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

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

"calvin" <crice5.TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1cd810f3-0c36-4034-aa28-67bd3a2371f1@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 11:41 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....TakeThisOut@brain.invalid> wrote:
> "calvin" <cri....TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....TakeThisOut@brain.invalid> wrote:
> > > "calvin" <cri....TakeThisOut@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?
---------------------------------------------------------

As is typical of you ditto-heads, you have completely distorted, nay outright
lied, about this legislation.
Put on your tinfoil hat and try to calm yourself before you blow a gasket.

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

On Nov 5, 2:53 pm, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2:38 pm, TBerk <bayareab....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 6:37 am, "steve" <st....DeleteThis@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.
>
> ...

Although that may be true, clearly some crimes feel more like a
statement of abiding character than of policy. Moreover, I'm
personally not above hoisting BB's carcass even today as a cautionary
example to potential imitators (...i.e., similar to the motive, right
or wrong, claimed by some Polanski-pursuers).

--

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

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

On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwallace.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.

steve
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

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

On Nov 5, 4:51 pm, "steve" <st....TakeThisOut@steve.com> wrote:
> On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall....TakeThisOut@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> Yes. And I'd like to hear your definition, which I believe (from what
> you've said so far) will lead immediately to absurd conclusions.
>
> BTW...I seem to recall that we've had this same (almost exact) discussion
> before. Could that be?

Maybe. I have only just enough topics to make me forget the one
furthest back in the rotation.

Censorship is when I expressly impede your access to a class of
literature.

--

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

nick · External Since: Apr 21, 2007 Posts: 150

On Nov 4, 11:13 pm, David Oberman <dober... RemoveThis @socal.rr.com> wrote:
> nick <nickmacpherso... RemoveThis @AOL.com> wrote:
> >Speaking of porn . . . the first Blockbuster I ever went into, I was
> >walking in circles inside the store trying to find the porn section.
>
> Nick!! Your mind is in the cinema gutter!!
>
I'm using "xxxx" here more in in the symbolic sense than anything
literal, though like the late John Harkness, I have a fondness for the
pre-video golden age of xxxx (plots! production values! original
scores! sometimes even helicopters!) I mean, when I was in
Blockbuster for the first time and not finding that xxxx section, I
knew the pioneer days of the video store were over, that the whole
thing had been corporatized and sterilized and made family friendly.
The owner of our first neighborhood video store, the only reason he
got into the business was that he wanted to meet xxxx stars at trade
shows. But through this rather seedy De Palma-esque looking
individual I saw a lot of great movies. A lot of bad ones too. The
VCR revolution was a cinematic education that hasn't been equalled
either by DVD or the Internet. We can laugh at VHS now (and VHS was
just winning the format war when I came in) but at the time it was
wonderful.

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

On Nov 5, 5:25 pm, "steve" <st... RemoveThis @steve.com> wrote:
> On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > Censorship is when I expressly impede your access to a class of
> > literature.
>
> So...how does BB "impede my access" to NC-17 films simply by not providing
> them? And isnt every person or business that doesnt rent or sell them (like
> your neighbor, the drug store, hardware store, clothing shops, car
> dealerships, etc.) "impeding my access" to NC-17 films just as much as BB?
> That's the absurdity I predicted.
>
> And, BTW, you need to be specific about what "expressily impede" means. BB
> didnt stop me from renting NC-17 "Showgirls" three doors down.*
>
> steve
>
> * Actually, the owner of that competing, mom and pop rental shop told me
> that BB was behind a push to zone him out of the area (for renting those
> dirty NC-17 films). That IS censorship, of course, and involved/required
> the use of govt power. BB failed to push him out.

As so often, 'absurdity' here is in the catechism of the beholder.

In what I deem a worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship, I burden
literature vendors with a responsibility to provide fully open
access... and apply such burden in proportion to their dominance of
the marketplace.

("Expressly impede" is when someone with power gives an iota more than
a rat's ass about *my* opinion of what *you* should be allowed to
watch.)

--

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

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

On Nov 5, 5:43 pm, nick <nickmacpherso....DeleteThis@AOL.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 11:13 pm, David Oberman <dober....DeleteThis@socal.rr.com> wrote:> nick <nickmacpherso....DeleteThis@AOL.com> wrote:
> > >Speaking of porn . . . the first Blockbuster I ever went into, I was
> > >walking in circles inside the store trying to find the porn section.
>
> > Nick!! Your mind is in the cinema gutter!!
>
> I'm using "porn" here more in in the symbolic sense than anything
> literal, though like the late John Harkness, I have a fondness for the
> pre-video golden age of porn (plots! production values! original
> scores! sometimes even helicopters!) I mean, when I was in
> Blockbuster for the first time and not finding that porn section, I
> knew the pioneer days of the video store were over, that the whole
> thing had been corporatized and sterilized and made family friendly.
> The owner of our first neighborhood video store, the only reason he
> got into the business was that he wanted to meet porn stars at trade
> shows. But through this rather seedy De Palma-esque looking
> individual I saw a lot of great movies. A lot of bad ones too. The
> VCR revolution was a cinematic education that hasn't been equalled
> either by DVD or the Internet. We can laugh at VHS now (and VHS was
> just winning the format war when I came in) but at the time it was
> wonderful.

I went directly to the xxxx, too... right after FORBIDDEN PLANET,
poetically...

--

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

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

"calvin" <crice5 DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote in message
news:4a204bc2-0b75-4e0e-9782-16490a432951@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 2:38 pm, TBerk <bayareab... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:37 am, "steve" <st... DeleteThis @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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Along that line of reasoning, let's forgive the Nazi war criminals - after all,
WWII ended a long time ago...

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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For those who only occasionally rent a DVD and whose tastes are pedestrian,
Blockbuster is just fine.
Netflix has had just about every film I ever wanted, no matter how obscure,
delivered within a few days right to my front door..
The low monthly fee and the steady stream of DVDs to my humble abode make me a
happy Netflix user.

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

On Nov 5, 6:10 pm, "steve" <st... DeleteThis @steve.com> wrote:
> On 5-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > In what I deem a worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship, I burden
> > literature vendors with a responsibility to provide fully open
> > access... and apply such burden in proportion to their dominance of
> > the marketplace.
>
> So... providing a service (selling books, DVDs, CDs) confers a duty? How
> so? What is the extent of that duty? And what meets the test of "fully
> open access"? And I notice you're now talking about what you "worthwhile
> zeal to thwart censorship" as your justification for a definition of
> censorship. That's circular, and gets you nowhere.
>
> I think you came back too quickly with a definition that didnt reflect much
> critical thought. Unless you think it through, you'll be waving hands
> and/or scrambling to clean things up. Perhaps you should take some time and
> try to come up with a more defensible definition.
>
> As a practical matter (aside from the logical argument) no one can provide
> all, and in many markets even trying to provide a wide range of options is
> likley to kill profits. If you require all or nothing, you're likley to get
> nothing.

My definition reflects the amount of 'critical thought' I'm willing to
spend on this. ...Any 'hand-waving' I may do is merely to gain your
attention as you speed along a different itinerary.

....My "worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship" is predicated on 1) the
evil of censorship, and 2) the certainty that our species will attempt
it. For purposes of this discussion, I consider both axiomatic.

....In our less-than-infinite society, I view including BB's local-
market sterilizing effect (erstwhile) under the rubric of merely
"providing a service" to be disingenuous...

--

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

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

On 5-Nov-2009, TBerk <bayareaberk DeleteThis @yahoo.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.

Exactly. The decision (including the decision to do biz with BB) and the
control was in the hands of the film makers and distributers. The
persistent rumor was that BB edited and censored films...clearly not what
was happening.
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

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

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

> > 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.

Yes. And I'd like to hear your definition, which I believe (from what
you've said so far) will lead immediately to absurd conclusions.

BTW...I seem to recall that we've had this same (almost exact) discussion
before. Could that be?

steve
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

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

On Nov 5, 6:32 pm, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:

premises:

> 1) the evil of censorship, and

> 2) the certainty that our species will attempt it.

conclusion:

Our species is inherently afflicted with this evil.

question:

How did those of our species who abhor censorship
free themselves from this evil?

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

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

> Although that may be true, clearly some crimes feel more like a
> statement of abiding character than of policy. Moreover, I'm
> personally not above hoisting BB's carcass even today as a cautionary
> example to potential imitators (...i.e., similar to the motive, right
> or wrong, claimed by some Polanski-pursuers).

Just thought Id mention that I dumped BB (so very long ago) for lack of
selection and for not carrying NC-17 versions (I complained to management
many times about the latter). We then frequented Hollywood Video, and
discovered they had better selection but the same NC-17 policy (I complained
again). Then came Netflix, and...salvation!

steve
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

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

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

> Censorship is when I expressly impede your access to a class of
> literature.

So...how does BB "impede my access" to NC-17 films simply by not providing
them? And isnt every person or business that doesnt rent or sell them (like
your neighbor, the drug store, hardware store, clothing shops, car
dealerships, etc.) "impeding my access" to NC-17 films just as much as BB?
That's the absurdity I predicted.

And, BTW, you need to be specific about what "expressily impede" means. BB
didnt stop me from renting NC-17 "Showgirls" three doors down.*

steve

* Actually, the owner of that competing, mom and pop rental shop told me
that BB was behind a push to zone him out of the area (for renting those
dirty NC-17 films). That IS censorship, of course, and involved/required
the use of govt power. BB failed to push him out.
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

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

On Nov 5, 8:37 am, "steve" <st... RemoveThis @steve.com> wrote:

>
> A free market simply can not censor because there is no cercion (by
> definition).

Are you saying they can't exert decision making influence over others
using purse-string?

berk

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

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

> In what I deem a worthwhile zeal to thwart censorship, I burden
> literature vendors with a responsibility to provide fully open
> access... and apply such burden in proportion to their dominance of
> the marketplace.

So... providing a service (selling books, DVDs, CDs) confers a duty? How
so? What is the extent of that duty? And what meets the test of "fully
open access"? And I notice you're now talking about what you "worthwhile
zeal to thwart censorship" as your justification for a definition of
censorship. That's circular, and gets you nowhere.

I think you came back too quickly with a definition that didnt reflect much
critical thought. Unless you think it through, you'll be waving hands
and/or scrambling to clean things up. Perhaps you should take some time and
try to come up with a more defensible definition.

As a practical matter (aside from the logical argument) no one can provide
all, and in many markets even trying to provide a wide range of options is
likley to kill profits. If you require all or nothing, you're likley to get
nothing.

steve
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag

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

On Nov 5, 8:17 pm, calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:32 pm, moviePig <pwall....DeleteThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> premises:
>
> > 1) the evil of censorship, and
> > 2) the certainty that our species will attempt it.
>
> conclusion:
>
> Our species is inherently afflicted with this evil.
>
> question:
>
> How did those of our species who abhor censorship
> free themselves from this evil?

Merely having completed Step 12 doesn't make them 'free'...

--

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

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

"calvin" <crice5 RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1a0de96e-566d-428e-8b87-31a3823cd5ac@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 6:32 pm, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:

premises:

> 1) the evil of censorship, and

> 2) the certainty that our species will attempt it.

conclusion:

Our species is inherently afflicted with this evil.

question:

How did those of our species who abhor censorship
free themselves from this evil?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kill files?

Tom · External Since: Feb 03, 2009 Posts: 49

On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> 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
>

Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
little value.

Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
of touch with modern business thought.

How about another, more credible, source?

Tom

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

On 5-Nov-2009, TBerk <bayareaberk.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > A free market simply can not censor because there is no cercion (by
> > definition).
>
> Are you saying they can't exert decision making influence over others
> using purse-string?

No. Im saying exerting influence is not censorship. Coercive measures are
required to create censorship.

And I invite you (as I did Pig-man) to define censorship as you see it. And
do me a favor...think about it, and examine your own definition to see if it
covers far more than you intend and/or leads to absurd conclusions.

steve
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag