Saddam's Capture

[Just Damn Evil]

1. Regardless of *why* the media is squelching new ideas, it is still squelching new ideas. This makes it conservative, because it is trying to make money by appealing to a generally conservative audience.

2. That's because I'm styling.

3. When your ends involve the extermination of an entire group of people, the means tend to be bad regardless (although that's not really important). What is important, however, is that the majority of crap on the TV isn't made by artists dropping their vision to make a living, it's made by talentless producers with no vision to begin with who submit their ideas to teams that work it so that it (theoretically) attracts as many people as possible. Also, I have unending doubt that 5.5 billion people watch American TV. I'd be surprised if that many people watched ANY TV; some nations ARE completely devoid of television. And don't assume that a majority is a STRONG majority; what if it's split 51:49?

4. If I were to just go out and say it, yes. Of course, if I presented that opinion in response to someone saying "This rocks and you CAN fix it", it'd be a bit different.

5. Straw-man. If television programs WERE created by artists, are you saying people would complain that true creativity is achieved through committees and focus groups? While it is true that you can't please everyone all the time, if at least an actual VARIETY of shows was present, most people would be pleased every now and then. The minority that didn't like anything then would probably only have the criticism, "Dude, TV is GAY." *That's* your current-day mainstream audience.

History also shows that creative output sometimes enjoys a level of success far beyond the usual drivel, as in the cases of the Matrix (1), the Lord of the Rings, Donnie Darko, and some other stuff.

[Archmage144]

You fail to miss the point, of course, that "creative" programming is entirely subjective. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>

[Ganonfro]

...*Totally goes into a flashback of seeing Dia argue about subjectivity vs. objectivity.... 2 YEARS AGO*


Look ... *Totally almost called JDE "SD"* .... Ok, sorry, back to what I was saying.

Look, Just because things are wrong and it needs to be known, it doesn't mean that we all don't already know these things. Hell, anyone with common sense has realized that commercialism ruined the media, this country, and is the MAIN REASON we invaded Iraq. Why? Because it sold. Bush needed support from a plunging aproval rating. Media needed something to sell, since all stories were flopping, and GASP!~ The country was in a decline. ONHO! LETS SAVE THE COUNTRY! .... That's what beligerant people in this country thought, aka the polititions, who, instead of doing their job and asked their respective states on what they should do about Iraq, did the capitalistic thing, and went where the money was.

BAD END.

Yes, that's what happens, but what can you do about it? BECOME A POLITITION. Don't complain to us, we're a minority as it is. COMPLAIN TO THOSE WHO CAN HELP, because we certainly can't, or else something would have been done by now.

*Ends his first thought filled post in god knows how long*

[Just Damn Evil]

*totally isn't complaining >:[*

I'm just waiting for the eventual demon revolution.

[PriamNevhausten]

*politician

TV is diluted bullshit because there are about a bazillion and a half films and programs out there, and about fifty times as many ideas for films and programs. How do you choose what goes and what stays? Even if you choose the more 'creative' or 'artsy' programs, SOMEONE is going to stand up, and say that their desires are being oppressed, when the case really is that Television is a push media, where the stations tell you what you're watching at any given point in time, and there's only a certain number of stations that can be conveyed with any semblance of effeciency and effectiveness. Don't like it? Good. That shows you have a brain with greater processing capacity than warm mayonnaise.

What do you do, then? First, you don't bitch about it, because bitching gets nothing done. Second, you change media. Internet connections are pull media; you tell the internet what it is you want to see. So you have complete control over what information it is that you receive, and you can see as much 'creative' or 'artsy' or 'innovative' or 'whatever' stuff as you damn well please without worrying about whether some conglomerate sees fit to broadcast it.

In short, TV is the problem. Internet access is the solution. Remember that you're not the only person on the planet. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

[Just Damn Evil]

---

<span style="font-size:xx-small;">and about fifty times as many ideas for films and programs.</span>

---

And how many of them are the same sitcom? While it's all well and good to say that "creativity" is relative (hell, almost ALL definitions are) can we all agree that there's at least a SLIGHT difference between Star Trek and Just Shoot Me?

Firstly, I wasn't "bitching". Nothing I've said in this thread has been a complaint or suggestion, only reasons as to WHY television can be called conservative (which seems mostly uncontested at this point).

Secondly, you still don't have ANY control over what you see on the internet. Web companies work exactly the same way as networks: they supply a service, gain popularity, and then get money from advertisers. The only difference is that the amount of cash needed to get your voice out there on the internet is so dramatically less that many more people are able to do so. Artists are able to get their ideas out at a significantly lower cost, so there is a greater variety of information available, and there is almost always an audience available. You don't tell the internet *anything*, you search, and if it's there, you find it.

Also: the internet (in itself) isn't a media. A "media", in the way that we're using the word, is a "means of mass communication, such as newpapers, magazines, radio, or television". The internet works like a phone, connecting two computers together.

[Banjooie]

Okay, folks.

I officially dub JDE 'RPGWW's Skyrall'

You may all proceed to ignore anything he may claim to be a valid point freely.

"Also: the internet (in itself) isn't a media. A "media", in the way that we're using the word, is a "means of mass communication, such as newpapers, magazines, radio, or television". The internet works like a phone, connecting two computers together."

It's probably for the best, folks. Really.

[Justice Augustus]

Would you think of the World Wide Web as a media then? <p>

---

I am just too damn British.
</p>

[PriamNevhausten]

Medium. The singular of 'media' is MEDIUM. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

[Justice Augustus]

Ja mein fuhrer!
<p>

---

I am just too damn British.
</p>

[Just Damn Evil]

You know, Priam, for someone who spends all their time correcting others in the proper usage of the English language, you sure make the most commonplace of mistakes.

Here's JDE's lesson, now: sometimes words have more than one meaning! Sometimes they have more than one application. In this case, "media" (as in the liberal media) doesn't HAVE a singular form. It's not being USED as the plural of medium, that wouldn't make SENSE. I'm taking three art courses, Priam, believe me when I say that I know the word MEDIUM.

And Banj: I had the sneaking suspicion that the full extent of what I could expect from you was displayed in the statement "Ernie does not have AIDS, you stupid fuck." Let me specify what this statement means to me:
1: You form opinions about statements without reading them correctly.
2: You express these opinions as inarguable fact despite their lack of logical/factual backing and your complete ignorance on the subject.
3: You don't actually have anything to say besides generic insults that lack every kind of meaning.

What a surprise! Those 3 points seem to be a recurring theme with your posts. Banj, I don't know how you view your contribution to this discussion, but to me you seem as nothing more than one of the many people whose attention spans are too short to remember what they're arguing, WHY they're arguing it, or what their opinion is.

Whether or not the world wide web is a media is debatable. Seeing as how this is the discussion forum, I guess we COULD debate it but it just boils down to semantics.

There are newsgroups and internet radio stations that are medias; they're really just regular medias in the digital medium.

[SorataYuy]

*yawns, doesn't even try to cover it* you know something, JDE? The fact that my eyes got a little glazed over about 1/3 of the way through your post should say something. I normally try to give people respect, and read their whole post, but seriously man, now you're just beating a dead horse. Of course, since your point has nothing to do with the original topic, please, go right ahead and keep babbling, I'm curious to see just what they to do you. ^_^ <p>I BUKKAKE FOR JUSTICE!!!</p>Edited by: SorataYuy at: 1/10/04 9:13 am

[PriamNevhausten]

JDE. Get a goddamned dictionary before you lecture me on the pluralization of 'medium' or the supposed nonsingularizability of 'media.' Because you just pluralized what you just declared yourself to be a plural. Wake up and smell the paint chips.

Maybe once you have taken linguistics courses, studied basic English structure, and set yourself to a career where proper English usage is of the utmost importance, MAYBE I will actually start listening to your prattle about the language, because that will have made us near-equals. Until then, you are, as far as I am concerned, only slightly higher in the linguistic hierarchy than your typical AOL user. PLZ DIE, K THX. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=priamnevhausten>PriamNevhausten</A] at: 1/10/04 9:56 am

[Lord Hatsuma]

In this case, media is being used in two different senses. On the one hand, it is the plural of medium- that is to say, more than one venue of expression. On the other hand, there is media as in 'The media', which is more or less slang for the majority of news and entertainment sources that people get their information from.

Ex: Fox News is not 'a medium' in the sense that if you put a bunch of stations together you get 'the media'. It is 'a medium' in the sense that you can convey thoughts/ideas with it.

~Hatsuma, who has taken linguistics and considers proper use of language important for any career in which you want people to understand you

[Wolfbelly]

This tangent is awesome. Going from the capture of Saddam to the vocabulary meaning of "Media" and such in 5 pages. That's truly awesome.

[Just Damn Evil]

What's even more awesome is that it's almost not entirely my fault this time!

---

The fact that my eyes got a little glazed over about 1/3 of the way through your post should say something.

---

It says that you don't bother to read through the entirety of a post before you reply to it. Although, your first post in this thread said that a lot better. Before you speak your mind, you should try to understand the concepts being discussed and the context in which they are being done so.

As you've pointed out, my post has nothing to do with the original topic. Why? Because it's a reply to a post directed at me; see, that's what you do on message boards, you respond to people. And you're one to talk; what have your posts been so far?

(12/24/03 12:02 am) I don't know what the word "satire" means, so JDE must be stupid! Also, why is a discussion happening in a discussion forum? Somebody lock this before it speads!
(12/24/03 1:07 am) I don't discuss things because I don't have anything to say, so I'll just insult JDE some more!
(12/24/03 3:55 am) Whatever.
(1/10/04 9:10 am) Lots of stupid.

Are you in MENSA, Sorata? Because you're a freaking genius.

I would note that I seem to have struck a particularly sensitive nerve when it comes to Priam's latest enraged response. Which carries the same level of merit as finding dirt in the ground.

My only reply is that "people" is the plural of "person", but the plural of "people" is "peoples". ...which basically just rebutted the entirety of your 7 lines, 111 words, 559 characters.

Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=justdamnevil>Just]&nbsp; at: 1/10/04 6:55 pm

[FlamingDeth]

Quote:

---

My only reply is that "people" is the plural of "person", but the plural of "people" is "peoples". ...which basically just rebutted the entirety of your 7 lines, 111 words, 559 characters.

---

I was just going to completely ignore this thread, but that's dumb. One incident merely shows that it just kinda sorta might be possible that "medias" is a real word, it doesn't cement it, because that's rare exception to normal rules of grammar. The plural of "socks" isn't "sockses", after all, unless you're Gollum.

Edit: And if you decide to reply to this thread any more, please refrain from using the phrase "lots of stupid". Seriously. <p><center><table border=0><td></td><td>

---

I don't know what the hell this thing is, but the chicks dig it.

---

</td></table></center></p>Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flamingdeth>FlamingDeth</A] at: 1/10/04 7:09 pm

[SorataYuy]

Quote:

---

It says that you don't bother to read through the entirety of a post before you reply to it. Although, your first post in this thread said that a lot better. Before you speak your mind, you should try to understand the concepts being discussed and the context in which they are being done so.

As you've pointed out, my post has nothing to do with the original topic. Why? Because it's a reply to a post directed at me; see, that's what you do on message boards, you respond to people. And you're one to talk; what have your posts been so far?

(12/24/03 12:02 am) I don't know what the word "satire" means, so JDE must be stupid! Also, why is a discussion happening in a discussion forum? Somebody lock this before it speads!
(12/24/03 1:07 am) I don't discuss things because I don't have anything to say, so I'll just insult JDE some more!
(12/24/03 3:55 am) Whatever.
(1/10/04 9:10 am) Lots of stupid.

Are you in MENSA, Sorata? Because you're a freaking genius.

---

Well, I'm trying to catch up with you, the guy who's really just ranting and raving to prove his intelligence, but you're just too far out in the lead here ^_~. Now then. All you know how to do is insult those who hold different views or opinions than you, you've made that blatantly clear. There's a huge difference between satire and insult as well, kindly note that the next time you attempt to use it. Your attempts at it seem to have rather failed, or else many would've remarked on your sparkling wit, or lack thereof in this case.

As noted before, I didn't get involved in this because I found your cynical and rather self-important attitude far too amusing to want it stopped at that point. There does come a time though when those who speak just to hear their own voice gets tiresome, and my original post was it. My own patience with your self-absorbed attitude had reached it's limit, and my comment about closing it was letting the Admins and Mods know they had at least one person who wouldn't miss your 'talk' in the least. Not that this is a democracy here, really, at any rate. But, I digress.

In closing, I feel I should adequately have clarified -my- motivations for, as you so intelligently put it, 'lots of stupid'. Because when a topic gets this far off track and the loudest voice in it is one of that who seems to feel everything said against him is a personal insult, I -perceive- it as being rather stupid and will so respond in kind. You can post whatever you what in reply to this, just keep in mind:

Your 'cunningly put' arguements mean nothing to one who isn't going to be reading them anymore, because he's said his final piece on it all, and finds you less engaging than ShadowDragon. Although, come to think of it, the similarities are rather striking here. In any case, enjoy responding to this, since you'll be speaking to dead air. Have a pleasant day Mr Cynic. ^_^ <p>I BUKKAKE FOR JUSTICE!!!</p>Edited by: SorataYuy at: 1/10/04 7:31 pm

[Uncle Pervy]

This is directed at the appropriate parties. You know who you are. <p>------------------
Greetings, large black person. Let us not forget to form a team up together and go into the country to inflict the pain of our karate feets on some ass of the giant lizard person.
</p>

[LadyDragonClawsEDW]

Okay this has pretty much degraded into idiocy. Upon request of other forumers, I'm closing this topic. <p>

---

One hat to rule them all.</p>