrepresentative pressure groups [like AFA], or in response to orchestrated campaigns. Or maybe simply because some well connected person has a bee in his/her bonnet.

Some entirely different examples. Until recently, RU486 was effectively denied [similar to being censored] to Australians, to please a loud minority.

A while ago, there was a campaign for a clothes-optional beach in an outer Perth area with many kilometres of relatively quiet beaches. The local council didn't want one, so put it to the electorate by referendum, confident that it would be rejected by the people. When the majority voted 'yes', this council said that the result wasn't binding on them. So they continued to 'censor' the human body on all their beaches.

And anyone old enough to remember when the hit song 'Answer me, Lord above' by Frankie Laine was banned on BBC radio [inappropriate reference to God], but 'Answer me, oh my love' by Nat King Cole was OK?

Oh, the illogical vagrancies of censorship!
Posted by Rex, Saturday, 8 July 2006 12:55:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck,

you substitute my statement regarding freedom of SPEECH, with your misrepresentation regading freedom of EXPRESSION.

That's intellectual dishonesty. l can see why you did it as you used that misrepresentation to justify an obvious distortion that leads into an extreme characterisation. You took and inch and made it into a kilometre.

This more or less stands as an example of what lm talking about... people distort, misrepresent and dump opinions, irrespective of what actually transpired. Speaks to the general malaise positted. Big Brother is not the cause its a symptom. Why do people blame the cough for the cold?

In response to your misrepresentation, veiled as the leading question "If you believe in the absolute right of Freedom (of Expression)?...", l offer for your edification, wot l actually said "There are no freedoms. Its an illusion."

l dont see the point of being asked to explain wot l have already clearly stated, other than the playing the head game of creditting me with your spawning your opinion. Mate, you dont need to hide behind that sort of obvious attribution with me. You can simply state YOUR position and OWN it. No need to hide behind intellectual slights of hand.

On the other hand, if you merely want to use myself as a personal muse rather than casting yourself in the socially unacceptable image of argueing with yourself, well, that's quite OK.

Anyway, happy tricky trickiness.
Posted by trade215, Saturday, 8 July 2006 12:59:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran,

l like your style. Very salient and lucid. Wish there was a lot more of it about.

cheerz.
Posted by trade215, Saturday, 8 July 2006 1:09:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not sure what you're saying Rex.

"I don't like censorship, but sometimes it can be appropriate. The only real point of contention is where we draw the line."

Then you say who should decide. Sorry mate, but we live in a representative democracy. Leaders that we vote in make political decisions for the political constituency they represent. Leaders chosen by their organisations make the decisions for their organisations.

If you're suggesting that our political process should be more representative of the people so that when (via referendum or whatever) the people's will is clearly known then the leaders are bound by the will of the people, then I agree with you. And perhaps we should start a thread to that effect!

If you're not saying that, then who are you saying should decide what should be censored. I think you'll find that most thinking people (of every opinion) think that the people should decide. However Christians have the further opinion that God has made their decisions for them and they have the responsibility to follow God's command. And just because we express that opinion does not mean we are seeking to impose. At least I hope that's not what any Christian tries to do. (I know some do, unfortunately.)
Posted by Grahame, Saturday, 8 July 2006 1:29:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck
Thanks for elevating this discussion to the absurd. Nobody is advocating the removal of all censorship. My point is that people are corrupting this issue to press their minority moral and ethical views. You state often that “most of us” do not agree with our current, adequate censorship laws. But where is your proof.

To further embellish your fallacious argument you mention a stripper at a 10 year olds party. What rubbish, haven’t you heard of parental responsibility? That is the real issue here.

The argument goes that BB is corrupting children but it has an MA 15+ rating. It is not the show that is at fault it is the parents that allow their kids to watch.

Your view seems to be that society has to look after what kids see, I totally disagree. Parents have this responsibility on an individual basis.

The logic of your argument follows that all things that are bad for kids should be banned. So how about banning them from being driven to school, walking is a healthier option or Junk food or video games or the beach (may see breasts eeek).

But of course there is a wider agenda here. It is called ban it because I don’t like it. In that case I would like to see the Lyons Forum, Australian Family Association, HR Nichols Society, Opus Dei etc. banned. Note I did not mention Family First who are doing the right thing engaging in politics and letting people vote for their ideas (even with their slimy deal with the Christian Democrats in NSW).

Nice try redneck, but you just failed the credibility test.

To all the other new members of OLO who have descended on this topic. I look forward to vigorous debate on many issues , unfortunately I suspect that will not happen. I think we will have more lost sheep bleating their leaders mantra. “Get a life a let us have ours” I am more than willing to do just that, it is you who are imposing your perverted view of life on the rest of us
Posted by Steve Madden, Saturday, 8 July 2006 2:54:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you want to watch porn that is your choice and there are places where you can get that stuff. That is your right.
But it is also our right that such perverted trash is not shown on public television . It has nothing good to recommend it, it has nothing uplifting,truelly educational about it. It is just something for sick minds played out be mentally ill people and it should never be where your children or mine get access to it.
This is where the government is showing it's yellow spine,it should be protecting young people ,not hiding behind a wobbly jelly.
Posted by mickijo, Saturday, 8 July 2006 3:25:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve Madden,
You seem to really have a problem with the AFA.
You also seem to have a problem with the religious right.
On the one hand, you want them out of your life.
On the other, you look forward to 'vigourous debate.'

Do they really have a warped view on so many topics?
If so, is it warped according to your standard of orthodoxy, or some other?
If so, how did you arrive at the standard by which you measure - warped?
Are stable, honourable, gracious families a huge threat to freedom in society?
Examples please. Then we may understand what sort of society you are arguing for.
Posted by tennyson's_one_far-off_divine_event, Saturday, 8 July 2006 3:39:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am very grateful that we live in a country that allows all people to express their point of view on any topic. From the comments written it is obvious that the majority of contributors are decent minded people with a concern for our young people and our future society. I find the well written, well thought out comments uplifting and I can see that there are still a lot of people out there who want to keep the sewage pit from overflowing. I don't want to paddle in raw sewage, and I don't want my family to paddle in it either. The point I would like to express is that public television should be exactly that - providing shows that every family of any age can watch. Why should society cater for people who crave violence or pornography? Everyone has the freedom to watch what they want - but let those who crave junk obtain it for themselves - and watch it privately.
Posted by Big Red, Saturday, 8 July 2006 4:41:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tennyson’s … etc

I do have a dislike for the religious right, I do not hide it and I welcome debate on all issues. My dislike stems from the fact that “they” are trying to mould our society to their views of what is ethically and morally correct to the detriment of others.

This started in my case with objection to embryonic stem cell research and the lies spread by the RR. I started to see a common argument against this research and on investigation found an organised movement which told people how to oppose this research. Purely based on their religious bigotry.

This bigotry extends to homosexuals, the women who agonise about having an abortion, RU486 and loosely defined pornography. It has infiltrated political parties especially the Liberal Party. When tested in our parliament the RR were soundly defeated on a conscience vote.

I believe in democracy and oppose minorities who exert disproportional influence. Especially when that influence is detrimental to many in our society.

Go back to your Ivory tower and realise the damage you and you kind are doing. I do not believe in a God even though I have a terminal illness.

Please live your life as you see fit but do not impose your illogical morals on me.
Posted by Steve Madden, Saturday, 8 July 2006 6:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Steve Madden.

The proof that parents are getting fed up of entertainment industries targeting their children for violent, profane and sexually explicit programs, is in the furore that has erupted over the recent antics on Big Brother.

Every civilised society on Earth has some sort of ratings system to protect children from entertainment industry programs which can harm children’s psychological development. That is a form of censorship which is convincing proof that these programs can indeed harm children. The big question is, why are so many programs today featuring extreme violence, profanity and sexual themes that are clearly directed at children, only given such low ratings? The answer is, of course, is that the entertainment industries constantly lobby the OFLC for lower ratings, while some members of the OFLC are on record as saying that they are opposed to censorship.

The raising of our society’s most precious resource, OUR children, is not just the sole responsibility of parents. It is the entire community’s responsibility. In any case, lousy parents have always existed and always will. How does that absolve the entertainment industries if they do not take that fact into account when they are producing products that are dangerous to children? Even good parents can not supervise their siblings every minute of the day. This is especially so for children of single parent households.

Around one third of today’s “families” are single parent. This usually entails a woman leading a heroic life trying to juggle a low paid job, with housework, and raising children. The children of these women are OUR communities most vulnerable, and those who are most in danger of being affected by the ever present media messages promoting anti social behaviour. Poor women are being besieged by well heeled entertainment industry executives who are targeting their disadvantaged children to exploit them.

I’ll bet you think that it is inly a coincidence that “Big Brother, Uncut” is always released at the start of every school holiday? If that is so, then once again, the servants of Mammon are proving themselves considerably smarter than the acolytes of Idealism.
Posted by redneck, Saturday, 8 July 2006 7:44:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I missed the initial furor about the incident - I had not turned into a hippy in the outback, rather a beach bum for a couple of weeks. The article and subsequent posts have been interesting. Some thoughts on the issue.

- I don't like censorship.
- It is my understanding that the kind of vouyerism that most of us are against is the one involving unwitting participants. To the best of my knowledge all the BB participants understand that there are camera's in the house and that most of what they do and say is at risk of getting broadcast. It's a different kind of vouyerism.
- Whenever I've looked the show is deathly boring. If it is 24*7 party it is a very very dull party.
- I have wondered about the stuff that seems to be treated as OK in the media but which would leave individuals open to all sorts of penalties in most workplaces. I've not listened much in recent weeks to The Shebang on Triple M but it used to include a lot of comments which sounded very much like sexual harrassment. Other TV and radio shows seem to play in that ground from time to time especially where the theme is comedy. Are the rules different for the media?
- Do the TV stations have a legal liability for the potential psychological harm that they may be doing to participants in so called "reality TV" shows?

I don't want to see additional censorship imposed and suspect that the solution lies in ensuring that those who promote this stuff are exposed to the legal and financial consequences of their actions.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 8 July 2006 9:23:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate on this issue seems to have calmed a bit here, I don't mean to reignite it, but will raise a few points.

For those who say that if you don't want to watch it you can turn it off: That is true up a point. However I sometimes want to watch the programs that are on after BB, and sometimes I will attempt to record these for later viewing. Here is the catch: BB ALWAYS runs over time, if anyone wants to try to watch the prgram after BB they cannot help but catch some of it.

Adds for BB are run though the day and evening, featuring the names and faces of the willing victims, I mean housemates, or maybe the people who watch are willing victims...

I cannot easily avoid these ads.

Lastly, have all those who support BB read the piece written by a BB contestant in yesterday's Age? You can find it at:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/tales-from-the-house/2006/07/07/1152240487474.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Two aparagraphs stand out:

"Three-and-a-half years ago, I signed a four-page contract forfeiting all my rights to personal freedom and absolving my new boss - Big Brother - from any responsibility or duty of care."

(I wonder if anyone has challenged those contracts yet? )

and

"Our grapevine is full of tales of depression, addictions, breakdowns, break-ups, backlash and trying to find meaningful work when a prospective employer calls you in to meet you, not hire you"
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 9 July 2006 2:47:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hamlet - it would be interesting to see how well those contracts stand up. My general understanding is that you cannot sign away your basic rights, neither can someone absolve themselves of a duty of care.

Having said that I do think that those who sign such a contract should accept the consequences of doing so. No one is forced into this.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 9 July 2006 4:28:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, that is one reason why I noted it.

Of more interest is the article on-line today at News.com

http://entertainment.news.com.au/story/0,10221,19726883-5000140,00.html

Of course this is the mass media reporting on the mass media, but it shows that BB could very well be the commercial equivalent of of gaining entertainment and pleasure out of watching a group of sado-masochists flagellating each other in order to win a prize.

Or maybe that is what our 'civilisation' has descended to: the circuses in our bread and circuses are not gladiatorial contests transformed into sporting events, after all, the spectators at sporting events are just spectators, they do not decide who wins and who loses. Instead BB, and its ilk, provide a way for the great unwashed to decide who 'lives' and who 'dies' in a figurative sense.

And how do the young contestants know about contract law? You can bet any number of telephone votes that legal students, and the widely read, are specifically excluded from becoming contestants.

So all you eager watchers of BB, congratulate yourself on gaining entertainment from other peoples discomforture.
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 9 July 2006 6:11:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran: I thought you brought up some very interesting points. In their day, Shakespeare and Mozart were outrageous (as indeed many artists were), yet today, they're considered very much the establishment, part of the foundation of what makes western society so great.

As for religion...

The great irony I find in all of this is that people get upset with a stupid show, yet they're not appalled by the dominant cultural myth that promotes schizophrenic behaviour (eg. talking to imaginary friends); is at its very base, grossly misanthropic (original sin), not to mention grossly misogynistic (the whole attitude towards female sexuality, but especially the bizarre notion of immaculate conception); yet orgiastically celebrates as its central story a macabre and bestial psycho-sexual fantasy that in any other situation would be outlawed as the most perverse sado-masochism (the crucifiction); and has inspired its adherents to not only spend the better part of two millenia kicking the crap out of each other (eg. Thirty Years' War, Spanish Inquisition), or brutalising and destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of indigenous societies; and has done its best at every turn to stifle free thought and rational, scientific inquiry. Yet such people often can't see the incredible irony between claiming the bad influence of Big Brother whilst asserting the moral high ground of the religious right. Honestly, I don't know whether it's mental illness on a mass level (I'd like to hope that one day, psychiatric help will be available for all the religiously inclined) or part of a really sinister conspiracy that has left an indelible mark on humanity. Either way, I hardly think it should be out there in the public sphere. Its track record is appalling.

Yet here's the kicker. Despite history showing the despicable and dangerous nature of Christianity, I'm still opposed to outlawing it because I think people should make that decision on an individual basis for themselves only.
Posted by shorbe, Sunday, 9 July 2006 10:11:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mr Shorbe.

If the history of the Christian churches (and every other religion) was written in blood, that hardly provides justification for the entertainment industries targeting children today, for programs which are violent, profane, and sexually explicit.

I find your logic mind boggling.

If you can see evil in historical settings, how is it you can not see it in the present day, when it is staring you in the face? Are you suffering from the same ideological doublethink that our religious leaders suffered from 700 years ago? This is not a debate about the free choice of adults, it is a debate about protecting children. It would be a pretty funny world if kids were allowed to do whatever they wanted. They would be eating nothing but lollies and McDonalds, running around with machine guns and gelignite, and having sex with each other in the playground.

Unless, of course, you are one of those intellectually challenged, who claim that it is entirely the parents problem to raise kids. Such an unrealistic idea could only come from a person too young to have kids themselves, or who's "partner" is biologically prevented from ever doing so.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 10 July 2006 5:04:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck: I'm not saying that Christianity was a problem historically, I'm saying it's still a problem. I'm saying it's a sick, perverted death cult that is extremely misanthropic, misogynistic and an affront to any sane and rational human being. It actively encourages psychiatric behaviour and at the societal level, the whole Judeo-Christian ideology has left us with a whole slew of neuroses, but particularly with regard to sex. Frankly, I find it extremely offensive that Christians take as their central myth that of a father sacrificing his child, letting him be tortured and then letting him be nailed to a cross. What sort of sick minds think that's actually a good story to tell to children (or adults for that matter)? Yet they get incredibly hung up on sex.

Despite that, I think people should have the choice to decide what is or isn't good for them. I think morality should come from within, not from without. You can't have morality without free will. I suggest you go and read Dostoyevsky's "Brothers Karamazov" for a Christian version of this same argument.

As far as standards on television (or education or anything else), maybe parents should actually do some parenting instead of absolving themselves of that and then expecting the government to pick up the pieces of their irresponsibility. I don't believe it's the responsibility of government to actually say anything on the matter of morality (actually, I don't believe government has the right to exist, but that's another matter). That's why I don't think it should favour Christianity and it also shouldn't persecute it, despite despising Christianity myself. That's where you and I differ: I don't want to tell you how to run your life.

I don't watch television at my house and I don't intend to let my children either. It's rubbish, even the stuff that isn't "offensive". I think the public education system is a joke, but I won't be a martyr and put my children through it just so I can be offended. Take some personal and parental responsibility. Government intervention is a double edged sword.
Posted by shorbe, Monday, 10 July 2006 10:26:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shorbe, There are two kinds of freedom 1. The false: Where man believes he is free to do what he likes 2. The true: Where man knows he is free to do what he ought (Ben Kingsley I believe).
With true freedom comes responsibility - with false, there is none.
You see; a whole lot of common sense comes in a few lines. From the thesis you wrote, my guess is that you are young and still trying to figure out the world. I hope that when you are through, you will have something really worthwhile to contribute to the world that you (and perhaps your family) will dwell in.
Posted by Big Red, Monday, 10 July 2006 10:37:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Mr or Mrs Shorpe.

Excuse me? Governments have no right to exist?

Uh huh. Gee, I thought the old Anarchists died out a hundred years ago. Seems as if there are still a few dinosaurs around.

OK, I think that I will pass on this one. Any person who has such extreme political and social views, I don't think I can reason with.
Good day to you Sir, or Madam.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 10 July 2006 6:40:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good Post bill

Hey you wouldnt want to be seen dead on a list like this lot[ or some of them would you]

I mean guess who enjoys sitting up watching who is trying to bed whom.

What a pathetic bunch of sickos. Most!people are offended by this
.
What upsets me is that its shown at 7pm at night.

That is just TOTAL disrespect.

Then again the whole show is bassed on that.

Just remember bill most of Australia is with you .

Dont worry about the sick pervets.

Channel Ten Get this off the TV in Family time!

If not all together.

Shame on you.
.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Monday, 10 July 2006 8:40:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner.

Your exream comments dont help.

What on earth does people terminating an unwanted pregnacy have to do with this.

I get the moral bit.
I really Do

However your comment is SO OFFENSIVE it kind of makes people think again.

Perhaps if you look at what the other team are saying its.

How dare you tell us what we can or cant watch.

Its sort of like you! thinking you have the god dam right to tell women what they are doing to do with their bodies and lives/

fyi. Your not alive until your born.[ Hense your birthday is. - - -

Most terminations are done when its less than a grain of rice.
Grow up.

Who in the hell do you think you are telling everybody else! what to do and calling them murders.

Your off post! amoung other things
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Monday, 10 July 2006 8:59:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Big Red: I think perhaps only 0.01% who are exceptional scientists, philosophers, composers, artists, etc. actually contribute enduring worth to the world. The rest of us just like the sound of our own voices. I would hope that when I'm older I don't think I've come to an intellectual end point, but rather, would still think there was a lot to read, see and discuss.

redneck: Firstly, I'm not an anarchist. Anarchists don't believe in individual property rights or capitalism. They're also essentially collectivistic. I'd be better classified as a classical liberal (unlike the current Liberals who are not liberal in any sense of the term) or a libertarian.

Secondly, there are plenty of both (anarchists and libertarians) around. Not everyone fits into a Liberal Party vs ALP dichotomy, and not everyone thinks we've arrived at a political/philosophical endpoint.

I would suggest that you haven't even tried to reason, perhaps because you can't really.

Never the less, here's why I don't think governments have a right to exist, except in some sort of Machiavellian sense. Government of any form is essentially about someone (an individual, small group or large group) exercising power and coercion over another without that person's consent and often to his or her detriment. Either people are capable of running their own lives adequately (and making their own mistakes along the way) or they're not. One is an anti-state argument, the other is an all invasive state argument a la the Third Reich, Soviet Union or modern Iran. A compromise (eg. democracy) is at best absurd (ie. if we shouldn't be individually free, why let us wreak national havoc at the ballot box?), at worst tyranny of the masses.

In a practical sense, we can see the most stark reasons why the state is bad. At one end, we have the Final Solution and Stalin's forced famines, at the other we have Australia's detention centres. If we rounded up all individuals run amok such as Charles Manson or Martin Bryant, they'd be but a drop in the ocean compared to the horror inflicted by governments.
Posted by shorbe, Monday, 10 July 2006 11:08:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
shorbe,
Get real Governments are there to serve the society over which they are elected to represent. Governments have no power except what the people bestow upon them under a constitution. They are supposed to attend to the corporate needs of the society by providing services and security which we cannot individually provide. Though current governments are passing off these services etc to private investors and corporations. This will mean we the people will loose power to administer through our representatives our own affairs. We are returning to the old serf system of serving big business and landholders.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 11 July 2006 12:10:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shorbe, you sound like a nice young bloke who is lost in idealism - which is very normal for young people. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and no government is perfect but some are better than others. Fortunately we live in a country that has maintained freedom to a pretty high standard. Whilst you may think that there should be very few restrictions - believe me you will eventually come to realise how important the restrictions that we do have are. Have a little think about those countries where the only restrictions placed on anyone is in direct proportion to the amount of money one has to pay bribes - people in those countries are clammering to get out. If you really want to make a difference in this world don't be swayed by hedonism. True freedom lies in speaking up for that which is right and wisdom lies in recognising what is right and what is wrong.
Posted by Big Red, Tuesday, 11 July 2006 5:45:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo: Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Regardless, I think if a nation is going to truly have democracy it should be direct, not representative. That would probably mean fewer laws would be passed, but that's the point. You wouldn't need to ask permission just to scratch yourself.

Australian Representative democracy is especially flawed due to preferential voting where in most cases, you end up voting for the ALP or Liberal Party whether you like them or not. That's hardly a choice really.

As for the constitution, who interprets it? I don't remember electing any judges. I also don't remember electing any bureaucrats or other government employees.

You say governments are there to serve the people, yet they've been doing a pretty pathetic job for as long as anyone can remember. When they're not fighting their own people with taxes, arresting them or spying on them in the name of any open-ended "War" (eg. Terror, Drugs, Poverty, none of which have been particularly successful), or just outright killing them, they do so to foreigners either at home or abroad. Didn't 20th century history teach you anything about governments, including ours in the west?

Also, you say that people cannot provide for themselves on an individual basis. Non-profit NGOs operate in the marketplace (as opposed to government coercion) and are efficient and capable in charitable/humanitarian operations, why not in other areas? Then there are plenty of areas where people can do things for themselves. Framing the whole debate in terms of a "benevolent bloated government" vs "evil corporations/private investors" is extremely limiting, especially since the two have always been closely related.

Finally, regarding serfdom, look at how much total tax we pay. A feudal lord would have risked revolt, yet we don't even raise a whimper, we re-elect. Just who exactly does this tax benefit anyway? Likewise, the fact that we use fiat money means precisely that we've been serfs for a long time because we have no control over the money supply, yet it (or the people who control it) has control over us.
Posted by shorbe, Tuesday, 11 July 2006 6:09:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck,

I just wanted to tell you I think your posts on these stream are absolutely spot on. I agree with all you say. And just to add one thought: even if you can, as a parent, stop your children from watching this rubbish you cannot protect them anymore once they leave your house and mix with other kids who might have not been so lucky to be protected as well.

Children don't live just in their parents' house, they live in society, so if society gets corrupted so will they to a degree, or at least, it will make it much harder for parents to protect them.

And of course you are absolutely right, we are responsible also towards all other kids, not just our own.
Posted by Schmuck, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 6:48:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Big Red: The worst countries for human rights and corruption are the ones with the strongest and most invasive governments. Australia is so good because government has one of the least levels of power over our lives, not the most, and because generally, we refrain from letting government make moral decisions on how we live our private lives. Having said that, I don't think that means there isn't massive room for improvement. I don't think we're at a political endpoint.

I may be idealistic in some ways, but actually, I'm quite pessimistic about our political future. I can see, as just one example, a day in the not too distant future where we have a national ID card that comes about with almost bipartisan support of politicians and with the fearful support of the general populace under the auspices of fighting the War on Terror or illegal immigration or welfare fraud. If they didn't initially, such ID cards would very quickly include biometric information and the whole thing would become a very real invasion of our privacy.

"And just to add one thought: even if you can, as a parent, stop your children from watching this rubbish you cannot protect them anymore once they leave your house and mix with other kids who might have not been so lucky to be protected as well."

Schmuck: Yeah, but that's true of anything. Once anyone gets out into the general community he or she is likely to encounter all kinds of wild and wooly people. Maybe we should just build a big fence around whole suburbs so the white trash can't get out and adversely affect us. I would suggest it makes more sense to actually teach children how to deal with life and evaluate the merits of people and situations and react accordingly (with avoidance if necessary) rather than wrap them in cotton wool.

Furthermore, as regards the responsibility of parents for other people's children, who decides that? Unless you're suggesting minority rule, I'd suggest that the moralising right would come off distinctly second best if parenting were a "societal" responsibility.
Posted by shorbe, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 8:36:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I used to get enjoyment from heading down to the domain in Sydney on weekends. People would stand on milk crates and rant on a myriad of topics. It seems that they have found their way online...
Posted by MaNiK_JoSiAh, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 12:26:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Generation Gap is well and truely alive.
Young knows it all and rebels about being told what to do and when.
Old has been there and done all those things they are trying to stop Young from doing.....for the simple reason they have paid the price for the lessons they have learned and they love Young enough to try to spare him/her.
Young says ,"Let me make my own mistakes." And does.
Twenty years on, attempts to pass on the experience he/she has gained.
History repeats and repeats.

But the mature person has learned what is worthwhile and what is dross. The immature laps up everything, the taste buds are greedy and will try anything even if it is harmful. That's life.
Posted by mickijo, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 4:17:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wendy

Thanks for the tolerance you show to opinions other than your own. If my comments save the life of one defenceless unborn life then the offense is worth it. I can personally see a clear link between promiscurity being championed and abortion.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 7:18:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, "I can personally see a clear link between promiscurity being championed and abortion." many of us would see that link although not necessarily in quite those terms.

The abortion rates in the USA are reportedly far higher than in some other western countries with a much more open and liberal attitude towards sexuality. So we might tend to phrase it more like a clear link between repressive treatment of sexuality and abortion.

I personally doubt that BB contributes anything useful to society dealing with sexuality in more mature manner but neither do those calling for greater repression.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 7:39:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner.

Your comments only give the people who support the smut of BB fuel for fire for their argument.

As I said I am really begining to understand the people who support BB.

I can see what they are saying is > Who do you think you are and if we wish to watch low life smut who are you to tell us we cant?

Thanks for helping the other team put up a far better argument than they ever could.

Given a choice between injustices yours is far worse than theirs.

I wont post here anymore because this post is about BB and extream people like yourself just never stop trying to force their veiws on others.

You alone have convinved me that BB should be moved to a much later time of the evening but not struck off all together on the basis that people like you need to be taught others have a right to decide for themselves.

I can see a connection too now and I dont like what I am seeing.

If we Ban BB its a vote for a loss of personal choice.

No matter how much I hate BB your outlook is scarey.

You have done a far better job towards changing my mind about BB than anybody could have.

Its sort of like when the PM said > We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances they come by.

Women will decide for themselves when the give birth, if they give birth and the circumstances.

I will not respond to this post on BB anymore because extreamists like you only support the other team.

In fact You have cured me and i now wish to change my vote from Ban BB to just put it on later.

Thank you for helping me to see as much as I hate BB we have no right to tell others what to do.

You certainly have a way with people.

I am now on the other team

Well Done!
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Thursday, 13 July 2006 3:03:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What, Schmucky? You a-a-agree with me?

YOU agree with me?

You agree with ME?

Well, that's a turn up for the books. Are you feeling alright?

Oh, all right. Thank you. A rare compliment indeed.

The intereting thing is that David Madden has now done a runner and is not responding to my posts. I don't know how I figured out that he was probably a media lackey defending his own patch. It was just the way he expressed himself about the programming that got my antennae up. When he "outed" himself, it made my day.

I wonder if he was a PR man for Fox who was using this forum to brush up on his talents of spin doctoring and plausable deniability? Well, I hope I put a flea in his ear if he was.

Western societies need responsible parents to instill pro social values into their children, so that the kids do not grow up being problems to society. Governments therefore have a crucial interest in helping parents acheive that vital aim. Responsible governments weigh the benefits of individual freedoms, and assess their social impact before deciding whether those freedoms are too socially disruptive to the peaceful continuance of their own socities to be legal.

Our society can get by without the entertainment media promoting crass products extolling the joys of drug abuse, profanity, sexual promiscuity and juvenile delinquincy to children. But we can not survive with an entire generation of psychologically damaged children.

There was once a time when young people who considered themselves educated and smart fought against the excesses of major corporations who were lining their pockets at the expense of society. it is interesting to note how successful the giant multimedia organisations have been at convincing the young turks that fighting for the financial interests of Fox, Miramax, Tristar, MGM, Paramount and Columbia, against the interests of their own societies, is the mark of a "social progressive."
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 13 July 2006 5:15:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner
I said I wouldnt post here anymore but I will say I saw something on another subject and I was rather Proud Of you.

Steve is a curious one and caused great stress with one of our who staff who helps run our Ban Live Export group.

He started sending Private emails with strange messages saying oh yeh the so and so pubs nice isnt it and stuff like that.

As she was from a one horse town and very timid it scared the life out of her.

He told me that Peter McCgauran was his brother or uncle.

I have to say that if kids are raised with morals I dont think they will want to watch BB when they are bigger anyway.

I am not a kid and it really!offends me.

A few times I have been out in the kitchen or something and walked back into the room where its come on in my absence.

I DONT invite that into my home!.

Ten need to move the time on it and respect decent people.

I guess we are off side again but as you say people do have rights to be pervers and grubs I guess if they have been unfortunate enough not to have been raised with moral values.
[smile]
That ought to get you going old mate.
Ban live Exports and has everybody seen Amanda vanstones cruel intensive piggery speaking of TV shows.
Shame on Amanda Vanstone.
Hey how do you reckon she would go on BB Redneck? speaking of pigs!
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Thursday, 13 July 2006 10:49:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Big brother is garbage - like most of commercial TV -

It is also dishonest in so far as it sells the sexual tension/release that they manipulate and foster - they then try to play it down/pixilate/bleep the product that they so skilfully put together - in a sense they are pornographers with out the hutzpah to say so. Thats what offends me.

I also need to ask - is saintfletcher formerly from Merimbula NSW?
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 13 July 2006 2:22:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wendy.

Your recollection of events is sadly lacking in truth. I sent an email to info at yourexports.com (I have changed it for your privacy) not any personal email address and it was addressed to you.
This link was posted on the other forum where we had this discussion.

I then received multiple emails to my private address full of insults and even threats . Is your memory a little clearer now? I replied once to each email.

Maybe redneck is the pseudo AFP officer who threatened me on your behalf.

What a lovely nest of vipers we are ;)
Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 13 July 2006 2:54:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the posters here named the sponsors of Big Brother ,that is the way to go. The government lacks the backbone to ban such gutter shows, if it did ban them it would probably be called A dictator. But the public who hate this sort of stuff can tell the sponsors that their goods are no longer wanted and why.
It would not be long before the commercial television channels got the message and hopefully clean up their offerings.
Posted by mickijo, Thursday, 13 July 2006 3:32:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting point about not patronising BB sponsors. As I never watch BB [in fact apart from news and current affairs I watch very little TV at all], I have no idea who the sponsors are.

One thing I see as potentially far more harmful to young people than just about anything else on TV are the tobacco company names and logos on racing drivers' and riders' clothing and vehicles. To me it's illogical to pixillate bums and boobs, but not to pixillate this deliberate glamourisation of tobacco.

I doubt that BB is deliberately trying to influence anyone to copy the reportedly strange behaviour of some of the participants. But there's no doubt at all that the tobacco industry is using every means at its disposal to get young people addicted and to replenish the pool of users, as the existing clientele is gradually killed off.

Talking about not patronising those companies whose policies we do not agree with, I endeavour to practice what I preach in this respect and I do not buy anything made by Kraft Foods, because of the association between this company and Phillip Morris Cigarettes.

http://www.infact.org/helpstop.html

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/philipmorris/

I wonder if any of the moralising ones have any comment to make on this.
Posted by Rex, Thursday, 13 July 2006 5:40:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is already happening in the USA, Mickijo.

The television networks in the USA hide behind the US Constitution's First Amendment (Right to free speech and expression). But what the founding fathers of the US Constitution would have thought of TV shows like Big Brother or South park, is intersting to contemplate. Thomas Jefferson himself had a very low opinion of the media in his own day, and he considered that his greatest legacy was not the US Constitution, but the University of Virginia.

So parents in the US have begun "turn off the TV days" to protest to the networks about the increasing number of TV shows targeting childen for programs that most parents think are unsuitable for kids. The networks freaked out over that.

Should giant multimedia companies produce TV shows which are simply sexual peep shows for kids? Should they produce movies glorifying car thieves? Should the media be the unofficial advertising arm of the illegal drug market? Should popstars be alowed to sing "songs" extolling the virtues of criminal behaviour, and the pleasures of raping their mothers?

Fortunately, Australia does not have a Bill of Rights that grant First Amendment rights to the media. It would be nice if we did, but then it would be nice if the media used that privelege responsibly. Obviously it can not be trusted to do that. The people's parliament therefore has the power to insist upon higher standards, and demand that the media promote societal values instead of making parent's jobs infinitely harder by constantly denigrating pro social values to our children.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 13 July 2006 5:46:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Steve M.

First of all you were responding to another persons comments not mine on a forum who happend to use our office.

You then back tracked though our web link you are correct to contact her personally.

Your emails were strange to say the least.[ I still have them]

You also wrote saying. Oh Yes How is The So And So pub going these days.[ clearly saying you had checked where this lady came from.]

As she was under protection you really frightended her.

Perhaps you ought not seek people out. Then you claim to be related to the minister of Agriculture advising me that if we ignore you it might not be so good for the animals.

Well Steve I have not seen you make any moves to help the animals but.> As you are so well connected tell Howard to foregt Banning Big Brother And Ban Live Exports.
Oh and by The way pop into your friend Amanda and tell her to get those poor animals into a creek feed situation . Thats Free Range and hard fed.

Or Dont you even care.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Friday, 14 July 2006 6:57:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't intend to get involved in anyone else's personal differences of opinion, however Wendy has touched upon something which to many of us is far more distressing than BB on TV.

I live not too far from the port of Fremantle and often see the trucks loaded with sheep destined to be shipped out for the live export trade. Sometimes an animal has slipped and one of its legs is sticking out of the side of the truck. The pain is probably excruciating and the animal may have been suffering for many hours over many hundreds of kilometres. Children see this too and perhaps become desensitised to the suffering of animals. And the children know that this is true reality, not just someone's idea of entertainment.

I spent three years as WA Wheatbelt manager for an insurance company in the 1970s and know that farmers and truck drivers in general are not callous by nature, they are just doing what they currently need to do to survive financially in a difficult industry. But there used to be a better way. Animals were slaughtered humanely in local abattoirs. Better for all concerned and infinitely better for the animals.

I mentioned previously the sly promotion of tobacco which still occurs on Australian TV. We have senior politicians who openly tell lies and get away with it, [weapons of mass destruction, children overboard etc]. Large companies paying bribes to foreign dictators [AWB] and allegedly being shielded by govt instrumentalities. People dying of currently incurable diseases, whilst possibly life saving stem cell research is being blocked to please religious extremists. Voluntary euthanasia, supported by about 80% of Australians, being denied to please the same extremists. The list goes on.

And many of these same extremists get all self-righteous about the stupid antics of a few immature galahs on TV. What hypocracy!
Posted by Rex, Friday, 14 July 2006 12:01:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Rex, I will comment upon your post.

On the 14th of April, 1994, the seven CEO’s of America’s tobacco corporations, solemnly raised their right hands and swore before the US Congress that they truly believed that tobacco was neither addictive or harmful. But of course, they were lying. The tobacco bosses knew that their own research scientists had been working on finding ways to make tobacco more addictive and less carcinogenic. But it was easy to understand why the CEO’s lied. Tobacco was a fabulously wealthy industry and it was said that “only the mint made more money.”

The tobacco companies also knew that most people began to smoke cigarettes when they were adolescents. Their own psychologists had informed them that the reason for this, was that many adolescents are desperate to appear grown up, and that they will seize upon any product that will give them the aura that they are adults. The tobacco companies therefore deliberately engineered advertising campaigns that appealed to children, for a product that they knew was both addictive and dangerous.

Now we have the entertainment media in the accused’s seat. Like the tobacco companies before them, they are a fabulously wealthy industry which is deliberately targeting children for a product which they know is psychologically damaging to children, and which is causing serious social problems in OUR society. The entertainment industries claim that they are completely innocent of this charge. But if you ask TV men like Steve Madden a simple question like “Why is Big Brother, Uncut, always released to coincide with the start of the school holidays?” He will dodge it and dodge it forever.

The entertainment industries also pooh-pooh the idea, that exposing children for sexually explicit, profane and violent media is harmful to kids. Then they say that even if it is harmful, it is the parent’s responsibility, not theirs, to protect kids from their products anyway. That is like saying that if the tobacco industry positions cigarette vending machines for its “harmless” product next to schools, it is the parent’s responsibility to keep their kids away from them.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 14 July 2006 4:31:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex
Yes your correct and the best kept secret is AWB own live Exports as of from the 29th 8 2003 when Westfarmers landmark tried to keep their names out of the Cormo.[until now].
Knowing the public interest in live export wouldnt you have thought Beazley and Rudd might have seen the AWB enquiry as a god sent but they headed for the hills when i raised this and supplied proof and kept their mouths shut!. Speaking of feeding the chooks.

Ministers like Amanda Vanstone and dozens more who get to vote! on Animal Welfare issues are a discrace. Howard self regulated live Exports and intensive farming three weeks after he won his first election.

The J Homes LerCourts they never get a mention or the Packers or Murdock as being some of the most cruel people alive because the own the media and the live exports and intensive farms. Talk about a conflict of interest.
They export our jobs and the animals are no longer slaughtered close to home as you rightly pointed out.

Instead they inflict unbelieably cruelty sending them on trips that last weeks to an dreadful slaughter.
Compared to that BB is nothing.
Shame on Howard but worse still labour are not up to the job of pretecting or running the country at all, so if you have a ny ideas I would love to hear them.
Perhaps we should get rid of the lot of them and ;put some real people in power. Who was it that said you can judge A nation on the way it treats its animals.
Thanks for your comments Rex.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Friday, 14 July 2006 9:20:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately all this is fact, that the live sheep trade is horrendously cruel, that the "entertainment industry" is a prostitute for vice and that there is a complete lack of integrity where integrity should completely rule.
Never under estimate People Power though. When I was younger I accepted that one person could not change anything, now I simply stand up and, refusing to accept rot, call it like it is.
I find that in doing this , a lot of like minded people are revealed and we can achieve goals if those goals are worthwhile.
Pushing straightlaced opinions will go nowhere ,we should be able to demand that a certain amount of decency and respect for ourselves and others has priority because our children are being brainwashed into believing that shows like BB portray "normal" life. That portrayal is wrong , uncreative and is simply designed to dumb the young down.
Posted by mickijo, Saturday, 15 July 2006 3:21:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think I agree with Wendy on this one.

Channel 10 just needs to move BB to a later time slot so that it is on after the kiddies are in bed. They need to regulate the thing to avoid any abuse from happening again. The other moral statements people make may or may not be true. Since when did the rubbish from America happen to be so squeaky clean and suitable for Australian Children? We import some of the worst garbage on television from America, and the networks just buy them, and telecast without thinking.

At least the Gold Coast benfits from tourism generated by BB Dreamworld financially, and it is no wonder that Premier Beatty is defencive about the topic. It is an Australian production that employs Australians, eventhough the international company is Dutch owned.

I mean, think of David Letterman. How many times has he insulted Australia? He once described Melbourne as the A###hole of the planet. Channel 9 still buys this attack on Australian pride and culture. He is not even funny or relevant to Australia.

I hope the other David, in the Big Brother house, treats his sheep well, Wendy. He seems to know more about sheep more than he does about Brokeback Mountain. *titter over a bundy and coke*

They are like caged animals in the BB house, but they are willing captives. It think in some of the home video shows where people send in their own footage of their families doing strange things with their animals is bodgy, and possibly cruel to the animals too. No one seems to question this.
Posted by saintfletcher, Saturday, 15 July 2006 5:19:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saint Santa
You have an advantage because you must watch it. Its not only because of kids it should be on later if at all but some of our elderly are very offended and really lets face it why would we not respect our most senior citz too.

Then there are just a few prudes if you like such as I.

They should give some warning too> Such as waring BB is about to offend anybody with morals to give us a chance to switch it off.

Tell you what however SaintFletcher I am VERY interested in the Animal Welfare issue you raised if you could tell me more.

There is nothing that I would enjoy more than to visit the big house and bust a few balls!

Its not really good for the Gold Coast Saint because the type of people it brings we dont want here anyway.

Umm Think I might Take A drive and A little Bo Beep![ Speeking of peeping Toms.]

Thanks Saint FLetcher I ow you One.

Hey! maybe Amanda Vanstone would like To be on big Brother.

She gets off on Animal cruelty and being seen on TV too!.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Saturday, 15 July 2006 5:57:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the people who is defending Big Brother by telling others to change Channels (even those there is nothing much on anyway) should switch off themselves and let others have a say about what they think of Big Brother.

And before Big Brother fans jump on me before knowing the facts, I have first hand experience of what is it like to be on Big Brother by doing stupid things at the auditions and on this basic I am wondering how many fans of Big Brother can say the same thing, that they went to an Big Brother auditions?
Posted by Kwv, Monday, 24 July 2006 2:26:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
kMV

Thankyou for your post.
You are correct because nobody else has actually had first hand experence.

What type of things did you have to do and roughly what ages where there if you dont mind letting us know?
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Monday, 24 July 2006 6:10:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kwv, I might have missed it but I don't recall anybody actually defending the show. Most have expressed a personal dislike for it. The only defence I've noticed is a general one against those who seek to impose their own taste and values on others.

A call to change channels does not imply someone likes the show themselves, it may instead be a statement of principle against increased censorship.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 24 July 2006 6:16:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very well written article and your opinion on the issue have been well expressed. The problem with this joke of a television program is the people are watching it. As demonstrated in some of the comments aimed back at you "taking me rights away as an Australian citizen" and so on, we realize how much the people are enjoying the show. Although I do agree with some of these people in many ways as I am all for entertainment with no censorship, I cannot help but feel it is hypocritical for Big Brother to say they do not condone sexual promiscuity.
The issue of ratings is too much for Channel Ten to worry about taking the show off the air as it gets people watching their channel. Why would they take it off the air?
So unfortunately, even though I do agree with you on aspects of your argument that Big Brother does promote sexuality, but in this age, everything promotes sexuality. Sex sells! And this is the kind of society that we are living in, which is not all that bad. SO unfortunately, even though I do agree with you for your argument, I believe it is not Channel ten who should take matters into their hands-it is the people. It is us that should stop watching the show and it will then, and only then, that something new and improved will replace it.
Another problem faces this solution. The programmers, Big Brother organizers and other people involved are very clever and this is why we see extremely attractive girls on the show, so that people will definitely watch. I myself have been going through channels and stopped on the program for a short time to get a glimpse at some of the gorgeous females on the show. So if we go back to the sex sells statement, if people don't even like Big Brother, they will still most likely tune in to watch Big Brother: Adult's Only, a marketing scheme it's title.
Not holding your breath, would be a wise decision.
Posted by Epithemeos, Thursday, 27 July 2006 7:51:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your comments R0bert and apart from the forums at onlineopinion.com.au, there are in fact people actually defending the show on The Internet.

So I guess on this basic you could say a call to change channels does imply someone likes the show themselves.
Posted by Kwv, Friday, 28 July 2006 1:58:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your comments Wendy, I would love to mentioned what I had to do.

But I cannot, not because I don't want to, it is because I might be sued as I sign a document saying I won't say what I have done in the auditions and I might be banned from onlineopinion.com.au

And as for the ages, in the line up I was in from I would say 18 to over 40 and they didn't tell me after lining up for hours, but I feel BB wanted under what say 25 even those Karen was 38.
Posted by Kwv, Friday, 28 July 2006 2:04:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To KWV.

A non disclosure to gag. Gee and they get 18 year olds to sign??

Tell you what you sounded a bit bothered by whatever you had to go a good lawyer and phych might do well for you.

Speaking of non disclosers bullying stuff the old CJC rely on those as well.

Its called gagging KWV.

I can have first hand knowledge on it.

It went like this.

If you talk to the police commishioner about police corruption we will goal both of you.[ Including the police commishioner]
Its never been tested.
Might pitch a big pink tent in a park and run a public enquiry and invite media.[sounds like fun]

We could make it about my interest which is the unbeliable cruelty of intensive farming and live exports. We would have many owner polys there already Murdocks Packers Lecourts along with Amanda and company.[ All the live exporters and intensive cruel people together]

Of course as they are all owners we would have to be the media for the day because of conflict of interest to tell the real story to the public.

Geez wonder what happens the rest of the time.

Gandi said you can tell a nation by the way it treats its animals.

Somebody should tell Howard Fielding and Poor old Beazsley.

So boys and girls if u want to get your gear off on national TV go for it!
Just please! dont do it in the early time frame where it upsets grandparents and little kids can watch.

7pm is wrong.

And KWV As you are the only one who did the BB thingy I gather it was not as much fun as you thought ah.

Thanks for discloseing that to us.[woops]

Oh for the record QLD now has a wonderful police comm and we are blessed to have him.

Lewis wasnt that bad either.

Pity about that other guy the papers made out to be a saint.

Sue if you wish Jj
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Friday, 28 July 2006 5:33:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another thing if it is true that David wants to marry his partner, then the BB Producers lied by saying you cannot audition if you are in a relationship.

And if David lied saying he wasn't in a relationship then shouldn't he lose his prizes?
Posted by Kwv, Monday, 31 July 2006 8:26:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dont know KWr because as I said I dont watch the crapy thing.


I would find it hard given these peoples lack of morals to ask them to define what a relashonship was.

:Perhaps thats how he got away with it.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Monday, 31 July 2006 9:00:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see most of the posters on here are anti Big Brother.
It is not the job of the government or the minority, to try to force their half baked opinions down the throats of people who enjoy this entertaining program .It is not half so bad as stuff that has been around for 20 yrs or more and these programs don't raise an eyebrow:I refer to Rage on ABC.
It only Americanises our youth,and feed the misery of the suicidal young.

If you want to 'complain' about something,because you can,t stand to live and let live, pick on something that does have an adverse impact on our youth.When the Simpsons animation came to our screens 15+ yrs ago the moralisers were out then trying to ruin enjoyment for kids .
Leave BB alone.David is a proud gay. Gay people have as much right to be here as anyone and should live their life in peace without fear of persecution or moral judgements.He has proved to most of Australia that he is a good kind ,decent and inherently compassionate man than most so called normal straight people, some of whom I wouldnt waste my time on.
The so called normal straight man,at least some, think its ok to bash and kill a man because of whom he chooses to love in his own personal world, a place that noone has any right to infringe upon.
We teach our children to hate gay people because we are afraid of something we don,t understand, the same fears and ignorance that underpin racism,hatred of obese people, the mentally ill...where does it end?

I actually do watch 'the crappy show' and I love it.The people are wonderful and it is very educational and entertaining.Up Late etc is easy, there is an on off switch use it or change the station,dont whinge and spoil others people right to choice.
By the way I am a mother in her 40s,I am not gay but I do believe in live and let live and I teach my children to accept and understand their peers before making judgements.
Posted by OZGIRL, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 9:55:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL if you did in fact watch Big Brother, then why does it seem your comment is focusing on David?

In other words if you did actually watch it, then you would noticed Big Brother was not all about David.

Also for what reason of what you seen of Big Brother is do you think "The people are wonderful and it is very educational and entertaining"?

Or in other words do you have the same fears and ignorance that you think, but not proven others have, by being ignorance and fearing of the truth?
Posted by Kwv, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:04:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mother 40

Now theres a good question and its from someone who has actually been to big brother.

Educational? Wow what chance do the poor kids have.

By the way I didnt even know this David was a homosexual because as I said I dont watch it.


However this post is not about that lot its about big brother being on TV.
Your a pretty dumb lot complaining we are trying to take your

freedom when its big brother! that do that by enforcing gagging

documents so they cant even talk about it with their friends.

Are you sure you even know what you are protesting about?

I was refering to the show in general and a clip that comes up at all hours as they advertise the garbage.

Yes people should have choice and they should be given warnings that this sleezy type of material is coming up.

Instead its thrown on at 7pm for kids to be subjected to and thats certainly my complaint.

Its so easy to be out of the room cooking dinner at that time.

Your wrong about the Government not stepping in to control any moral issue in Australia.

For once John Howard did the right thing.

By the way its Australia not OZ just like its christmass not Xmas.

Than again if you have not been taught the difference its no wonder you cant see the problem.

Ask yourself this one question. Who wrote this?

Give me the child until he is 7 and i will give you the man?

If you dont know I suggest you start reading a few books and teach your kids something other than Big brother.

The young lady who did go to Big Brother was pretty blown out by what she had to do and then shes been gagged with a non disclose.

I think thats something that requires looking into.

There is your so called freedom being taken cant you even see that?

Big Brother are taking the freedom away.

We are only asking for a spot other than our childrens time.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 6:42:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGirl,
I think you have missed the point of what the people are complaining about. BB is not my favourite show and I am all for no censorship, but to bring in an argument about gay people is not really relevant. To Wendy Lewthwaite, I think it is a bit harsh to attack her through insults about how she brings up her children. If she allows her children to watch the show, then so be it-each to their own. And please do not mistake me for a Big Brother fan as I do not see how its content rather than the girls, can be entertaining.
Posted by Epithemeos, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 6:52:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is Ozgirl,..thank you Epithemeous for clarifying a couple of important points .Big Brother ,the daily show is in no way unsuitable to children and promos are adhereing to censorship guidelines as any other televised material is.I do not tell my children what they can and cannot watch unless it has violent content and is clearly inappropriate for children .They do go to bed at 8.30 and I would never allow them to watch CSI and others of that ilk.
If you Wendy use the TV to 'babysit ' your kids so you can get on with your day thats your choice and how unfortunate.You can turn it off you know , its called CHOICE, exercise it.

A large part of BB was centered around David G. and so became a more controversial show because of it.I study Sociology at uni and I am well aware of what John Howard and his government treat the average Aus. with contempt because he believes we are all congenitally stupid and comments along the lines of he was right to come out publicly denounce BB has your vote does,nt it,again.And yet he can destroy this nations future for us and most importantly our children and yet it does,nt matter? This stuff comes out of his mouth at politically opportunistic times to give himself the'commom man touch' when in fact he hates us all.Wake up people, its your childrens country that you are selling out here.I despise him.
Posted by OZGIRL, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 10:41:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZ girl here...Its very amusing that Wendy L. sees fit to 'pick' me up on the odd grammatical 'error' (and only an error if you did'nt realise your own mistake and I did) but then goes on to use Kwv as an example to support her opinion.Kwv is so gramatically incorrect I can't make head nor tail of what she is actually saying ,so Wendy L.your inconsistency here only makes me believe that nit picking of this kind is used by you to deflect attention from the fact you really have no conviction or belief in what you say, either that or you really don't know of what you speak.
Posted by OZGIRL, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 4:56:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And also dear Wendy if you have 'never watched the crapy thing'(and crappy is spelt wrong by the way) how can you even think you are in ANY way qualified to give an opinion?Tell me that.That is your whole arguement down the drain right there..you judge before you even know of what you are talking about.

I rest my case.
Posted by OZGIRL, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 5:14:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And also ,just because kwv SAID she has auditioned for BB does not make it so..I believe not a lot of what I hear of anything written on the internet,especially outlandish claims such as that.The net is not a reliable place from which to source your info.
Posted by OZGIRL, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 6:07:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL WHY are you wasting this great talent of yours, by knowing the sex of someone just by reading their comments?

As if you get the facts before replying you would know kwv is male.

Also in lining up for at least 4 hours with thousands of other people at a University in 2005 doing stupid stunts.

But of course OZgirl I didn't auditioned for BB and it was a outlandish claim because Ozgirl said it was and everyone must believe OZgirl and she was at every audition to know who was there?

And why are you attacking the person rather then the comments with "Kwv is so gramatically incorrect I can't make head nor tail of what she is actually saying"?

Is because you don't have answers and have nothing useful to write in your replies?

But then again you must understand heads and tails as you replied.

So on this basic using your own comments "you judge before you even know of what you are talking about" but then again as proven by your own comments you do not know what you are talking about.
Posted by Kwv, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 6:51:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
kwv,I did not mean to upset you....so no offence, you didnt come across as male.
I know BB is by no means perfect but then not much is these days as far as content goes.Alvin Purple back in the 70s was some kind of precedent so I fail to see how the phoney indignation displayed here
can be taken seriuosly, really, in the times when children can access internet porn at the touch of a key etc...this is silly really.I do love the show and will continue to watch.

I am 100% with the posters Steve Maddon and Trade215 on this.I feel it is up to us the veiwer to know what our children are watching and monitor accordingly,instead of trying erode away further at the importance of freedom of speech of the individual when this government is only to happy to deny us our basic human rights in all its forms and is well on the road to doing exactly that.IR,demonstrations being against the law etc..our rights are being taken one by one and in that we may not notice so much,but one day we wake up and realise that everything we held dear as our beloved nation is gone and our children have nothing to inherit but a country so damaged it cant be fixed.
So saying we have a right to watch BB actually goes a lot further than just a TV show,freedom of speech and having a voice is all we, the people have,nothing else and when that voice is gone THEN you will all see just exactly what this arguement is really about.
Stand for sopmething or you will fall for anything..our children are our future , they should have a voice.
Posted by OZGIRL, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 10:55:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm amazed how much people have to say about a show they claim they never watch! I've watched much of the series - like many of my generation I've found it strangely compelling, although a lot of it was boring and banal, and the ads can make you feel like eating your own kidneys.

Those who have watched the daily show would know that its content was in no way sexually offensive, and (the defunct AO show aside) there was nothing that could be reasonably construed as potentially corrupting young minds (unless you include banal content and endlessly repetitive commercial advertising.

Those who have watched the show would also know that there was never any mention of, let alone depiction of, turkey slapping. This has all, repeat all, come from other media, much of it pruriently calling for tightened standards to restrict what they themselves were depicting!

I take the point from those posters who have called into question the ethics of the producers in their treatment of actual or potential contestants. But I've never read such tosh from so many people eager to disclaim any knowledge of their subject matter!
Posted by Snout, Thursday, 3 August 2006 4:00:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout, you are quite right BB never did depict the 'turkey slapping' incident,and yes there are those who say to much about something they are not qualified to speak on if they never' lower themselves ' to actually watch it.Its funny really.

BB itself is ,I believe quite responsible in their approach and as for Up Late,well it was on late and so small children would all be in bed by then so one would hope.
Posted by OZGIRL, Thursday, 3 August 2006 4:31:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozgirl

The children were not mine.

The parents often work late and I have them in for dinner at times because I like to help my neighbours if I can.

They are banned from watching BB but switched the TV while I was getting their meal ready.

I have no reason not to take at face value the person who actually attended BB.

I do not like loose morals.BB is offensive and should not be on at 7pm.


It doesnt say much for our morals with Australia being the number world wide for unmarried mothers.

John Howard does not hate people either.

The reason he likes the job is he is a people person.

Yep he is from the old school but there is nothing wrong with that.

He would never have allowed his kids to watch such crap thats for sure.

He would want his children to grow up as young gentleman and young ladies.

There is a time and a place for everything and he does not think watching young unmarried singles lying on beds do whatever or going on national TV naked in a shower is the cool either.

I just think its sad when kids are not given a chance to learn right from wrong and good morals.

Surley thats the most basic right of any kid.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Thursday, 3 August 2006 9:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foe heavens sake, as I said, your opinion is invalid because you have never actually watched BB and so cannot make an informed comment that is useful or credible in any debate that I car to be part of.

Now you are make degrading generalisations about single mothers ,of which I am one.
My children are loved, taken care of, live in a home with values and given a good education.

You are very ignorant and I avoid people like you and your 'values' like the plague.

I am at least trying to broaden my outlook.,unlike you. I am doing a Social Work/Sociology degree at uni and I resent people like you spreading ignorance and poison about people like me when you have absolutely no idea of what in the hell you are talking about except garbage that is beamed into your lounge rooms attacking single mothers and blaming them for every problem the country faces,.
Some of us are widowed divorced and abandoned by arsehole men who refuse to face up to their responsibilty and then the Government decides to further persecute and punish us by attempting to turn their fellow Australian on them.

Walk a mile in my shoes and until you do,be thankful for your perfect life and maybe try to become a more rounded and balanced human being in order that you might actually be someone who could actually make a difference to people not so fortunate as you.

John Howard is a creep and for too many reasons that I care to list here.He,s destroying our country and thats one we can all identify with.
Shame on your absolute soul destroying ignorance.
Posted by OZGIRL, Thursday, 3 August 2006 10:41:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL, off topic but a combination of points you made in that last post is concerning (or I'm oversensitive to that stuff from past experience).

"I am doing a Social Work/Sociology degree at uni "
"Some of us are widowed divorced and abandoned by arsehole men who refuse to face up to their responsibilty and then the Government decides to further persecute and punish us by attempting to turn their fellow Australian on them."

I hope that your social work/Sociology studies include a look at the other side of the picture, those men who've been put through the wringer by an ex with the support of social workers and the like with chips on their shoulders about their own failed relationships. For every woman who has been abandoned by an arsehole man who refuses to face up to their responsibilities their is another who is milking the system and using kids as an income stream or a revenge tool against an ex. It's not a one sided picture, both men and women do wrong. Both hurt their kids and former partners due to self centered behaviour.

I came across to many semi-professionals working around the fringes of family law doing things like mediation and councelling who do real harm because their world is all about the plight of women (or their own history) and not much about the people impacted by their involvement.

Take some time before you start using that training and make sure that you've seen the flip side to what I'm guessing is your own experience. I'f I've misunderstood your comments then feel free to ignore the above.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 3 August 2006 11:25:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Robert, no I can assure you that I am not a man hating female because I have found myself in the postion of having to rear my children alone.If you have been unfairly treated by the system, and I,m well aware that fathers do it tough, those that do want to be involved in their childrens lives that is, then I,m sorry for you ,it must be heartbreaking. I can assure you I would rather be the one left with my kids than be the one to lose them.

I am using my Social Work degree to work in the area of mental health for people who do find themeselves in your position and to perhaps work in rural areas . Where I am here there is a lot of youth suicide and death relating to deep depressions and no one for these people to turn too, and rural areas Australia wide are desperate for people skilled in Human Service areas such as this.

My husband found himself incarcerated for 5 yrs, that was extremely tough on us all.I find it hard to tolerate ignorance from some parts of the community who place moral judgements on people and situations .

I am extremely frustrated for the rotten deal that fathers get after separation and no ,were not all complete heartless cows.
Posted by OZGIRL, Friday, 4 August 2006 12:01:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By the way Robert, single mothers do not milk the system for all its worth by having children to secure themselves an income..yes the odd one may be dumb enough to think it is an equitable propostion, but they get a rude shock soon enough.Most single mothers would never be so by choice ,a terrible misconception.
The pittance one receives is quickly swallowed up in essentials and is often not enough to go round..theres nothing left over for us 'women of loose morals to go party with and perhaps, in the process maybe put another bun in the oven to strenghten the family budget'..The concept is ludicrous.The Govt.,if you think about it is actually now encouraging population growth bhy offering $4000.00 baby bonus to new mums..the people who would be most attracted to this would be young teens.Thats what the govt wants..no thinking person would see the value in this other than them.

I have owned my own home (paid cash), worked hard and paid my taxes.
The family law court allowed my fathers children to take evry single thing we own when I went to court to fight for the rights of my chidren. they let me down and allowed him to place us in poverty by stealing my childrens future. I do not feel guilty .
Posted by OZGIRL, Friday, 4 August 2006 12:27:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL,
To me your emotive language hides hostilities unsuitable to be able to be unbiased toward everyone. Just look at your view of John Howard. From my view you are a social engineer with an agenda and not a compassionate listener. I assume you expect that the Government will pay your salary? By the way the Government at present is headed by .......?

I have to agree with Wendy, on the fact that much of todays social problems are reflected in poor television modelling and scripts. That you would see BB as suitable for children indicates the values to which you envisage should model your children's lives. People are attracted to drama and entertainment that reflects their own values and modelling.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 4 August 2006 12:52:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see the same old tired arguments being recycled. Give me a break from all the rubbish about everyone having their own moral code. Also, stop conflating criticism of stupid behaviour with an attack on personal freedoms.

We live in a society. By definition, we are interdependent on each other. We do not live in a vacuum. As such, we have a right, as a society, to question the behaviour of individuals, particularly when that behaviour occurs in a very visible and very public manner. If you believe personal freedoms ALWAYS triumph over the good of society, then go live on an deserted island.

Getting back to the question at hand, a show which is publicly broadcast should be held to a stricter moral code than one available on DVD or some other restricted media (such as cable TV). Society should be able to pass judgment on what occurs in public spaces. So if people are offended by a program, then maybe it shouldn't be on prime time.

Big Brother is a waste of time. Personally, I don't care about it much one way or the other. However, I do object to people trotting out the old "freedom" argument to defend any old rubbish. It's not an intellectually rigorous argument and it is generally the last refuge for defending behaviour that is indefensible.
Posted by Gekko, Friday, 4 August 2006 2:26:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You didn't upset me OZGIRL and no offence taken, but I think you have a lot to learn if you feel I didn't come across as male, just by reading my comments?

And I am just wondering if the Social Work/Sociology degree at uni will teach you this, that you don't reply before knowing the facts?

Now can you confirm something for me, isn't this forum about Big Brother?

So why are you going on and on about yourself and your life?

Now back to talking about Big Brother:

If Big Brother Daily Show as you claim OZGIRL, is in no way unsuitable to children then why isn't it on durning the day, where G Rating shows are allow?

Also if you must know snout Big Brother cameras are rolling 24/7 so have you considered that the reason you might not see any offensive material is because The Producers would have cut out the offensive material.

So on this basic:

Our children are our future, they should have a voice, but not with help from some?
Posted by Kwv, Friday, 4 August 2006 5:07:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL, thanks for the reply and good points. I do have a different opinion on the financial thing in some circumstances.

Kwv, I'm missing your point in that last post. Isn't the issue about what goes to air rather than what is filmed. If the producers don't put the bad stuff out during the hours when kids are likely to be watching then isn't existing censorship working?

I keep my son away from the show because from the times I've watched the show the ethics and attitude of the participants are not ones I want to encourage not because of any actual sexual content during normal hours.

Channel 10 does not get much use around my place.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 4 August 2006 5:29:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kwv, I was going on about my life because Wendy saw fit to make HER business.This is as you say a BB issue here.She says that single mothers are people of no morals and bring society into disrepute but I could almost guarantee that she has not made it her business to actually get to know a single mother and find out the real story for the majority of single mums who are doing it tough and raising their children with better values than a lot of socalled'normal 2 parent families'.A single mum is any woman with children minus her partener, and if he died or was killed or left her for someone else , then she becomes me.WE should not be so quick to judge.I was defending myself because she forced me too.
And back to BB, if BB cuts the offensive material, which is not aired between in prime time, whats your point there?Children cant see it if its been cut.There are a lot worse and programs on TV, some horrific dramas that children watch ,depicting gruesome murders in detail..violence is much more destructive to the psychological development of children than is a bunch of people sitting making toast and talking..again I have to ask do any of you people actually watch it?because I cannot for the life of me find offence in BB the daily show..Up late is very different and my kids DO NOT watch that.
Posted by OZGIRL, Friday, 4 August 2006 5:37:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kwv,

Like RObert and OZGIRL, I’m a bit puzzled at what you’re getting at too. Actually I was wrong about Big Brother being entirely suitable for children: the daily show was rated PG, the same as Frasier and Border Security (to give you other examples of that classification in roughly that timeslot). I wouldn’t necessarily see that as suitable for tots, but I wouldn’t be too concerned about teenagers seeing it.

The problem with “reality TV” is that some people seem to be getting confused between reality and TV. I think that young people are probably more sophisticated at making this distinction than some oldies give them credit for.
Posted by Snout, Friday, 4 August 2006 6:29:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout like RObert and OZGIRL, if you actually read my comments instead of just skimming it, you would know what my point is.

And you are right some are getting confused between reality and TV and just look at forums such as this one.

For example in reality, have you heard of anyone being locked up for 24/7 with cameras watching them except gaol?

And OZGIRL it is very understand what you are asking with "if BB cuts the offensive material, which is not aired between in prime time, whats your point there?"
Posted by Kwv, Friday, 4 August 2006 6:57:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
philo

You agree with me/ You! With ,me, wow. I feel honoured!

Oz girl.

I didnt know you were a unmarried mother and it was u who posted about u,I just replied.

u write that unfortunately your partner found himself in goal for five years.

That was unlucky he got caught wasnt it.

You call our PM a creep.

I dont agree with him especially on the live export issue but to call him a creep shows no respect.

I have seen as much of BB as J H and came to the same conclusion.

Now u tell me u want to be a social worker.

oh my God.

If u plan things before u jump in oz girl instead of blaming the world when things dont go right u will be a happier person.

I do know unmarried mothers.

I have one living in my late dads home.

She has 4 now kids and one on the way in 4 weeks.

She gets huge money pluss free health pluss day care 5 days a week for them.

That costs the public about six grand a month.

Next week I am taking her to lunch and a movie.

No I dont approve of her life style but I do try to be kind to people while at the same time being honest.

As I said I feel sorry for kids who have not been given good guidence.

I dont approve of BB and its cetainly not for chilren.

Stop playing the victim and start taking reasonsibilty for your own life .
U seem to like the country which is a wonderful life for kids.

hope u get a great job in a country town u love and who knows maybe play in the garden with the kids instead. Ozgirl the guys get it hard too so its not all the asu say. Who knows u might meet a nice one if u open your heart.

good luck with whatever u do.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Friday, 4 August 2006 7:27:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the point OZGIRL is making is because you made a point of saying the only reason we see nothing bad is because they edit it out. OZGIRL is questioning why you therefore argue against Big Brother for it's content, if you said they cut out the bad bits.
Posted by Epithemeos, Friday, 4 August 2006 7:31:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gekko,I think that if you actually found yourself living in a country like Korea or indeed under Saddams regime you may feel differently about personal freedom, we dont know what we have 'til its gone..the erosion starts slowly and insidiously ,ie:banning programs from television,loss of voice through the right to protest ,IR laws etc.Our media laws are in place to try to keep a balanced and diverse stream of political content released to the general population, although Im not sure its seems that balanced to me.I value free speech.

Wendy I once knew a person like you,she was a small minded bigot too .
Posted by OZGIRL, Friday, 4 August 2006 9:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL,
Though I almost totally dissagree with Wendy's point of view on most subjects I would not call her small minded. She actually belives in what she says and presents her arguments with a lot of convinced thought. She is obsessed with her subjects, which I suppose you might consider her a bigot. On her points of view on 10's programmes especially BB she has presented an argument I agree with. It is a wonder she hasn't woven her obsession - abuse of animals and refugees into this thread.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 4 August 2006 9:34:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
As far as im concerned the 'B' word fits her perfectly.

And to touch upon a point you directed to me earlier..John Howard does not pay the salary of the ordinary worker as you implied, the tax payer pays HIS salary..and he gives he and his cronies huge pay rises at the drop of a hat and yet erodes the minium wage and expects us to lick his boots for scant and useless tax cuts.The cost of living has gone thru the roof of late guys,in case you did,nt notice, interest up, petrol etc..this is an upward trend and is here to stay.
The nasty bit is just kicking in and the riding on the coattails and sucking up the credit for the strong economic foundations put in place by Keating, is about ot hit the wall.Employment growth sure.If you work but one hour per week you are counted as employed,almost half of the figures are based on this rubbish.Go figure, I didnt vote them in , my conscience is clear.
Posted by OZGIRL, Friday, 4 August 2006 11:44:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

Thank you for opening the door.

My work is animal welfare and I make no apoligies for that.

Its my job to educate the public as to the facts such as the ownership of the unbelibale cruel conditions of piggerys such as the one owned by Amanda Vanstone.

Speaking of TV and media control we have the Packers , Murdoch. the Le Courts owning live exports.
Oh! and the AWB which everybody kept secret from the public just talking about Wheat!

What Ozgirl is talking about is freedom to watch what she likes.

I have already posted very early about the conflicts of interests which makes certain that the public never see the truth.

I know u dont like my posts regarding Churches turning their backs on live exports and animal cruelty but too bad.!

If the cap fits then they have to wear it.

The BB show is personally offensive to me and although as Ozgirl said there certainly is worse material around its not on at 7pm.

My complaint is simply that I argue the time frame.

You are unfair with your going on and on about abortion Philo to complain about my work with the RSPCA

Also I work to improve conditions for aboriginal people and to put jobs back into Australia.

I am not going to apoligise for working hard to help suffering animals and people.

Perhaps u should try it sometime.

Instead of preaching about aborsion.

If u followed most of the polls regarding BB the result was most people wanted the show to be put on later at night.

Not ban it.

I happen to agree with them on the BB issue. Ozgirl does not.

I will leave u with that thought and of course your dress.

Support the RSPCA and tell John Howard the public will not tolerate cruelty to Animals.

www.livexports.com
www.halakindmeats.com

BAN LIVE EXPORTS and intensive Farming
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Saturday, 5 August 2006 6:25:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wendy,

I understand you take criticism personally and I do not want you to think this is a personal attack. I admire your stance on animal welfare, for example, but wish you would express this concern on relevant threads.

Now, you stated: "The BB show is personally offensive to me and although as Ozgirl said there certainly is worse material around its not on at 7pm."

Well there is much worse material on at 7.00 PM and earlier it is called the news.

I wouldn't want my niece and nephew (ages 7 and 9) watching BB without parental guidance, nor am I happy for them watching the very real violence that is part of our every day news report. Also I don't believe that game shows (on during family time), where the host is always male and women are used as decoration, set positive role models for children either.

However, these shows exist at these times. Therefore, I would rather a responsible adult be present with children during these shows. No doubt Ozgirl offers guidance to her children during BB. If so, she is educating her children.

Making generalisations about single mothers (or anyone) is unhelpful and results in alienating a reader from many of your heartfelt posts, Wendy. Please remember that people are individuals and not stereotypes; you acknowledge this yourself when you agree with Philo. He might be extremely religious, however, there are topics on which you find agreement with him. Same for Ozgirl, she is a single mother which means her life is a struggle (unless she has discovered a secret goldmine).

There is much material on TV which is puerile, however, to deny freedom of expression is a step towards totalitarianism and also a chance missed to educate our children on the morally ambiguous.

It is a harsh and inequitable world out there; we cannot hide our children from it and expect them to thrive. We can offer our perspective on the many confusing and often violent images on our TV screens, thus giving our children a chance to make informed decisions over their own lives.
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 5 August 2006 8:17:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, thank you for helping to clarify my point.

Wendy your stance on animal rights is to be commended, they do not have a voice....Scout probably said it more succintly than I did regarding the Big Brother issue ,men have more inherent logic it would seem.(I am assuming that Scout is male?)

Empathy and understanding are great attributes.
Posted by OZGIRL, Saturday, 5 August 2006 5:00:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, I am correcting myself whilst I still have a chance to do so.Reading your post gives no clue either way,so if I got it wrong apolagies in advance.
Posted by OZGIRL, Saturday, 5 August 2006 5:04:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just clearing up a couple of points...in my post I assumed that Scout was male,sorry for that!and then I went on to say that males were more inherently logical than females and that is simply not true..it is my buying into old stereotypes from the old days .

Also ,Wendy imagine if animals had a voice! How different their lives would be.
Posted by OZGIRL, Saturday, 5 August 2006 5:46:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL,
Tell us how you managed to get three posts - an extra one within the 24 hour period
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 5 August 2006 8:15:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A question for OZGIRL on Big Brother.

If Big Brother is suitable for Children as I think you suggested, then can you explain why it wasn't on durning the day especially during the G rating times such as before 9am and after 3pm?
Posted by Kwv, Sunday, 6 August 2006 12:09:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout .

I think KMV summed it up a few posts ago when he asked o Girl why she required to know if posters were men or women.

Instead of asking him questions with an open mind to learn more he gets called a liar.

So much for your freedom.

If I got off post it was in reply to Philo.


She calls me a B and John Howard a creep and all men low bastards for memory.

I reponded in general Snout.

You do not know me so I dont know why you write you understand personal criticism is not something I except.

While I guess nobody really likes it on the contrary as Philo opened the door I happily respond in relation to my animal work.

Your argument that people use BB to educate little kids is beyond the pale.

You all talk about freedom but show no regard for others to share in that freedom especially senior cizs with somewhat older views and morals.

As soon as they post comments you refuse to listen.


I find that BB fans dont want to comprimise at all.

So much for standing up for freedom if those who do not agree with BB fans are to be personally attacked.

The old saying you cant make a silk purse out of a sours ear applies very much here.


The other thing is Snout children are not to only consideration we must repect the elderly and BB very much offends many of them.

To say the news is far worse than BB is utter rubbish.

Not that many young kids sit and watch the news.

What I said was I personally find it offensive.

We were all asked to comment on it.

Since my comment or comments on BB I have been accused of being a B and a heap of personal attacks which pretty much sums it up.

You think somebody whos partners in goal for 5 years and lives off welfare using BB to educate kids is a role model.?

That Snout tells it all about your choice of programe.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Sunday, 6 August 2006 2:26:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wendy

My moniker is SCOUT not Snout.

I am a woman.

I never said I am a fan of BB.

I simply advised that there are many programs requiring adult supervision if children are watching - this is a choice that parents are free to make.

A criticism of your opinion is not a personal attack.

If we were to ban all any program which MAY offend SOME people we would be living in a totalitarian state - in other words, Wendy, YOU would be unable to make the posts that you are free to now, simply because SOME people MAY be offended by what you have to say.

In your case, Wendy, I agree with some things you post and not others.

Get over it.

Note to Ozgirl - I suggest that you do not stereotype males into 'logical' and females into 'illogical'.

:-)
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 6 August 2006 8:09:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wendy, there would be almost nothing left in society if we were to ban everything which was offensive to some section of society or even limited to what offends some of the elderly "we must repect the elderly and BB very much offends many of them.".

The elderly are not a single group, they have a wide variety of views on different topics.

At a guess calls to further increase censorship would very much offend many of them, should that restrict the rights of others to make those calls?

Your comments about animal cruelty could be very offensive to some of the elderly (especially those who have spent their working lives using some of the practices you address) - should your attempts to raise public awareness of those issues be banned?

At best we can try to ensure that involvement is optional (the change channels argument). That won't be a perfect solution to peoples desire to be offended because some can't bear to know that something exists, to them we really need to say "get over it".

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 6 August 2006 8:41:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, point taken. Kwv, I never said BB was suitable for children, find it then quote me on the exact wording, I said the content was not offensive(in a general sense, the daily show )and Wendy go look up the dreaded'B' word, ie:bigot. Every time you post you sound more and more illogical(sorry Scout, in this case it fits) and your ignorance only serves to work against you...you steroetype,not just me, but most groups,and you cant put together a credible arguement...you resort to insults to deflect from the fact you simply dont know what your talking about.
Posted by OZGIRL, Sunday, 6 August 2006 1:22:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout,

When I chose my moniker I didn't realise that someone with a very similar title would also choose to post on many of the subjects of interest for me. "Snout" is a name I use quite frequently in other contexts, and refers to some charcteristics of a very dear companion of mine. I'm guessing, but I'm assuming your name has more to do with Harper Lee than Robert Baden Powell.

From reading the broad thread of your posts I'm very happy to be accidentally associated with your views, but I understand it could cause confusion, particularly when we differ on fine points or questions of taste.

If it is problematic for you I'd be happy to go back and change my name. :-)
Posted by Snout, Sunday, 6 August 2006 4:18:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wendy ,could you tell me why the fact Im a single mum has anything to do with this topic?
'you think someone whos partner is in jail for 5 years and who lives off welfare is a good role model?'Your words.

You glean so much from so little!You say I live off welfare, an assumption on your behalf..I actually did point out to another on this forum that the realities of welfare should in actual fact be a deterrent to any young girl believing she would have an easy life by having a baby.Yes I have taken advantage of the help available to me, a matter having no choice, and I do not feel bad about that..I do have a part time job and do a little voluntary work at a senior citizens aged care home.This also ties in with my degree.

Id like to know, if I took on full time employment, who would take care of my children,since my partner is no longer living,I cannot afford childcare , (family living interstate )on the little I earn in conjunction with a part pension.Do I leave them to fend for themselves and along with that all the problems entailed there.?Or do I stay home for a few yrs and give my kids at least the one parent they now have to care for them.?If I didnt wouldnt that then present in years to come, the problem of my children involved in crime, drug use, menace to society etc.A few yrs now for the long term good of my children and community cohesion.?
Like I said Wendy thankfully, you are able to take the high moral ground here, and know your children are living in a home where they have you and your dedicated husband, to teach them morals and John Howards ideaolgical standards of decency to enable them in turn to carry on your kindness and compassion to people like me and so make society a better place.. Sorry Kwv Im off topic I know but she just wont let it rest.Im done with it now too .
Posted by OZGIRL, Sunday, 6 August 2006 6:18:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert Ozgirl and Scout.

Ozgirl First

You did say you allow your kids to watch BB and cant see anything wrong with it.

You went on to say it was education and you didnt let them watch it alone.

You have claimed that BB is fine for kids all the way through.

Robert What I said was the 7pm time should be changed.

I did not say ban it all together.

Actually at first I did but decided against it for all the reasons you pointed out.

If you read all the posts you will find I set that out very clearly.

I said it offends elderly because we attend three nursing homes four times a week.

The BB thing has been a big topic with them.

Oh and there are no live exporters or even x farmers amoung them
this is the Gold Coast.

I dont mind offending people who are reasonsibly for cruelty to animals.

I however prefer to do more than just offend them.

As you seem to support that as well I can only suspect you are a offender yourself.

The bottom line here is there are people who do not like BB and then some who do.

As far as I am concered I am just going to leave it at that.

I have had my say and can see no point entering into a small battle over it.
I dont like the morals of people I am trying to correspond with.

I have said what I meant and meant what I said.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Sunday, 6 August 2006 6:24:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wendy, I see, as Scout pointed out, you really DONT LIKE criticism do you?
Now would you please answer my question?

Do you actually have any kids of your own?
Posted by OZGIRL, Sunday, 6 August 2006 6:44:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL along the lines you use, could you tell me why the fact you are asking questions or writing comments that have nothing to do with Big Brother?
Posted by Kwv, Sunday, 6 August 2006 7:11:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kvw,I think I explained that in my post to Wendy, so to avoid repeating myself, you should perhaps reread it?

To Philo, I dont know how I managed to 3 posts in that particular time frame, sometimes it happens that way, a bit of a fluke perhaps?Im new to this forum so Im not sure what your experience is re this question.

Kvw to try to answer your question as to PG ratings and BB, well I dont know,but this is almost certain,BB will be back next year and maybe they will take on board some of the public concerns regarding suitable timeslots.That at least will be one good thing to come out of all this debate.
Posted by OZGIRL, Sunday, 6 August 2006 11:03:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL in saying "Kvw to try to answer your question as to PG ratings and BB", perhaps you need to read your own comments because wasn't it you who said Big Brother is suitable for Children?

And hopefully this time my question will be answered, as I would not considered your comments left at Sunday, 6 August 2006 11:03:29 PM, as an answer in fact I would considered by doing this you are doging my question.
Posted by Kwv, Monday, 7 August 2006 1:44:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Although many find its content rather entertaining, which does not include me; it really is not suitable at early time slots. To take a positive out of the incident though, many people have come to terms with a way to behave and actions such as these on women are not appropriate. So, even though the show sells itself on promiscuity, there is at least some degree of morals that still demonstrate to the youth that do watch the show, on how not to behave.
Posted by Epithemeos, Monday, 7 August 2006 7:43:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout

You are truly, a real man. No I do not wish you to change your moniker. If any confusion occurs it is more indicative of the reader's powers of analysis, although we do appear to have similar ideologies on certain topics we find compelling, I am sure that we can dispell any cases of mistaken identity.

You are, of course, quite correct with your reference to Harper Lee - To Kill A Mockingbird is one of my favourite novels and I always admired the courage of Scout. Dob dob, dib dib.

Wendy

The problem with your posts is that you respond with personal abuse to others who disagree with you. The idea of debate is to refute another's opinion with cogent arguments of your own instead of abuse. Nor does generalising win any points either. Remember, different strokes for different folks. Also you failed to acknowledge my point that there are far more 'dangerous' programs on TV than BB, which also require parental supervision. This indicates you are not interested in debate as you concentrate on perceived insults rather than the topic.

Ozgirl

I understand your pain when people make generalised and insulting remarks about single parents. That you are participating in this online forum indicates your sincere concern about topical issues. However, often when people hurl abuse on these forums they are merely 'trolling' - that is looking for someone to aggravate. There are times when bringing someone eg Wendy to account may be appropriate, but most of the time it is better to let their own words stand as their own miserable contributions. Most people can read between the lines. And people like Wendy do not do themselves any favours with their diatribe - any credibility they may have is lost. Best just to write another post emphasizing your POV and ignore them completely.

Regards
Posted by Scout, Monday, 7 August 2006 8:59:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kwv and Scout,

Kwv I do not know anything about reasons for programming into certain timeslots and and I certainly do not know anything about scheduling,that is up to individual stations discretionary wisdom.
They have guidelines regarding 'code violations' they must adhere to, so Im assuming and trusting that they do..Maybe these guidelines need to be more stringent and perhaps be revisited, because clearly there are some people who clearly disagree in the community,such as your good self.As for my opinion regarding if my children watching or not,there was one on this forum, who quite rightly pointed out that I do monitor and guide my children thru dubious content to educate my child and ensure they are not left confused or left with any anxiety about what they have seen. Sometimes, it has been stated, programs are shown in childrens veiwing time that do have a negative impact, the news was cited as one and I do not let my children watch it,but there is a program on abc 'Behind the News ' that explains content to kids and they do tune in to that.

Scout I realise your completely right about Wendy,and the trolling question did enter my mind.She has woven this insult into almost every post in relation to me,I thought Id finally get her to actually explain her convictions but she declined.

The only reason I rose to the bait was in some instances silence is regarded as an admission ,of sorts ,that she is right.Even though I believe I should not have to be put in the position in the 1st place of feeling it necessary to defend myself .I tried to ignore her but...
cheers
Posted by OZGIRL, Monday, 7 August 2006 3:24:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL,
Posted by OZGIRL, Saturday, 5 August 2006 5:00:48 PM

Posted by OZGIRL, Saturday, 5 August 2006 5:04:20 PM


Posted by OZGIRL, Saturday, 5 August 2006 5:46:37 PM

Posted by OZGIRL, Saturday, 5 August 2006 10:43:43 PM

Maximum of 5 posts in any given 24 hour period.
No more than 2 posts per article in any given 24 hour period.

How have you beat the system? Three within a hour and one 5 hours later. Please reveal your secret.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 7 August 2006 11:22:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Philo,

I received an email from the editor last night saying that it 'appeared Id found a glitch in the system, and they were trying to fix it'.
Well I havent found a 'glitch' in the system , I have no way of knowing how their system works for a start.I simply post when I am allowed to and whatever I am doing confuses it I guess until its fixed at least.The editor said he may ring me,as there is also another that I alerted him too.

So thats all I can tell you at this stage and I will post if I hear anything relevant. Cheers.
Posted by OZGIRL, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 8:56:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL, For what it's worth, I reckon having some real life understanding of how complex and variable people's lives can be is a pretty good thing for a social worker to have.

Scout, cheers!
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 10:18:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout hi,

Im not quite sure I understand your post about Social Workers have real life understanding of situations...thank you, I think.

Cheers
Posted by OZGIRL, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 11:28:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZGIRL,

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant my comments in response to one poster who was suggesting that your life experience might somehow disqualify you from your chosen career path. I was saying I believe the opposite: our life experience is often the source of our most authentic and useful compassion, and this is an asset for any person in a human centred job.
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 12:50:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 31
  7. 32
  8. 33
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy