I'm shocked -- SHOCKED !!

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by George Orwell, Apr 13, 2007.

  1. NY Times
    "Report Says the Young Buy Violent Games and Movies"
    http://snipurl.com/shocked_shocked

    [A] 140-page document, released Thursday, was a follow-up to the
    [FCC's] 2000 report, which censured the entertainment business for
    selling violence to the young...
    ==========
    And how much money was wasted on this report?

    What do they expect when the industry has entire video categories
    devoted to this stuff? SHOOTER, FIGHTING, etc. etc.
    http://snipurl.com/shooters

    How ironic that an agency of the US GOVERNMENT (!) is concerned about
    violence. Look in the mirror, clowns.
     
    George Orwell, Apr 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. George Orwell

    MassiveProng Guest

    On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:51:20 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell
    <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> Gave us:

    >NY Times
    >"Report Says the Young Buy Violent Games and Movies"
    >http://snipurl.com/shocked_shocked
    >
    >[A] 140-page document, released Thursday, was a follow-up to the
    >[FCC's] 2000 report, which censured the entertainment business for
    >selling violence to the young...
    >==========
    >And how much money was wasted on this report?
    >
    >What do they expect when the industry has entire video categories
    >devoted to this stuff? SHOOTER, FIGHTING, etc. etc.
    >http://snipurl.com/shooters
    >
    >How ironic that an agency of the US GOVERNMENT (!) is concerned about
    >violence. Look in the mirror, clowns.



    You're an idiot, clown.
     
    MassiveProng, Apr 13, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. George Orwell

    Niemadre Guest

    On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:04:43 -0700, MassiveProng
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:51:20 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell
    ><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> Gave us:
    >
    >>NY Times
    >>"Report Says the Young Buy Violent Games and Movies"
    >>http://snipurl.com/shocked_shocked
    >>
    >>[A] 140-page document, released Thursday, was a follow-up to the
    >>[FCC's] 2000 report, which censured the entertainment business for
    >>selling violence to the young...
    >>==========
    >>And how much money was wasted on this report?
    >>
    >>What do they expect when the industry has entire video categories
    >>devoted to this stuff? SHOOTER, FIGHTING, etc. etc.
    >>http://snipurl.com/shooters
    >>
    >>How ironic that an agency of the US GOVERNMENT (!) is concerned about
    >>violence. Look in the mirror, clowns.

    >
    >
    > You're an idiot, clown.



    Still foaming little helpless one?...................
     
    Niemadre, Apr 13, 2007
    #3
  4. In article <>
    George Orwell <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
    >
    > NY Times
    > "Report Says the Young Buy Violent Games and Movies"
    > http://snipurl.com/shocked_shocked
    > ..........
    > What do they expect when the industry has entire video categories
    > devoted to this stuff? SHOOTER, FIGHTING, etc. etc.
    > http://snipurl.com/shooters
    >
    > How ironic that an agency of the US GOVERNMENT (!) is concerned about
    > violence. Look in the mirror, clowns.


    Example:

    USA Today
    http://snipurl.com/1gdmu

    The U.S. Army is about to invade the online gaming community with an
    estimated $2 million sponsorship deal with the Global Gaming League
    website.

    Starting in June, the Army will sponsor a "national gaming" area as a
    way to tap into the site's 9.2 million players per month of everything
    from shooter games to pro baseball. It hopes to find candidates for
    recruitment among the 17- to 24-year-old males who are 80% of the
    gamers on the site - young men hard to reach with advertising...
     
    George Orwell, Apr 13, 2007
    #4
  5. George Orwell

    wildbox Guest

    uh... ha haha you said "young men hard"
     
    wildbox, Apr 13, 2007
    #5
  6. George Orwell

    Relic Guest

    George Orwell wrote:
    > In article <>
    > George Orwell <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
    >> NY Times
    >> "Report Says the Young Buy Violent Games and Movies"
    >> http://snipurl.com/shocked_shocked
    >> ..........
    >> What do they expect when the industry has entire video categories
    >> devoted to this stuff? SHOOTER, FIGHTING, etc. etc.
    >> http://snipurl.com/shooters
    >>
    >> How ironic that an agency of the US GOVERNMENT (!) is concerned about
    >> violence. Look in the mirror, clowns.

    >
    > Example:
    >
    > USA Today
    > http://snipurl.com/1gdmu
    >
    > The U.S. Army is about to invade the online gaming community with an
    > estimated $2 million sponsorship deal with the Global Gaming League
    > website.
    >
    > Starting in June, the Army will sponsor a "national gaming" area as a
    > way to tap into the site's 9.2 million players per month of everything
    > from shooter games to pro baseball. It hopes to find candidates for
    > recruitment among the 17- to 24-year-old males who are 80% of the
    > gamers on the site - young men hard to reach with advertising...
    >

    Lock n' load ^_^
     
    Relic, Apr 14, 2007
    #6
  7. George Orwell

    Kazimierez Guest

    Crawl back in your hole.
     
    Kazimierez, Apr 14, 2007
    #7
  8. George Orwell

    Relic Guest

    Kazimierez wrote:
    > Crawl back in your hole.
    >


    Explain.
     
    Relic, Apr 14, 2007
    #8
  9. George Orwell

    Kazimierez Guest

    On Apr 14, 12:32 am, Relic <> wrote:
    > Kazimierez wrote:
    > > Crawl back in your hole.

    >
    > Explain.


    no
     
    Kazimierez, Apr 14, 2007
    #9
  10. George Orwell

    MassiveProng Guest

    MassiveProng <> wrote in
    news::

    > On 13 Apr 2007 22:52:57 -0700, "Kazimierez" <>
    > Gave us:
    >
    >>Crawl back in your hole.

    >
    >
    > It takes a true Usenet retard that doesn't even quote who he is
    > responding to, because he is so fucking retarded that he thinks
    > everyone views their news with the same news client, or in the same
    > format.
    >
    > You could be a bit more retarded, but not in this life.
    >


    "tard tard tard tard"

    You really need to sharpen your flaming skills netkop.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
     
    MassiveProng, Apr 14, 2007
    #10
  11. George Orwell

    MassiveProng Guest

    On 13 Apr 2007 22:52:57 -0700, "Kazimierez" <>
    Gave us:

    >Crawl back in your hole.



    It takes a true Usenet retard that doesn't even quote who he is
    responding to, because he is so fucking retarded that he thinks
    everyone views their news with the same news client, or in the same
    format.

    You could be a bit more retarded, but not in this life.
     
    MassiveProng, Apr 14, 2007
    #11
  12. George Orwell

    MassiveProng Guest

    On 14 Apr 2007 07:20:48 -0700, "Kazimierez" <>
    Gave us:

    >On Apr 14, 12:32 am, Relic <> wrote:
    >> Kazimierez wrote:
    >> > Crawl back in your hole.

    >>
    >> Explain.

    >
    >no



    You're a total retard. You starred in the film "Total Retard".

    I remember.
     
    MassiveProng, Apr 14, 2007
    #12
  13. George Orwell

    Richard C. Guest

    "MassiveProng" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > On 13 Apr 2007 22:52:57 -0700, "Kazimierez" <>
    > Gave us:
    >
    >>Crawl back in your hole.

    >
    >
    > It takes a true Usenet retard that doesn't even quote who he is
    > responding to, because he is so fucking retarded that he thinks
    > everyone views their news with the same news client, or in the same
    > format.
    >
    > You could be a bit more retarded, but not in this life.


    ==================
    But you couldn't.
     
    Richard C., Apr 15, 2007
    #13
  14. George Orwell

    Relic Guest

    Kazimierez wrote:
    > On Apr 14, 12:32 am, Relic <> wrote:
    >> Kazimierez wrote:
    >>> Crawl back in your hole.

    >> Explain.

    >
    > no
    >

    If you cannot (or refuse to) explain why my simple
    one-line comment to the original post offended you
    so, then I suggest you take your own advice.
    Good day.
     
    Relic, Apr 15, 2007
    #14
  15. George Orwell

    Jay G. Guest

    On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:51:20 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell wrote:

    > NY Times
    > "Report Says the Young Buy Violent Games and Movies"
    > http://snipurl.com/shocked_shocked


    "The commission also found that film companies routinely advertised R-rated
    fare on sites like that of the Cartoon Network, where it said under-17
    visitors made up 54 percent of the total during a monitored period ending
    last August."

    I wonder if the commission bothered to check if the ads were running on the
    ADULT SWIM website, which is a site about the adult-rated fair that airs
    late-night on Cartoon Network, instead of just on a Cartoon Network website
    in general. It sounds suspiciously like they might be lumping in the Adult
    Swim site so that they get the shock value of "R-rated movies advertised on
    a cartoon site for kiddies!"

    The article also fails to not that for every category they had numbers for
    in 2003, except for theater tickets the percentage of sales to minors has
    *dropped*.

    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/04/marketingviolence.shtm

    So *less* movies, music, and video games are being sold to minors in
    stores.

    > What do they expect when the industry has entire video categories
    > devoted to this stuff? SHOOTER, FIGHTING, etc. etc.
    > http://snipurl.com/shooters


    I don't know about the government, but I'm guessing the industry is
    releasing mature rated games because 83% of people who buy video games and
    69% of people who play video games are over the age of 18:
    http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Apr 15, 2007
    #15
  16. George Orwell

    Doug Jacobs Guest

    In alt.video.dvd Jay G. <> wrote:

    > I don't know about the government, but I'm guessing the industry is
    > releasing mature rated games because 83% of people who buy video games and
    > 69% of people who play video games are over the age of 18:
    > http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php


    Shhh! Don't throw facts at them, it'll only confuse them!

    My favorite little bit from the latest "review" of the ESRB is that the
    government slammed the ESRB for NOT putting the list of objectionable
    material on the front of the game packages. (eg. 'M for mature for
    graphic violence' vs. just 'M')

    This is pretty stupid.

    Go to Best Buy or some place where they sell DVDs. Pick up a rated R movie
    and look at the front. Does it even have the movie rating on it? No. In
    fact, you have to look pretty carefully to even find the rating (if it has
    one!) on the back of the disc. Even then, most movies don't even say WHY
    the movie got its rating. (again, 'R for profanity, violence' vs. 'R')

    I'm all for a rating system on games and all that, but why aren't movies
    held to the same standards? If anything, the ESRB has bent over backwards
    to try to appease the government's requests, while the movie ratings on
    packages still harken back to the 'bad old' pre-ESRB days.

    Yeah, I know. Consistency is another thing that'll just confuse the
    government.

    --
    Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
    http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
     
    Doug Jacobs, Apr 17, 2007
    #16
  17. George Orwell

    Justin Guest

    Doug Jacobs wrote on [Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:54:31 -0000]:
    > In alt.video.dvd Jay G. <> wrote:
    >
    >> I don't know about the government, but I'm guessing the industry is
    >> releasing mature rated games because 83% of people who buy video games and
    >> 69% of people who play video games are over the age of 18:
    >> http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

    >
    > Shhh! Don't throw facts at them, it'll only confuse them!
    >
    > My favorite little bit from the latest "review" of the ESRB is that the
    > government slammed the ESRB for NOT putting the list of objectionable
    > material on the front of the game packages. (eg. 'M for mature for
    > graphic violence' vs. just 'M')


    I'm surprised they don't, it would be a great marketing technique.

    This video rated M for lots of boobies!
     
    Justin, Apr 17, 2007
    #17
  18. George Orwell

    Jay G. Guest

    On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:17:58 -0500, Justin wrote:

    > Doug Jacobs wrote on [Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:54:31 -0000]:
    >>
    >> My favorite little bit from the latest "review" of the ESRB is that the
    >> government slammed the ESRB for NOT putting the list of objectionable
    >> material on the front of the game packages. (eg. 'M for mature for
    >> graphic violence' vs. just 'M')

    >
    > I'm surprised they don't, it would be a great marketing technique.
    >
    > This video rated M for lots of boobies!


    They do put the list of rating reasons on the back of the box. I guess the
    critics want it on the front of the box instead because they think parents
    aren't smart enough to, you know, flip the box over.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Apr 17, 2007
    #18
  19. George Orwell

    Jay G. Guest

    On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:54:31 -0000, Doug Jacobs wrote:
    >
    > I'm all for a rating system on games and all that, but why aren't movies
    > held to the same standards? If anything, the ESRB has bent over backwards
    > to try to appease the government's requests, while the movie ratings on
    > packages still harken back to the 'bad old' pre-ESRB days.


    The dichotomy between the two media is fairly staggering. When I used to
    work at Target, it was store policy to not sell M rated games to minors,
    and when an M rated game was scanned the registers would actually wait for
    a birth-date to be entered before you could continue scanning. No such
    register locks for movies.

    The FTC report also reflects this double standard, as it shows that while
    about 70% of minors were able to buy an R rated or "Unrated" DVD, only
    about 40% were able to buy an M rated game.
    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/04/marketingviolence.shtm

    I think this double standard arises partially from a lot of people still
    thinking of video games as being mostly "for kids," much like how comics
    always get a lot a flack for adult-orientated material. Also, a lot of
    people fear that since video games are interactive they are more
    "influential" on a young person's psyche than movies can be.

    Whatever the reasons, I think the current ESRB ratings and notices on boxes
    are more than adequate, and the only real place for improvement is possibly
    enforcement, although that is steadily getting better according to the
    FTC's numbers.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Apr 17, 2007
    #19
  20. George Orwell

    Jordan Guest

    On Apr 16, 8:59 pm, "Jay G." <> wrote:

    > I think this double standard arises partially from a lot of people still
    > thinking of video games as being mostly "for kids," much like how comics
    > always get a lot a flack for adult-orientated material. Also, a lot of
    > people fear that since video games are interactive they are more
    > "influential" on a young person's psyche than movies can be.


    Yeah, it's the "Interactivity" that gets the most flack, despite the
    fact that M rated games are, as a rule, far far tamer than R rated
    movies.

    I haven't seen a game as violent as Sin City or 300 or as sexual as
    Basic Instinct or Bound, but they have the same age restriction.

    - Jordan
     
    Jordan, Apr 17, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lucas Tam

    my friend claims a faulty CRT shocked him in the nads

    Lucas Tam, Apr 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    978
    Scott Schuckert
    Mar 21, 2005
  2. Philip

    ICANN members shocked at NZ fraudband

    Philip, Mar 26, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    514
    David
    Mar 28, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page