I watched the episode tonight and I will have to say it was a shocking and funny episode. However, I do feel that there will be some people will find the material offensive, so be prepared for some backlash the next few days from the press and parents.
Protest Letters
Jan 12, 2000, 11:16 PM ET146 posts by 22 postersalt.tv.southpark
146 posts
I've been an addicted fan for several months, since Rainforest. This show will not be a guilty pleasure much longer if they keep up with truly offensive ignorance like this and such unimaginative, hateful takes as the fat Sally Struthers. As far as I can tell, they're really losing their touch and getting pretty fucking fat themselves. Are those two a gay couple or not?
Marklar
Brian wrote in message news:Kkcf4.26$[email]...
and
find
days
In article , "Marklar" wrote:
Either way, what's your point?
A legitimate point of curiosity about exactly who decided to serve up such garbage on national television, I suppose. As a loyal adult fan with children, I don't like being tricked into watching a "special" episode about a multiple personality school teacher that simply serves up their bizarre sexual ignorance on such a potent and important childhood issue at this point in human history. Who are these people and who cares about Mr. Garrison anymore? For me, after that pointless and bizarre disaster, it's only fair that we know the whole story of exactly who these writers are that are serving up their nightmare of outrageous social humor on national television once a week. I think approving and airing that episode was suicide and Comedy Central and the boys deserve whatever they get to stop them from airing such bizarre garbage again. Even Mr. Hankey would be upset at the hurt they caused any struggling children (or adults) watching last night -- and it's a legitimate question to ask exactly who they are. They certainly killed off any sympathy for that third grade teacher -- at the very least, if not for themselves. Those trickster boys are hurtin', whoever they are. Howdy ho.
Marklar
In article , "Marklar" wrote:
Oh, so you want a list? Let's start with everyone on the credits of the ep, including the production companies and the network. Actually, that's probably enough. That's a lot of people.
The fact that your tiny little sensabilities were so shattered that you're upset just says that you either have some growing to do, or that SP just isn't for you.
Ohhhh! I think I'm gong to play the grrrand piano now!
Why don't your stuff you kids back up your ass where they came from, beeyotch??
Oh, poooor baby, did big bad Matt and Twey hit too close to a nerve??? Hey, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Why don't you leave your judgemental asshole in the care of someone with a little mor4 experience in this subject? THIS EPISODE ROCKED!!!!!!!!!!
...of your life, Luv?
Dickwad. Go jerk off to da Bible, fuzzballs. "YOU DIE! YOU DIE AND GO TO HELL!"
...was a fucking stroke of genius on CC's part!
...signs of pure comic genius. "MORE, MORE, I'm STILL NOT SATISFIED!" "SOIREES AND TORTURES USED BY DEBACHERS, LURID LICENTIOUS AND VILE, make me smile!"
You know squat, so shut the fuck up and die, sister-fuka.
He never deserved any sympathy. YOU FUCKING MORON, THAT'S THE PONT.
Put this in your mouth and try to say, "Howdy-ho ho, yum yum yum!"
Hey little Marklar, want a little piece of marklar? Open wide and say, Ahhhhh."
Hey! I am Marklar, and you will respect my authoritah!
Marklar
D.G. Porter wrote in message news:[email]...
make
say,
In article , "Marklar" wrote:
I dunno. Let's hear you say "Barbera Streisand".
And I AM AUTHORITAH, and YOU WILL RESPECT *MY* MARKLAR!!!!!! "Bend up and smell my anal vapour!"
Agree or disagree with the guy as you like, but rubbing salt into the wound of sexual abuse is quite pathetic.
Anyways, I do believe (and hope) that Matt and Trey's intent with this episode was to humourously characterize Mr. G as a totally sick fuck-up to an extent previously unseen, and not an attempt to ridicule real-life sexual abuse victims, although it might just give some idiots the wrong message that it's good to sexually molest your children.
Hey, dude, that's the only way they heal.
I agree, but his dad's attitude was an antidote to that. ["Jesus-fuck, I have to pay this Kenny G fag to do it and pretend he's me so my son will feel normal! Ech!"] When I thought that his dad was realy doing it, I thought, "Trey and Matt, you really have sunk to a new low, and it's still funny as hell! I knew Garrison was a sick fuck, and now I see his mom is too, but for his dad to sink that low for the love and health of his son is truly bizarre!--but a weird affirmation of family values! The father makes the supreme sacrifice for his son! How touching! You guys are great!" THEN they pull the ol' BAIT AND SWITCH on me and I KNOW they are TRUE GREATS!! THEY GOT ME TOO!
South Park is not for thin-skinned people. South Park is the only show in history to be preceded by the strongest warning of all (which Marklar and others like him/her have chosen to ignore): Each show begins with a screen that says the program SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED BY ANYONE. Presumably "ANYONE" includes censor-happy Marklars and their children.
You ignore this warning at your own risk. Nobody owes any comfort to anyone whose scars are ripped open by watching this program.
And "Bill K." wrote:
If you've watched much South Park you know that salted wounds are par for the course. Besides, the current sniveler is claiming injury only from the shock value, not from an association with prior sexual abuse.
I think we should hook up this Marklar person with Edwina, the handwringing trollette who flounces in here at (thankfully long) intervals, threatening both political and divine retribution against the show and its fans. They deserve each other. And they could probably trade bad-childrearing tips. Or dildos.
Surely, we're not expected to take such a tongue-in-cheek disclaimer at face value. If we did, then *nobody* would watch, and Matt and Trey and Comedy Central wouldn't like that, would they?
Granted, the people have been warned for potentially offensive material, and the show does push the envelope quite far. That still doesn't waive the creators of all responsibility and the moral obligation to keep the humour within the boundaries of their basic human principles. If they stray outside of these boundaries and go too far out of line, then we, the viewers, need to reconsider our respect and support for them. For instance, how about an episode making fun of their recently deceased friend Mary Kay Bergman, or the many children gunned down in the Columbine High School massacre in their home state of Colorado?
Overall, South Park has known where to draw the line *for the most part*. However, my point is disparaging statements like "Oh, poooor baby, did big bad Matt and Twey hit too close to a nerve???" in joking on the topic of sexual abuse are quite sick, and reflect poorly on the people who make them. Come on, this should be common sense.
The point is, King Marklar *is* taking the humor at "face value" and bitching about it.
Oooooooooooooooooooh, moral obligation, basic human principles, deep sleep coming on. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
You don't get it. They would, they could, and they might.
Oh great. A sociopath. It's cool to be baaad, ain't it?
My faith in South Park fandom rests on the belief that people like you do not represent a majority, or even a significant minority, of South Park fans.
I think they are *far* more sensible, intelligent and sophisticated than that. If they weren't, they would've done it when the incident was fresh in everyone's mind to maximize the shock effect, and most people would've tuned out in disgust.
If you condone that sort of thing, you're a *really* sad case. How old are you anyways?
ROTFLMAO (in spite of my plea to chill) I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Why don't you let Matt & Trey worry about "South Park fandom". It's really not your concern. I decide what to watch on my teevee & I suggest you do the same.
Bill Lynch
Okay. It's ultimately up to Matt and Trey to decide whether they want a show that retains some principle in their humour or pander to the lowest of the low. However, this discussion started with Mark's statement claiming that "Nobody owes any comfort to anyone whose scars are ripped open by watching this program." Personally, although I am a fan of South Park's style of rude, satirical, and blasphemous style of humour, I personally do not like to see any innocent and vulnerable people get ripped on cruelly and mercilessly, and I do hope they choose their targets carefully with good judgement. Agree?
It just now occurs to me how completely this misses the point.
The very idea of making envelope-pushing material is incompatible with the notion being super-cautious in the choice of targets. South Park's outrageous, blasphemous, irreverent satire -- the kind you *claim* you approve of -- depends heavily on the shock value of the EXTREME, that is, on the idea of treating topics that were heretofore believed taboo or at least not addressable through comedy. To sit there, over your stewed prunes, and insist that the show's target choices should meet carefully considered guidelines for not making anybody uncomfortable is to deny the very thing that makes South Park special.
My personal history includes two issues that, if they were part of yours, would perhaps have made you whimper and weep when South Park satirized them in the past. But I'm grown-up enough -- yeh, in spite of your melodramatic "shuddering" -- to laugh heartily at myself whenever the opportunity arises. And I'm a better person for it.
It sounds a lot like this last episode was the first SP theme that truly upset you, meaning all the other freaky topics were OK because they didn't hit any of YOUR nerves. So chickenfucking, unclefucking, conjoined fetal myslexia, crack-whoredom, kids growing up as poor as Kenny, fat meddling Jewish moms, assisted suicide, etc., those are all "safe" for you because presumably they're *not* a part of your history. But what about the people who are NOT you? Should South Park be subjected to a continuous pre-air review to ensure that THEY won't be offended either?
That is what you're suggesting, even though you'll probably refuse to admit it. You're only too happy to draw your own "line," but you're aghast when you can't get others to "agree" on your line. (I note that you have now ended two posts by begging for others to *agree* with you. And *that*, in my view, is worth shuddering about.)
Mark
PS: No, my two issues do *not* include chickenfucking, unclefucking, having a dead fetus on my head, etc.
In article , Mark Tangard wrote:
And such people can't even complain that they've never seen this kind of thing before. There were the Smothers Brothers, Monty Python, and others I'm sure.
They don't have to be "super cautious", actually. In fact, they just have to be more-or-less common sense. As for who to make uncomfortable, it should be, as it usually is, those who deserve it (such as bigots, religious fanatics, inept parents, etc.).
Actually, no. The episode itself did not offend me. (See my post which you originally replied to to verify.) In fact, I thought the program handled the subject quite well, with the Dad doing the (almost) right thing, and I'm sure Matt and Trey themselves would never stick any needles into the wound of abuse victims. It started as what I though to be tasteless and out of line when it appeared that DG was rubbing sexual abuse into Marklar's face. (Even if Marklar wasn't a sexual abuse victim as you say, there may be others here who will be quite revolted upon reading it.) Maybe watching many TV programs on this topic and hearing many people's first-hand accounts about sexual abuse made me feel it was quite inappropriate. You can't blame me for having some feelings.
No, they do not need to do a pre-air review. I think Matt and Trey's judgement and common sense are good enough. Even with the above controversial topics, the episodes do have their redeming messages. And M&T do seem to stick behind their principles and draw the line at some things, like making overtly racist or homophobic episodes or lampooning real-life tragedies such as the Columbine massacre example given earlier, and I hope they never compromise any of their integrity in a search for newer, more shocking ideas in the future.
Speculate denial mode if you wish, but I gave what I believe to be an adequate explanation above.
Not begging, but inquiring.
(snip)
You mean:
"Does anyone else agree with me that the Arkansas episode has got to be the sickest, most disgusting episode of Southpark so far? And I thought I'd seen everything until then.
Aside from all the incest reference, it was also the second consecutive episode to involve soiling the panties. A little feco(copro)philia on the part of Matt and Trey, perhaps?"
from Thursday, 1/13, at 17:23?
Bill Lynch
Just mentioning that it's gross and disgusting (almost stomach-turningly so). Never said anything about offensive.
OH COME ON NOW! How stupid do you think we are?! I dunno what universe you're from, but in *this* one, a person who moans about how "sick" and "disgusting" something is, and who does so without the faintest hint of sarcasm or appreciation, is saying that he or she is offended. This is a *really* simple concept -- on a par with, say, "water flows downhill." (My thanks to Mr. Lynch for the research-&-requote that exposed this so clearly.)
It's also revealing that you, like Dame Marklar, seek to put a fetishistic label on Matt & Trey based solely on the fact that the episode involved an essential reference to excrement. If you see sexual perils in everything on TV that isn't a Donna Reed rerun, I'd say you need go off & do a lot more private shuddering.
Mark
Do you need to be told that incest is gross? Sure, it was funny at the same time, but is it unreasonable to find yourself rolling your eyes and shaking your head and sighing in disgust at the same time when it appears that the two Garrisons are having sex?
The fecophilia bit was a bit of a joke. Don't take it too seriously, m'kay?
You're evading the point. You claim you didn't find it offensive, yet you term it "sick" AND admit to to feeling disgust and near-nausea as a direct result of watching it. How much more negative does your reaction need to be before it crosses into your definition of "offensive"?
This isn't exactly semantic rocket science.
Mark
I would assume the accepted definition of "offend" in this context is to emotionally antagonize in some way (like in the form of blasphemy, political incorrectness, etc.). Wanting to cringe or throw up is something else altogether.
I would assume the accepted definition of "offend" in this context is to emotionally antagonize in some way (like in the form of blasphemy, political incorrectness, etc.). Wanting to cringe or throw up is something else altogether.
Don't assume, look it up! But look up OFFENSIVE, not offend. (Shades of meanings may have evolved a bit since the origin.) At "offensive" you'll see the main theme in the definition is disagreeable/unpleasant/repellent. So unless you *enjoy* cringeing or vomiting -- hey, whatever floats yer boat -- you've definitely called it offensive.
Mark
Oh geez! Do we have to look up every word we ever use in the dictionary and use it in its exact literal definition in everyday conversation? You know exactly what I was implying anyways.
Okay, Mr. Semantic Policeman. Thank you for enlightening us with this fascinating demonstration of your superior familiarity with the English language. I now have a term for you to ponder: anal retentive.
No, but when you puff up your chest to declare what a word means, you need to be sure you're not blowing smoke. Just above you decreed that offensive things *don't* include things that make you cringe or puke, and that's bull. You can't base an argument on what *you* incorrectly say a word means. Who do ya think ya are, Humpty Dumpty?
I know only what you write. It's now clear that your *assumed* definition of "offensive" (to mean "emotionally antagonistic") is wrong, and allows you to deny -- to yourself -- that you're calling the episode offensive. Heaven knows what other MonthPythonesque twists you're preparing.
Oh please. People caught in their own linguistic net always blame it on somebody else's anus. If you hadn't tried to deny your obvious intent I wouldn't be challenging your usage. I was an editor for 21 years, so forgive me for absentmindedly doing my job.
BTW, anal-retentive is a compound adjective. It takes a hyphen. ;)
Mark
Right - did I miss a smiley?
Bill Lynch
"Bill K." wrote:
Sorry, but there are far too many "shoulds" and "have to"s (both explicit and implicit) in your posts for me to believe you really understand the artistic principle involved. The implication is that you are smarter than other people, your judgment is more valid, and your standards are the ones that must be agreed with. And that tells me that your ideal world would be far too repressive for anything like South Park to exist in.
You are STILL drawing lines, and you are still apparently quite comfortable doing that -- declaring, based on your own personal vantage point and okayness meter, what is or is not OK for M&T to write. That, I think, is horribly wrong.
The kicker here is, you and I probably see eye-to-eye on many, if not most, satirizable issues. The difference is, you seem to want lines drawn -- enforceable lines -- at your own personally determined boundary. That's not the way art works. Thank God.
Mark
Sure, but as a commercial program, they do have to set the balance between artistic liberty and commercial interests, and work within the constraints of viewership demand. As a member of that viewership, I too am entitled to open my yapper, express my opinions, and give my share of feedback.
They don't "have to" do any such thing. If they did, we would have laws saying so. And if we *had* laws saying such things, we almost certainly wouldn't have programs like South Park to talk about to begin with. The very concept of *envelope-pushing* is somewhat at odds with the notion of "balancing" artistic liberty against any (presumably opposing) force.
IMO it's a stretch to term viewer opinion a "commercial interest" -- or at least it's bogus to imply that a show with continuously extraordinary ratings is in danger of being "constrained" by what its viewers think.
And nobody can say you aren't. But there's a difference between feedback that says you don't like it and feedback that says you want it changed so that you will. Your free-speech entitlement does not extend to the point where your wishes become direct input to the artists' work. You can "vote with your feet" (or in this case your TV's on/off switch or the decisions you make about which sponsors to patronize), but it's an affront to our basic freedoms for you to ask that a product your taxes AREN'T paying for be modified to suit your preferences. If this were PBS rather than Comedy Central, your argument might have *some* small amount of merit, although I think I would probably still oppose it.
I never said anything about laws. They *have to* in a strictly commercial and circumstantial, not legal, sense. Otherwise, they can kiss their contract with Comedy Central goodbye and go back to making independent low-budget clips.
They obviously can't stray too far from the course they've been taking so far and do anything to put off their established viewership. That would be commercial suicide.
How many times do I have to say over again, I never asked for anything to be changed!?! However, the viewers should not be hesitant to express their objections if something they truly felt were inappropriate were aired. It comes with "voting with your feet". If you are to tune out for any reason, it would be more effective to let them know why. Now, there probably are a few who will watch any garbage no matter how low it falls as long as it's South Park, but they are likely in the minority. Something to remember before anyone gets too high and mighty.
"Bill K." wrote:
Why are you and yours always sooooooooo convinced that M&T are on the brink of a plunge into obscurity? There's nothing to hint at the show's involuntary removal, and nothing to hint that they'll be in low demand after SP ends.
You're implying that your definition of straying prohibitively far is the correct one, and that the fatal boundary crossing is nigh. There's nothing to validate that.
You have asked for it to be limited. Lines drawn. TARGETS RESTRICTED based on your taste parameters. Same thing. You've said, in effect, the last episode was unacceptable and you want a line drawn north of it.
I've never said you should be muzzled. I just think your efforts aren't likely to have any effect, your logic needs to be challenged, and the inherent repressiveness in your objections should be pointed out.
Mark
Quit putting words into my mouth. I never said they're on the brink of the plunge. However, the possibility that they eventually will is there, depending on the decisions and choices they make. If they choose to drive off a cliff, that's exactly what'll happen.
No I am not, and again, you're putting words into my mouth. My above statement is pretty much common sense from a business standpoint, and you're making it out to be something else altogether.
For fuck's sake, will you quit putting words into my mouth...again!?! I did *not* say the last episode was unacceptable. Backtrack and review the articles leading to the branch of this thread for proof, and quote me where I said it was unacceptable. I just remarked that one of the personal attacks made by someone here to be out-of-line, and most of what ensued resulted from your claim that "salted wounds are par for the course" with South Park. My observation is that it is *not* the classless shit that you seem to want and make it out to be, and I hope it never degenerates into it either.
Of course I have my own set of guidelines and taste parameters, and they don't necessarily coincide exactly with South Park's. That is not to say I am going to go twist Matt & Trey's arm over it. But if they stray too far out of my comfort zone, then of course, it's time to switch it off, in which case, I should not be hesitant to voice my reasons for it.
You seem to like arguing in circles with incorrect and repeatedly refuted insinuations, assumptions, and misinterpretations, and nitpicking about people's grammar. Do you perceive that to be the correct strategy in challenging other people's logic?
Also, what effect do you think *your* efforts have, other than showing us that you have little (if anything) in the way of programming standards, your sick desire for "salted wounds", your inability to debate coherently, and the endless and repetitive fussing and nitpicking you do against those you begrudge?
"Bill K." wrote:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ya SAID that already, Zelda. Voice all you want. Just be clear that when you voice those reasons *here* you'll draw *continuous* streams of replies that contradict your sentiments. You'll never get the last word you seem to crave (as when you repeat the empty point that you're not hesitant to speak your disapproval), and you aren't gonna reach Matt & Trey, or Comedy Central, or sponsors, or anyone else who might conceivably give a shit, by posting here. This is a public forum, not a route to the writers or programming people, and not a support group for the fragile.
Only when chasing someone who's speaking in circles.
Talk about putting words in other people's mouths. I said salted wounds are par for the course. I never said they were an object of desire, and I'd say it's you who's the sicko for implying it.
Okay, Kreskin, you have just made a prediction. Wake me if it comes true, arright? I fully expect plenty more episodes that will be *more* bizarre, *more* envelope-pushing, than the last one, and by your logic these will be the undoing of Matt & Trey. I'm off this ferris wheel. If you want the last word on *this* thread, take it. There's no new SP for a while and no intelligent life on the other side of this discussion. I've got stuff to do.
Mark
Alright. There's no cause for an official complaint yet, but it was in response to your repeated (false) claims that I am trying to set the ultimate limits to South Park's content. Besides, expressing myself to and exchanging ideas with the public in a forum such as this is never a bad thing as long as there are those who are willing to reason.
Pot-kettle-black. I guess we can play the finger-pointing game back-and-forth forever.
Alright, you caught me just this once--guilty of playing *your* game.
For a guy who fusses so much about semantics and word definitions, I find it very strange that you interpret the above as a "prediction". Do look up the word "possibility" in your beloved dictionary, okay?
Consider the above statement mutual. I don't exactly consider your repeatedly refuted false insinuations and accusations, and your grudge-driven attacks to be the work of genius either. Agreeing to disagree?
God Dammit! I got away for a couple days and come back to this? Is Mark Tangard doing his Andy Kaufman imitation or is this some totally new form of performance art. Accept the fact that incest is a very touchy subject and that some people are uncomfortable. You can love South Park and still empathize with someone who has been abused. You can be revolted by the thought of everyone in the world shitting themselves and still roll on the floor laughing about it. It's not black and white, it's comedy for fuck's sake. Good, edgy comedy does make people uncomfortable; the brilliant stuff makes you laugh and cringe at the same time. I guess SouthPark has become a victim of its own sucess when the anti-PC nazis (and nazis are nazis no matter whose side they're on) won't let anyone question anything about any episode without it being turned into a slander of SouthPark. Grow up, get out in the world, play the brown note really loud and see if it doesn't take care of that headache.
Jeremiah fucking zealots Mark Tangard wrote in message ...
extraordinary
feedback
so
Amen! This has got to be the best and the most well thought-out response in this thread thus far.
It seems what we're dealing with here is a sad case of cult idol worship and not with sane or sensible people when they take all--even the mildest--criticisms about the show and its creators with such deep and personal resentment. And to think that the guy is 46. *sigh*
Sure, but as a commercial program, they do have to set the balance between artistic liberty and commercial interests, and work within the constraints of viewership demand. As a member of that viewership, I too am entitled to open my yapper, express my opinions, and give my share of feedback.
As for enforceable lines, no, I'm not looking for any to be drawn. I want M&T's judgement to take care of that.
Heh my aunt had a dead twin in her back...I find that an interesting ice breaker in SP chatrooms or palaces =)
Well,if that minor infractions makes one a sociopath, count me as one too I guess.
Goddam, get off your high horse, dude. GOTCHA!
I am old enogh to drink cup after cup of this here grog 'cause I am one of Cap'n Pissgum's Pervert Pirates, and Columbine is ripe for the pickin'! Fuckin asshole parents is why. "My, Johnny, what a cute little pipe bomb!"
Bill K. whined:
Oooh, ran out of logic so fast and now it's ad hominem personal attack time. I'm 46. Anymore stupid questions?
Actually, it was an honest question. I shudder at your response.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
He's right, you are pathetic. This is kinda fun.
You have so little of an idea of what other people are like that this surprises you???
Well now, hold on, maybe he really is new to this, so give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's really never met anyone who's been really FUCKED UP at one point in their life and learned to channel it. (Which is a lot more effective than "dealing with it.")
In article , "D.G. Porter" wrote:
Okay, okay, but that's not as fun.
All right, let me just clear the air here!
What I meant was that I shudder at the actual answer he gave (that being his age of 46), and not the way that he responded. You know, as in:
I shudder to think that at the age of 46, he would be making statements like "Oooooh! Moral obligation, basic human principles..." like some unruly rowdy wannabe teenager.
and
I shudder to think that at the age of 46, he sees nothing wrong with episodes making fun of tragedies like the Columbine massacre.
Anyways, after having overcome the embarassment of my fuck-up, and the ensuing misunderstanding, I hope I have finally made myself clear.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
I must have missed the misunderstanding. I'm 35, if that matters, and I don't think it does. Some people become ossified with age. Make that "most people" etc.. Does that mean they have to get boring and rigid? SP is a way to break out of that kind of thinking, because they force us to look at things differently. Refusing to try that, read: getting offended, is just a sign of lack of flexibility, and should be watched out for.
Have they offended me? Yes. What of it? Did they ask my permission? No. Should they have to ask my permission? No again. So I tried listening and I like to think that I "got it", because I find myself able to laugh anyway.
You have the same choices as everyone else: grow/learn/flex and live, or fail to and die right there, in effect.
Bill K. wrote in message news:[email]...
this
being
statements
I wanted to thank you for your thoughts, Bill, I wasn't advocating censorship either (I reserve that for the hate groups that Matt and Trey are beginning to resemble). You're right that this is just a little minority usenet Number One Fan group... Matt and Trey will either leave a brilliant legacy of Dada-like irreverence and satire -- or they won't, drowning in their own increasingly no-win mind fuck while defeating their own purpose character by character -- resembling more what they claim to skewer than the brilliantly redemptive mind fucks that won them (Python, etc.) fans like me to begin with.
Later and thanks, Bill, not to worry, enjoy...
M.
Marklar wrote:
Hm, actually that's right, you weren't. You were suggesting something far more threatening -- the idea that you have the absolute right to know the Matt's and Trey's sexual specifications, simply because they produce a TV show you can receive. The issue of censorship is quite separate from the right to privacy, and your perverse focus on the latter is why your posts have provoked mainly snorting, disbelieving replies.
(I'd looooove to see what would happen if you ever landed a job as a corporate personnel officer. ["So, Mr. McPoodle, you want to be an accountant here? OK then. Well, your references all check out, but how big is your penis?"] Human rights attorneys would *adore* you -- you'd be a freakin gold mine for them until your employer canned you.)
Suuuuuure. And we ALL know that there's NOBODY working in television today who'd want to experience the kind of "no-win" results that Matt & Trey are providing for Comedy Central. Goodness no, that would be just *horrible*.
Plenty of people come & go on this newsgroup who shudder at their own shadows. Your consistently overwrought reactions and mock-somber tone are not especially noteworthy.
As another 46-year old, I ownder if we are seeing ageneration gap here. I'm not sure if it's Bill, but I do know someone in his 50s watches and posts here. Could be a world of difference being born in the '40s (a really sad and lame decade, except for WC Fields movies) and the '50s (alomst as lame except for some cool R&B).
"D.G. Porter" wrote:
A generation gap is possible, but I tend to think it's more basic than that. More likely it's the "Internet gap" -- that chasm that separates the sensible, freedom-conscious majority from the people who have never learned to cope with the real world & who thus retreat indoors to spend huge amounts of their time playing "control freak" online, spewing their off-the-wall harrumphing to an inadvertently amused audience.
The Internet by its very nature holds special appeal to those who do not deal well with the real world, but prefer the instant pulpit that a modem gives them for *addressing* that perceived real world -- erroneously believing that having their perverse views more widely disseminated makes them matter more. That's why we so often trip over usually-young-&-naive "ministers" of one sort or another -- people who clueless puke hellfire into the void, then respond with absolute pearl-clutching shock when told where to stick it.
These folks are not usually *heard* much in the forums of the real world, (e.g., newspaper letters columns) which tend to ignore their often-heavy correspondence streams. So they perceive that owning a modem gives them the long-awaited power to be heard. But since they're unaccustomed to that power, they're also unaccustomed to (and freaked out by) the notion that others can freely dispute what they say.
It's an insanely selfish outlook, but I think that's what does it. And it certainly does serve to entertain the rest of us during slow periods.
Hell Bill, quit being such a damn wuss and shudder at things that are meant to evoke a shudder, like the bass drum notes in the Finale of Mahler's Tenth!
(snip)
change the channel/press OFF. You're not the ranking censor, so please let this go.
Bill Lynch
material,
waive
keep the
they
we,
Who are you to tell me where I should put my boundaries? If South Park has gone too far for you, perhaps you should start watching Pok�mon. (Which, btw, I happen to believe is more evil than SP...but you probably disagree.)
Hmmmm -- re Columbine, suddenly I have this image of Conan O'Brien landing on a car, and all the owner does is kill his alarm. Oooooo, bad taste! Didn't notic the dead splattified bod! Myself, I'd love to see them take that one on. Fucking idiot parents with too much money to notice that thier home life was in ruins, can't even notice the pipe bombs inthe basement. Yep, just like the parent who decries obscenity in media while missing the gratuitous violence.
Sorry, but unless you've been close to the situation, you in no position -- prone, bendover, close near, almost, mightabeen -- to judge. If that wasn't enough (whichit is), this petulant piece of whine sounds like Mr. garrison and deserves to have his ass rubbed in queep.
Well, if Conan really did die in a similar manner in real life prior to the movie, on which they based this, that would be another matter altogether.
Okay, I think we can agree that there should be justice instead of reckless cruelty in their humour, and it's the guilty parties that they should pick on.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
Define "basic human principles". But do it somewhere else.
Oh boy...I got into a convo about this whole Columbine thing earlier today...and I was on the board for it when the horridly senseless aol made a board for the shootings (Actually they made 7 boards...how bad is that?) Truthfully, they use this sickish humour to prove a point, and it works...until people come around and say that they get offended. If you let yourself get offended, you totally miss the point. Truthfully I think the Columbine thing was totally stupid. I mean seriously. I wanted to shoot up my high school when I was younger, and you know why I didn't do it? Because I knew what happened with these kids would happen to me! No one woulda cared that the reason I woulda done it was the fact that I got treated badly day in and day out, but they would focus on the fact that the pretty people got hurt! oh no! Sorry, I'll end my rant now!
(snip)
Here's the real generation gap (maybe two?). I think I'm the person in his 50's who DGPorter mentioned earlier. It never occurred to me to shoot up my high school when I was there & I never heard any of my friends say he'd like to, either. Maybe we just lacked imagination. (glad you didn't shoot up your HS)
Bill (generation A") Lynch
I'm glad I didn't either cause Karma kicked in something fierce with my graduating class of tormentors! =)
We found ways of dealing with this stuff without guns, and it was a lot more fun! Besides the common prank of putting a combination lock on someone else's locker... Imagine ... you open your locker to retrievce the report you have to give in the next class... Where's my notebook??? ...??? It's hung up top of my locker on the coathooks! AND IT'S BEEN CRIMPED!!!! Imagine ... you're a member of the faculty in a meeting room. Meeting's over, try to leave ... can't get the door open! SOMEONE BENT THE HINGE OUTSIDE IN THE HALLWAY! Imagine ... you have to open the classroom door ... SOMEONE BROKE A PENCIL LEAD OFF IN THE LOCK! Imagine ... the Driver's Ed teacher takes the VW Bug fo a spin, and it stops a half-block away, the dirt cast into in the carbuerator having done its work... Imagine ... this kid phones in a bomb threat before 1st class and detonates an M-80 in a locker at lunchtime... The momentum builds! And that's about as far as it got too. The guy who did all this got busted!
Heh I was too cowed in high school to be creative. That's why I'm glad I moved, I don't have to BE someone for people here, I can start over and be as insane as I was meant to be =D
any limit put on humor is pretty fascist to me.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
nerve???
show in
Marklar and
screen
"ANYONE"
at
and
to anyone
material,
waive
the
I'm sure that FCC is also lurking there somewhere over CC... there are no basic human principles respected with any form of censorship, only violated.
the
par for
from the
I'm sure you realize that the whole concept of "Sexual Abuse" is a relatively new invention started by hysterical people, much like the witch trials. What we call "Sexual Abuse" was considered standard and normal behavior less than half a century ago, so there is nothing sick about it. Not only that, but you look like a monkey still, after all those years of evolution. And you still think like one.
we all had some sexual relations we'd rather forget or would wish never happened. Making a fetish out of them would be a disease, don't you think?
[email] wrote:
Actually, I was talking about direct personal attacks among the people here.
I think we're talking about those involving immediate family members, which is pretty fucked up, even among monkeys.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
poooor
joking
the
and
after
never
from the point of view of modern western civilization, yes. From other points of view, no.
[email] wrote:
It's a matter of biological instinct, not western culture. The revulsion to incest is nature's mechanism designed to prevent the disastrous effects of inbreeding.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
You're a biologist, or behavoiral scientist?
I think it is well-known that animals observed in the wild do not commit incest under normal conditions.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
Then you'd be wrong. Would you like to try again?
I read most of the posts regarding the recent South Park episode on incest. I just have to say that I found it disturbing. Mind you, I love South Park and Matt & Trey are a couple funny SOB's! I just think they went to far. It wasn't even remotely funny...so what's the point? Why even go there?! Just my opinion. I heard South Parks days are numbered? Indeed a loss.
Howard S Shubs wrote in message news:[email]...
They should have just stuck with the "brown note" and "weird names to call new yorkers" storylines and dropped the sub-plot.
My thoughts EXACTLY.
The brown note plot was absolutely brilliant, one of the best ever, but the garrison sub-plot soured the whole ep for me.
In article , "TheHut" wrote:
but the
call
is that south park you guys are watching?!
cause i think the show is perfect. there is nothing that should or can be changed about any one episode; each episode is an example of absolute perfection, changing anything, even slightly would ruin it.
i hate you guys so very much.
Counterexamples please, apart from cases involving a severe shortage of mates and a few Garrison equivalents.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
Dogs, cats, other mammals. Fish. Actually, I'd appreciate an example of where your statement is -true-, since it's false so often.
A few points:
- Domesticated pets, like the examples you give above, confined to the same house hardly live in situations that can be considered normal and natural. Given a choice, Fido, in all likelihood, would rather mount one of the other bitches in the neighbourhood than his own sister.
- All species of mammals that I know of normally leave the brood to seek mates when they reach sexual maturity, instead of choosing mates within. They seem to avoid choosing those they grew up with as sexual partners. This I know from watching enough wildlife documentaries over my lifetime.
- As with humans, there may be exceptions to the rule, but as mentioned, they are the *exceptions* and not the norm, otherwise they would produce fucked-up, inbred offspring all over.
Please rethink your own statements over more thoroughly before attacking the truthfulness of others'.
(snip)
"Fido" doesn't know his sister from a fence post. If he smells a female in heat, he's ready to go. Dogs & cats live in the wild, too. Most cats are solitary. A female would never know who her father was and a male might remember his mother by scent, but I doubt he'd know his sisters. Same for bears, polar & otherwise.
Are you going by some Disney cartoon here? Many species don't choose mates. A female comes into estrus and attracts males. No dinner or meeting her parents first. "All" species? I don't think you were paying attention. What about pack animals, e.g., dogs & hyenas? Finally, are you changing the discussion from animals to mammals?
Bill Lynch
They know which ones they were reared in the same litter with, and this conditions them from having sex with each other. If they were separated at an early age, or if they never saw each other, that's a different matter. Same applies to humans. It's not perfect, but the actual occurances of incestuous reproduction is nonetheless reduced.
The taboo topic of incest is very rarely ever discussed by parents, in sex ed classes, nor in popular media. This lack of guidance doesn't cause brothers and sisters everywhere to have sex once their sexual instincts take over. Being raised together causes a natural avoidance.
If the packs inbred, they would weaken and self-destruct after a few generations.
Geez, don't nitpick. I think we can limit our discussion to those species reasonably close to ourselves when making comparisons. In any case, nature has devised a way to prevent or minimize inbreeding even in the more primitive lifeforms.
(snip)
I'm trying to go by your earlier post:
I think it is well-known that animals observed in the wild do not commit incest under normal conditions.
Bill Lynch
In article , [email] wrote:
Proof required from you, too. References.
That's Bill K's quote. Came out wrong. I've taken the con.
Bill L
Alright. What more can I say than that my statement was flawed and not specific enough? But I do still maintain that most animal species, particularly those closest to humans, do have some behavioural restrictions preventing them from indiscriminately having sex with those they've been brought up with as "family".
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
I'll believe that provisionally.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
Proof required. References. If you can't come up with them, accept that your argument falls apart and don't reply.
No, it's not at all a different matter. You said it's instinct.
Why can you do it, then? Your argument either holds together or it doesn't. Period, end of discussion. Move along people, there's nothing to see here (ObSouthPark).
Sure, it's called "non-viability". Then again, I just saw parts of a show on cable about a pair of sisters, inseperably joined at the head. I'd call that "non-viable", but mainly from a reproductive standpoint. OTOH, if they were male and female, do you seriously think they wouldn't have committed incest as pubescent kids?
Yes, it's the instinct of not shagging those they were brought up by and with that effectively serves as a prevention against incest. Sorry I didn't explain it better.
I doubt they would have, unless they felt they had no chance of getting any other sexual partners. You know the old saying about "kissing your sister".
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
Since I don't have a sister, I can't speak to that, really. Kissing my -mother-, I can speak to.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about domesticated animals. I said, "dogs, cats, other mammals. Fish.". Just because some individuals of what I mentioned happen to be domesticated doesn't have much to do with other individuals, such as barn cats, which mate and don't keep track of who "daddy" or "mommy" is. They don't -know- who "daddy" is, and I doubt they -care- about keeping away from "mommy" during her periods in heat.
So what you're saying is that you can't think of an example where your statement is correct. You can't tell the difference between cultural conditioning and instinct.
Howard S Shubs wrote in message ...
to
track
doubt
Speaking from personal experience, with literally dozens of farm cats, I never saw siblings or offspring mate. One of the first males from the big momma cat became *the* Tom for 5 miles in either direction but certainly was never around when mom or one of his siblings was in heat. I wouldn't be suprised if he did mate with a sibling from a different litter that we gave to one neighbor or another, but I have nothing to indicate that.
I'm pretty sure he knew who Mom was because he would come hang out everytime he got cut up in a fight or the temp would drop below 0F.
Let's think about this from another point of view. Incest leads to a concentration of genetic traits, some of which negatively affect survival. Animals that breed among family members will generally die out, animals that don't are less likely to die out. Eventually you end up with animals that are genetically conditioned not to breed with family. Animals that are being returned from the brink of extinction often have huge problems due to genetic defects caused by too small a gene pool, defects that generally are not seen in the wild. If critter incest were rampant, I would expect we'd see a lot more of it (or more dead critters with 3 eyes and an Arkansas Pride tag).
Jeremiah standin for Mephisto while he probes Kevin
In article , "Jeremiah Kristal" wrote:
Interesting.
I never said it was -productive-, just that it -happens-. He claimed that it doesn't -happen-.
I guess you guys did'nt catch the nature show about this certin species of monkey? I refferred to 'em as "fuck monkeys" cause thats all the damn things did, almost never did it for procreation, but there sure was incest going on (and a whole lot of fucking in general). Easily the most bizzare group of animals I have ever seen.
While I'm on this fupped topic anyway, male cats can (and do) impregnate their daughters, but not their mothers. So I guess it *can* be reproductive, but I think that is the exception and not the rule. Sure does happen though.
Later
(snipped)
First thing I thought of, the Bonabos (sp?). Apparently it's orgy time 24x7, including same sex.
Bill L
Bill Lynch wrote in message ...
Gotta love them horny pygmy chimps. The funny think about Bonobos is the strong correlation between Bonobo websites and transsexual/transgender websites. Let's just say that with the right combination of drugs and hangover, you notice some strange trends if you follow all the links off of generally normal webpages.
Jeremiah
(snip)
Thanks, but I'm trying to cut down:-) I have a recurring mental picture of the male Bonabos sword fighting.
Bill Lynch
I think you mean the Bonobo chimpanzee, where sex is used instead of aggression in the sorting out of hierarchical structure. See here.
http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html
And if it's any consolation for Bill K it's actually not uncommon at all for what we would consider incestuous sex to occur within the animal kingdom, genetic conservancy or no. This works on the grounds "better be genetically conserved for one generation than not transfer any genes at all". I think you may be getting mixed up with the oft touted "incest is the only universal taboo in human culture" which as the Greeks and Egyptian histories will show you, wasn't true either. Paul
Wasn't that actually a special priviledge reserved for royalty, to keep the royal blood "pure"? And we know just how fudged-up they tend to be.
Yup, those would be the "fuck monkeys", now if I can just get "FM" outta my head and remember "Bonobo" I'll be all set. :)
Aggession does happen though between the Bonobos, but they allways "kiss and make up". They sure are less aggressive then most primates, but I think most animals in general would be more mellow if they were "getting some" every 10min. 8)
Later
(snip)
I'll bet mostly they're too tired to be very agressive:-)
Bill L
And just how many dinnertable discussions do you have with little 11-year-old Johnny just entering puberty not to bonk his little sister? How many TV shows does he watch that go into the topic? Or does he talk about it with his friends? Some cultural conditioning.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
Wouldn't know about either of those. I have no kids, had no sisters, and don't watch much TV. Incest is probably still too racy a topic for standard TV fare, anyway.
TWIAVBP* In the UK we have had the issue raised on a couple of occasions in evening soap operas upstream of the watershed at 9 O'clock. I'd be damn surprised if this wern't true of other european countries as well.
Paul
*The world is a very big place
(snip)
Probably not too many direct dinnertime conversations, but he notices that his father & other fathers don't diddle their daughters (this has regional implications <g>). If the topic of incest comes up, he hears adults say how disgusting it is & how could anyone do such a thing, etc. He might peek at his sister or play doctor with her, then get severely punished and told never to do that again. I think there's a lot of conditioning going on here.
Bill Lynch
How about animals which lay eggs & leave them? Fish, reptiles, etc. You certainly can't rule it out. Dogs & cats don't mate for life & the females mate multiple times when in estrus, I know of cases in which a male dog has sired puppies by his mother. IIRC it's possible with some of the cetaceans.
Bill Lynch
I don't know what the criteria are for fish to choose spawning partners, if there are any, but I think it's really just a matter of the likelihood of a pair of fish being closely related being naturally low.
I don't know about the cetaceans, but I think your dog example is likely the result of artificial confinement by humans.
Having an incest taboo has nothing to do with odds, if they don't, they don't. The odds for most creatures born under these conditions is to be eaten. Very few make it to adulthood. Plus, they never saw either parent.
Bill Lynch
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
That's a real stretch.
In article , "Bill K." wrote:
commit
well known by whom? which animals? what are the normal conditions?
In article , [email] wrote:
We've already argued this to death. Check out the rest of the thread before you continue.
[email] wrote:
(snip)
In spades!
You're way off base here if you mean incest, whether it means Uncle Ernie fiddling about or a father having sex with his child. That's a taboo going back thousands of years - still not a good idea. What was Oedipus's big crime?
Bill Lynch
Way to tell 'em, DG! Who cares about kids and South Park? They're not suppose to be watching it, anyway. Parents who let them are irresponsible, in my opinion. After all, South Park is an adult- oriented show, not a kiddie cartoon.
I remember VERY WELL what it was like to be 8 years old and in 3rd grade. DAMN! It was an Episcopalian parochial school, and we were the raunchiest fuckers you ever met! Poop jokes were a constant.
Maybe by 5th grade kids are ready for South Park, but only if the parent is someone who can talk about these subjects without the kind of hangups we're seeing in reaction to this last episode. I remember being in 5th grade, same school, and we were already vying for "Matt and Trey"-level humor.
(snip)
That's what the OFF button is for. Any possibility this episode stepped on someone's toes?
Bill Lynch
Well I think he ought to ask Mr. Hat!
In article , "D.G. Porter" wrote:
I don't -want- to ask Mr. Hat. I'm asking -you-!
"No, I think you better ask Mr Hayat."
In article , "Marklar" wrote:
if the answer was "yes", this "marklar" would think, "yeah, that figures". If "no", then he is back to his own "wits end".
Marklar wrote:
This was not a "special" episode, and I can't imagine how you believe you were "tricked" into seeing it. But if, as you imply, you are concerned about what your children watch (a laudable stance today when so many parents want to abdicate their responsibilities) then it would be smart to *preview* shows like South Park yourself and then decide whether your kids should see them.
Then again, if you're the kind of person who claims you were "tricked" into watching this program, then I fear for your children in general, in that whatever wisdom you might try to impart to them could be tainted by your own obvious personal deficiencies...not to mention your archaic prejudices. (I'd love to have heard what would probably have been your forehead-vein-splitting review of Episode 104.)
Newsflash: These are TV writers, not congressmen. You have no more right to inform yourself about their private lives than they do to butt into yours. You're just blowing smoke here, and you probably know it.
Don't hold your breath, poopsie.
Paul M. Gonzales
Shouldnt that be "As a marklar marklar marklar with marklar,i dont like being marklared into marklaring a "marklar" marklar about a marklar marklar marklar marklar"? Just trying to interject some humor into this thread<G>.
One thing you would have learned, if you had any sense of perspective, is that South Park does its best to offend *everyone*. If you haven't found yourself or one of your passions to be the butt of a South Park joke at some point, you probably have a very boring and passionless life. Only the most tedious people take such grand purple offense at the satire in South Park.
If you have been a fan for "several months," you've seen only a small portion of the series, which now numbers 48 full-length episodes plus a handful of equally nasty shorts, aired over nearly 2.5 years. Most of the episodes are far more intense than the few you have seen. I'd suggest you stop watching right now before your fragile sensibilities get blown to pieces.
Or don't. Do you think anybody gives a damn if one screeching, whining, wrinklefaced twit loudly announces he/she isn't gonna watch anymore?
Ooooh, are we bitter? Wanna tell us how much YOU weigh? If one little satirical caricature like this throws you into such a snit, it says a lot more about you than about anyone else.
Lame attacks like this are the usual desperate last resort of someone who has no legitimate complaint and is too dull to articulate a more specific criticism.
You sound like a pretty obtuse humorless Marklar to me, Mark, and so do the other Marklars posting such fanatic loyalty -- if you think someone who became an addicted fan doesn't understand all this -- having seen more than just this season -- and more.
Um, they're not getting better, they're systematically painting themselves into a corner -- idiot, disturbed adult character by character -- until all they can do is continue to shit all over themselves, mmmkay?
They announced last night that all they intend to do is shit all over themselves and YOU, character by character, mmmkay?
No doubt they're laughing their fat asses off all the way to the bank.
Marklar
Mark Tangard wrote in message news:[email]...
whining,
little
who
specific
----------------------------------
Waters
---
Marklar wrote:
I congratulate their success and am happy to assist in it. But here's a question for you: Why do you evince such an extraordinary focus on the creators' body weight? If you knew much about them ("whoever they are"), you would know they both have definite ectomorphic body types. And for a presumed heterosexual, you ask a lotta questions about their asses.
Yehright. If you think YOU'RE coming off as anything other than "humorless" just by lamely sprinkling your dreary, repressive thoughts with catchphrases from the show, then you'll never learn anything here, nor are you likely to satisfy your craving for retribution. (Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but it's often also one of the dumbest and least effective.)
Your longfaced lecturing is neither edifying nor entertaining. Again, I pity any children raised under your stiflingly blankheaded supervision.
Loyalty has nothing to do with it. Intelligence does. You wouldn't know.
a
the
are"),
for
"humorless"
catchphrases
likely to
form
effective.)
I
supervision.
know.
----------------------------------
Waters
---
Well, thank you for sharing that, Mark-lar -- but, sorry, I draw the line at talking poo. (What in these posts would make you think I'm a man, do you think, you gay bastard fat ass cheesy poof? The Mark-lar doth protest too much, methinks.)
Marklar
How nice for you. Other people draw their lines elsewhere. Nobody is obligated to toe YOUR line. That's the point. If you understood the real principle of free speech, you wouldn't need these explanations.
Nothing in particular. If you'll notice I almost always used neutral or inclusive pronouns, the casual ref as "this guy" notwithstanding. I don't care what your genital configuration is. But we know full well YOU don't really care what sex any of us thinks you are either, or you would have chosen a less ambiguous username. You're just grandstanding (again), and feigning injury where there is none. You know nothing about the creators of South Park yet you have already decided they're gay and evil and out to eat your children. Don't flatter yourself into thinking anyone here takes you seriously?
My my, do your precious children hear you talk this way, or do you only use it here, where you send your immature, anonymous bleatings into the void?
The Marklar is the only one protesting. The rest of us don't care what you think. We're just playing rhetorical volleyball with your brain.
Give it up, Mark-lar, this *is* free speech with a sense of humor and you are the one who is being tolerated.
Later, dude.
Marklar
Marklar wrote:
Now *that's* funny. You haven't spoken a single humorous word since you oozed in here -- until this latest inadvertent success above.
Having been subscribed to this newsgroup off & on since its inception in the fall of 1997 (before you even knew South Park existed) I've seen trolls and whiners and idiots and moralistic bitches of all stripes. And they almost ALWAYS try this ridiculous tactic after they've shot their meager wads. It's pathetically predictable when they just baselessly proclaim their own superiority and righteousness, hoping we'll quiver at the notion that THEY are "tolerating" US.
This is indeed free speech. It's free because YOU do not have the power to suppress it, as you very clearly wish you could.
Cool things to try: Polishing a turd. Drawing a line at talking poo with talking poo. Putting Mr. Hankey in your mouth and saying, "Heidy-ho-ho, yum yum yum."
Mark Tangard wrote:
True. And this game is really strange, because the ball is so tiny. ;)
Let's recap a bit here.
Marklar (or Mizz Marklar if you prefer): You want South Park, a show that airs at 10:00pm, to be sanitized for your (supposed) kids. (This assumes you really are old enough to breed, which, frankly, gets more doubtful each time you post.) You don't care to permit artistic freedom if it happens to rub you the wrong way. You think your own personal standards of okayness should apply to all TV. You draw lines and TV writers should toe them, or else you'll....... um........ um........ you'll write more dumb posts, I guess.
You also want to know all about the private sexual habits of the people who created South Park. You think this is your right because......uh, well, we don't KNOW why you think it's your right, but you do.
You call people names with an emphasis on their asses and supposed fatness, but you do it with such a lack of panache that one might easily conclude that you yourself are obese (especially since you took such offense at the Sally Struthers portrayal). Finally, if you really are a parent, you're too lazy to concern yourself with the content of your kids' TV viewing, except after the fact (or in apparently wishing that TV writers would consult you first so as to avoid provoking your innate neuroses).
You don't sound like somebody who matters. I'm gonna killfile you now.
Oh, I almost forgot: You've seen several months' worth of South Park and are just now incensed that the latest episode isn't as tame as those you have already seen. You may or may not know that earlier episodes have dealt with themes like diarrhea, feline group sexuality, disfiguring birth defects, homoerotic images of Satan, male masturbation, an elephant having sex with a pig, and chicken-fucking. Yet the show continues to win loud viewer acclaim and increasing ratings.
So much for the effect of you "drawing your lines."
PLONK!
Paul M. Gonzales
(snip)
The fact that you have a dick.
Bill Lynch
William Lynch wrote in message news:[email]...
Wow, thanks!
Marklar
Tsk. Didn't momma ever tell you never to post when you're drunk?
I think a goal of Matt & Trey w/ SP is to leave no sacred cow or taboo alone.
I also think this is a major reason why they will stop making the show after 27 more episodes or whatever and another movie. By that time, there will be nothing left unviolated. Princess Di, JFK Jr., Hitler, Satan, necrophilia, vaginal expulsions of gas, cannabilism, the list goes on and on. Now we can add sexual molestation. It must be a major challenge to come up with new things to corrupt every episode, and they are geniuses for being able to do it (and get away with it)!
And in case you can't tell, I support their efforts.
Now..after seeing the episode last night, I have to wonder...what taboo will they tackle next. Whoever protests this show , obviously does not get it and never will. Okay, so the series will end after next season...big deal. As long as the movies are being produced (I wouldnt be surprised if we see South Park specials on Comedy Central after the series ends) we will be satisfied. "Bao H. Lammy" wrote in message news:KCvf4.1103$[email]...
taboo will
Well, you started this thread, but you're wrong, Brian. Lots of people "get it" -- but aren't kids who deify or idealize Matt and Trey as infallible leaders of irreverence and satire who are above criticism and *never* cross the line of their own self-appointed, carte blanche, trickster authoritah. So be it, the warnings are there for anyone who finally agrees that no one should be watching them.
M.
Now..after seeing the episode last night, I have to wonder...what taboo will they tackle next. Whoever protests this show , obviously does not get it and never will. Okay, so the series will end after next season...big deal. As long as the movies are being produced (I wouldnt be surprised if we see South Park specials on Comedy Central after the series ends) we will be satisfied. "Bao H. Lammy" wrote in message news:KCvf4.1103$[email]...
taboo will
get it and
deal. As
see
be
Well, school shootings have been joked about in some TV show recently, so it's not a stretch for SP to do the same, but more extreme. However, I don't think they'll do it -- not out of fear of offending someone, but because it's kind of old news now. People have made their own jokes about it. But those guys are pretty creative. Here are some topics that would offend tons of people, and I do not necessarily think Matt & Trey will tackle them or should, but if they do, I'm sure they'll make it funny and have a decent social message as well:
Jon Benet Ramsey Kiddie porn Holocaust & genocide in general AIDS
taboo
show
time,
Hitler,
list
major
Officer Barbrady thinks Shelly's been murdered and ends up killing both of Stan's parents in a mistaken identity situation. (Meteor shower party scenaio??)
I thought they were getting close to this when Wendy (apparently) gronked out a fetus Jesus (only Garrison would think of this for a school play!). There's Kyle, looking straight at her woozler...
Skinheads and revisionsts maybe. Kyle's dad casts of his jarmulka and shaves his head ...
Has to be someone who thinks AIDS is a badge of honor an then is disappointed. Like Beavis, who drank a whole bunch of "Tayokeptate" to gibe himself diarrhea, and then never got diarrhea, but did poop a giant brick.
MARKLAR YOUR FUCKING MARKLAR, YOU MARKLAR-MARKLAR.
You should try the first season mate. Or the second. THat's then South Park truly shined.
Check out the all new Totalsouthpark TALK message board! http://server3.ezboard.com/btotalsouthparkmessageboard91994
Best Wishes,
Millasur ~ Total South Park Webmaster http://www.totalsouthpark.com - Your #1 for South Park on the Net!
That's good, m'kay?
Sorry to hear that, but you should've known what you were getting into when you decided to watch the show. Rainforest Schmainforest was a wonderful episode, but you realize that in the end, they could care less about the rainforest. A fat Sally Struthers could be a hateful take, but it was definitely a stab at rich Hollywood actors asking the common folk to help feed the Ethiopians while the actors themselves go and dine away on expensive dishes. It is also a stab at organizations who send most of the aid to themselves.
They are not. But then, they do fool around quite a bit, don't they?
In article , "Brian" wrote:
How is that different from any other episode?
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 01:12:39 -0600, Howard S Shubs wrote:
Yeah... I thought last night's episode was pretty tame compared to most of the others. Everyone in the world crapped their pants... big deal.
----- Lone Wolf And so ends another episode of trailer park theatre.
"No ticket." - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade/Dogma
"No cake for the impuritor." - Moses, South Park
In article , [email] (Lone Wolf) wrote:
At least it made me laugh. Most of the recent eps haven't managed to do that. Either they've been too bland or just not in that stellar "oh SHIT!" range. Almost needless to say, this most recent ep did "oh SHIT!" just fine. <grin>