re: tv
[email protected]
>>of GeorgeLucas, the Simpsons, something on Pharoahs... I'm sure they all had very
different influences on her, and I think they were all valuable.
Especially the Simpsons. <<
They showed a rerun of King of the Hill last night - it was the WONDERFUL
Halloween show - where the whole town was kept from celebrating Halloween by
one fanatical woman and, finally, Hank had had enough and put on his
trick-or-treat costume from when he was a kid and went walking down the
street saying, "TRICK OR TREAT TRICK OR TREAT" and all the neighbors came out
and joined in. This is one of my favorite episodes of any show. The make all
these comments on all kinds of subjects but still manage to keep the real
focus on what is important - the relationship between Hank and his son, Bobby
-- it is really very very insightful.
--pam
[email protected]
>>I say, "most TV programming is ugly". You say, "there are wonderfulshows". Do you think *most* shows are wonderful? Maybe you do. But you
will agree that for those people who think most shows are nothing special,
it doesn't make sense to own a TV. It just amazes me how many do. <<
I have no way of knowing, and I don't believe that you do either, that "most"
tv shows are "ugly." If you're really going to base your argument on the
claim that "most" (meaning more than 50 percent) is "ugly" -- and you want us
to take that claim seriously, then you're going to have to convince us first,
that it is true. It isn't my experience of tv, at all.
If I didn't ever watch tv, how would I know that most of it was ugly? Where
would I get a sample on which to base this assumption? I'd see tv where?
Hmmm, in the gym when I worked out - they tend to watch soaps or sports - not
something I watch. On the tv's in a store I'm walking through - sitcoms and
sports - again, not my own cup of tea. So my sample would be based on what
other people just happened to be watching in public environments. Plus, there
was a football game on last week that was being played in New England and it
was snowing like CRAZY. My husband was watching it with his headphones, so
that I didn't have to have the background noise, but the picture itself was
so absolutely gorgeous - all that snow falling (remember I'm in Southern
California) that I actually sat and watched the game for a while.
Most of the shows I watch are not "ugly". Because I do like to watch a lot of
shows that are "artsy" - most of the shows that I watch are not only not
ugly, they are beautiful.
Okay - I watched South Park last night too. I think it probably qualifies as
"ugly" in a way. But still -- very very very funny show. So even if "some"
shows ARE ugly, so what? Is ugly always bad?
--pam
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 3:26:35 PM, PSoroosh@... writes:
<< If you're really going to base your argument on the
claim that "most" (meaning more than 50 percent) is "ugly" -- and you want us
to take that claim seriously, then you're going to have to convince us first,
that it is true. It isn't my experience of tv, at all. >>
I don't think this poster is trying to convince anyone of that point. My take
on those posts is that she is saying SHE feels that way and that she doesn't
understand why others who do feel that TV is mostly crap would own a TV. You
-and I - are saying we think many things on TV are wonderful and we like
owning them.
And if I'm wrong on that, feel free to correct me.
Paula
<< If you're really going to base your argument on the
claim that "most" (meaning more than 50 percent) is "ugly" -- and you want us
to take that claim seriously, then you're going to have to convince us first,
that it is true. It isn't my experience of tv, at all. >>
I don't think this poster is trying to convince anyone of that point. My take
on those posts is that she is saying SHE feels that way and that she doesn't
understand why others who do feel that TV is mostly crap would own a TV. You
-and I - are saying we think many things on TV are wonderful and we like
owning them.
And if I'm wrong on that, feel free to correct me.
Paula
Nancy Wooton
on 1/28/02 1:23 PM, PSoroosh@... at PSoroosh@... wrote:
Expressionism, producing what are arguably some of the ugliest drawings and
paintings. They make me think. They challenge assumptions about truth,
beauty, humanity. Another artist I love is Norman Rockwell, the antithesis
of Expressionism. With beauty, skill, and realism, he also challenges
assumptions and makes you think. Go figure <g>
Nancy
> Is ugly always bad?Ooh, good point! One of my favorite periods in art history is German
Expressionism, producing what are arguably some of the ugliest drawings and
paintings. They make me think. They challenge assumptions about truth,
beauty, humanity. Another artist I love is Norman Rockwell, the antithesis
of Expressionism. With beauty, skill, and realism, he also challenges
assumptions and makes you think. Go figure <g>
Nancy
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 4:01:13 PM, Felicitas@... writes:
<< > Is ugly always bad?
Ooh, good point! One of my favorite periods in art history is German
Expressionism, producing what are arguably some of the ugliest drawings and
paintings. >>
oh, yeah! And how about Francis Bacon?!
paula
<< > Is ugly always bad?
Ooh, good point! One of my favorite periods in art history is German
Expressionism, producing what are arguably some of the ugliest drawings and
paintings. >>
oh, yeah! And how about Francis Bacon?!
paula
Nancy Wooton
on 1/28/02 2:06 PM, sjogy@... at sjogy@... wrote:
Bosch's Temptation of St. Anthony from the Brugge in Belgium, to go with the
Italian version of that subject they own, to create a special exhibit. I
haven't seen it yet, but I will.
Nancy
> << > Is ugly always bad?And Hieronomous Bosch! The Timken Museum in Balboa Park has borrowed
>
> Ooh, good point! One of my favorite periods in art history is German
> Expressionism, producing what are arguably some of the ugliest drawings and
> paintings. >>
>
> oh, yeah! And how about Francis Bacon?!
Bosch's Temptation of St. Anthony from the Brugge in Belgium, to go with the
Italian version of that subject they own, to create a special exhibit. I
haven't seen it yet, but I will.
Nancy
Pam Hartley
It is a GREAT point. Think of people who collect those troll dolls. Or who
own a Pug!
I married a guy who is not nearly as handsome as some of the men I dated,
but is to me worth more than all the rest put together.
I, of course, suffer from being gorgeous, but we all have our cross to
bear...
Pam, tongue welded in cheek. <g>
----------
From: Nancy Wooton <Felicitas@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] re: tv
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002, 1:58 PM
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
own a Pug!
I married a guy who is not nearly as handsome as some of the men I dated,
but is to me worth more than all the rest put together.
I, of course, suffer from being gorgeous, but we all have our cross to
bear...
Pam, tongue welded in cheek. <g>
----------
From: Nancy Wooton <Felicitas@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] re: tv
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002, 1:58 PM
> Is ugly always bad?Ooh, good point!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/28/02 3:09:42 PM, sjogy@... writes:
<< And how about Francis Bacon?! >>
His face?
His writings?
What?
<< And how about Francis Bacon?! >>
His face?
His writings?
What?
[email protected]
<<That doesn't change
the fact that for the few families who do experience TV that way,
following the children's choices on the matter is not a simple
decision. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong for arguing in favor of
unlimited TV. This is an unschooling list after all. I'd just like to
see a little acknowledgment that this can be a bit more complicated. >>
Some people talked about having decided to not allow tv even before their
children were born, Kathy. So it isn't that they've tried and found their
kids were in that .1 percent who have an adverse reaction.
I know you and I believe your experience. But nobody else here has said that
they have had that kind of experience.
Making this argument doesn't bolster the case of anybody else -- it is like
someone whose kid is allergic to peanut butter arguing that others are right
not to allow their kids to eat peanut butter because there are some kids who
have allergic reactions (and even not that strong since surely the reaction
to tv will not last into adulthood - so there ought to come a time when they
can handle it, unlike a peanut allergy).
the fact that for the few families who do experience TV that way,
following the children's choices on the matter is not a simple
decision. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong for arguing in favor of
unlimited TV. This is an unschooling list after all. I'd just like to
see a little acknowledgment that this can be a bit more complicated. >>
Some people talked about having decided to not allow tv even before their
children were born, Kathy. So it isn't that they've tried and found their
kids were in that .1 percent who have an adverse reaction.
I know you and I believe your experience. But nobody else here has said that
they have had that kind of experience.
Making this argument doesn't bolster the case of anybody else -- it is like
someone whose kid is allergic to peanut butter arguing that others are right
not to allow their kids to eat peanut butter because there are some kids who
have allergic reactions (and even not that strong since surely the reaction
to tv will not last into adulthood - so there ought to come a time when they
can handle it, unlike a peanut allergy).