real world sucks!

has anyone but me noticed that mtv plays nothing but real world/road rules lately. i mean the show sux to begin with cause every season they have a bunch of people exactly like the previous.shouldnt be playing more *music* i mean it _is_ music television right? (im not saying get rid of the other shows cause that would mean darias gone and that would [address] play them at night or early morning, not all day) but ya know what im sayin? anyway i just had to get that complaint out, anyone agree? ashley

A lot of people (myself included) agree. But MTV really isn't about music. It's about drawing in a young audience so that they can see loads of advertisement, which in turn attracts more advertisers to MTV and boosts up their products. Thus, they have to endorse the ideal lifestyles presented by many of these advertisements so that the "right people" are seeing the "right ads"...if they were showing programming that didn't have something in common with the angles presented in these ads, the ads would be ignored by the primary base of viewers and no one would want to advertise.

In that light, it seems to be about short attention spans. But the fact is that the average 10 to 25 year old MTV viewer isn't going to sit and watch hours upon hours of video...it starts to get "empty" (heh!) and they change channels when their favorite videos aren't being shown. This is bad for attracting advertisers: if the kids are compelled to switch channels, their ads might not be seen. So MTV devises 30-minute programming as it can secure a viewer for a whole half-hour. Some of it is good...Daria a prime example of one of the few surviving programs. Sadly, a lot of the good stuff gets canned...recall The State, Liquid Television, Cartoon Sushi, Downtown, and countless others. The reason? It's not sensationalistic enough. The Real World, Road Rules, and so forth pick up audiences as they're "reality shows". Of course we know it's all plotted out carefully edited stuff, and the cast is hand-picked FOR potential conflict. But they get watched by the idiots, secure them for a half-hour, and BAM! MTV gets brilliant "hey, why not have MARATHON showings?" More fixed viewers for more time, and more companies busting down the door willing to pay big bucks to advertise to such easily influenced youths.

Now, the question: why has Daria survived? Simple: it's MTV saying "we're hip!". It's a cartoon show about a non-stereotypical teenaged girl. It's got weird angular animation, popular music used as an incidental soundtrack, and, what's really important, it's CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED. If they'd pull it, they'd lose their "credibility". But they don't want to move too much that would get acclaim...because ultimately little kids don't dig that which is critically acclaimed.

Oh, and I'm not pushing the "critically acclaimed" issue...critics suck. I'm just saying MTV needs one show to look like they're witty, and something like Daria does the trick for them. Sucks, dunnit?

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

nick reffuse wrote:

Honestly, I really don't think of "Daria" as an MTV show, even though it airs on MTV. I think of it as a Glenn Eichler/Susie Lynn Lewis show that just happens to be on MTV. I would be happier if "Daria" was on someplace like HBO or an equivalent, because it wouldn't feel hypocritical to me, but que sera, sera.

I am one of the older people MTV actively seeks out. I hate MTV. If my local cable company were to disconnect MTV, the only program I would miss would be "Daria". Having said that, though, I think VH1, its sister channel that used to be a heck of a lot nicer than MTV, is even worse today. I would love it if I could get to see something like MTV2 or VH1 Classic. Granted, this IS because I *DO* fit in with your assessment of "only wanting to watch videos I like", but the videos I like aren't being shown by MTV or VH1 and will most probably never be shown on those two channels so I can see them. I mean, I doubt I'll see a Japan video, or Duran Duran video, or Arcadia video, or Visage video, or Roxy Music video, or so on, on MTV or VH1. At least not on the US equivalents.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that if MTV and VH1 are trying to get a certain age group to watch their programming, it obviously must not be working with all of them. In fact I would be surprised if more than half the targeted audience actually liked the crap MTV and VH1 serves up. As David Sylvian sang in a Japan song, "It seems so artificial, why should I care?"

LI (who thinks teens should be offended by what MTV thinks they'd be interested in)

I'll agree with you to a point-- VH1 Sucks. That's been my motto since day one. I'm not kidding. On my closet door is a poster that says "Ban VH1."

But lots of people on this newsgroup are all, "ooh, MTV sucks, targeted marketing blah blah blah demographic blah blah." All I'm saying is, hey, I *like* MTV. Okay, most of it. If Daria weren't on, I'd still watch MTV. "It's a bunch of crap aimed at teenagers?" So what! At times, it's entertaining. I *like* watching in the morning when they show actual videos. I *want* to see the latest Christina Aguliera video. I *want* to see the latest Gap and Old Navy commercials, even if they're lame. I know that makes me different than everyone else here, but I don't care. In a sea of Anti-MTV posts, I felt like voicing my opinion. You may send hate mail now.

Well no, actually I'm going to wait for you to say you're just watching for camp value and will also be going to see Godzilla 2000 this Friday for the same reason. And if not...well, I'd like to send you some old Birthday Party CDs and such to get you all turned around. Release the bats!!!!!!! ;)

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

Watching MTV for camp value? What? No.

and will also be going to see Godzilla 2000 this Friday for the

Um, no. That movie looks like it sucks.

Birthday Party?

What bats?

Can I get a [sarc!]? No?? :( Well, alright.

Point 1: MTV is the most plastic thing this side of a pink flamingo lawn ornament.

Point 2: Godzilla 2000 looks to be enjoyable for the same reason most other Godzilla movies do -bad special effects, rotten dubbing, and the over-all fun of big monsters crunching down buildings. They SIMPLY CANNOT be enjoyed for any reason other than wallowing in the overall mediocrity that is the film. There have been few wide-spread releases in the U.S. along the "so bad it's good" lines since last year's cannibal flick Ravenous.

Point 3: The Birthday Party, damn it. Very very excellent early-eighties band fronted by Nick Cave (who went on to do more varied but IMO less interesting work on his own solo records and also with his band, The Bad Seeds). Every home should have a copy of their classic album, Junkyard..."Big Jesus Trash Can", "Dead Joe", and the previously-referenced "Release the Bats" are wonderfully messed up songs. Other bands you should check out but probably won't include The Cramps, the pre-Independent Worm Saloon releases by Butthole Surfers (particularly their first EP...but it's vinyl only and somehow I'm guessing you don't have a turntable...), and the forever-fucked-up Pussy Galore.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

i feel i must ask WHY you want to see the latest what's-her-name video, and gap and old navy commercials (esp. as you acknowledge their lameness).

Because I'm a sophomore, a teenager. That's what most people my age like. That's what's popular at my high school. I like it. I like wearing what's popular. I like fitting in. That's about the best I can come up w/ for an explaination.

"I mean, sometimes I'm walking down the hall with Sandi, Stacy, and Tiffany and suddenly I'm outside of myself watching, and it's like, who are these girls? Can't they talk about anything besides guys, and clothes, and cars, but then, what would we talk about? You have to be good at something. You're good at your reading and writing and stuff and you're good at your little paintings...I figure, being attractive and popular, that's what I'm good at. Maybe it's not that important, but you know, it's what I can do."

So basically, you're into it because it's instant gratification? So that rather than people basing their opinion of you on your own personality and behavior, you'd have them base it on what you can get with a couple of crumpled pictures of dead presidents?

If that's the case, you just helped me understand what a bunch of kids who gave me a hard time in high school were all about. Thank you.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

Nick Reffuse said:

I think you're massively overreacting to what Starchick said, Nick. Just because she wants to "fit in" in terms of style doesn't mean that she wants to give anyone else a "hard time."

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

Hey-- I'm not mean to people. I am a non-judgemental person 99.9% of the time. When I walk into school in the morning, often I get there early, at about the same time this Andrea-look-alike comes into school. You know, dyed black-hair, huge baggy pants, Marylin Manson (sp?) tee shirt. I feel really bad for her, cause she sees how *I* dress and automatically assumes, "Oh, great, she's one of those girls who hates me and is all bitchy and popular and everything." But if I'm walking in the door, and she happens to be behind me, I hold the door open all the same and smile when she mutters "thanks."

I think she was kind of surprised that I was nice to her. I try to be. Besides, I'm "smart" at school, so people don't usually think I'm bitchy (think Sandi Griffin-ish). The ones that know me know I'm nice. I'm sorry if you were treated bad at school. Kids can be really rough. Well, I don't know you, Nick Reffuse, but I'm sure right now you're probably better off than most of the "in-crowd" at your school. And if you're not, you will be. The popular airheads will be nothing when it's time to function in the real world.

I'm sorry, that's not quite what I meant. My main point is that you embrace a crowd sort of mentality...go with what's "in" and so forth. I didn't mean to accuse you of being a cruel human being. I just meant that this mentality is also embraced by a lot of cruel people who I happened to come across during my time in public schools.

In that case, you're an exception. Generally, the reasoning behind embracing the trappings of "popularity" is so that one does not get counted among those "socially undesirable". Thus, it breaks down to an "us and them" mentality. Fortunately you don't seem to have fallen into that yourself. Unfortunately, from what you've said, a lot of people you know who are into being popular sound like they are into that.

Ultimately, it's a touchy subject for me. I graduated high school this past spring. The memories are only reaching back a few months. I was one of the smart students, but I loathed being lumped in with all the preps as they *were* the kids who embraced crowd mentality. Oh, yeah, you'd think having the mental capacity to be themselves would do something, but it didn't. These kids got good grades to keep their mommies and daddies off their backs, and beyond that it was either "let's go get fucked up!" or "look at that shit! that's so gay!" So as not to be confused with these people, I made it a point not to behave like them...not to dress like them, not talk like them, not act like them. And what did I get for that? Shit from them. Maybe it made them a bit self-concious about what they were doing, I dunno. But just being different suddenly made me their target for years on end. Fortunately it never came to beatings or anything...I'm a fairly big guy, thankfully, and I was mostly safe on that front (didn't stop one kid from "accidentally" punching me in the face during a basketball game in gym and knocking out a tooth). Pretty much everything else that could happen happened. These people destroyed my personal property. They ran rumors about me. Hell, after the whole Columbine thing went down, people started saying *I* was going to come to school with a gun. I don't own any guns. I've never fired or even held anything more than a b.b. gun when i was about ten. I'm not a violent person in the slightest. They even found it amusing to create a new category for the "senior superlative" awards in the yearbook: most cynnical. Me and one of my best friends got it. Huge laugh for everyone but me. I knew they meant it as an insult.

At any rate, it's all over now. I don't really see any of these people anymore. I'm more than alright with that.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

Whoa, hold on. I think I've been there. If you want, here's a couple links to some stuff I wrote in high school trying to deal with all the bullshit that went on there. This was four or five years ago so please excuse the, um, complete dorkiness of a lot of the writing. Anyway, I don't know how interesting any of it is, but hopefully you might get a laugh or something out of some of it:

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Easel/6799/1995-96/teenangst.html

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Easel/6799/1995-96/idontknow.html

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Easel/6799/1995-96/killeveryone.html

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Easel/6799/1995-96/studyhall.html

[email] (Michael Pierry) wrote in :

Having has a look at a couple of these, all I can say is perhaps you should write lyrics for the Spiral :) BTW what's you prob with NP and Rush ? They may not be to your tastes, but they are one of the more intellegent bands around, much rather have them that the crap we get nowadays.

Phill.

Ah, I always love hearing this! "I like old band X because it's a million times better than what's out there now." My response (and this is experience speaking): you're not looking hard enough. There's always something out there that you've never heard of that'll just blow your mind if you ever get to hear it. It's just a matter of looking around and asking people who dig some of what you're into for reccomendations and so forth.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

[email] (nick reffuse) wrote in :

Ok, perhaps what I intended to say was better that *MOST* of the stuff around today.

Oh indeed, just most of what I was refering to was the high profile, charty trash, which ok some of it is ok, but a lot of it is plastic, manufactured musicto provide a quick hapyness fix for the airhaids who don't like to think about stuff.

Well to be fair my attitude has always been "I'll listen to anything (at least) once, if I like it I'll listen again, if not I won't", I'm not as closed minded as I may have appeared. Also I won't write a band off on the strength of just one track, especially with some of the older bands like Rush, who have rel;eased over 20 albums over their almost 30 year career, so there can be quite a veriety, so you may not like one track but may hear another and go "gee, is that really the same band ?".

Phill.

Nick Reffuse said:

times

hear

Rush is actually very good, and they've demonstrated staying power: they've been recording for something like 30 years now, and have retained a large fan base for about a quarter-century. Neil Peart's songwriting is what makes that group successful. They've done some groundbreaking work, including some of the only science-fictional rock ever to break out from a small circle (_2112_) and Neil actually wrote a _new_ Classical myth, delivered in proper ode form (_Hemispheres_).

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Indeed, since 1974, and they had to pay to record their first album, because no one would give them the break they needed.

Yeah to a lesser or greater extent, though all 3 are pretty good, experienced musisians, and like any group like this, the whole is more than the sum of the parts, because they do complement and boost each other.

Yes 2112 was probably the album that ensured that the group was till around today, as I belive the one before it "Caress of Steel" didn't sell very well.

Another good album :) though the story is in part linked to "Cygnus-X1" from the previous album.

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith said:

The _really_ early Rush (pre-2112) music simply wasn't that good. "Bytor and the Snow Dog" was a nice piece, but not all _that_ original, and overly cutesey if you consider that they were probably inspired by a pet :)

Though "Cygnus X1" as a stand-alone doesn't really makes sense: _Hemispheres_ explains _why_ the hero is flying directly into a black hole!

I tried to warn you all that this stuff was written 4 or 5 YEARS ago. There are a lot of things I used to think back then that I no longer believe. Less than a year after I wrote that stupid poem I got way into Rush and bought almost all of their albums. The point was to show this discontented, angst-ridden teenager who's completely addled by everything, which was what I was back then. Now I'm a slightly less angst-ridden 21 year old with (hopefully) a much more open mind.

[email] (Michael Pierry) wrote in :

Yeah, I realised this :)

Ah well I guess that's true of us all.

Cool :)

Then that's good :)

Phill.

Michael Pierry wrote:

Dude, you just made me go back and re-read the diary I'd kept from sophomore year to senior year of high school. I had kept a computerized diary up as a .txt file, you see, and when we sold the old computer, I filled up some disks with some of the files I didn't want to see go. The diary file was one of the ones and so now whenever I want to see it again, I can. Anyways, I found this particularly dorky entry from about five years ago...note, extreme dorkiness ahead...

Day Forty-Four, July 6, 1995

Well, I finally did it! The first letter I ever wrote to any fan club of any band I liked, and I feel good doing it. It was very easy to get information on the address part, because all I did was call the record company the artist records under, and they gave me information on addresses on a couple of the fan clubs for the artist, and I just finished writing the letter on Windows' Notepad. [ed. note: I was using DOS' text editor at the time] It's not a very good business letter, but that's okay, since I'm not looking for a serious business contact with these people who run this fan club. Oh, you know what? I finally found some long-lost ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLYs in this box I had been keeping in my closet for the longest time. I was really overjoyed, too, since they had been some of my most favorite issues and I was really sad about not being able to see them. I also found this book on Madonna that an uncle of mine gave to me, as well as this book I thought for sure was lost to packing forever. I guess this has been a very lucky day. I take that back--it's been an okay day. The finding of the things has only served as rewards for going through another grueling hour-long session with Jazzercise (which I just started yesterday but am already looking to drop,) and after just seeing what's on VH-1, "Stop Dragging My Heart Around" by Stevie Nicks and Tom Petty, which is a video I can't have enough copies of, but I can't make another copy of the video since my VCR is on the fritz--it can't pick up cable channels 15+, which includes VH-1. I wish the VCR was already fixed so that I would be able to use the VCR more often, and play back and tape assorted videos that I might want to see later on. Oh, my, God, Duran Duran is on VH-1! Duran Duran is on VH-1! Duran Duran is on VH-1! As you can see, I'm very excited to see Duran Duran on VH-1, and with due reason. You see, if you didn't already know it, they're my all-time favorite band, and they're the band of which one of their fan clubs will be contacted by me very soon. [ed. note: I never got around to sending that letter, but it's amusing seeing me as much into DD as I was back then] Oh, my, God, another artist I love a lot, the Go-Go's, are on VH-1! [ed. note: I just gave myself a cavity re-reading this] What is this, an hour-long version of "The Big '80s?" Looks like that way. Oh, well, I must go for today--maybe not. I don't know. I'm so tired from today that I'm not even thinking straight. Like earlier today, I spent an hour and a half trying unsuccessfully to locate any information on whether or not I could get a music video on this particular artist. The name of the artist is Tom Cochrane, and his video was "Life is a Highway," and I wanted so desperately to be able to know that his video was at least available for sale via some sort of club. I don't know what to do anymore except to wait for the next time VH-1 airs any marathon catalog of its video artists and hope that that video will air somewhere within those parameters. Or maybe MTV will air the video as a part of its "Best of the '90s" programming, and then I'll perhaps be able to record it during that time. I hope it's sometime soon, but it's not this week, because the VCR will be on the fritz until next Monday, when hopefully it'll be fixed and everything will be okay. I hope sincerely that the time will come soon, and that I'll be ready to record it this time. Oh, well, I am very tired, and so I must close up with the same quotation that I've always used in this diary, "See ya till next time..."

(Hopefully some day I'll be able to survive a Jazzercise and not feel as miserable as I feel right now...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LI (heh...I think we're all pretty much lame at 16...)

In article , Lady Interference wrote:

Yeah...whenever I'm in the mood for self-torture, I drag out my high school senior year journal (the farthest back my journals go). I always manage to get completely pissed-off at my 17-18 year-old self.

Oh, God, you too? I could never think of how to smoothly end a journal entry, so I tried to close each one with a farewell saying/quote of some kind, although each time I tried to come up with a different one. It became completely stupid at some point as I had to stretch farther and farther to think of something to say at the end until finally I just ended up saying "Good night." at the end every time.

Ahh...angsty high-school journals. I get annoyed at them (my own, at least) because I was so smart-assed and overconfident, yet so meek and unsure of myself at the same time. And because my opinions are so archetypally teen-aged at a time when I thought of myself as, to steal a good phrase, an "anti-teen". I still keep a journal, and I'm fully confident that in three years I'll look back on what I write now and hate THAT, too.

Hey-- I'm not mean to people. I am a non-judgmental person 99.9% of the time. When I walk into school in the morning, often I get there early, at about the same time this Andrea-look-alike comes into school. You know, dyed black-hair, huge baggy pants, Marylin Manson (sp?) tee shirt. I feel really bad for her, cause she sees how *I* dress and automatically assumes, "Oh, great, she's one of those girls who hates me and is all bitchy and popular and everything." But if I'm walking in the door, and she happens to be behind me, I hold the door open all the same and smile when she mutters "thanks."

-snip-

ok hold on a sec! did she ever_say_ she thought you think that of her?? cause I happed to be an Andrea look alike and I don't judge people like you.... more/less I try to figure out why u are the way u are. its hypocritical to judge someone you think judges you. and I'm a freshman in high school so I know _all_ about this sorta thing. and what's more, I used to be like you so I understand the whole thing better. so if she never said anything to you don't go off assuming about her. (you know how the old saying goes!) Ashley

O-k, you've got a point. You're right, I don't know, and I'm assuming. That's wrong of me. But when the popular clique heads for chours 7th period, she's usually in the music hall too, and she *does* usually look at them with contempt and/or worry.

But that's beside the point. I don't know this girl too well anyway.

On 15 Aug 2000 20:07:27 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Damn straight it does! This isn't the time to be pussy-footing around with yor "live and let live crap"! This is war! As Our Heroine in her infinite wisdom has shown us in the Pattern For Our Lives (err, I mean the show...) pop culture is evil in all it's forms, dammit! This is class conflict, no quarter asked and none given.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

If you start linking this to the French situationist movement, I'm going to start calling you Malcom.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

"pop culture is evil in all it's forms, dammit!"? Well, gee mister, what if I think that bad grammar is evil in all of its forms? What if I think that your narrow-minded, unenlightened, intolerant P.O.V. is evil, hmmmm? What then? Oh, yeah, and you sound like Jake. Cool down on the coffee, hon.

On 16 Aug 2000 02:01:55 GMT, [email] (Krimren) wrote:

Again, sarcasm is just as likely to be missed on ATD as elsewhere in the world.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

I would comment but my sigs are doing that job for me today whilst I put my feet up.

-Shez.

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Maybe not, but generally I found that people who are not willing to comform and "fit in" are given a hard time by those that are. I don't think that Nick was saying either that Starchick did want to give anyone a hard time just that he *WAS* given a hard time by the "comform or be cast out" brigade when he was at school.

Phill.

Yes, that's what I meant, and yes, that's what happened. Of course, it wasn't JUST them giving me a hard time, it was some of the staff as well. Namely the guy who served as the "health teacher" (amusing story, he was a complete drunk and they hired him to tell us about the evils of substance abuse), the people in the athletics department, the administration (who, for example, once tried to give me an in-school suspension for putting a gas mask on during a mandatory pep rally), and a couple of teachers in the math and science departments who were just the stereotypical sadistic teachers who like seeing kids suffer. Fortunately, I was on excellent terms with two of the english teachers, and I could always go to either of them when I needed to talk about something. Between them and two REALLY close friends, I could get positive reinforcement when needed, and I think that's basically how I got through it.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

you like it, or you *think* you like it, when really you just want to be what you think you should be?

why?

why?

Because it's what works for me now. I'm not compromising my attitude, morals, or convictions. For me, at this moment, the most painless and easy way to get through high school is to dress like everyone else does and like the things that are popular, and have fun with my friends. I choose my own likes and dislikes. I choose to wear what's "in" and waste countless hours on grooming rituals to ensure I look whatever people think is "cute." Hell, I even have fun with it. But I also like other stuff that doesn't happen to be approved by the in-crowd. Why *else* would I hang out on alt.tv.daria? I'm sure most of the popular girls at my school have no clue what newsgroups are. Does that stop me? No.

Starchick has a perfect right to look and dress as she wants. To condemn her for choosing to be fashionable is every bit as silly as it would be for her to condemn someone else for _not_ being fashionable. Don't succumb to reverse snobbery!

Well, that's not even reverse snobbery, it's just snobbery. You can be a garbageman and be the biggest snob on the planet. Do you look down on certain kinds of people, without regard to their individual actions? Do you think you're better than them? Then you probably qualify as a snob. Simple as that. Some people are a lot worse than others in doing that, of course. It's one of the easiest things to fall into, because it's hard not to resent people who have more money than you or have had an easier life than you, or a million other things.

Here's an example of how difficult that is. Last year I lived in this apartment building on the lower West Side of Manhattan, which I guess they're "gentrifying" now, and all these rich yuppies lived there, except the 3rd and 4th floor were leased by my school and so that's where a bunch of us lived for two semesters. It was like a little mini class struggle in there, 'cause let's face it, some of us looked like complete low-lifes. A bunch of us took a little trip to Battery Park which is just down the road from there, and while we were out front waiting for a few stragglers, this lady who, just like us, was a tenant living in this building, came up to us and told us we're not allowed to stand in front of the building. She didn't say exactly why (some vague B.S. about it being in the lease agreement our school signed) but you could read between the lines. I guess we looked like a bunch of little hoodlum drug dealers selling crack in front of the apartment or something. She looked like she might own a lot of stock in Nike to me, but I didn't punch her in the head for supporting little kids in sweatshops.

My roommate, Scott, ran into more troubles because of how he looks. One time he went down to the laundry room and he hung out in there with a book while he waited for his laundry to be done. And these two people would not go in there because Scott was in there. They then proceeded to call security and complained about his presence. The security guy came down there and he and Scott had a good laugh about it. I think this may have even happened more than once.

Now, it's hard not to resent rich people when you tend to get that sort of treatment from them. It's not as though we did anything to earn it, our mere existence was enough to upset these folks. It wasn't completely universal, but there was a lot of mutual dislike going on. So yeah, it's depressing when life starts to remind you of high school.

Michael Pierry ([email]) wrote:

Only when I'm being honest with myself.

[email] wrote:

Right, which means if we'd all be a little more honest with ourselves, we'd probably realize that a lot of times we're no better than some of the people we've been most hurt and mistreated by. Talk about a bitter pill to try and swallow. But instead of making you feel like it's ok for someone to mistreat you (consider yourself lucky if you've never seen or felt the results of THAT misguided way of thinking), instead just let it make you into a more thoughtful, open-minded person. That's what I THINK I was trying to get at with that little story, although probably not very well.

I mean basically, those are your two choices in life, to let all the bad shit people lay on you make you into an embittered, hateful person or to actually let it make you stronger and more tolerant than you were before. I'm speaking idealistically, but realistically we can probably all take baby steps toward self-improvement in this regard. I think so, anyway. It does seem like a real wishy-washy, Mr. O'Neill kind of philosophy like, "When life hands you a lemon, make lemonade!" But hey, you might as well, and in a way it's the sweetest revenge possible.

In article , [email] (Krimren) writes:

<Sandi>: Like, this is a fashion *emergency,* girls.  We have a new breed of
enemy among the unpopular - the "stealth brain."                Capable of
predicting fashion trends three weeks in advance and able to match the
appropriate Maybelline products to               a skort at up to 200 yards,
they are trained to infiltrate our ranks.

<Staci>: Oh no! This is terrible! They could be *anywhere!*

<Tiffany>: That is sooooooo creeeeeeeeepy.

<Sandi>: Yes, they may be moving among us even as we speak. Isn't that right, *Quinn?*

<Quinn>: Oh, Sandi, don't be silly. I'm sure no one *here* is a spy.

<Sandi glares at Quinn. Quinn glares at Sandi. Staci looks frantically back and forth between them and seems on the verge of hyperventilating again.

No one looks at Tiffany. Convieniently...> ;7

-IdentityCrisis

Notice the word "waste."

I spend time (though not countless hours) ensuring I have the look that I desire. I would not call it a waste.

I waste time by grooming myself into a look I'm adopting for someone else.

I leave it to you, to decide if I'm quibbling about your language or pointing out a freudian(1) slip.

1) In the 'subconscious asserting itself' manner, not the "everything's about sex" cliche attributed to him.

Great. That's fine. I honestly don't care either way. I like my life, I'm happy with it, and I could care less about Freud. People can say what they want, okay? I just don't care, since none of you have ever met me and probably will never meet me in real life.

LoL.

Krimren wrote:

Actually, maybe this is because this is because I'm "old" compared to you, but I did once remember a time when VH1 was the shit. It was so incredibly cool to watch VH1 when they weren't trying to be MTV. But now they're trying to be MTV and it's, for lack of a better word, lame.

Wow...you do? I mean, you're not talking about the older MTV, the one from '95 on back, right? You're talking about the current MTV? Because I haven't met anyone who admits to liking MTV circa '96 onward save for maybe a few brilliant shows.

Okay, most of it. If Daria weren't on, I'd still watch MTV. "It's a

Uh...why? Just an honest question. Sure, sometimes it may be entertaining, but sometimes a good car wreck is entertaining. And, honestly, with the way the current music scene is right now, I'd rather stick to not seeing many videos. I'm trying to understand why you would like Christina Aguilera, but I do see the charm in the Gap commercials, especially the ones from a few years back. The ones with Lena Horne and Steve & Joe from Aerosmith were my favorites. And I have a fondness for the West Side Story Gap commercials personally because my parents went to see that movie on their first real date.

I know that makes me different than

Okay, fine. I'm voicing my opinion as well. I don't dislike MTV because a lot of people dislike it; I dislike it for my own reasons. But then again, I don't watch a lot of TV so it's not like it would make much difference to me anyway. I'd rather lock myself in my favored reality of Duran Duran, Japan, David Sylvian, Roxy Music, "Daria", Judi Dench, and Tony Slattery. And assorted sundry other things I consider myself a fan of.

LI (who doesn't look too different on the outside but on the inside is her own little alien)

What?! Gap and Old Navy commercials are NEVER lame. The people behind them are geniuses (especially Old Navy). They're always entertaining and eye-pleasing, and I can't point out why! -Serack Don't argue with me, I'm a Libra. Libras are always right.

i have no idea about old navy, but gap commercials are most definitely lame. vaguely scary, if you ask me, in fact: yeah, let's all dress identically and dance around singing.

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Humm and if they showed the comercials in the middle of one of those crappy Pop Music shows then you wouldn't know which was which :)

Phill.

Because nothing's more fun than watching some withered old windbag with frightening eyewear drone on about high-tech chinos?

She's not droning on, she's being hip! -Serack Don't argue with me, I'm a Libra. Libras are always right.

Although I am, ah, ...*amused* by your gleeful sarcasm, I must question: what is your problem with pop culture? Is it against your religion to like things created with maybe one ounce of good intentions? Is it wrong to like cute commercials that help get points across to people who can't dress themselves stylishly?

good intentions??

cute? i think "annoying" is more fitting. commercials are annoying. most people's attention spans are long enough that they could watch a half-hour show without having breaks every 5 minutes.

define "stylishly". do you mean, "people who can't figure out why everyone else is going to the bother of dressing like everyone else"?

Well, just speaking for myself here, but I've got nothing against pop culture. It's more the people who seriously buy into it.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

/rant mode on/ One problem I have with pop culture is that it discourages free thought and free expression and encourages uniformity and conformity and all the boring, uncreative, unoriginal thoughts, words and deeds that such stifling conditions often breed. When we all think, talk, and look the same, what will be the point of us even having our own names? Yet that's the kind of world I see being propagandized on MTV all the time. Not to mention that the unspoken motto of MTV seems to be, "No fat chicks!" How coldly calculated, contrived and utterly shallow and lacking of any worth or substance does something have to be before it turns people off? Apparently we haven't hit bottom yet./rant mode off/

Calculated.

Contrived.

Shallow.

Lacking worth and substance.

does something have to be before it

So, you're trying to describe MTV? Sorry if I'm not bitter enough to see things from your POV. There's nothing wrong with MTV. I mean, they play videos. So what? I don't think I'd go so far as to call it calculated, contrived, shallow, and lacking of worth and substance. Look, if you don't like the network, you don't have to watch it. I'm assuming you've got the free will to change the channel, right?

you must admit that for the most part it is.

look dear it's all well and good buying the magazines and watching the tv channel, but only until your best friend gets anorexia.

[email] (Michael Pierry) wrote in :

Yes it stops people having thoughts for themselves, they just go along with whatever is in, and this sort of sheeplike behavior is to be blunt frightening. Once people stop thinking for themselves and just go along with what everyone else is doing they become *VERY* easy to control. As someone else pointed out a little research into the propaganda machine of Nazi Germany will illustrate this point nicely. People should be encourage to think for themselves, one of the things I like about this group, is I may disagree quite strongly at times with what people say on here, but it does make me *THINK* about things.

Just my 2p

Phill.

No commercial is created with "good intentions" in mind. A commercial exists to sell the product it is advertising. That's it, that's final. A commercial is nothing more than propaganda. In fact, a lot of the techniques used in advertising up to this very day borrow heavily from the propaganda films made by the Nazis. They were absolute masters at fooling people into thinking *anything* they wanted people to think. The frightening thing is that this stuff works so well that most people still obediently go out and buy what they see advertised on the television. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: you see the chinos on TV, you buy the chinos to look hip, everyone else buys them too because they want to look hip, and therefore everyone *does* look hip because they all have the same chinos. Oh god, if *only* I could mastermind such an insidiously clever moneymaking scheme!

The corporation that manufactures the Old Navy and Gap clothing lines (and it's only ONE corporation, in case you didn't realize that) is concerned with only one thing: profit. It is concerned with increasing its own profits and nothing else whatsoever. Therefore when watching any commercial it is essential, for your own mental well-being, to keep in mind that these ads are NOT created with some beneficial purpose toward anyone else in mind. They are created solely with the purpose of coercing you into thinking that unless you purchase the product advertised in the commercial, there is something wrong with you. It's very subtle but it's probably one of the most evil things you can possibly do to another human being without physically injuring them.

If you are skeptical about this, you need only look at the track record of a few of the corporations whose products you own. You'll find (if you are able to locate a reliable independent source, which is getting more and more difficult) that many of them have and continue to engage in activities that are anti-human rights, anti-environment, anti-gay, anti-woman, you name it. According to altculture.com (and I have no idea how reliable they are, but this is just one example) The Gap uses Chinese immigrant workers in Saipan, a country whose prominent Tan family was sued by the U.S. Department of Labor for its employment practices. How many of the hip clothes you wear were manufactured by little girls in sweatshops who work 16 hour days for $0.35 an hour? And that's only one of the many possibilities. Greed IS good, but greed left unchecked, unquestioned, and wielding ultimate power can lead to some pretty troubling results. Underneath the thin veneer of happy, harmless pop-culture is a moneymaking machine with a whole lot of questionable business ethics, and *that* is one good reason to question the mindless acceptance of such pablum.

I'm not saying throw out all your brand-name clothing and start dressing in rags, but a little more thought and a little less willful ignorance could go a long way toward showing these corporate bigwigs that the youth market isn't a faceless, uniform, apathetic devourer of whatever fashionable new doggie biscuit is thrown its way. Just a thought.

Michael Pierry wrote:

like those adverts for antibacterial stuff. they're trying to make parents (mothers, mostly...at least, this seems to be the target audience) think the entire world is a fetid, decaying, feces-covered dystopia that must be disinfected with extreme prejudice or Junior might get a.....ROTOVIRUS. so make sure you disinfect your kid's bicycle, for christ's sake. better yet, don't even let the little fucker go outside, because there's other kids and dirt out there. and it turns out, it's killing people. their immune systems never have to work at all, so they never develop. 158% jump in asthma cases over the last 20 years or so, but far less among kids who were in daycare (and exposed to all sorta germs n' shit) (source: AP). whuzzat tell you? so the little bastards have no immune system, they get a nice case of ass-mar, they can't go outside because they get sick or winded too easily, their idiot parents raise them vicariously through the TV anyway but keep a steady supply of Lunchables and Clownburgers on hand, and presto....welcome to Really-Frigging-Fat-and-Sick World.

talk about advertising with not only questionable intentions, but positively evil results. i keep hoping this will all explode and take down the anti-bacteria industry a notch or twelve, but Americans are so obsessed with cleanliness, i'm sure it'll never happen.

See, now this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. It's really disturbing to me when I find out that there are people out there who watch TV and *don't* think along these lines. I always think, when I see a commercial, "Are there actually people who view this as "cool" or "fun" or something other than what it *really* is? And if so, how soon can we airlift emergency Dead Kennedys CDs to all of them? These people need help!"

"TV invents a disease You think you have So you buy our drugs And soon you depend on them

Pain in your mind Gotcha comin' back for more Again and again and again Gonna rip you off"

Gee, wonder if MTV or corporate radio would allow such sentiments to be aired? That's why I think the popularity of rap was such a cool thing, for a while anyway. At least some of them had something to say other than, "I love you baby, ooh ooh" or "Let's do drugs" or "Rock 'n roll is cool" or dumb shit like that. Of course they weeded out most of them. Is it just me or has pop music reached an all-time low? I mean, we've always had boring crap like Captain & Tenille and Hall & Oates topping the charts, but we also had Nirvana... which isn't much but at least Kurt Cobain was somewhat uncomfortable with his popularity. He wasn't manufactured. I don't know, it all seems so safe now. God help me, I never thought I'd yearn for the days of "grunge" music.

Two Words: Lighten. Up.

jeez, would you tell that to the kids working in sweatshops who made those clothes you're wearing?

I don't know... they all live in countries I never even heard of. It's too bad, but, oh well, as long as I get my clothes.

Krimren said:

Nothing wrong with your attitude ... you can't improve their condition by NOT buying the brands, after all.

Don't think I'm *trying* to be mean and insensitive. I *know* there are lots of problems with our government and Sweatshop Labor, but a.) there's nothing I can do that will have a significant impact on the situation and b.) if I thought about that kind of stuff all day, I'd get depressed, cynical, and disillusioned.

Yes, I noticed the irony of me posting that on a Daria board.

I'm dropping this whole popularity thread at the request of the creator, though. There's no way I can absorb, in a sponge-like manner, all the rage and hatred at everyone that was popular and made you guys feel like sh*t when you were in high school. Sorry I like popular stuff. To each his/her own. Can we please drop it? Please? The movie's coming up soon and I can't wait to review it.

no popular people made me feel like shit when i was in high school. i just can't stand people who fool themselves into thinking they like stuff when they don't, they just think everyone else does.

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

I alas did have a bad time at school, because I wouldn't comform just to fit in, if I didn't agree with something I didn't do it period. I also have to agree with Alli, baout the fooling thing, the people in question are practising the worst form of deception, self-deception, and the only person that it hurts is the person decieving themselves.

Phill.

It sounds like you're reading your own beliefs into this. She didn't indicate that she would stop buying those brands if that *did* improve their condition. The attitude she expressed above was simply that she didn't care about people who "live in countries she's never heard of." And you find nothing *wrong* with this? That's pretty close to saying, "Oh well, I don't know any Jewish people so who cares, as long as I get my soap," don't you think? Or: "Too bad about those elephants, but who cares as long as I get my jewelry?"

Michael Pierry said:

She should instead pretend to care and take ineffectual action just so that she can say that she's "doing something?"

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

One of the things that really irritates me is when people use "what difference can I make by doing whatever, because the oposite will always happern because more people do it", well duh! of course it will, if more people actually *DID* take action then perhaps it would have effect. The best example is people who whine about their country's govenment, but won't vote for one of the oposition parties because "they'll never get into power", well of course they wont, nobody's voted for them, it's alas a vicious circle, but fed by people not thinking about the situation clearly enough.

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith said:

No, you're not getting it. If everyone boycotted the clothes makers, it would have the _opposite_ effect from the one intended. (I'm _assuming_ that Alli wasn't _intending_ to make the poor workers lose their jobs ...)

No, I'm just disturbed by that level of apathy. Even if you can't do anything about it *right now* (and I don't know for certain that you can or can't) I don't see what the harm is in being aware of such things. I don't know the answers to these problems but I think it's better to be informed so that when it comes time to make a decision you have some knowledge about it, rather than to simply remain ignorant and apathetic about everything other than fashion, pop music and popularity. These are bad habits to get into. What happens when she turns 18 and can vote and doesn't have the foggiest notion of what any of the issues are and doesn't care at all? She'll be the same as virtually all other 18-year-olds in this country, and I don't see how that helps matters any. I guess we differ in that I'd rather people (of all ages) be caring, interested and well-informed about all kinds of issues than not.

Michael Pierry said:

Why do you assume that Kim is "apathetic?" She probably cares a good deal about _things which directly affect her life_.

Why do you assume that she's "unaware" of the conditions of Third World workers? She has _no reason to care about them_, and _there is nothing she can do to improve them._ For her to obsess about them would be kind of mentally unhealthy ... or, more likely, pretentious.

(And ironically, what she's doing right now ... buying the products that they make ... is the most positive thing that she _could_ be doing to help them. Alli's approach ... boycotting them ... would make them MORE poor!)

Why do you assume that Kim's "ignorant?" Simply because she doesn't come to the conclusion that _you_ want her to? Doesn't she get to make up her _own_ mind? And doesn't this mean that she might _disagree_ with you?

Maybe she has a very good idea of the issues ... _and disagrees with you about them._

It happens. It's called "freedom."

perhaps, however she showed blatant disregard for things happening to members of the human race unfortunate enough to have been born in "countries [she's] never heard of", which i think qualifies as apathy to say the least.

uhh, excuse me?

she could start by not encourging people to exploit them.

not supporting exploitation of 8 year olds in third world countries hardly causes mental illness. in fact, personally, the satisfaction of knowing i wasn't participating in it would make me happy.

i think that's not much of an assumption.

she didn't appear to know. she didn't want to, either.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:07:09 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

And I'm sure those poor sweatshop kids are taking comfort in the money they are saving her on t-shirts?

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

she doesn't HAVE to buy t-shirts. hell, if she was really poor, i'm sure nobody would complain if she walked around topless. ; )

Alli said:

How exactly is she supposed to show "regard", and what good does it do the subjects of her "regard?" She seems like a nice person in real life, with the people she actually deals with, which is what's _really_ important.

What reason _does_ she have to care about them, in particular?

And instead fire them? That's what the boycott you're implicitly urging would accomplish. Would they be better off _without_ jobs?

On 28 Aug 2000 01:26:24 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Well, it'd improve the system eventually for the better of future generations.

So basically she just has no regard for people who haven't been born yet. People who, as covered in a previous debate, have no actual rights.

(Doesn't know where he's going with this, just starting trouble)

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Kyle said:

How would it do that? Near as I can see, all it would do is cut out the niche of "low paid labor in the Third World to make goods for export to the First World", meaning that people in the Third World would now have less jobs, and less money. It would benefit First World workers ... at the expense of First World consumers and Third World workers. Why is this an "improvement" in the "system?"

Hey, what have the unborn generations ever done for us?

-Shez.

Ok, so she's selfish, not apathetic. When I hear other people are having a bad time of it, I feel bad for them, so sue me. When I hear about things like genocide, it makes me feel ashamed of being human. It scares me that the suffering of others can be taken so lightly, like, "Oh well, it's them not me so fuck 'em." And no, I'm certainly not equating genocide with putting Third World workers to work, even if the conditions they have to work in are shitty.

So in your opinion, what is a legitimate reason to care about someone? I'd rather ask her, but she's not here to answer the question. I don't think it's mentally unhealthy to think about and sympathize with others who don't have it as good as we do. Keeps things in perspective and keeps you humble, i.e. "There but for the grace of God go I.." I mean, what's the point of learning about other cultures and history and most everything you learn in school? It might not all affect you directly but I think it enriches your knowledge and makes you a better person.

I guess what really disturbed me was the line, "As long as I get my clothes." Like nothing else matters in life other than that. It sounds rather ruthless to me. I'd like nothing more than to be able to apologize for taking that statement the wrong way.

But it's not like she's doing it out of trying to be helpful. She'd be doing it even if it did have a negative impact, or so I gathered from what she wrote. I'm not of the opinion that someone who does the right thing entirely by accident deserves credit for having done so.

Well, the "conclusion" as such that I came to a long time ago is that the purpose of commercials isn't to help people with no fashion sense to buy the proper attire (as Kim did suggest), but rather to sell products and thus raise profits of the company selling those products. That's not an indictment of anything or anyone, it's just the facts. I was alarmed at the possibility that someone over the age of 12, in the year 2000 AD, in the United States of America, is actually unaware of this. She doesn't have to agree with me, but then again she doesn't have to agree that the sky is blue either. But it doesn't change reality. That to me is an example of ignorance. It doesn't make her a bad person and it doesn't make me better than her, but if she refuses to acknowledge that "the sky is blue", so to speak, then at the very least I think I have the right to be mystified at such denial. Do I make any sense? I'm finding it very difficult to do so lately.

I mean, I see what you're saying. She should have a mind of her own. Maybe it does just trip me out that someone could listen to what I have to say and not believe me or think I'm full of shit. I'm pretty damn sure I know what I'm talking about but why should she believe me? I can present my point of view and the facts that I know, but I shouldn't get peeved when some folks still disagree even though to me it's "obvious." It's her right to believe whatever she wants, but it does bother me somehow. It's scary thinking about what might happen to a person who takes what commercials say at face value. Most of them aren't even *designed* to be taken at face value anymore, because irony is "hip." It's kind of like people who say there's no such thing as evolution and dinosaur fossils were left here by God to "test our faith" (God is *such* a prankster, isn't he?)... well, it's worse than that actually, since you can just go up to someone who makes commercials and ask them and they'll probably just flat-out tell you, although they might look at you funny first. I'm starting to convince myself that I totally misinterpreted what Kim said and she really *does* know all this, but I highly doubt this will stop me from posting this confused, unorganized jumble of semi-random thoughts. I'm so damned unabashed tonight.

Well, you may be right, but if so she didn't make that very clear in my opinion. She just said I was bitter and then left for a "vacation" from the newsgroup. She also mentioned something about lesbians being icky (although admittedly this could be a misunderstanding) so I put two and two together in my mind. What's that Rush lyric? "Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand"? Something like that. I could be totally wrong, but we didn't get very far in the discussion until she quit. Maybe I *did* jump to wrong conclusions and judged her way too quickly, I just hope I get a chance to find out.

Michael Pierry said:

about

I have no reason to assume that she's "selfish" either. Ineffectual, or downright _harmful_, displays of "concern" for others are NOT signs of genuine caring.

I "feel bad for" the Third World workers too, when I bother to think about them. Now, how does my "feeling bad for" the Third World workers actually _help_ them?

(If I wanted to _help_ them, I would buy the products made with their labor, not boycott them! Boycotting them is a way of HURTING them!)

Having some actual knowledge of their personalities and lives. That's what you need to REALLY "care" about someone.

You can be _interested_ in people who don't touch your lives, but to call your emotion "caring", IMHO, denigrates genuine caring.

There are people whom I _do_ care about. Know something? I go out of my way to do them good turns if I can. I don't just claim to "care" them and then go on my merry way. That would be ... pretentious.

Um ... both. Commercials help the company selling the goods, but they also provide information to the consumers about what goods are available. That's why it's called "advertising".

You are a mean old witch.

Stimpy

[email] (Stimpy) wrote in :

Err carefull, most witches are nither mean or old.

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith said:

I'm friends with a very nice young witch from Hull :)

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Indeed that's exactly what I meant :)

You mean Hull UK, or is there one in the US (you are from the US arn't you Jordan ?).

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith said:

Yes, Hull in England. I know her online. I'm chatting with her right now as I post this :)

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Cool.. just wanted to be sure as there are a fair few places in the US that are named after places in Europe.

Phill.

Alli said:

So we should stop buying these clothes, thus throwing poor Third Worlders out of work?

no, we should support the companies that pay the kids more. who's that? i don't know. i don't buy clothes much.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:23:19 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

None of them pay more.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Alli said:

Um, I really don't think that those particular kids have the option of working for more money. If they did, then they would. If we _all_ did what _you_ said, we'd be putting them out of work. Boycotts of the sort you recommend essentially favor workers in rich countries over workers in poor countries. They're anti-Third World.

It's a tough question though. I mean, is it right for companies to close down factories in the U.S. and put Americans out of work so they can open up a plant in a really poor country like Mexico where they don't have to pay the workers nearly as much and there's no unions and hardly any safety and health regulations? And are these corporations exploiting those workers by doing that, and if so is there something better they could do instead that would be more beneficial to everyone? It doesn't seem that cut and dried to me, it's a complicated issue I think. I don't have the answers, that's why I'm asking questions.

And all I meant to do by mentioning it in the first place was to point out that big corporations aren't necessarily benevolent, nor is it their job to be. Corporations are amoral, it's the people that run them and make the big decisions that in some cases I think don't have the best interests of their employees and the public in mind. I was trying to encourage a certain someone to think, but I don't know that I did a very good job. Ho hum.

Michael Pierry said:

Thus making more money, enabling more capital formation, growing both the American and Mexican economies and ultimately providing MORE jobs and more wealth for everyone? Yes.

No. The workers are not forced to take those particular jobs. If the companies offered them less than they could get elsewhere, the jobs would go begging.

Which would be as profitable to them? Probably not, or they'd do it.

(remember, private corporations are in business to make money for their shareholders).

You did a very good job. You just didn't like the results of my thoughts, or of Kim's.

missy aggravation writes:

IIRC, the Gap actually has a better record than most retailers where overseas/child labor are concerned, although they're by no means perfect. They're much, much better than discounters like Walmart and K-mart, who will use slave labor if they can find it.

Levi-Strauss has one of the best records among manufacturers; they do things like making sure their workers are in school (in many countries, anyone over the age of 12-14 is considered an adult worker by law), and they've been doing that kind of thing since before it was a hot political topic.

Aaron

would you happen to know any URLs to sites with information about this? i don't like the idea of wearing clothes that were made by slaves.

missy aggravation writes:

Not off the top of my head, and I'd hate to recommend any without knowing how reliable they are. I would recommend the book _In Sam We Trust_, by Bob Ortega. It's an excellent and heavily documented look at the way retailing has changed over the years, and the issues of sweatshops and child labor are a big part of it. I read it expecting a hatchet job, but it was actually very fair and gave credit where it was due.

Aaron

Krimren of AOL http://www.aol.com writes:

By an amazing coincidence that's also what they used to said to Lord Wilberforce when he wanted to abolish slavery. And, "think of what it'll do to the price of clothing."

-Shez.

Michael Pierry of @Home Network writes:

Although for most clone-like fashion victims it would improve their look no end...

-Shez.

Who said I had a problem with them?! I said I LIKE those commericials!!! -Serack Don't argue with me, I'm a Libra. Libras are always right.

[email] (Serack) writes:

Can someone explain why? These commercials always make me feel like someone just told a joke and everyone in the room is laughing, but I don't get it. They seem to be making a cultural reference of some sort that's a total mystery to me. Who's the old lady, and what's the little dog got to do with it?

Aaron

Aaron Baugher wrote:

actually, i think old navy IS the joke. this is a corporation run by a subversive element whose plan is to disguise dorky-looking clothing as the hippest of the hip, and cause all the Cool Kids (tm) to dress like morons.

their first big leap forward was to make people think flourescent-yellow floatation devices could pass as attractive clothing, and it worked beyond anyone's wildest dreams. encouraged by this startling success, old navy is now set to unleash its worst-looking stuff ever. inside sources tell me that by next november they'll be advertising that their new "three-sleeved ringer shirt with a big-ass hole in the front" is "in," as well as their "foam-n-mesh baseball caps with seed company logos" and "giant inflatable hoop-shaped objects you wear on your head." once these manoeuvers are completed, they will unveil the final step in their quest to make the Cool Kids (tm) dress like dorks. little information is available at this time, but inside sources say the product is known simply as "glasses."

(the above post was, at this time, intended as sarcasm. but if it turns out to be true, don't say i didn't tell you so. and i know glasses don't really = dorky. i happen to wear them myself, and more than half the people i know do as well. but try telling that to one of the Cool Kids (tm)).

Well they already succeeded, it's kind of funny how the stuff that's fashionable today, both clothes and hairstyles, is identical to what was once considered the height of dorkiness. It's not possible to tell what's fashionable by what looks good, as being fashionable has nothing to do with aesthetics, it's simply about who is best at following the arbitrary instructions handed down to them by clothes manufacturers and style magazines etc.

Unlike most areas of human endeavour where new products tend to be better than old ones, the reasons fashions change from year to year has nothing to do advances in aesthetics but rather is because the clothes manufacturers want to sell you yet more clothes. But since you probably already have enough clothes, they must first dissuade you from wearing what they sold you last year, which is achieved by brainwashing vacuous airheads into pouring contempt on people who wear last year's styles. All these people who think they're so cool are in fact just unpaid lackies of the clothes manufacturers, in fact they're actually paying for the privilege, which puts them slightly lower down the clue scale than the six year olds in the far east who make the clothes for a pittance.

Ever see that movie where the world is taken over by zombies? At the end of it they're all wandering around a mall pretending to be human. Well wake up, we're already there!

-Shez.

Absolutely nothing. Actually, it's a lot like Robert Crumb's work during the sixties, before he was really funny or anything, and everyone pretended to think it was cool because it made them hip if they liked it (see his classic "Life Amongst the Constipated" panel set in various places, i.e. the Robert Crumb Coffee Table Art Book, and even he seems concious of it). This is what I refer to as "the emperor's new clothes" effect...

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

[email] (nick reffuse) writes:

Ah, thanks. In that case, I'm glad I decided to beat the rush and start hating them early. (Where's that from?)

Aaron

ok could everyone do me a BIG favor here? as maker of this thread I must request that you drop the subject or continue privately (I.e. email) I mean there are much better things to discuss, like the new movie showing tomorrow! well anyway just my little humble request. ash

Ah, another AOL user. See that big blue button labeled "Preferences"? Under "Subject Contains" filters, type "Re: [ot] real world sucks!" and you'll never see another one of these messages again, k?

Ah, another AOL user. See that big blue button labeled "Preferences"? Under "Subject Contains" filters, type "Re: [ot] real world sucks!" and you'll never see another one of these messages again, k?

nope not AOL I said that awhile ago actually :P so I don't see that big blue button and my request still remains!!!!! Ashley

LI said (in part):

Hey, it could be worse -- it might show up on Lifetime, between all those "women in crisis starring a former Charlie's Angel" movies and repeats of "Unsolved Mysteries." ;-)

I doubt if I'M still one of the "older people" MTV is still seeking. I'm just shy of 34, which, according to the categories on that first Daria quiz, puts me in the "over the hill" age group. (As if I'm of no value to MTV once my car insurance rates drop!)

I'm old enough to remember the days before video killed the radio star -- and when most radio stars still had to have some talent because no one cared what they looked like on the radio if they sucked. I remember when "Synchronicity" and "Thriller" and "1999" and "Rio" were released on VINYL. And when MTV showed cool concerts by Split Enz & Squeeze & Big Country. And when the only lame stuff they might show would be "Rock N'Roll High School" or that movie ABC was in ("Mantrap" I think -- ??) But now that I'm old enough to reminisce about the golden days of disco AND DuranDuran, I'm no longer worthy of their attention, although I'm more likely to have more of the disposable income to buy the stuff they're advertising, from the Old Navy vests to that stuff you take for herpes (or zits -- or both; whatever).

And wasn't VH-1 supposed to be MTV's older, more erudite sister? What happened to those wonderful videos by Pat Metheny & Spiro Gyra & the Rippingtons & Enya ? I'd be grateful just to see some Manhattan Transfer! That channel has truly deteriorated -- for I while I hung in for the "Movies That Rock," but now they're becoming "Movies That Suck." I can barely distinguish between the two channels anymore; the only telling sign is the difference in the font they use on the video clips. And I'd give my right t*t never to have to see Shania Twain's "Behind the Music" episode EVER AGAIN.

For me, "Daria" is about the only redeeming feature of MTV right now. I'd go on about "Real World" (it ISN'T) and "Road Rules" (it DOESN'T) and the "Real World/Road Rules Challenge" (the real challenge is for viewers not to become physically ill or downright psychotic while watching them) - - but there are more insidious shows on M(uck)TV. I haven't really watched enough of "Live Through This" to judge it, but it seems like a show that would have fit in just as well on a broadcast network (probably FOX or WB). The one that raises my ire the most is "Undressed." I've seen less sex on Cinemax after dark. All that's missing is Ron Jeremy's name in the credits. (Umm. . . how I know about Ron Jeremy is a LOOOOONG story, which I won't bore you with here.) Excuse me, but does the average 12-16 year old REALLY need to see teenagers learning how to fellate? Or stepsiblings with the hots for each other? Or people having sex with a sock puppet? (Speaking of which: I NEVER thought I'd say this, but . . . PLEASE BRING BACK SIFL & OLLY -- if shows like Undressed are the only other alternative.)

And as for 2Ge+her: The Series -- OK, guys, the joke was funny the first time(with the movie). It's probably not gonna be funny 13 times (or however long the series runs).

It's so bad, I'm almost- - ALMOST-- missing Spy Groove (now that it seems like they wised up & cancelled it). And I want DOWNTOWN back, (although I'd be content if they showed that"lost" 13th episode that never aired).

OK, I'm into one of my long, rambling rants again. But I'm tired of MTV & VH-1 insulting the intelligence of many of its viewers, whether they be Generation X, Y, Z, Alpha, Beta, Omega, WHATEVER. All I can do to rage against the machine that is MTV Networks/Viacom is to throw my little monkey wrench at it in the form of a letter. [segueway alert!]

Whatever your feelings are about VH-1 and MTV (and BTW, I still DO like some of those videos, & I like those Old Navy and Gap ads -- hey, *anything's* better than that toilet-paper commercial with the bear taking a squat on a tree), we all seem to agree on this: we want more Daria. We can't WAIT to see the movie. We DESPERATELY await the start of Season 5. But folks, the future of the show is up in the air. Do we want even more Daria in two years, or are we gonna have to settle for more boy bands and "Road Rules Undressses in the Real World"?

The address is in my sig. Y'all know what to do.

And I think I'll keep my right t*t after all. I've become really attached to it. [insert rimshot --or "bad joke" groans -- here]

Chirping through the night (BTW, if you think MTV is bad, have you checked out The Box? You get to PAY to see crappy videos!),

Cricket

*SAVE DARIA!* Write to:

Brian Graden Vice President of Programming MTV Networks 1515 Broadway New York, NY 10036

Hey man, nothing wrong with Rock 'N Roll High School. It's the Ramones for god sakes. THE RAMONES!!

As far as all this MTV stuff and ripping on the Real World, as much as people like me like to rip on it for not being anything close to actual real life, it is occasionally entertaining, and that above all else is the point.

MTV's further deterioration to the shell of an innovative music channel that it once was is the recent cancellation of 120 minutes. This, besides Daria of course, was the only show worth watching week after week on MTV. It was the only place besides M2 (which isn't even offered where I live) to see some really cool just-under-the-radar indie rock. Sleater-Kinney, The Promise Ring, The Get Up Kids, Avail, and tons of other good indie and punk bands will likely never get better publicity than they got on 120 Minutes every sunday night for over a decade.

Not only is it The Ramones, it's Roger Corman!!! ROGER CORMAN, you bastards! ;)

But in what way is it entertaining? Is it "oh man, I can't believe that happened!!! what are they going to do now?!?" or "damn, how putrid...can't...break...away..." ;)

Or used to be. Remember, they'd been showing lots of Creed and such over...well, quite a while.

Blegh. You know, I don't consider it such a big deal. Three years ago, I would've been writing angry letters, but you know, just about everyone's got a net connection these days and people who want to FIND good music *will* find it. It's longer necessary to reduce that exploration to a mere 2-hour weekly program. And hey, remember...with Daves Holmes hosting these past few months, the show wasn't exactly going to do much for indie rock anymore, anyway. Recall Dave's drippy interview with the equally drippy Bif Naked quite a while back. (sigh) Jancee Dunn should've stayed on, the show still sort of worked when she was hosting.

But oh well.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

What exactly's so bad about it? I've seen that show a few times, it was just a bunch of kids hanging out and getting free therapy working out their problems together. Sorta like college but without all those annoying classes to go to all the time. I didn't notice anything particularly bad about it, certainly not putrid. *shrug* Am I missing something?

Yes. One of the major complaints about the show is that it's designed specifically to generate heavy conflict between the chosen housemates. MTV looks for a certain cast...there's always at least one (if not more) ethnic minorities, always one or more homosexuals, always an "alpha male" type, etc, always a "wild" person, etc. Since they hand-pick the cast, it's to their discretion who they pick...and naturally, conflict is what's going to bring in ratings for a show like this. So they pick people who will be digging at each other within the first four episodes of a given season. Then they carefully pick and choose what they show and what they don't show in the editing room to give the viewers the impression that these people are being complete assholes to each other all of the time. This is in effect what the other "reality" series on TV are doing, but it mainly originated from RealWorld: you might call it calculated sensationalism.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

This is exactly right, and if you look at Big Brother, and why it's not pulling in the ratings that the real world and survivor are, the difference is in the editing and the setting. Big Brother is visually unattractive. We knock the real world for putting these kids into a house that none of them could possibly afford with tons of luxury items and the like, but when we take all this eye candy away like Big Brother has, somehow the show is less appealing.

Minorities and homosexuals and alpha males, oh my! Whereas I guess you'd have them pick a bunch of white heterosexuals who all look the same, come from the same background and get along really swell, and then just devote 30 minutes a week to showing them basking in their uniform dullness? Maybe on the BBC or something, but in America we need ratings! Of course they're going to pick telegenic people that make the show interesting and of course they're going to edit the show and pick the parts that are most fun to watch, which are usually conflicts. If you accept the show on those terms it seems ok to me.

If people are foolish enough to believe "reality television" isn't an oxymoron, they have no one but themselves and their own naivete to blame for being upset about the way such shows are presented. MTV would be crazy to do it any other way.

You missed my point. They INTENTIONALLY pick people who are going to have HUGE PERSONALITY CLASHES. Not people who might have differences between them and have the potential to work together in order to over-come them, but people who will be at each other's throats. Why? Hm, guess "that's entertainment". Whatever it is, it sells.

Ha ha ha!!! I live in America, but I'll tell you this much: the BBC has got some MUCH more sensationalistic stuff being pumped into people's televisions.

Just who *are* you? What network do you work for? ;P

It's absolutely fine if you want something carefully planned-out and designed to be sensationalistic. It seems that's exactly what you enjoy watching. I can't say, "Oh, you're SO DAMNED WRONG!", because obviously there's a market for that sort of thing and you're an example of someone in that market. I just personally view the whole deal as pure cheese and an example of the sort of entertainment programming networks will get going when they can't manage to get good staff writers.

Of course. They've got a cash-cow: draw in a young audience with trite, sensationalistic programming, and then get advertisers scrambling to buy up commercial time. It's just business. But it makes me feel uneasy just the same...people WATCH this stuff because either their lives are fucked up and they want some sort of confirmation that they're normal, or because their lives are boring and they want to fool themselves into thinking that everyone other person is a despicable asshole and they themselves are alright.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

On 15 Aug 2000 21:17:28 GMT, [email] (nick reffuse) wrote:

And you missed his point. Which, basically, was "duh".

I'm surprised you didn't feel this was so self-evident that it's not worth pointing out.

Duh again.>

And I'll just point out that the entertainment industry is making a heckuva lot more money than you.

Smart doesn't sell. For every classic novel you read there were a million forms of cheap entertainment that were wildly more popular in it's time.

You needed MTV to TELL you people are that fucked up? I suggest you get a job that works with the general public.

In summary:

Duh.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

I guess. I didn't really get that point from what you said before, you just said they pick minorities and homosexuals; that's pretty different than people with personality clashes and such. I haven't seen the show enough to know if what you're talking about is true.

I live in America also, but I've never seen the BBC myself so maybe I need to shut up about that.

I work for the Food Network. Actually I don't, but I'll work for food! Mmmmmmm.... food.

Like almost everything on television. Everything on TV is planned out, and it's hard to find a show that isn't designed to be sensationalistic in one way or another. It's not like the Real World is particularly unique or outrageous in that regard. That's why I was wondering what the big deal is. Seems like everybody's hung up over this show, y'all must watch it way more than I do to be so upset at how horrible it is.

I never said I enjoyed watching it. I've watched a few times and didn't find it to be all that bad. The people are nice to look at and when they get into their little fights and crap it's cute. It's surface-level entertainment that I might watch when nothing more exciting is on and I don't feel like reading any more of Gravity's Rainbow that night. That doesn't seem so bad to me. It doesn't seem like a horrible tragedy to put a bunch of 20-somethings in a house for a few months and laugh at all the stupid shit they say and do.

I

I'd say I'm an example of someone who takes a realistic view of things. I don't expect much out of television, that's why it's nice when something like Daria comes along and blows me away. Most of TV is very one-dimensional, formulaic and blown out of proportion (even a lot of the GOOD shows are that way). Once in a while you'll have a show which is a little different than that, and if you're lucky it's not cancelled in about two episodes. Really good television is pretty rare.

I just

I don't think the Real World is any worse than, oh say, 99% of all sitcoms that have ever aired. It's certainly less boring than most of them.

What a judgement call! Anyone who watches the show is either fucked-up or boring? That seems like one hell of an assumption to make. Perhaps I haven't seen the show as much as you but I don't think any of the people I saw were despicable assholes, and watching it didn't make me feel better or worse about myself at all. I hope you're willing to accept the idea that other people might watch a show and come to conclusions very different than your own. From what you've written it seems like you may have pre-judged me and anyone else who watches (or who you think watches) that show regularly, and that's probably not a good idea.

I also said they'll lump an "alpha male" in...meaning of course the stereotypical muscle-head who will invariably have conflict with those different from him.

Everything on TV is planned out,

Not really. I can only speak for myself here, but I once watched the show for half a season. I'd caught bits of other episodes from other seasons before. I could tell where things were going, and I could pretty much guess what was going to happen. It got dull, then it got stupid, and I stopped watching. Now, what's wrong with this? It's not a sitcom we're talking about, it's a show that's brought to the public as "real life". Now of course that's not going to be the case if they're not broadcasting live...and yet you've got scores of people watching this show religiously, trying to fool themselves into believing that they really are getting an open-window into some people's lives. In other words, it's like a drawn out, episodic version of the Jerry Springer Show.

The gripe beyond that? Hm. Again, just speaking for myself here, but MTV has picked up and dropped programs of much better caliber than the nonesensical Real World, and yet those shows have been canceled, while this show has been sustained for YEARS. I'm not saying MTV was ever really for quality programming and I don't think they ever will be, but it's this sort of thing that endorses "it's bad but hey, it's profitable!" programming practices.

ah...Ah! I see a brain-dead diversion. After you've practically fried yourself trying to follow, as you suggested, Pynchon (I can relate...he's tough but when it clicks, WOW!), you might watch. Well that's alright. Me, I'd probably just go to sleep so I wouldn't have to be reminded of the sorry state of television.

Really good television knows when to start and stop. Case in point: classic UK series called The Prisoner. One of the best-acted, best-filmed, and most original TV programs of all time, and it ran 17 episodes, with a definite beginning, middle, and end. I'd much prefer to see something slated to a set run like that, rather than see something like a formulaic sitcom go on for years and years. Even Frasier has had some repeated plot-lines.

Well, once you figure out the formula, it might as well be just another sitcom.

I'm not thinking of critical, self-thinking TV viewers such as yourself, Mr. Pierry. I'm thinking of MTV's target audience: young kids who are going to look for something to either mold them or give them comfort. Please consider this and then re-read the assumption: it should provide the proper perspective. Admitedly, there is some degree of exaggeration -it's been inherent in my writing style as long as I can remember- but ultimately it should prove relatively founded.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

Wow, you just graduated high school and you know who Pynchon IS? Major props, my brotha. I'm still catching up in the world o' literature because all I did in high school was play my guitar and study music. I think I read 4 books throughout all 4 years of high school, which is bizarre since when I was younger I was the most voracious bookworm. All that music warped my fragile teenage mind! Hell, I only just read my first Dostoevsky novel last January.

Haven't gotten to Dostoevsky yet. Suppose I will soon, but I've got a few books by Greil Marcus I want to get through. Oh yes, good literature's important, but 20th century music history is a big topic for me, too. :)

Btw, ever notice some of the similarities between the establishment of the U.S. Postal service as depicted in The Crying of Lot 49 and the establishment of the Oxford English Dictionary? Do a little research on the latter and you might feel slightly odd. Or at least compelled to write a conspiracy story.

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

[email] (nick reffuse) writes:

It's entertaining the same way a car crash is entertaining -- it's ugly, but people can't resist looking at it. We all look, but we shouldn't admit it and be proud about it, and we shouldn't keep watching for 12 hours a day, or whatever MTV runs those stupid shows.

I'm guessing these shows are ridiculously cheap to make, too, which would endear them to network execs.

Aaron

Exactly, it's called Trainwreck media. It's the same reason why people who think Howard Stern (or Opie and Anthony for the New Yorkers) is disgusting still listen, just to see what will piss them off next.

The cheapness of production was pretty much the whole reason that MTV created the Real World. It costs them a fraction of what it costs to develop a full series.

Cricket wrote:

*snicker* Oh yeah, that's right...Lifetime. "Television for Women"...*shudders*...like, gag me with a spoon. I find only two things that are worthwhile that are showing on Lifetime..."The Golden Girls" and "Unsolved Mysteries" (yeah, I watch it at times). Everything else sucks to high heaven.

Prolly not, which is odd considering that MTV isn't really that old and you were in one of the first groups of people they targeted.

I'm just

Hey...that's a positive, tho...actually, two...one, your car insurance rates are lower (which rocks), and two, MTV doesn't try and pigeonhole you as being a part of their current viewing audience (which rocks again). Oh...and you must've had a tremendously fabulous teenage life...wow...

*giggle* Yeah...the radio...if done right, no amount of slick choreography or surgically enhanced Jell-O-iness will be able to save your ass if you're trying to break through on the radio. Unfortunately, though, in the late '70s and early '80s almost all the radio stations in the U.S. chose to be major sticks in the mud when it came to playing New Wave and New Romantic music, so MTV, being only too happy to service these video-friendly genres, quickly became the center of hipdom.

I remember when "Synchronicity"

Hey...I have "Rio" on vinyl...my favorite version, too...

And when MTV

*sigh* Split Enz *and* Squeeze *and* Big Country?

(goes into "Big '80s" orgasm mode)

And when the only

I don't know about the first movie you mentioned, but...ABC were in a movie?!?! OMG...I will *SO* have to look this up.

But now that I'm old enough to reminisce

I don't think they really care, though. Most of today's teens seem to be getting an awfully large sum of money in allowance money, and they also seem to be more and more employed. So they have TONS of disposable income. Add to that the fact that their baby boomer parents largely spoil them to death and buy for them all their little teenybop CDs and such so they can "fit in" with and look more like the Jonses' kids and you've got a pretty large market there. *weary sigh*

NO way...they used to show that all the time? I remember Enya, Kenny G, Anita Baker, and Bruce Hornsby, but heck, I *like* Enya, Anita Baker, and Bruce Horsnby! (Kenny G is way too dull for me)

(btw -- it's funny how it's supposed to be "the older sister" when "the older sister" is in reality five years younger than the "younger sister" it's supposed to precede)

That channel has truly

*giggle* You're so right. I think VH1 should stop trying to be like MTV and go back to what it was doing beforehand.

I can barely distinguish between the two

*snicker* Yeah, and who ISN'T being shown, although that line is being blurred with every passing minute. Man, I remember thinking it was a trip, being able to see a Stone Temple Pilots song on VH1. Now they're showing the latest Metallica AND Blink 182 AND Creed AND Red Hot Chili Peppers? Duuuuude. My 1994 self would be SO having a heart attack right now.

And I'd give my right t*t never to have to see Shania

AMEN! And while we're at it, NO MORE Lynyrd Skynyrd, Leif Garrett, Metallica, Motley Crue, or Faith Hill "BTM" airings ever again either! I would add Ozzy to the list but that one was truly entertaining. And I know how much some of you guys like Weird Al...

I'll say a double AMEN to that.

I'd go

AmenAmenAmenAmenAmenAmenAmenAmenAmenAmenAmenAmenAmen!

(chuckles aloud at the hilarious but true commentaries)

I haven't really watched enough of "Live

I heard it's a decent program, and the premise is original, at least. I'll give it a shot. Hopefully it'll be a good program. MTV needs another horribly bad program like a

The one that raises my

What?!?!?! Okay, I will readily admit to only seeing bits and pieces of this program, but...I thought it was just an oversexed show. I had no idea some of those shenanigans occurred on that program. My gosh...and I'm in complete agreement with you there, I DON'T think the average MTV watcher should watch that sort of thing.

(Speaking of which: I NEVER thought I'd say this, but . .

*snicker* I actually kinda liked "Sifl & Olly"...when it first came on I thought it was really brilliant. Then the joke started becoming a bit stale, but still, I wouldn't mind seeing it again.

*giggle* Well, you know how MTV is almost all the time, i.e. beating a dead horse until the dead horse comes back and kicks the living daylights out of everyone and then goes back to being a stiff.

I dunno about "Spy Groove".... And I got a chance to see one ep of "Downtown"...not bad, actually...if I had had the chance to rethink myself and try it out again, I think I might've actually liked it and become a fan.

It's okay, girl...just ramble on. 'Tis what we're here for. Well, ONE of the things we're here for, in fact.... Besides, I'm in agreement with you.

All I can do to rage against the

I sensed it *giggle*

<pedantic> And the correct spelling of that word is "segue". </pedantic>

(apologies...)

<snip Daria s6 campaign rally speech>

Yes ma'am....

ROTFL. I'm really attached to mine, too, so you can't have mine.

Now that is pure comedy. Thankfully, though, our cable company is wise enough to know that 30 audio channels are better than that, at least for the digital cable package. Although we DID once have something like that on our cable systems back around the beginning of the '90s...it was one of the last additions Rogers Cablesystem made to our cable package before our local cable company became Paragon Cable and soon after got rid of that channel. (Note: at the beginning of this year, Paragon Cable was acquired by Time Warner Cable, so that's our cable company.)

LI (who meant to send this last night but got blurry-eyed)

Um, the first movie mentioned is that movie the Ramones participated in while Phil Spector was producing them. Now I love the Ramones but I can't stand what that movie did with them. I appreciated their Simpsons "cameo" a few years back a hell of a lot more.

But hell, MTV won't even show campy-assed rock movies anymore. You have to settle for the dreckified likes of (shudder) Jailbait and 2gether.

I'm hoping the Daria movie proves the exception.

Why?!? It's top 40, innit? Is it really a shock?

Tell me...why the fuck don't they air the goddamn Iggy Pop BtM anymore? That was one of the first and best. If it were up to me, I'd like to see some BtM's on truly interesting people and not all these damn idol-types. How about the band every American glammy hardrock act of the '70s ripped -the New York Dolls? There's plenty of death, infighting, drug tales, and so forth to make that fit the criteria of tragedy necessary to be on BtM. But will they do it? No, of course not. Hell, the time Saturday Night Live spoofed BtM and worked up one with Fat Albert was more interesting than the fucking Bangles. Ooh, girl band fighting. How CAPTIVATING (barf barf).

Ugh...you know, I think the last bit of original programming I really dug on VH-1 was when Tom Waits did Storytellers a long while back. Now that was pretty damn cool... But now what?

I'd tripple it but I'm an atheist. ;)

Right. They should just watch videos where Christina Aguilera lets the camera fly through her zippers. ;P

Here here! At least let us see the damn thing, even though it's cancelled. A stiff old network named NBC let us see some of the previously unaired episodes of Freaks and Geeks a month or so back. If MTV wants to appear semi-credible in their claim to hipness, they could at least let us have one last Dowtown hurrah.

Well, it built. Ep. 1 was good but felt incomplete. Ep. 2 stunk. Around four or five, it started getting REALLY cool...the characters were more established, the plotlines were multiple and overlapped splendidly, and it was kicking ass. Of course, leave it to a Viacom network to pull the plug. Remember, they also have an unofficial policy on their Nickelodeon network of stopping new epidoes after three years or so, no matter how successful the show is. *re-laments the loss of childhood TV friends Pete and Pete*

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

The should do a BtM on Jane's Addiction if they want a real interesting story. Perry Farrel lived in a boarding house with a prostitute named Jane who later would end up supporting the band financially by turning tricks. She OD'd, as did several other people around the band, heroin addiction by Perry and Stephen Perkins pretty much broke up the band. All of them exept Eric A. went on to successful side projects.

Pretty much everything you could want in a BtM. An influential, innovative band, rise to fame from nothing, drug abuse, "the price of fame", and then the "triumphant return" with the reunion tour.

[email] (nick reffuse) writes:

Yeah, after all, they've already paid to develop the show, right? I understand that animation is expensive, but once it's in the can, why not show it now and then? 'Downtown' reruns shouldn't cost them any more to show than 'Road Rules' reruns, or 'MTV Music Awards 2000' thirty-four times. Heck, why not show a 'Maxx' marathon some afternoon? Or even 'Aeon Flux,' though I never understood what the heck was going on in that show... :-)

It's too bad the people doing the programming don't have a tenth of the imagination of the people developing the shows.

Aaron

Oh, and one more thing...I think critics pretty much suck as well. It's all about politics and what's hip to say, really. Yeah, sure, maybe I'm biased because of my negative experiences with critics as a Duranie. But I've seen too many bad musical artists be critics' darlings just because they happen to be hip to listen to, and too many great musical artists be dogged by the music press because the music press has already made up their mind about said artist even before the first listen, to be disillusioned into thinking music critics know what they're talking about. And I'm sure it's sorta like that in every other critic field.

LI (sorry, just venting...)

[email] (Lady Interference) wrote in :

Hey come on, just take what the critics say, and multiply by -1 (switch it round so what they say is bad, is good and vice versa). After all some of my personal favorate bands have come in for some heavey slating in their time, Duran as you mention, Rush, and Depeche Mode have all survived despite what the critics say. Maybe tehre are enough people out there that are prepared to listen to it and make their own mind up.

"Formual music for girly-glas, genuine junkfood for juvaniles" -- ok 10 poins each for Artist & Song Title, extra 10 if you can tell me the connection to one of the above mentioned groups....I have a feeling someone will be claiming 30 points :)

Phill...please excuse me I have a bad toothache at the mo, now where did I put that novacane ?

What, listening to Duran Duran again? ;P (j/k)

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

[email] (nick reffuse) wrote in :

:)

Hey each to his own, and hell they must have something, or they wouldn't have been around for 20 odd years...I derad to think what of the modern crap will still be here in 20 years time...something no doubt also said by people in the early 80's :)

Phill.

Then again, King Diamond has been around quite a long time as well, and that's no excuse. ;P again, only kidding. I despise Duran Duran but I know a few people who own their stuff and are alright anyway. To each his own is the perfect ethic. Well, providing it's not King Diamond. I couldn't be as dumb as that if I drove a pin into my scrotum while screaming into a microhphone run through a pitch-shifter shooting things up two octaves with my face done up all pseudo-Alice Cooper...

-nick reffuse

**can you find dilinger at the smithsonian or not?**

(cut the "crap" to email)

Me said:

lately.

Oh, I've noticed it ...

"Seven people, alike in ignorance, do quarrel in a van ..."

Yeah, pretty much.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan