Man Stabs Himself So He Doesn't Have To Work At Blockbuster

william · External Since: Apr 16, 2009 Posts: 94

On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "steve" <st....DeleteThis@steve.com> wrote:
>
> I dont know why so many people think it's effective argument to
> hyperbolically misstate the other persons position.
>
I'm not arguing with you. I'm making light of how you and Calvin are
so perverse in injecting this tired political nonsense into a
conversation about someone who didn't want to go to work. The fact is
that you can't argue the merits of the original conversation so you
(the two of you) unload your superficial understandings of politics
into the thread. It's silly. There's no argument. Neither you or
Calvin want to discuss anything; you're just venting. And I'm making
fun of you. You hyperbolically mutated the conversation by the
injection of that old world reactionary dogma. Tit for tat. But I
guess you don't get humor.

William
www.williamahearn.com

The Giant Brain · External Since: Aug 19, 2009 Posts: 25

"calvin" <crice5.TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:0669f38f-ccfb-4fb2-b50b-684da7b385fa@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 7:04 pm, "The Giant Brain" <gi....TakeThisOut@brain.invalid> wrote:
> ... Maybe you'd like to explain why you think any business
> complaint by a liberal is somehow invalid?

Not invalid, just suspect. I was at Wal-Mart today, and
as always before, I saw nothing but happy campers
among the (non-unionized) employees.

If they were unionized, then they sure would be worried
about the Obama administration's efforts to make
union ballots non-secret. What a joke; no secret
ballot here in the USA. No secret ballot in institutions
famous for intimidation, even outright thuggery, against
those who don't toe the union line.
---------------------------------------------------

There, there Cal.
Drink your milk, put on your tinfoil hat and don't worry about the big bad
liberals.

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 5, 9:37 am, "steve" <st... RemoveThis @steve.com> wrote:
> On 4-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > Since I raised the issue here of BB's censorship: Yes, it was way
> > back when (afaik)... but it was sufficiently repugnant that the taint
> > lingers in memory. Yes, BB had every legal right to do it... as well
> > as every social responsibility not to. And, yes, if a slightly less
> > free market means I can drive a stake through the heart of mass
> > censorship, then pass me the hammer...
>
> What is this recurring nonsense about BB censoring films? They had thier
> own standards for what they would rent (no nc-17, etc.) but there is no way
> in hell they actually edited films. That would be as impractical (in terms
> of both expense and customer outrage) as it would be illegal (fraud,
> copywrite violation). Idiotic rumors like that represent just the type of
> hostility towards free markets that I mentioned.
>
> Further, even if BB did that (however absurd) there is no need to make the
> market less free to solve the problem. Other chains did and do rent and
> sell content that BB (and others) did not. In short, the market solves,
> rather than creates, the problem.

http://www.dove.org/columns/1996/column9612.htm

From the above link, you'll see that BB apparently did, in fact,
coerce filmmakers into producing sanitized versions ...which, indeed,
copyright laws prohibited BB from doing itself.

You will, of course, assert that all parties behaved voluntarily and
legally. And I will, of course, reiterate that I agree ...even while
insisting that BB's actions, because it then controlled 90% of the
rental market, were de facto censorship ...censorship, moreover, not
by BB, but by the family-values minority of its customer base that
BB's accountants wouldn't risk inconveniencing. (We know that BB
itself held no "moral" position, as it reversed itself as soon as the
market demanded.)

Now, *you* may choose to leave issues like censorship to the whims of
the "free" market. But then, per Dirty Harry, the question you have
to ask yourself is: Do you feel lucky?

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....RemoveThis@brain.invalid> wrote:
> "calvin" <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> ------------------------------------------------
> Please provide proof.

Here ya go:
http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm

> > You think extreme condescension toward someone who
> > objects to non-secret ballots is a valid argument?
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> As a matter of fact, I do.
> Trouble with all you ditto-heads is that no one can believe anything
> you say. You're all filled with hate.

I'm neither a ditto-head nor filled with hate. But even
if I was both, it would be irrelevant in this case. Facts
are facts. I guess if I wasn't filled with hate, I would
like for unions to threaten and intimidate people for
voting publicly the 'wrong' way, rather than allow secret
ballots.

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 5, 11:41 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... DeleteThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
> "calvin" <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... DeleteThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > "calvin" <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > > > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > Please provide proof.
> >
> > Here ya go:
> > http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>
> Looks like the unions are fer it, not agin it.
> That the right-wing plutocrats of the Chamber of Commerce are against it is
> enough to make me believe it's probably an excellent piece of legislation that
> will serve to help the working man.
> YMMV

Having to publicly sign a card saying whether or not you
want to be unionized is denial of a secret ballot. Who is
fer it or agin it has nothing to do with it. And to say that
'unions' are for it is misleading in the extreme. Unions
consist of those who run the unions and those who are
unionized. Of course those who run unions don't want a
secret ballot. Thay want to be able to intimidate the voters,
the union members, whom they want to intimidate. Are
you ignorant of the whole sordid history of union intimidation
of members?

The Giant Brain · External Since: Aug 19, 2009 Posts: 25

"calvin" <crice5.DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:0e1699fd-45ca-4e21-b4ae-a9c60901a2f3@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
and other things on which they vote, is okay?
------------------------------------------------
Please provide proof.

You think extreme condescension toward someone who
objects to non-secret ballots is a valid argument?
--------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, I do.
Trouble with all you ditto-heads is that no one can believe anything you say.
You're all filled with hate.

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 5, 12:23 pm, "The Giant Brain" <gi....DeleteThis@brain.invalid> wrote:
> Put on your tinfoil hat and try to calm yourself before you blow a gasket..

Thanks for giving me something to remember you by.

trotsky · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 2503

calvin wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:04 pm, "The Giant Brain" <gi....TakeThisOut@brain.invalid> wrote:
>> ... Maybe you'd like to explain why you think any business
>> complaint by a liberal is somehow invalid?
>
> Not invalid, just suspect. I was at Wal-Mart today, and
> as always before, I saw nothing but happy campers
> among the (non-unionized) employees.
>
> If they were unionized, then they sure would be worried
> about the Obama administration's efforts to make
> union ballots non-secret.

Because they're smart enough to work at Walmart, you mean? Let me know
if logic and reasoning ever enters the picture, okay?

steve · External Since: Dec 09, 2004 Posts: 1267

On 4-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwallace.DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:

> Since I raised the issue here of BB's censorship: Yes, it was way
> back when (afaik)... but it was sufficiently repugnant that the taint
> lingers in memory. Yes, BB had every legal right to do it... as well
> as every social responsibility not to. And, yes, if a slightly less
> free market means I can drive a stake through the heart of mass
> censorship, then pass me the hammer...

What is this recurring nonsense about BB censoring films? They had thier
own standards for what they would rent (no nc-17, etc.) but there is no way
in hell they actually edited films. That would be as impractical (in terms
of both expense and customer outrage) as it would be illegal (fraud,
copywrite violation). Idiotic rumors like that represent just the type of
hostility towards free markets that I mentioned.

Further, even if BB did that (however absurd) there is no need to make the
market less free to solve the problem. Other chains did and do rent and
sell content that BB (and others) did not. In short, the market solves,
rather than creates, the problem.

steve
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

steve · External Since: Dec 09, 2004 Posts: 1267

On 4-Nov-2009, william <wlahearn RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> So according to your yahoo fringe politics anyone who complains about
> any store (read participator in the "free" markets) is a latent
> Marxist ready to take your guns, burn your Bibles and make the Girl
> Scouts handmaidens to the abortionists. Once again you're jimmying a
> conversation to spout more of your silly politics. All politics is
> silly as far as I'm concerned and nowhere is that more apparent is
> when someone tries to turn a complaint against Block Buster into a
> soapbox for something entirely different. It's sooooooo transparent as
> to be funny. Trust me, Steve. I'm laughing on the inside.

And now Im laughing, too...on the outside. Look at the thread and tell me
again that I took this conversation into politics. Im third in line, in
fact.

> So according to your yahoo fringe politics anyone who complains about
> any store (read participator in the "free" markets) is a latent
> Marxist ready to take your guns, burn your Bibles and make the Girl
> Scouts handmaidens to the abortionists.

I dont know why so many people think it's effective argument to
hyperbolically misstate the other persons position.

And Im all for corrupting girl scouts.

steve
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

trotsky · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 2503

steve wrote:
> On 4-Nov-2009, william <wlahearn DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One must beware believing liberals' complaints
>>> about businesses.
>> But not anyone else's? Only liberals have hidden agendas, I guess.
>
> It's no hidden agenda, William. It's a hostility towards free markets, and
> it's in plain view.

I agree. Look at any other country that produces automobiles, for
example and when you see the tariffs the imports have to pay to market
their products there you can understand why the term "free market" is
the single biggest reason for the American auto makers failing. And
that's just one example.

Why do you guys always spout platitudes without having a scintilla of
information on what you're talking about?

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 5, 11:37 am, "steve" <st....RemoveThis@steve.com> wrote:
> On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall....RemoveThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.dove.org/columns/1996/column9612.htm
>
> > From the above link, you'll see that BB apparently did, in fact,
> > coerce filmmakers into producing sanitized versions ...which, indeed,
> > copyright laws prohibited BB from doing itself.
>
> "Coerce" is the wrong word, and that is of the utmost importance.
>
> From the article:
>
> > Recently, director Paul Verhoeven edited "Showgirls," an NC-17 film, into
> > an R-rating before Blockbuster Video would put in their order.
>
> I rented the unedited "Showgirls" (Im not proud to admit...what some guys
> wont do for a good wank) from a rental shop (three doors down from a BB, in
> fact) the day it came out.
>
> > You will, of course, assert that all parties behaved voluntarily and
> > legally. And I will, of course, reiterate that I agree ...even while
> > insisting that BB's actions, because it then controlled 90% of the
> > rental market, were de facto censorship
>
> BB didnt "control" 90% of the market (and Im taking your word on the %) they
> garnered and serviced 90%. And, yes, the voluntary nature of the
> interaction with content providers is what prevents the editing from being
> censorship.
>
> > (We know that BB
> > itself held no "moral" position, as it reversed itself as soon as the
> > market demanded.)
>
> And that should tell you something. If they "controlled" the market, they
> wouldnt have to change thier practices to respond to demand.
>
> > Now, *you* may choose to leave issues like censorship to the whims of
> > the "free" market.
>
> A free market simply can not censor because there is no cercion (by
> definition). By your definition, any influence market forces have over
> content is censorship. Netflix doesnt (as far as I know) rent hard core
> porn. TCM (we know) is quite selective and careful about what they show and
> at what time of day. Consorship? Nope. Just marketing choices.

Addenda:

... Yes, "90%" is merely my rough recall of BB's dominance, but I
believe it accurate enough to make a valid point.

... SHOWGIRLS was a comedy. And Verhoeven sure as hell didn't edit
to broaden his exposure, but merely his investors' profits.

... Those who can't find hardcore (anyway) at Netflix don't know
where to look.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

steve · External Since: Dec 09, 2004 Posts: 1267

On 5-Nov-2009, calvin <crice5.DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:

> > There, there Cal.
> > Drink your milk, put on your tinfoil hat and don't worry about the big
> > bad
> > liberals.
>
> So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> and other things on which they vote, is okay?

And why should the govt impose any coercive controls on any form of
bargaining (collective or otherwise)?
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

steve · External Since: Dec 09, 2004 Posts: 1267

On 5-Nov-2009, william <wlahearn.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not arguing with you. I'm making light of how you and Calvin are
> so perverse in injecting this tired political nonsense into a
> conversation about someone who didn't want to go to work.

Dude...here is the progression of political talk in this thread (all from
one post, in fact):

**********************
Calvin:
> > One must beware believing liberals' complaints
> > about businesses.

William:
> But not anyone else's? Only liberals have hidden agendas, I guess.

steve:
It's no hidden agenda, William. It's a hostility towards free markets, and
it's in plain view.

**********************

Which makes your assertion (that I introduced poitics into this thread)
clearly wrong.

> The fact is
> that you can't argue the merits of the original conversation

LOL. And what, pray tell, beyond the opportunity for some jokes (and Im
pretty sure a joke was my first entry into the thread), could we discuss
about the dope who stabbed himself to avoid work? What controversy or
pressing issue does that incident raise? Lack of proper care for the
mentally ill? Knife control? BBs hiring practices?

> There's no argument. Neither you or
> Calvin want to discuss anything; you're just venting.

I discuss all sorts of things all the time, here. Film, politics, art,
music, philosophy...all with detailed analysis of issues and arguments and
with true (often agonizing...ask Pig-man) give and take. You're just wrong
on the facts, my friend...twice, now.

> You hyperbolically mutated the conversation by the
> injection of that old world reactionary dogma. Tit for tat. But I
> guess you don't get humor.

I do when it's funny.
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

TBerk · External Since: May 08, 2007 Posts: 67

On Nov 4, 5:27 pm, calvin <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:

>
> Seems strange that you make porn a central part of your
> argument. My experience with Turtles for renting VHS tapes
> in the 90s was that it didn't 'push' porn, but it had an 'alternate
> lifestyles' section, or something like that.

It's not strange, it's the free market.

Customer goes to the rental shop to rent something- it has a
noticeable lack of a certain segment- it's Noticeable. He mentions
it's conspicuousness by absence; Germain and On Topic.

When I discovered BB doing this type of thing (exerting economic
pressure to release censored versions) I let my personal membership
lapse, talked to those whom I knew also had memberships (so they could
investigate for themselves) and focused more on the Mom n' Pop rental
place that was on the way home from work anyway.

Yes, it _was_ last Century; I haven't dealt with BB since other than
the odd Used Video purchase out of the retired movies bin, and those
have been very far and few between.

Besides, the local place had a much deeper, broader, and interesting
collection to choose from.

Latly I've been filling my video jones via TCM and online sources but
there's going to be a very hard row to hoe for BB to gain me back as a
customer.

berk

TBerk · External Since: May 08, 2007 Posts: 67

On Nov 5, 6:37 am, "steve" <st....TakeThisOut@steve.com> wrote:

> What is this recurring nonsense about BB censoring films? ...

I have actually held a differing version in my hand. I have actually
watched a film I was already familiar with and the editing was
noticeable. I do not believe BB actually did the editing themselves,
but it was a condition of doing business with them that it be done
prior to rental in their stores.

berk

The Giant Brain · External Since: Aug 19, 2009 Posts: 25

"calvin" <crice5 RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote in message
news:cb10d576-b384-47ce-8cb3-ac50505611cc@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... RemoveThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
> "calvin" <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> > and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> ------------------------------------------------
> Please provide proof.

Here ya go:
http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm

Looks like the unions are fer it, not agin it.
That the right-wing plutocrats of the Chamber of Commerce are against it is
enough to make me believe it's probably an excellent piece of legislation that
will serve to help the working man.
YMMV

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 5, 2:38 pm, TBerk <bayareab....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:37 am, "steve" <st....RemoveThis@steve.com> wrote:
>
> > What is this recurring nonsense about BB censoring films? ...
>
> I have actually held a differing version in my hand. I have actually
> watched a film I was already familiar with and the editing was
> noticeable. I do not believe BB actually did the editing themselves,
> but it was a condition of doing business with them that it be done
> prior to rental in their stores.

Whatever BB did, it was a long time ago. The store has
been just fine for the past decade.

Except that their rental price has become so high that I
do most of my renting from Netflix. When I first started with
Netflix two years ago, it was just for renting things that
Blockbuster didn't have. Now it's for nearly everything, old
or new.

steve · External Since: Dec 09, 2004 Posts: 1267

On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwallace DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:

> http://www.dove.org/columns/1996/column9612.htm
>
> From the above link, you'll see that BB apparently did, in fact,
> coerce filmmakers into producing sanitized versions ...which, indeed,
> copyright laws prohibited BB from doing itself.

"Coerce" is the wrong word, and that is of the utmost importance.

From the article:

> Recently, director Paul Verhoeven edited "Showgirls," an NC-17 film, into
> an R-rating before Blockbuster Video would put in their order.

I rented the unedited "Showgirls" (Im not proud to admit...what some guys
wont do for a good wank) from a rental shop (three doors down from a BB, in
fact) the day it came out.

> You will, of course, assert that all parties behaved voluntarily and
> legally. And I will, of course, reiterate that I agree ...even while
> insisting that BB's actions, because it then controlled 90% of the
> rental market, were de facto censorship

BB didnt "control" 90% of the market (and Im taking your word on the %) they
garnered and serviced 90%. And, yes, the voluntary nature of the
interaction with content providers is what prevents the editing from being
censorship.

> (We know that BB
> itself held no "moral" position, as it reversed itself as soon as the
> market demanded.)

And that should tell you something. If they "controlled" the market, they
wouldnt have to change thier practices to respond to demand.

> Now, *you* may choose to leave issues like censorship to the whims of
> the "free" market.

A free market simply can not censor because there is no cercion (by
definition). By your definition, any influence market forces have over
content is censorship. Netflix doesnt (as far as I know) rent hard core
xxxx. TCM (we know) is quite selective and careful about what they show and
at what time of day. Consorship? Nope. Just marketing choices.

steve
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 5, 1:28 pm, "steve" <st... RemoveThis @steve.com> wrote:
> On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > Addenda:
>
> > ... Yes, "90%" is merely my rough recall of BB's dominance, but I
> > believe it accurate enough to make a valid point.
>
> I dont dispute the % because it is irrelevant.
>
> > ... SHOWGIRLS was a comedy. And Verhoeven sure as hell didn't edit
> > to broaden his exposure, but merely his investors' profits.
>
> ...and therefore?
>
> > ... Those who can't find hardcore (anyway) at Netflix don't know
> > where to look.
>
> Fair enough, but the point is that they make choices as to what content to
> carry, and those choices are not censorship.
>
> You still havent addressed the key points in my argument.

I think your point is that, unless there's the threat of gunplay or
incarceration, you don't extend recognition of de facto censorship.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com