Yay me! I made 2000 Posts. *Does happy happy sunshine dance*

Here is an excerpt from a forum discussion I was involved with on the “Off Topic” board. This discussion took place over several days, and is actually still going on. As a lover of great debating, I thought that it was interesting exchange. edmorita wrote: I don't see god smiting down **** so until then, everyone should just let them be. God is the only one who can judge any of us. As Whoopi Goldberg once said, "If you don't like **** then don't marry one." melodymaestra wrote: whoopi quote is great... crazy_legs_1205: It has nothing to do with liking **** or not. It's about upholding the definition of marriage, which is seen as sacred or special, and shouldn't be changed. Many people who are fine with **** are still against same-sex marriage. I don't think that five-year-olds should be allowed to get married, but that doesn't mean that I'm prejudice against five-year-olds. It's just that five-year-olds don't fit into the traditional definition of marriage, which is that marriage is for mature adults. Similarly, same-sex couples don't fit into the definition of marriage, which is that it is between one man and one woman. And again, this is just how I personally feel. EVILBSTD wrote: Why do all the liberals in this thread have such a hard time respecting other opinions than their own? LSyd wrote: I'm fairly liberal myself. I don't have a hard time respecting the opinions of others, I just hate it when people use their opinions in order to prevent others from having certain rights that others take for granted. Fine, you don't want it to be the same as marriage marriage. But **** should at least be able to have a 'civil union' which works in a similar fashion and confers upon the couple the same rights and status for various services as a heterosexual married couple would otherwise have. For example, some things require a couple to be married - a de facto **** relationship doesn't work. There should be at least some form of recognition for a **** couple similar to marriage for legal purposes. edmorita wrote: The same could be said for a lot of conservatives. The only problem that I have with Conservatives is that they feel that because they live a certain way, everyone has to live the same way. If you don't like Broccoli, then that doesn't mean that no one can have it. Just because you don't like same sex marriage, doesn't mean that **** should be deprived of it. I've said it before, and it still applies. "If you don't like **** then don't marry one." -Whoopie Goldberg- crazy_legs_1205 wrote: Well, a lot of liberals look down on everyone who doesn't like all the "fresh new ideas" that they have. So they're just as guilty. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it has nothing to do with liking **** or not. edmorita wrote: And a lot of conservatives look down on liberals because they have "fresh new ideas" contradictory to their own. crazy_legs_1205 wrote: And a lot of liberals look down on conservatives because they have traditional ideas contradictory to their fresh new ones. edmorita wrote: Not all "fresh new ideas" are necessarily bad. If no one had them, then there would still be segregation, Social security would never have been instituted, Prohibition would never have been repealed, and women would not be able to vote. Like women's suffrage in the 1900's, prohibition in the 1920's, and segregation in the 1950's; same sex marriage is just our generation's social issue. At the time, people were vehemently against desegregation in the 50's. When Truman desegregated the military in 1954, he did it against great opposition. People hated it at the time, but they eventually got over it. It is the same thing with same sex marriage. melodymaestra wrote: good point. Crazy_legs_1205 wrote: And not all traditional ideas are necessarily bad either. I don't see what's so wrong about wanting to keep certain things the same. Humblah wrote: There isn't anything wrong with keeping some things the same. But when someone's civil liberties are in question, maybe it's time for change. Think that a lot of that "sanctity of marriage" stuff is rather hypocritical. crazy_legs_1205 wrote: There are laws against marrying someone closely related to you. Doesn't that infringe on someone's "civil liberty" to marry their sibling or cousin? There are laws against marrying someone if you're already married. Doesn't that infringe on someone's "civil liberty" to have seven wives? There are laws against minors marrying. Doesn't that infringe on a kindergartener's "civil liberty" to marry the cute little girl that sits across from him? The answer to all of these questions is NO. Having "civil liberties" doesn't mean that you are allowed to do anything and everything you want. It means you have certain rights that the law grants you. The law grants every adult the right to marry, as long as they fulfill certain qualifications. And one of those qualifications should be that the person they marry be of the opposite sex. It's not out of discrimination against **** it just how marriage is defined. Similarly, there are certain qualifications you must meet in order to run for president. Two of these are that you must have been born in the U.S. and that you must be at least 35 years old. This is not out of discrimination against naturalized citizens or young people; it's just how the law has defined it. edmorita wrote: It's funny that you use the word discrimination. Discrimination: Function: noun 1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently 2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing 3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment Now, how is not allowing tax paying citizens to marry because they are **** not discrimination? Crazy_legs_1205 wrote: Sorry about that. I was using "discrimination" in the negative sense that most people think of it, not the more neutral dictionary sense. When people hear "discrimination" they usually think of unjust hatred and bigotry. That's what I was talking about. Most people aren't against same-sex marriage because of bigotry toward **** A lot of people are fine with **** people, but just can't agree with same-sex marriage. edmorita wrote: You didn't answer my question. How is it not discrimination? Crazy_legs_1205 wrote: You asked "how is not allowing citizens to marry because they are **** not discrimination". My point is, being against same-sex marriage isn't the same as being against **** people. We don't forbid same-sex marriage because we don't like people's sexual orientation. We forbid it because two people of the same sex marrying doesn't fit into the definition of "marriage". It's not about sexuality; it's about upholding the definition of marriage. edmorita wrote: A definition that is based on a Judeo-Christian belief. A definition, which was in fact changed in many states to specifically say "between a man and a woman" to prevent **** from getting married. Laws changing the definition of marriage were passed with the sole purpose of removing a group's civil rights just for being different. THAT is discrimination. schyzofroggy wrote: Agree, well said crazy_legs_1205 wrote: Are you sure about that? There's a branch of Judaism that allows same-sex marriages, and there are certain Christian churches that do as well. Even if you do consider it "discrimination," I'd say that not allowing ****s in the military is even more discriminatory. That is undoubtedly about their sexuality and nothing else. edmorita wrote: The military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy does not prohibit **** from joining the military. **** are free to join the military if they choose. The military opposed desegregation, but they adapted. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” may not necessarily be politically correct, but it’s progress. Judeo-Christian: Function: adjective Etymology: Latin Judaeus Jew -- more at JEW : having historical roots in both Judaism and Christianity Judeo-Christian refers to a commonly held belief. Yes I know that there are different denominations that do condone same sex marriage, Unitarians for example which are the church that my Lesbian cousins attend, but these are looked upon by Judaism and Christianity as fringe groups. A lot of Jews and Christians follow the belief set forth in the bible. Just because it is in the bible, that doesn't mean that people should be stripped of their civil liberties. LSyd wrote: Not all children who live with **** couples are adopted. An example is my brother's friend. His father divorced and left, and his mother is now in a lesbian relationship. He is currently living with his mother and her partner. This kid is perfectly normal, despite living in a house with the two "parents" being the same sex. There is nothing wrong with this, just like there shouldn't be anything wrong with a **** couple adopting a child if it is in the child's best interests. But for that to be possible, there needs to be some form of legal recognition for a **** relationship equivalent to marriage which is currently available to heterosexual couples, and adoption needs to be available to people in said legally recognized relationship. edmorita wrote: Agreed. Two of my cousins are **** with children, and they are perfectly normal well adjusted kids. Granted they have their average teen issues, but no more than any other kid.

I put in an actual amendmant in the Bill of Rights saying that there should be a clear and definite division between church and state. I would make Jerusalem a city-state (Similar to the Vatican), goverened by a council made up of three members, one political, one religious, and one military, from each of the three religions affiliated with the city (Catholics, Muslims, and Jews), and one non voting moderator that is agreed upon by all voting members of the council. All decisions that effect the city-state must be approved by at least 7 of the 9 voting members of the council. (Sound familiar? It's the Grey Council from Babylon 5) Only three commercials would be allowed during every commercial break, and only two commercial breaks would be allowed during every half hour of programming. Mtv and VH-1 would be required to air at least 14 hours of music programming (Not reality shows) a day. Infomercials would be banned from network and cable channels and would only be allowed to air on Infomercial only channels. "Non-Profit" groups and religious organizations would be subject to bi annual audits by the IRS, as well as one "Surprise" audit a year, to make sure that all funds are accounted for and not missused. Public education would be paramount, second only to national defence. Prostitution, and Marijuana would be legalized, and heavily taxed. All funds raised would be used to subsidize public education, public health care, and social security. All television series would be required to release full DVD box sets, and not individual DVD releases with only 3-5 episodes each. (This one is mostly directed to anime companies. Damn money hungry bastages) I would make Superbowl Sunday an international holiday. I would eliminate the the curent BCS system, and have the top eight ranked teams play in a tournament to decide the national champion. The ranking system will be based on a national coaches poll. I would eliminate the current NCAA basketball system. All teams would be reorganized into 32 conferences with 10 or 11 teams per conference sorted by region. NO EXCEPTIONS! There will be no conference tournament, the team that finishes the season with the best record is the conference champion. In the event of a tie, there will be a playoff. The conference champion will continue on to the NCAA tournament to play for the national championship. Seeds will be established by a ranking system based on a national coaches poll. I would do away with Affermative Action change college admissions rules by requiring that names not be included on applications. Personal information would be only on the cover page which is removed and filed away before the rest of the application is evaluated. From hence forth, the person on the application is identified by a number so that they can be evaluated based only on their achievements, thus eliminating decisions based social status, ethnicity, or economical standing. Instead of 5 8 hour day woor weeks, I would make a 4 10 hour day work week.

The concept started in the 60's, but for some reason, in the 80's, Networks became obsessed with making movies based on tabloid stories and disasters like the Baby Jessica story, and the Ryan White Story. I hated them with a passion! Notorious for being incredibly bad, it was kind of amazing actually. If there was a murder on a Tuesday, the networks had a movie about it by the following Tuesday. The more sensational the event, the faster the movies were made. What was even more amazing was how people basically sold their souls to the networks, some as a blatant attempt to get their fifteen minutes of fame. The networks were basically cashing in on people's misfortunes. This all pretty much peaked with all three networks airing their own versions of Amy Fisher Story in the same week. Thank God that they don't make these anymore. To be fare, there were some great made for tv movies. The classic Brian's Song, although increadibly sappy, was a terrific movie. The movie of the week, which soon evolved into the TV Events of the 90's, had Networks salivating over hot literary works from the likes of Danielle Steel and Stephen King. Although the Danielle Steel movies were increadibly formulaic, they were hugely popular, and Stephen King movies were, of course, fantastic (It, The Stand, Tommyknockers, and the Langoliers). The networks also did not hesitate to draw from the Classics, making movies like the Odessy, Merlin, and Gulliver's Travels. Granted, they were not all good, but I still think that they are better than Reality TV. Interesting Links AFI's Top 100 Movies of the week History of the Movie of the Week

I hate people who post these on the forums, but hey, this is my blog so you all can go to hell! hehe YAY Me! 1000 posts!

I recently saw a thread where people were talking about how users have been steadily switching over to a site similar to this one called TVrage.com. I decided to take a look at what this site had to offer, and the following post are my impressions of the differences between the two sites. Well I have had a TVrage account for a week now, One difference between the two sites, is that the forums are not nearly as developed as they are on TV.com. As a matter of fact, just based on the forum traffic, it is my assumption that the population on TVrage is far fewer than TV.com. Once I came to that conclusion, is suddenly became clear to me why the site is, or atleast appeares to be so fast. For the sake of comparison, lets say that the population of TVrage is roughly half of TV.com's, and that they have the same number of staff running the site. This alone would explain how the site is able to run so fast, how submissions are approved right away, and why user issues resolved so quickly. Basically, if there are half the number of users with the same amount of staff as TV.com, that translates to roughly half the number of submissions that need to be aprooved, half the number of users using up memory on their servers, half the amount of information on their servers, and half the amount of problems associated with running a site as complicated as TV.com. Probably the first thing that made me apprehensive about TVrage, was the under population of the forums. One of the main reasons that I log on to TV.com is the interaction on the various forums. While looking around on TVrage, I was literally shoocked at how underpopulated the boards were. Hugely popular boards on TV.com like Lost, CSI, 24, OC, Smallville had maybe 10 active threads on them, some of them less. Another difference between the two sites is how easily one can become an editor. As you recall, I stated before that I have been a member of TVrage for only a week, and I'm already an editor for two shows. Before I continue, let me officially say, that I am not condoning the use of this information as an exploit. I am only using this as an example of ways that the two sites are different. Use of the following information is a blatant exploit, and is a violation of the TOS of both sites. I have found that the contribution system there is somewhat odd. Unlike here, where you become an editor by accumilating points for making submissions on a show or person. At TVrage, points are cumulative. Any points for individual shows are added to a total. The requirement there to become an editor is 40 points. Not 40 points in one show, but 40 points total. I had earned 26 points for submitting info to the show I wanted to become editor for, but because of submissions that I made to other shows, I had the pre-requisite 40 points. I filled out the online application to become editor, and it was approved with in a matter of hours. Here on TV.com, you can becone the editor to as many shows that you are willing to work on as long as you have the required number of points from contributing to that show. Here is another difference between the two sites. On TVrage, to become a editor for a second show, you need a total of 80 points, 120 points for a third, etc. Again, all points don't necissarily have to be in the show that you wish to edit, as a matter of fact, you don't have to have any points in the show you wish to become editor for. I had earned 80 points for various contributions, and decided, as a goof, to apply to be the editor for a show that I had made zero submissions to. I filled out the application, and the next day, to my surprise, it was approved. Although I used this loophole be become editor of another show, it's not like I did it for the sake of being editor. I was planning on applying to become editor for that show in the future. After becoming editor, I had begun contributing show information, so I am fulfilling my role as editor, and not just letting the guide sit vacant. One thing that I did like about TVrage is the ability to search and track blogs. There is a "Recent Blogs" page that shows the 25 most recent blog entries by members of the community. it deffinitly made it it easier to surf through the site, and see what is on people's minds. However, while perusing the various blogs, I found that there is a large population there who hold a certain distain for TV.com, and a few notable users as well. I was confused as to what was it about this site that pissed so many people off. Then, as I continued to read through the numberous hate posts, I found that a majority of them were made by people banned from TV.com for various TOS infractions. It makes sence, the people who are banned from TV.com have to go somewhere. It's just too bad that they can't accept the fact that they were not arbitrarily banned for no reason, but that they were banned because of what was probably numberous violations. I'm sure that they all were given more than their fair share of warnings and second or even third chances. Probably the biggest factor that TV.com has over TVrage is the internet search. If you do an internet search for a show, whether it be on Yahoo, Google, whatever, TV.com will always be one of the sites shown on the results page. I have been testing this for a few days now on different shows, and TVrage.com has yeat to show up on the results page. To finish this post, I would like to say that after a week surfing around on TV.rage, I still prefer TV.com over TVrage. Yes TVrage is faster and less buggy, but TV.com is a much more developed site. It has more information, the forums are more extensive (Not to mention more populated), and it is more concious of content (both on the information boards and on the forums).

It has become apparent to me that they are more sports networks than actual sports to watch. There are seven Sports Networks on basic cable (Even more on advanced digital packages), and when you have ESPN showing the World Scrabble Championships, then you know that they are having trouble finding enough programming to fill air time. FSN probably took the biggest hit during the Hockey strike/lock out. I vaguely recall seeing English Cricket on FSN during this period. Throw in the occasional Baseball strike, then these Sports networks are and have been screwed. On any given day you can find a myriad of crappy programming on these many networks. I find it confusing how anyone can refer to activities like bass fishing or dogs jumping off of a dock after a frisbee a sport. There is an entire network devoted just to golf. I mean, how much golf can a person watch. Most of the programming on these networks are hardly what you would call spectator sports. I am a big fan of playing poker. It is a fun game, but that is what it is... A GAME. As much as I like to play poker, I think that watching it on TV is one of the most boring things you can do. The drama and fun of playing is in no way transferable through a television medium. I think that the World Series of Poker would make more sense if it were on the Game Show Network rather than on ESPN. What is next, The World Championships for Golden Tee? How about the World Series of Darts? Or maybe the various sports networks will be clamouring for exclusive rights to the NCAA Beer Pong Championships. When it comes to sports, I follow two simple rules. 1. Any activity that you can play while drinking, is not a sport. These include such activities as Bowling, Billiards/Pool, Darts, Poker, Golf, etc. Although I admit that these activities require a great amount of skill and technique, they are games, not sports, and thus do not belong on ESPN, FSN or any other channel that calls itself a Sports Network. It could be argued that any sport could be played while intoxicated, and many will argue that the Great Bambino himself would step up to bat after having a drink in the dug out, but it goes with out saying that just because you could play football drunk doesn't mean that you would. 2. Any activity that has to be judged is not a sport. These activities include Diving, Gymnastics, Figure Skating, Ballroom Dancing, etc. Although a great amount of athleticism is required for these activities, the fact that they are judged takes any and all competition out of them. In such events, you are not competing against an opponent, but rather are trying to fulfil a list requirements. I admit though, that with the introduction of the X-Games (Winter games to be exact), my stance on this definition has grown a little lax. Events such as half pipe, and big air are spectacular and entertaining to watch. Suffice it to say, this rule applies mostly to the entertainment value of the event. Not many would tune in to watch Ballroom Dancing, and although figure skating is hugely popular, and garners good ratings, I still don't consider it a sport by definition.

I admit, that there are a few shows that I like. (American Chopper, Inked, Dog the Bounty Hunter, It Takes A Thief) but this is rediculous. When MTV and VH-1 (Supposed Music Channels) both have nothing but wall to wall Reality Shows, then things have offiucially gotten out of hand. Go a head anf check. Tune in to MTV or VH-1 right now, and I will guarentee you that there is somesore of reality based show on there right now. When MTV switched to it's all Reality all the time format, they came up with MTV2, but guess what, now MTV2 is playing re-runs of old MTV reality shows. Survivor, the worst of them all in my opinon, does not even live up to it's name. I watched the first episode of the first show, and thought how kewl this show was, but the minute that they held the first tribal council was when I lost all interest in the show. The only survival on that show is trying to survive the politics of the tribal council. My first conception of the show when I first heard about it was that they were were going to maroon people on a desserted island, and every week or so, they would would come back and pick up the people who could no longer make it on the island. Last man standing is the Survivor. There is nothing REAL about the Real World anymore. The show pretty much peaked with the San Fransisco season with the Hawaii Season comming in a close second. The decline of the show basically started with the first episode of the Hawaii show, but it all went doen hill with the Las Vegas cast. After that cast, MTV traded interesting people for oversexed hotties with a steady flow of alcohol. But, even they are further up the evolutionary chain than the real world has-beens who take part in the Reality show challenges. At first it was kinda kewl since it had a reunion aspect to it, but when you see the same people on every show making @$$es of themselves in a futile attept to extend their 15 minutes of fame is truely pathetic. Pretty much everyone who appears on the Real World/Road Rules were either college students or college graduates. After getting a little taste of fame, suddely, all of their goals and asspirations they had going into college get thrown to the way side. Get a friggin Job! Real people in the Real world Pay rent. I guarentee you that most of the people who constantly make appearances on these Challenge shows are living from show to show, making no effort what so ever to make a living for themselves. Basically, once show creators attemp to affect the lives of cast members (i.e. Through challenges, scinarios which force inter member politics, stc.) They have taken the reality out of the Reality Show. The few reality shows that I like have a common aspect. None of them are effected by the producers of the show. Shows like American Choppers, Inked, and Dog the Bounty Hunter follow the day to day lives of the characters. Further ideas about the lameness of Reality TV can be found and the link below. Thanx TheBean http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/manufacturing_reality/the_omarosa_experiment.php