Those seven nasty words!

[sd gross]

I've been a DJ/Host on KGGVFM 95.1 in Guerneville for 30 odd months and the same on KOWS 107.3 for almost a year ("The Mystery Train"). When I first began hosting, I was dutifully advised that there are seven words (anyone who is a fan of Lenny Bruce or George Carlin knows what they are), which the FCC gravely frowns upon, and speaking any of them over public airwaves makes them see red - and then green. The fines can be as much as a quarter of a million dollars.
It's my belief that the greater majority of fm (in particular) listeners are not offended when hearing these words. Especially in context, or when they're relevant. Since it's highly unlikely that the FCC ever bothered to poll listeners, I'd very much like to elicit commentary on my own.
The only times I flirted with disaster were when I played "Holy Shit, It's Christmas" by the Hamsters on my x-mas show, and the night the Mystery Train's theme was "Tits and Asses" (all the songs, three hours worth, were about birds or equines).
I'd love to hear from anyone, any comments you feel you'd like to make regarding this bit of governmental prohibition.
Thanks for your time and input, and have a sweet and stress-free 2009.
appreciatively
stephen tunage:
and :tank::tank::tank: a lot

["Mad" Miles]

Hey SD,

I've not got a problem with them.

In fact (Warning: imminent expletives!!!) Shit, Asshole, Cocksucker and Fuck seem to acceptable on Expanded Basic Cable.

You hear them, or read lips saying them while they're bleeped, on The Daily Show, Colbert Report and Reno 911 all the time.

But I've erred on the side of disclosure rather than discretion for most of my life. And I catch shit for it regularly. I've had to learn how to consciously dial it back so as to not offend, and lose, my audience. I keep having to learn that lesson, over and over again.

By the way, those are APC's* not Tanks. There's a tank in this little animation.:peacewins:


"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:


* Armored Personnel Carriers

[artfulme]

Hope you saw the "Special" last night on PBS which was a 1 1/2 hr tribute to George Carlin...the proud creator of those 7 words bit in his standup routine, among many others.

The biggest problems we have with censorship is the disallowing of public discourse into some "restricted" areas of inquiry and interests.

That sets up two anti-democratic threats: the parsing of language, like Madison Av public relations, by politicians who want to restrict questioning into government operation, agendas and performance.

A case in point: the restriction of reporting about Iraq. Seeking the truth laying 'neath the covers is a task that gets criticized as "unpatriotic." Thereby leaving them to do what'ere they want...without truth exposed...which could have prevented the loss of 4000 plus young americans and at least 95,000 Iraqi civilians.

And then, there is the "war" against SEX.

Two recent books: "The Decency Wars" 'the Campaign To CLEANSE american culture' " by F.S. lane, and "America's War On Sex" by Marty Klein,M.D., deal with the sexual dysfunction of americans about sex and their relying ON GOVERNMENT to ENFORCE THEIR OWN TERROR/FEAR/SICKNESS ABOUT SEX...promoting programs that directly contradict human basic urges and pleasures...to say nothing about the instictive command for a contination of the species.

Countering all the needed pleasure that sex can bring, restricting its permissible use only during a "marriage" and then only for procreation...as advocated by many religions, is a carryover from St. Augustine's hatred of sex though he overindulged in it before he had his revelation, and asked to be relieved of its "burden", but not quite yet. Along the way, Mary Magdellan was termed a prostitute only to satisfy the CHURCHMEN that she not be at a high position among the religion creators.

The Islamists, like Christians, feared the power of women. Thus they demand that they be subservient (sound familiar?) to ANY male...and forget their own pleasure in favor of a man's. Even honor killings of women are based on sex and its call.

The Old Testament (Jewish) bible itself condemns adultery, but approved polygamy, and condemns even the thought of the sexiness of women everywhere. It also seems to condemn homosexuality...as today's Prop 8 supporters continue to do, making about 8-10 % of our population secoind-class citizens via their sexuality.

SO...the only way to free ourselves from the government-sponsored restrictions is to promote the free-speech agenda of former Supreme Court Justice Douglas: NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH including but not limited to sex, criminality of politicians and other people in power, etc.

The old real democratic standby should prevail: if you don't like it, CHANGE THE STATION...but don't tell ME what I can and cannot say,see,hear, watch, and read. THAT SHOULD BE THE REAL AGENDA FOR THE FREEDOM TO LIVE OUR LIVES AS WE CHOOSE...NOT BY FORCE OF GOVERNMENT ADOPTING ANYBODY OTHER'S AGENDA ON SEX!!

Will our Supreme Court ever stop their consent to making those sex views a national standard?? It is none of their business; a personal choice for all; NOT an adoption of rules for private lives by consenting adults???

[MsTerry]

NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH including but not limited to sex,
Is that what you do in your 'free' time?
Rape, pedophilia, snuff-movies?

[artfulme]

Now I get it!

You are a frustrated sex-ugly person.

That explains a lot.

Keep on making a fool of yourself! I love it!

[cotatikid]

This supposed "Ms Terry" is, or at least writes and opines just like a precocious fourteen year old troglodyte, with computer access and too much "free time".

There is no explaining what might be this tireless poster's motivation or rationale for such consistently juvenile remarks and provocative, though mindless rejoinders.

I have the feeling that passive aggressive sabotaging of the spirit and community of the WaccoBB participants is his/her primary motivation.

Testing the limits, like a two-year old, is charming only in children.

In this case, as usual, it is boring, divisive and depressing.

Grow up or get a clue, or both. Please!

Nuff said...

I just couldn't take it anymore without commenting.

Clifton

P.S. Of course there will be a typical reply from the focus of this post but, rest assured, this is the last comment for/from me on this topic. No point in belaboring it any more!



Is that what you do in your 'free' time?
Rape, pedophilia, snuff-movies?

[Braggi]

Is that what you do in your 'free' time? ...

How small minded of you MsTerry. I was appreciating ArtFulMe's post which was substantial and thoughtful, contained no name calling, and condemned no one except small mindedness, self loathing and negative projections in general (which probably all grow out of smallness in another area of anatomy).

For clarity, MsTerry is a man and old enough to know better.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... I'd love to hear from anyone, any comments you feel you'd like to make regarding this bit of governmental prohibition. ...

I'm not very easily offended, but I'll share this with you: back in the mid '70s I saw Robin Williams live at the Universal City Amphitheater (back when it was an amphitheater). He was wonderful. It was probably the funniest couple of hours I've ever experienced. We all left completely exhausted. As I remember it, he didn't say "fuck" a single time. He didn't need to because he had that much good material, he was spot on that night with his amazing improvisations and it was just a wonderful summer night in LA. One of the non drug, non sex high points of my life.

A couple days ago I put on a video of a performance Robin Williams did in New York (not sure of the date). After about 10 minutes of raunchy sex jokes, local humor (that we didn't get) and the use of the word fuck in almost every sentence, we turned off the system truly disgusted. It wasn't funny. It was demeaning. It was stupid. I was really looking forward to sharing Robin Williams' amazing mind with my 11 year old daughter. What a disappointment!

So yeah, go ahead and use those words, but understand who your audience is and who that audience could be in the future in this age of audio and video playback of life's most embarrassing moments forever and ever, amen.

I think the government should butt out and sensibility should step in. That's two things I hope for that probably won't happen in my lifetime.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Very interesting post from a Cotati kid, who can't make up his mind whether I am " a two-year old" or a " precocious fourteen year old ". LOL
Anyways the gist of Artfulme post is

artfulme wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccotalk/48363-those-seven-nasty-words.html#post81585)
NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH including but not limited to sex,
I'll repeat;


NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH including but not limited to sex,

let me repeat it again



NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH including but not limited to sex,






somehow I get the feeling that you are opposed to Freedom of Speech, Clifton, or are you opposed to sexual activity?



This supposed "Ms Terry" is, or at least writes and opines just like a precocious fourteen year old troglodyte, with computer access and too much "free time".

There is no explaining what might be this tireless poster's motivation or rationale for such consistently juvenile remarks and provocative, though mindless rejoinders.

I have the feeling that passive aggressive sabotaging of the spirit and community of the WaccoBB participants is his/her primary motivation.

Testing the limits, like a two-year old, is charming only in children.
In this case, as usual, it is boring, divisive and depressing.

Grow up or get a clue, or both. Please!

Nuff said...

I just couldn't take it anymore without commenting.

Clifton

P.S. Of course there will be a typical reply from the focus of this post but, rest assured, this is the last comment for/from me on this topic. No point in belaboring it any more!

[MsTerry]

Jeff, you are using your FOS to spread misinformation.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think we have met. Do you?




For clarity, MsTerry is a man and old enough to know better.

-Jeff

[Hot Compost]

it's an odd combination of cultural rules. we can buy ultra-violent video games that make fun of practices such as killing Muslims, or even download them free from websites like

AMERICA'S ARMY: SPECIAL FORCES - HOME PAGE (https://www.americasarmy.com/)

but we can't use 7 words that seem mostly related to sex, in public speech.

i would accept a Bizarro reverse world where the glorification of killing Muslims is taboo, and using those 7 words publicly is acceptable.

[PeriodThree]

Ms. Terry,

You made two points here, one of which is valuable, the other is abusive.

artfulme argues for 'NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH including but not limited to sex' and you raise the question: does that include depictions of rape, pedophilia, and snuff movies.

That is an excellent, and I feel, difficult question. It is worth extensive conversation.

But you raised that question by implicitly accusing artfulme of 'rape, pedophila, and (making) snuff movies.'

artfulme wants to be able to say 'fuck' on the radio, I don't think he wants to make pedophilia snuff movies.




Is that what you do in your 'free' time?
Rape, pedophilia, snuff-movies?

[sharingwisdom]

There are some good points in what you have to say, but my concern is that child sex crimes--pornagraphy, prostitution & "consensus with adults" may become a welcome sign of liberation for such groups as Rene Guyan Society (sex before 8 or it's too late), NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) and PAN (Pedophile Alert Network). A Profile of the Child Molester (https://parenting.ivillage.com/gs/gssafety/0,,qvv1,00.html)
Where do we draw the line?


Hope you saw the "Special" last night on PBS which was a 1 1/2 hr tribute to George Carlin...the proud creator of those 7 words bit in his standup routine, among many others.

The biggest problems we have with censorship is the disallowing of public discourse into some "restricted" areas of inquiry and interests.

That sets up two anti-democratic threats: the parsing of language, like Madison Av public relations, by politicians who want to restrict questioning into government operation, agendas and performance.

A case in point: the restriction of reporting about Iraq. Seeking the truth laying 'neath the covers is a task that gets criticized as "unpatriotic." Thereby leaving them to do what'ere they want...without truth exposed...which could have prevented the loss of 4000 plus young americans and at least 95,000 Iraqi civilians.

And then, there is the "war" against SEX.

Two recent books: "The Decency Wars" 'the Campaign To CLEANSE american culture' " by F.S. lane, and "America's War On Sex" by Marty Klein,M.D., deal with the sexual dysfunction of americans about sex and their relying ON GOVERNMENT to ENFORCE THEIR OWN TERROR/FEAR/SICKNESS ABOUT SEX...promoting programs that directly contradict human basic urges and pleasures...to say nothing about the instictive command for a contination of the species.

Countering all the needed pleasure that sex can bring, restricting its permissible use only during a "marriage" and then only for procreation...as advocated by many religions, is a carryover from St. Augustine's hatred of sex though he overindulged in it before he had his revelation, and asked to be relieved of its "burden", but not quite yet. Along the way, Mary Magdellan was termed a prostitute only to satisfy the CHURCHMEN that she not be at a high position among the religion creators.

The Islamists, like Christians, feared the power of women. Thus they demand that they be subservient (sound familiar?) to ANY male...and forget their own pleasure in favor of a man's. Even honor killings of women are based on sex and its call.

The Old Testament (Jewish) bible itself condemns adultery, but approved polygamy, and condemns even the thought of the sexiness of women everywhere. It also seems to condemn homosexuality...as today's Prop 8 supporters continue to do, making about 8-10 % of our population secoind-class citizens via their sexuality.

SO...the only way to free ourselves from the government-sponsored restrictions is to promote the free-speech agenda of former Supreme Court Justice Douglas: NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH including but not limited to sex, criminality of politicians and other people in power, etc.

The old real democratic standby should prevail: if you don't like it, CHANGE THE STATION...but don't tell ME what I can and cannot say,see,hear, watch, and read. THAT SHOULD BE THE REAL AGENDA FOR THE FREEDOM TO LIVE OUR LIVES AS WE CHOOSE...NOT BY FORCE OF GOVERNMENT ADOPTING ANYBODY OTHER'S AGENDA ON SEX!!

Will our Supreme Court ever stop their consent to making those sex views a national standard?? It is none of their business; a personal choice for all; NOT an adoption of rules for private lives by consenting adults???

[MsTerry]

P3
I don't think my question is abusive, but it certainly was meant to be provocative, just like his statement is.
What do you think it means when someone says ''NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND"?
You think he wants to use the F-word in public.
Maybe he wants to F*** in public?
Do you propose any restrictions?
I think you find rape, pedophilia, and snuff movies abusive, but how could that be with "NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND"?




Ms. Terry,

You made two points here, one of which is valuable, the other is abusive.

artfulme argues for 'NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH including but not limited to sex' and you raise the question: does that include depictions of rape, pedophilia, and snuff movies.

That is an excellent, and I feel, difficult question. It is worth extensive conversation.

But you raised that question by implicitly accusing artfulme of 'rape, pedophila, and (making) snuff movies.'

artfulme wants to be able to say 'fuck' on the radio, I don't think he wants to make pedophilia snuff movies.

[MsTerry]

I think Jeff might be Caligynephobic.............


Jeff, you are using your FOS to spread misinformation.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think we have met. Do you?

[PeriodThree]

I think the abusive thing was implying that his advocacy for absolute freedom of expression meant that he was advocating for rape, pedophilia, and snuff movies.

Your question was 'Is that what you do in your 'free' time?'

But with that said, asking if his idea of freedom of speech includes depictions of rape, pedophilia, and snuff movies is a very important question.

But his advocacy of 'NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND" does not mean he is advocating rape or pedophilia.


P3
I don't think my question is abusive, but it certainly was meant to be provocative, just like his statement is.
What do you think it means when someone says ''NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND"?
You think he wants to use the F-word in public.
Maybe he wants to F*** in public?
Do you propose any restrictions?
I think you find rape, pedophilia, and snuff movies abusive, but how could that be with "NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND"?

[MsTerry]

'
But his advocacy of 'NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND" does not mean he is advocating rape or pedophilia.
Are you implying that 'NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND" means he wants to curtail "such groups as Rene Guyan Society (sex before 8 or it's too late), NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) and PAN (Pedophile Alert Network)."???

[MsTerry]

Look P3, "NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND" means anything goes, and that is abusive in my book


I think the abusive thing was implying that his advocacy for absolute freedom of expression meant that he was advocating for rape, pedophilia, and snuff movies.

Your question was 'Is that what you do in your 'free' time?'

But with that said, asking if his idea of freedom of speech includes depictions of rape, pedophilia, and snuff movies is a very important question.

But his advocacy of 'NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND" does not mean he is advocating rape or pedophilia.

[PeriodThree]

He advocated a position of freedom, he did not attack or abuse you.

You implied that he was a pedophile, a rapist, and an advocate of snuff films.

He did not advocate pedophilia, or rape, or snuff films. Sure, if there were 'no restrictions of any kind,' as he advocated, than there would be no restrictions on pedophilia, etc, but advocating no restrictions is _not_ the same as advocating for rape.

Your words were personally abusive. You appear to not want to accept that from me. That is okay - you are free to be abusive.




Look P3, "NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND" means anything goes, and that is abusive in my book

[MsTerry]

You implied that he was a pedophile, a rapist, and an advocate of snuff films.


Wrong again.
I never said such a thing.
I raised a question, to someone who was ADVOCATING NO HOLDS BARRED.
I gave him a rundown of what that may entail.

Sure, if there were 'no restrictions of any kind,' as he advocated, than there would be no restrictions on pedophilia, rape etc,.
Not taking responsibility for the actions that follow from an 'anything goes' attitude is merely an Ostrich tactic.
Freedom without responsibility is abusive.

[PeriodThree]

You very much did say 'such a thing.'

You were abusive to him. You are frequently abusive as your
method of creating controversy and discussion.

He is not responsible for the abuses which other people might do if they are given freedom.

Thomas Jefferson is not responsible for Nazi's marching in Skokie.

But again, you are often personally abusive. It is odd that you refuse to recognize that your action in implicitly calling him a rapist, etc, was abusive.






Wrong again.
I never said such a thing.
I raised a question, to someone who was ADVOCATING NO HOLDS BARRED.
I gave him a rundown of what that may entail.

Not taking responsibility for the actions that follow from an 'anything goes' attitude is merely an Ostrich tactic.
Freedom without responsibility is abusive.

[Hot Compost]

perhaps we could elect Howard Stern and George Carlin on a "More Swearing, Less War" Platform.

i could f'ing get behind that.

[MsTerry]

But again, you are often personally abusive. It is odd that you refuse to recognize that your action in implicitly calling him a rapist, etc, was abusive.
You really sound like a broken record, and your continued attempt to put words in my mouth is I guess your interpretation of FOS.
Since you are so familiar with my writing style, I am surprised that you didn't pick up on my sarcasm when I wrote "Is that what you do in your 'free' time?"
Did you notice the ?
Did you notice the quotation marks by the word "free"
But what really gets me is how you feel this poor fellow could be offended by somebody else's words after he proclaims

.but don't tell ME what I can and cannot sayIs this meant as a one way street? He is the only person who is allowed to say something? Any sarcasm, skepticism or cynicism is considered abusive?


NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH including but not limited to sex,
This statement explicitly says NO RESTRICTIONS, not only that, it goes one step further NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND .
My son has a word for people who apply their principals to others, but not themselves.
He calls them hypocrites.

[PeriodThree]

You really sound like a broken record, and your continued attempt to put words in my mouth is I guess your interpretation of FOS.


I am sorry I sound like a broken record. Your words:
"Is that what you do in your 'free' time? Rape, pedophilia, snuff-movies?" Were and are personally abusive.

You are welcome to be abusive, it is just hurtful. But go for it!

[MsTerry]

I guess broken records can't be fixed.
Not even with reason.................................


I am sorry I sound like a broken record.