free movies
tootskds
Hey all,
I pulled this post from another group list. I have checked it out and
printed off a list of the movies showing. It will definitely work for
bored little ones!!!
Regal theaters are doing this for the summer! Free "G" and "PG" rated
movies. The film times are shown at 10 am on Tuesday and Wednesdays.
Admission to all is FREE. Seating are on a first come first serve
basis. To find a location near you, visit www.regmovies.com. The link
for the Reg Family Film Festival is on the left hand side, then select
your state to find one near you. Movies vary from location to location.
HAPPY HUNTING,
Karen
I pulled this post from another group list. I have checked it out and
printed off a list of the movies showing. It will definitely work for
bored little ones!!!
Regal theaters are doing this for the summer! Free "G" and "PG" rated
movies. The film times are shown at 10 am on Tuesday and Wednesdays.
Admission to all is FREE. Seating are on a first come first serve
basis. To find a location near you, visit www.regmovies.com. The link
for the Reg Family Film Festival is on the left hand side, then select
your state to find one near you. Movies vary from location to location.
HAPPY HUNTING,
Karen
patrick morris
it is not illegal to lend movies. I was just trying to unwind (
unsuccessfully) 3 threads I saw; 1. the legal/ illegality issue; 2.
the morality right/ wrong issue and 3. the guilt/ shame / blame issue
of starving the poor working class stiffs who depend on sales to
prevent homeless depravity. 1.the legal issue seems to be a structure
of rules that we will be punished if we don't obey; the inference is
that they are commonly agreed ideas of ethical behavior,, I think not
, as many tax laws clearly expose.The majority of the laws derive
from those who have plenty pedaling materialism as a codified virtue.
2.the morality issue ; what should we be doing in regard to its
impact on others; I thinking living in the western cultures almost
seals our fate in a complicity of taking what we want with a
unbelievably blind eye to this actions impact on most of the worlds
population. 3. guilt of hurting the gaffers salary by not purchasing a
film seems on the same continuum of I'll buy cotton from the slave
owner because it feeds the slaves; corrupt immoral systems should not
be linked with virtuous choices. sorry to belabor the point, but I
feel I was even more convoluted than usual. enough said. patrick
ps. joyce, nothing personal , I've been a long time fan and first time
caller.
unsuccessfully) 3 threads I saw; 1. the legal/ illegality issue; 2.
the morality right/ wrong issue and 3. the guilt/ shame / blame issue
of starving the poor working class stiffs who depend on sales to
prevent homeless depravity. 1.the legal issue seems to be a structure
of rules that we will be punished if we don't obey; the inference is
that they are commonly agreed ideas of ethical behavior,, I think not
, as many tax laws clearly expose.The majority of the laws derive
from those who have plenty pedaling materialism as a codified virtue.
2.the morality issue ; what should we be doing in regard to its
impact on others; I thinking living in the western cultures almost
seals our fate in a complicity of taking what we want with a
unbelievably blind eye to this actions impact on most of the worlds
population. 3. guilt of hurting the gaffers salary by not purchasing a
film seems on the same continuum of I'll buy cotton from the slave
owner because it feeds the slaves; corrupt immoral systems should not
be linked with virtuous choices. sorry to belabor the point, but I
feel I was even more convoluted than usual. enough said. patrick
ps. joyce, nothing personal , I've been a long time fan and first time
caller.
Joyce Fetteroll
On Dec 21, 2008, at 9:45 AM, patrick morris wrote:
2000+ people. That way shouldn't even be in people's tool box.
principles and into personal opinion and politics which doesn't help
clarify unschooling.
If someone breaks a law and they get caught there will be
repercussions whether they agree with the law or not.
Whether someone complies with a law is their own personal choice. How
they justify not complying with a law is up to them. But neither
changes illegal to legal.
It was illegal for the members of the Boston Tea Party to board that
private ship without permission and toss the cargo into the harbor.
They decided to do it anyway. Most would agree with their
justification in breaking that law. But justifying it doesn't erase
the illegality of it. And the leaders darn well better have made sure
the participants understood they were doing something illegal.
Some homeschooling parents choose not to comply with their state
laws. Being fully informed of the laws and repercussions and who they
might affect beyond themselves (such as their children, other
homeschoolers) should be part of their decision. But they would be
irresponsible to their children to not comply without realizing
they're in a state where noncompliance could bring CPS into the picture.
to their own personal moral code.
I don't think it's fair to the people involved in creating movies and
TV shows for these sites to be passed on without the understanding
that it's not "free movies". They are stolen intellectual property
that the creators expected to be paid for. If people decide to watch
anyway, that's up to them.
That information is getting lost in the fact that the practice is so
pervasive and easy. It feels as though it must be legal.
slave-labor cotton to be ignorant of any negative impact they might
have on the slaves. It would be more responsible if they also planned
to help those affected by their actions.
Again, it was information. (BTW, gaffers don't get a salary. They are
paid by the job. Money made from a movie impacts their next job. (How
much it impacts is less clear and getting into politics and
judgment.) As far as I know gaffers don't get residuals. Writers,
actors and directors at least do.)
If information makes someone feel guilty, then that's a sign
something's grating against their morals and principles and they
should examine that idea. That's what guilt is good for. Guilt from
information and clarity has spurred parents to stop spanking and stop
sending their kids to school. (It's not useful to stop at guilt,
though. It's a beginning point.)
Lack of clarity about what our actions truly are doesn't help us make
good decisions.
Ignorance of who we might affect by our actions is irresponsible.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> it is not illegal to lend movies. I was just trying to unwind (There are much better ways to unwind than spreading misinformation to
> unsuccessfully)
2000+ people. That way shouldn't even be in people's tool box.
> 1.the legal issue seems to be a structureThis is getting beyond information and general discussion of
> of rules that we will be punished if we don't obey; the inference is
> that they are commonly agreed ideas of ethical behavior,, I think not
> , as many tax laws clearly expose.
principles and into personal opinion and politics which doesn't help
clarify unschooling.
If someone breaks a law and they get caught there will be
repercussions whether they agree with the law or not.
Whether someone complies with a law is their own personal choice. How
they justify not complying with a law is up to them. But neither
changes illegal to legal.
It was illegal for the members of the Boston Tea Party to board that
private ship without permission and toss the cargo into the harbor.
They decided to do it anyway. Most would agree with their
justification in breaking that law. But justifying it doesn't erase
the illegality of it. And the leaders darn well better have made sure
the participants understood they were doing something illegal.
Some homeschooling parents choose not to comply with their state
laws. Being fully informed of the laws and repercussions and who they
might affect beyond themselves (such as their children, other
homeschoolers) should be part of their decision. But they would be
irresponsible to their children to not comply without realizing
they're in a state where noncompliance could bring CPS into the picture.
> 2.the morality issue ; what should we be doing in regard to itsI passed on information. What people do with the information is up
> impact on others;
to their own personal moral code.
I don't think it's fair to the people involved in creating movies and
TV shows for these sites to be passed on without the understanding
that it's not "free movies". They are stolen intellectual property
that the creators expected to be paid for. If people decide to watch
anyway, that's up to them.
That information is getting lost in the fact that the practice is so
pervasive and easy. It feels as though it must be legal.
> 3. guilt of hurting the gaffers salary by not purchasing aAnd it would be irresponsible of someone who organized a boycott to
> film seems on the same continuum of I'll buy cotton from the slave
> owner because it feeds the slaves
slave-labor cotton to be ignorant of any negative impact they might
have on the slaves. It would be more responsible if they also planned
to help those affected by their actions.
Again, it was information. (BTW, gaffers don't get a salary. They are
paid by the job. Money made from a movie impacts their next job. (How
much it impacts is less clear and getting into politics and
judgment.) As far as I know gaffers don't get residuals. Writers,
actors and directors at least do.)
If information makes someone feel guilty, then that's a sign
something's grating against their morals and principles and they
should examine that idea. That's what guilt is good for. Guilt from
information and clarity has spurred parents to stop spanking and stop
sending their kids to school. (It's not useful to stop at guilt,
though. It's a beginning point.)
Lack of clarity about what our actions truly are doesn't help us make
good decisions.
Ignorance of who we might affect by our actions is irresponsible.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
JJ Ross
Seems to me there is no pure "information" free of moral judgment in
this discussion or most others.
If there's a larger principle of use to unschoolers to be discussed
here, we can find it and then apply it back to specifics. For
example, This American Life broadcast a wonderfully nuanced collection
of real people stories on our personal choices about rules and how we
hurt ourselves and others, yesterday morning on PRI. It is titled
"Ruining It for the Rest of Us" -- one applies this principle to an
issue unschoolers know well, the anti-vax dilemma for individuals and
society.
http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/370.mp3
Then the last story of the hour relates to the legalistic,
rule-following mindset of the "Quiet Car" concept on northeast Amtrak
trains. The whole program is worth listening to just for this
progression of one woman's thoughts as she rides in the car week after
week and sees the self-righteous passengers (especially herself) as a
microcosm of society legalistically trying to make each other follow
the morally superior rules they've all agreed to! :)
Another story is about research on three behavior types that "ruin it
for the rest of us" whatever the focus, in school or at work, in
social groups and in society at large -- the attacker-insulter, the
off-task slacker and the depressive-pessimist. Basically the worst
team member affects the way everyone in the group winds up treating
each other. It's contagious. I think this insight is most useful when
we turn it on ourselves (am I the bad apple?) rather than judging and
attacking others for it -- which just makes things worse for everyone
-- and it applies to unschooling issues and unschooling discussions as
much as any.
The researcher's next project is testing the hypothesis that one group
leader can change that dynamic simply by asking questions and
listening for real understanding to the answers, almost like talk
therapy, so others experience that too, instead of just feeling
ill-used by the bad apple -- the idea is that this can defuse bad
behaviors, sort of inoculate the group against catching the poison
effects.
Finally, I would suggest that beyond "information" on laws and models
so desperately behind the curve that we all know it isn't working and
can't be sustained without reform (like schooling!) we can look
forward instead, imagine new solutions that can be legal and moral and
practical, models that will actually WORK after the revolution! So for
something specific to lawful and moral profiting from entertainment
copyright versus big business ripping us all off with exploitative
protectionism, we could discuss for example this PRI interview about a
revolutionary model for music distribution, TuneCore:
www.wpr.org/book/080127b.html (second segment)
http://www.tunecore.com/
JJ
(Sent this three hours ago by email but no post, so trying again,
sorry if it duplicates --)
--- In [email protected], Joyce Fetteroll
<jfetteroll@...> wrote:
this discussion or most others.
If there's a larger principle of use to unschoolers to be discussed
here, we can find it and then apply it back to specifics. For
example, This American Life broadcast a wonderfully nuanced collection
of real people stories on our personal choices about rules and how we
hurt ourselves and others, yesterday morning on PRI. It is titled
"Ruining It for the Rest of Us" -- one applies this principle to an
issue unschoolers know well, the anti-vax dilemma for individuals and
society.
http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/370.mp3
Then the last story of the hour relates to the legalistic,
rule-following mindset of the "Quiet Car" concept on northeast Amtrak
trains. The whole program is worth listening to just for this
progression of one woman's thoughts as she rides in the car week after
week and sees the self-righteous passengers (especially herself) as a
microcosm of society legalistically trying to make each other follow
the morally superior rules they've all agreed to! :)
Another story is about research on three behavior types that "ruin it
for the rest of us" whatever the focus, in school or at work, in
social groups and in society at large -- the attacker-insulter, the
off-task slacker and the depressive-pessimist. Basically the worst
team member affects the way everyone in the group winds up treating
each other. It's contagious. I think this insight is most useful when
we turn it on ourselves (am I the bad apple?) rather than judging and
attacking others for it -- which just makes things worse for everyone
-- and it applies to unschooling issues and unschooling discussions as
much as any.
The researcher's next project is testing the hypothesis that one group
leader can change that dynamic simply by asking questions and
listening for real understanding to the answers, almost like talk
therapy, so others experience that too, instead of just feeling
ill-used by the bad apple -- the idea is that this can defuse bad
behaviors, sort of inoculate the group against catching the poison
effects.
Finally, I would suggest that beyond "information" on laws and models
so desperately behind the curve that we all know it isn't working and
can't be sustained without reform (like schooling!) we can look
forward instead, imagine new solutions that can be legal and moral and
practical, models that will actually WORK after the revolution! So for
something specific to lawful and moral profiting from entertainment
copyright versus big business ripping us all off with exploitative
protectionism, we could discuss for example this PRI interview about a
revolutionary model for music distribution, TuneCore:
www.wpr.org/book/080127b.html (second segment)
http://www.tunecore.com/
JJ
(Sent this three hours ago by email but no post, so trying again,
sorry if it duplicates --)
--- In [email protected], Joyce Fetteroll
<jfetteroll@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2008, at 9:45 AM, patrick morris wrote:
>
> > it is not illegal to lend movies. I was just trying to unwind (
> > unsuccessfully)
>
> There are much better ways to unwind than spreading misinformation to
> 2000+ people. That way shouldn't even be in people's tool box.
>
> > 1.the legal issue seems to be a structure
> > of rules that we will be punished if we don't obey; the inference is
> > that they are commonly agreed ideas of ethical behavior,, I think not
> > , as many tax laws clearly expose.
>
> This is getting beyond information and general discussion of
> principles and into personal opinion and politics which doesn't help
> clarify unschooling.
>
> If someone breaks a law and they get caught there will be
> repercussions whether they agree with the law or not.
>
> Whether someone complies with a law is their own personal choice. How
> they justify not complying with a law is up to them. But neither
> changes illegal to legal.
>
> It was illegal for the members of the Boston Tea Party to board that
> private ship without permission and toss the cargo into the harbor.
> They decided to do it anyway. Most would agree with their
> justification in breaking that law. But justifying it doesn't erase
> the illegality of it. And the leaders darn well better have made sure
> the participants understood they were doing something illegal.
>
> Some homeschooling parents choose not to comply with their state
> laws. Being fully informed of the laws and repercussions and who they
> might affect beyond themselves (such as their children, other
> homeschoolers) should be part of their decision. But they would be
> irresponsible to their children to not comply without realizing
> they're in a state where noncompliance could bring CPS into the picture.
>
>
> > 2.the morality issue ; what should we be doing in regard to its
> > impact on others;
>
> I passed on information. What people do with the information is up
> to their own personal moral code.
>
> I don't think it's fair to the people involved in creating movies and
> TV shows for these sites to be passed on without the understanding
> that it's not "free movies". They are stolen intellectual property
> that the creators expected to be paid for. If people decide to watch
> anyway, that's up to them.
>
> That information is getting lost in the fact that the practice is so
> pervasive and easy. It feels as though it must be legal.
>
> > 3. guilt of hurting the gaffers salary by not purchasing a
> > film seems on the same continuum of I'll buy cotton from the slave
> > owner because it feeds the slaves
>
> And it would be irresponsible of someone who organized a boycott to
> slave-labor cotton to be ignorant of any negative impact they might
> have on the slaves. It would be more responsible if they also planned
> to help those affected by their actions.
>
> Again, it was information. (BTW, gaffers don't get a salary. They are
> paid by the job. Money made from a movie impacts their next job. (How
> much it impacts is less clear and getting into politics and
> judgment.) As far as I know gaffers don't get residuals. Writers,
> actors and directors at least do.)
>
> If information makes someone feel guilty, then that's a sign
> something's grating against their morals and principles and they
> should examine that idea. That's what guilt is good for. Guilt from
> information and clarity has spurred parents to stop spanking and stop
> sending their kids to school. (It's not useful to stop at guilt,
> though. It's a beginning point.)
>
> Lack of clarity about what our actions truly are doesn't help us make
> good decisions.
>
> Ignorance of who we might affect by our actions is irresponsible.
>
> Joyce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
hlg567
How does one know if the site is illegal? I thought because MSN listed
it...it was. I am sorry never meant to encourage stealing :(--- In
[email protected], Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:
it...it was. I am sorry never meant to encourage stealing :(--- In
[email protected], Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2008, at 9:45 AM, patrick morris wrote:
>
> > it is not illegal to lend movies. I was just trying to unwind (
> > unsuccessfully)
>
> There are much better ways to unwind than spreading misinformation to
> 2000+ people. That way shouldn't even be in people's tool box.
>
> > 1.the legal issue seems to be a structure
> > of rules that we will be punished if we don't obey; the inference is
> > that they are commonly agreed ideas of ethical behavior,, I think not
> > , as many tax laws clearly expose.
>
> This is getting beyond information and general discussion of
> principles and into personal opinion and politics which doesn't help
> clarify unschooling.
>
> If someone breaks a law and they get caught there will be
> repercussions whether they agree with the law or not.
>
> Whether someone complies with a law is their own personal choice. How
> they justify not complying with a law is up to them. But neither
> changes illegal to legal.
>
> It was illegal for the members of the Boston Tea Party to board that
> private ship without permission and toss the cargo into the harbor.
> They decided to do it anyway. Most would agree with their
> justification in breaking that law. But justifying it doesn't erase
> the illegality of it. And the leaders darn well better have made sure
> the participants understood they were doing something illegal.
>
> Some homeschooling parents choose not to comply with their state
> laws. Being fully informed of the laws and repercussions and who they
> might affect beyond themselves (such as their children, other
> homeschoolers) should be part of their decision. But they would be
> irresponsible to their children to not comply without realizing
> they're in a state where noncompliance could bring CPS into the picture.
>
>
> > 2.the morality issue ; what should we be doing in regard to its
> > impact on others;
>
> I passed on information. What people do with the information is up
> to their own personal moral code.
>
> I don't think it's fair to the people involved in creating movies and
> TV shows for these sites to be passed on without the understanding
> that it's not "free movies". They are stolen intellectual property
> that the creators expected to be paid for. If people decide to watch
> anyway, that's up to them.
>
> That information is getting lost in the fact that the practice is so
> pervasive and easy. It feels as though it must be legal.
>
> > 3. guilt of hurting the gaffers salary by not purchasing a
> > film seems on the same continuum of I'll buy cotton from the slave
> > owner because it feeds the slaves
>
> And it would be irresponsible of someone who organized a boycott to
> slave-labor cotton to be ignorant of any negative impact they might
> have on the slaves. It would be more responsible if they also planned
> to help those affected by their actions.
>
> Again, it was information. (BTW, gaffers don't get a salary. They are
> paid by the job. Money made from a movie impacts their next job. (How
> much it impacts is less clear and getting into politics and
> judgment.) As far as I know gaffers don't get residuals. Writers,
> actors and directors at least do.)
>
> If information makes someone feel guilty, then that's a sign
> something's grating against their morals and principles and they
> should examine that idea. That's what guilt is good for. Guilt from
> information and clarity has spurred parents to stop spanking and stop
> sending their kids to school. (It's not useful to stop at guilt,
> though. It's a beginning point.)
>
> Lack of clarity about what our actions truly are doesn't help us make
> good decisions.
>
> Ignorance of who we might affect by our actions is irresponsible.
>
> Joyce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Joyce Fetteroll
On Dec 25, 2008, at 12:40 PM, hlg567 wrote:
I just Googled "ovguide illegal" and checked through the blurbs of
the sites listed until I found several that offered real information.
Obviously you're more likely to find lots of misinformation. But it's
pretty obvious when someone is speaking from research than just
passing on their opinion. One of the answers on Yahoo is something
like "Trust me. It's legal." Yeah. The fact that you can type an
answer into Yahoo is a great foundation for trust ;-)
But just as a rule of thumb, if a site is sending you offsite to
YouTube or some other hosting site, or if the episode is split into
pieces that you have to download, or if it doesn't have ads, it's
probably pirated stuff.
Some of the owners of shows and videos are putting their stuff up on
YouTube which is why you'll sometimes see ads. Those are official
uploads to combat the pirated stuff. They've recognized that people
want to be able to watch it on demand. Which is good! :-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> How does one know if the site is illegal? I thought because MSN listedI agree, one would think MSN would check before passing something on!
> it...it was. I am sorry never meant to encourage stealing :(--- In
I just Googled "ovguide illegal" and checked through the blurbs of
the sites listed until I found several that offered real information.
Obviously you're more likely to find lots of misinformation. But it's
pretty obvious when someone is speaking from research than just
passing on their opinion. One of the answers on Yahoo is something
like "Trust me. It's legal." Yeah. The fact that you can type an
answer into Yahoo is a great foundation for trust ;-)
But just as a rule of thumb, if a site is sending you offsite to
YouTube or some other hosting site, or if the episode is split into
pieces that you have to download, or if it doesn't have ads, it's
probably pirated stuff.
Some of the owners of shows and videos are putting their stuff up on
YouTube which is why you'll sometimes see ads. Those are official
uploads to combat the pirated stuff. They've recognized that people
want to be able to watch it on demand. Which is good! :-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]