# South Park episode pulled after complaints



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

Seems that this is a rare thing for Comedy Central to do.

Story from E! (Warning: some possible NSFW text in there)



> Did Comedy Central grant the Catholic League its Christmas wish?
> 
> Following the Dec. 7 season finale of South Park, titled "Bloody Mary," the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights slammed the network for its irreverent portrayal of church icons and sought to block the episode from being rebroadcast.
> 
> ...


Has this ever happened before? Like South Park actually getting an episode pulled?


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Yeah, that's weird. Of course, it will only make the episode more popular! I know I need to see it now


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

wasn't it on last night


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

It was pretty bad, well if you are very religous. I'm not that often offended, but I could see how some people would be. 

I still am one who thinks if you don't like it turn it off. Don't tell others what they can/can't watch.


----------



## Satchel (Dec 8, 2001)

I turned it off...the turning point for me was the bleeding statue of the Virgin Mary...she was bleeding from her...well, um...rear end...

that was over the line for me...


----------



## edhara (Feb 18, 2002)

Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do that"
Doctor: "Well, don't do that, then"

If you find the show offensive, don't watch it.

Southpark is a show that people KNOW is offensive to begin with. Why should anyone be shocked?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

oh, that episode. The one where Stan's Dad goes to AA.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

That was a great episode. I wasn't offended even a little. Stan's dad saying he needed a miracle cure to get over the "disease" alcoholism was great.


----------



## JohnJr (May 23, 2000)

It was a great episode.

The animal christmas episode always grosses (sp?) me out a lot more.



-John


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

Sounds like I need to head over to BitTorrent...


----------



## Spire (Jun 6, 2001)

timr_42 said:


> It was pretty bad, well if you are very religous.


You mean Catholic. Many religious people aren't Catholic. (I guess they rack disciprine.)


----------



## choccy (Jan 1, 2001)

I'm not an avid watcher, although I do like to catch an episode once in a while (and the movie - top 5 of all time :up: ), so I missed this episode.

Now, I wan to watch it more than ever!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

have not watched South Park in a long while

but please - they started Christams episodes with Santa battling terrorists and then Jesus with Brian Boytono saving the day. Where could it go from there


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

All the more reason to watch South Park.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

South Park hasn't been my cup of tea since the second season. This sounds offensive and nasty, but if you want to watch, knock yourself out.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

That episode ROCKED. They made fun of the tards who see Mary in their trees, clouds, and toilets.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

JohnJr said:


> The animal christmas episode always grosses (sp?) me out a lot more.


I love 'A Woodland Critter Christmas'. That has to be one of my all-time favorites. The mountain lion cubs montage about learning how to perform abortions has me in tears every time I see it. I've got to look at the listings to see if it's going to be on again soon.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Glad I already TTG'ed it


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

> originally posted by *Jesda*
> That episode ROCKED. They made fun of the tards who see Mary in their trees, clouds, and toilets.


I fully encourage making fun of religious fanatics, I'm just not a fan of South Park's scorched earth way of doing so anymore.


----------



## lee espinoza (Aug 21, 2002)

Satchel said:


> I turned it off...the turning point for me was the bleeding statue of the Virgin Mary...she was bleeding from her...well, um...rear end...
> 
> that was over the line for me...


Same here

:down: :down: :down: for South park on this ep :down: :down: :down:


----------



## heyitscory (Apr 6, 2004)

Oh, why would Comedy Central do that? People who are offended by South Park don't WATCH South Park. 

Clearly they racka disaprin.


----------



## edhara (Feb 18, 2002)

heyitscory said:


> People who are offended by South Park don't WATCH South Park.


Yep. I personally find the show offensive and distasteful, so I don't watch it. I wouldn't want to have Comedy Central pull it based on the fact that *I* don't like it.


----------



## Artfreak (May 19, 2005)

heyitscory said:


> Clearly they racka disaprin.


Coffee spewing moment - thanks.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I love the way people watch a show because it's always offensive and distatasteful but then get all upset over something they find offensive and distasteful.

Friggin' Americans.


----------



## knownzero (Feb 26, 2001)

Spire said:


> You mean Catholic. Many religious people aren't Catholic. (I guess they rack disciprine.)


One billion Catholics out of the 2.1 billion that call themselves Christian and 6 billion people (give or take) in total worldwide, why that's not many at all! 

Wikipedia entry on Catholics


----------



## lee espinoza (Aug 21, 2002)

dswallow said:


> I love the way people watch a show because it's always offensive and distatasteful but then get all upset over something they find offensive and distasteful.
> 
> Friggin' Americans.


there has to be a line and "I" think this was over it.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

knownzero said:


> One billion Catholics out of the 2.1 billion that call themselves Christian and 6 billion people (give or take) in total worldwide, why that's not many at all!
> 
> Wikipedia entry on Catholics


He didn't say that there aren't many catholics. He said that many people aren't catholic. And he's correct. The numbers you quote only help prove his point.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

well that's pretty stupid. They make fun of jews all the time and I don't see any episodes being pulled.

I think they shouldn't have bowed to pressure here.


----------



## lee espinoza (Aug 21, 2002)

Raj said:


> well that's pretty stupid. They make fun of jews all the time and I don't see any episodes being pulled.
> 
> I think they shouldn't have bowed to pressure here.


but they never had a jewish religious icon bleeding out his or her rear end


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

lee espinoza said:


> there has to be a line and "I" think this was over it.


So why is your line better than the line drawn by others?


----------



## lee espinoza (Aug 21, 2002)

dswallow said:


> So why is your line better than the line drawn by others?


I never said I was better than others just saying this was the line for ME.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

lee espinoza said:


> but they never had a jewish religious icon bleeding out his or her rear end


If you'd watched to the end, you'd know that's not what was happening.


----------



## knownzero (Feb 26, 2001)

Mike Farrington said:


> He didn't say that there aren't many catholics. He said that many people aren't catholic. And he's correct. The numbers you quote only help prove his point.


No, he said "Many 'religious' people aren't Catholic", and I posit that with one billion members, discounting the 1.1 billion people that aren't religious worldwide, that makes it roughly 1 in 5 religious people on earth that are Catholic. Seems to me like there are many religious people who are Catholic! Just as there are many religious people who are Hinduist and Islamic (roughly the same membership in each, more Islam, less Hindu maybe). Unless they changed the definition of many: A large number of persons or things, I disagree.


----------



## Rolf (Oct 11, 2003)

knownzero said:


> One billion Catholics out of the 2.1 billion that call themselves Christian and 6 billion people (give or take) in total worldwide, why that's not many at all!
> 
> Wikipedia entry on Catholics


How many of that billion are practicing Catholics? I know a lot of people that call themselves Catholic because they were raised in the church, but no longer follow the religious practices of the church. It seems odd to me, but I'm not a religious person so it's very possible that I just don't understand these things. But I know 'Catholics' that practice Wicca or Buddhism, 'Mormons' that are athiests, and Jews that are born again Christian, but they all still identify with the religion of their youth. Maybe it's more a cultural thing than a faith thing. Either way, it probably doesn't hame much to do with South Park.

I did find that episode to be a bit over the top, but I wasn't offended. I have been offended by other episodes, though, and that's a good thing. Some people like to be scared by horror movies or roller coasters. I like to be offended by extreme comedy. Being offended can teach you a lot about yourself. Finding the limits of your comfort zone helps define your values and beliefs. Also, offensive comedy, when done correctly, is F'ing funny, and that's what makes it worth watching.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Yeah even the Pope figured out that it wasn't her butt!  
Clearly some people's faith isn't strong enough if a cartoon can rattle them so much. I am "offended" by all of the religious networks on TV but I don't ***** to my cable company about them. I simply don't watch them, that's because I have a strong disaprin!


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Rolf said:


> How many of that billion are practicing Catholics? I know a lot of people that call themselves Catholic because they were raised in the church, but no longer follow the religious practices of the church. It seems odd to me, but I'm not a religious person so it's very possible that I just don't understand these things. But I know 'Catholics' that practice Wicca or Buddhism, 'Mormons' that are athiests, and Jews that are born again Christian, but they all still identify with the religion of their youth. Maybe it's more a cultural thing than a faith thing. Either way, it probably doesn't hame much to do with South Park.
> 
> I did find that episode to be a bit over the top, but I wasn't offended. I have been offended by other episodes, though, and that's a good thing. Some people like to be scared by horror movies or roller coasters. I like to be offended by extreme comedy. Being offended can teach you a lot about yourself. Finding the limits of your comfort zone helps define your values and beliefs. Also, offensive comedy, when done correctly, is F'ing funny, and that's what makes it worth watching.


*According to canon law, members are those who have been baptized in or who, after being baptized in another Church, have been received into the Catholic Church on making a profession of faith, and who have not formally renounced membership.*

So that probably means there's really about 10 million active practicing self-identified Catholics worldwide.


----------



## lee espinoza (Aug 21, 2002)

macquariumguy said:


> If you'd watched to the end, you'd know that's not what was happening.


I know the pope said were the blood was originating (and it was not her butt) but that still does not make it right by ME


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Crap I deleted this off of my Tivo. Hopefully I can get it on DVD from a friend at work before the Jeebus Brigade get network smite on.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

lee espinoza said:


> I know the pope said were the blood was originating (and it was not her butt) but that still does not make it right by ME


Well at least that made it a little more right anatomically speaking.

I wonder what Mel Gibson had to say about this? Did he ever say anything after they mocked his snuff film?


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Why would Comedy Central pull the episode? Perhaps the talk of the FCC regulating cable and satellite have them quaking in thier boots.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

This is one of the funnier episodes. OMG, I see the Virgin Mary in my cheerios...

And some are offended they make fun of drunks...

It isn't a disease if you choice to take a drink. Lack of self-control, even mental, isn't a disease.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

knownzero said:


> No, he said "Many 'religious' people aren't Catholic", and I posit that with one billion members, discounting the 1.1 billion people that aren't religious worldwide, that makes it roughly 1 in 5 religious people on earth that are Catholic. Seems to me like there are many religious people who are Catholic! Just as there are many religious people who are Hinduist and Islamic (roughly the same membership in each, more Islam, less Hindu maybe). Unless they changed the definition of many: A large number of persons or things, I disagree.


I do think we have a language barrier here. "Many religious people aren't Catholic" is a true statement, since by your numbers about 4 billion people are not Catholic. So there are many people who are not catholic. There are many people who ARE catholic. There are many people who ARE NOT catholic. Somehow, somewhere, you turned his statement around in your head as "There are not many catholic people". That is never what he said.


----------



## Ingersoll (Jan 15, 2003)

Here's some more detail, definitely NSFW

http://hammeroftruth.com/2005/12/30/war-on-christmas-over-begin-war-on-blasphemy/

Sounds like they are trying to prevent it from being put on the DVD when they get to this season too. 

Mybe they were ticked becasue the day after it aired was the feast of the immaculate conception. Silly rabbits, don't they know blasphemy is a victimless crime?


----------



## askewed (Sep 12, 2000)

Have you ever seen the test show they did? The one George Clooney apparently lugged all over Hollywood showing anyone that would sit still?

I give you 'The Spirit of Christmas'

"What would Brian Boitano do?"


----------



## Pablo (Feb 1, 2002)

knownzero said:


> No, he said "Many 'religious' people aren't Catholic", and I posit that with one billion members, discounting the 1.1 billion people that aren't religious worldwide, that makes it roughly 1 in 5 religious people on earth that are Catholic. Seems to me like there are many religious people who are Catholic! Just as there are many religious people who are Hinduist and Islamic (roughly the same membership in each, more Islam, less Hindu maybe). Unless they changed the definition of many: A large number of persons or things, I disagree.


'Many religious people aren't Catholic" is not the same thing as "there are not many Catholics". I think that you are confusing the two. The first statement means that there are many people who practice a different religion (e.g. they are Jews, Hindus, etc). This is clearly true. The fact that there are many religious people who aren't Catholic does not mean that there are not many Catholics.


----------



## MasterOfPuppets (Jul 12, 2005)

Fanatic religious people telling people what they can and cannot watch??? Nooooo...really...there's something new...
I didn't think the "Bloody Mary" episode was one of South Park's greatest...but I am an avid anti-censorship believer...
They're making fun of people who find the Virgin Mary in their grilled cheese sandwich, etc...and a church that desperately tries to cover up their priests enjoying the company of little boys...but South Park, damnit, now THAT'S offensive...screw em, bash away...


----------



## bgreen5 (Feb 4, 2000)

Magister said:


> Lack of self-control, even mental, isn't a disease.


Not taking a stand here on alcholism (or South Park) for that matter, but just to pick a nit...

There's a spectrum of bonafide illnesses involving lack of self-control... especially mental illnesses... that are, in fact diseases.

Tourette's syndrome and OCD, just to name a couple of the more severe forms.


----------



## TBDigital (Mar 14, 2002)

lee espinoza said:


> there has to be a line and "I" think this was over it.


Frankly, if you showed Matt and Trey this 'line', I'm pretty sure they'd do their damnest to stomp that line into oblivion. Anyone who has watched the show with any consistency realizes this. You're just mad because they stomped on your 'line' in this episode. I'm sure that PETA wasn't thrilled with the treatment of the killer whale the episode before, and I'm quite sure that the Church of Scientology was more than a little offended by the episode before that.  Somebody's 'line' sure got smashed then, why didn't you speak up after one of those episodes?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

lee espinoza said:


> but they never had a jewish religious icon bleeding out his or her rear end


You got a point, but they had moses on a dreidel once and Cartman repeatedly calls Kyle a "god damn jew".


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

dswallow said:


> *According to canon law, members are those who have been baptized in or who, after being baptized in another Church, have been received into the Catholic Church on making a profession of faith, and who have not formally renounced membership.*
> 
> So that probably means there's really about 10 million active practicing self-identified Catholics worldwide.


Well practically that means that you were either baptized catholic or have gone through RCIA. At least that's how it's done in our church.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

Funny how the priests/bishops/pope/little boys sex party episode got ignored and this ridiculous one gets their Always pads in a bunch.


----------



## Cboath (Jun 22, 2004)

Bah!!! My recording has the right title for this episode, but it recorded the Whale episode. =(


----------



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

I love South Park but I just thought that whole episode stunk.
On one hand, I agree with the free speech thing (when you consider it is known for being "offensive"), but does it really hurt anybody to not cross the line where the statue is bleeding like that? Was it really even funny?
For some reason I didn't think alcoholism thing was all that funny either. I wasn't offended, and some if it made sense even, but it wasn't funny. 

But I really like how those kids act like kids, except for maybe the constant cursing. And they do make fun of Jews all the time, he's right about that, but I think that's partially just Eric being the jerk that Eric is. If they were really constantly and seriously making the point that Jews are greedy, etc., there would be an outcry.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

bgreen5 said:


> Not taking a stand here on alcholism (or South Park) for that matter, but just to pick a nit...
> 
> There's a spectrum of bonafide illnesses involving lack of self-control... especially mental illnesses... that are, in fact diseases.
> 
> Tourette's syndrome and OCD, just to name a couple of the more severe forms.


I guess I need to go back to the texts, I just never think of Tourette's and OCD as Diseases...

Both those too are definatly on a different level than some idiot sucking down Beer and cheap wines.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

Cartman proved that Jews carry both a bag of gold AND a decoy bag of gold around their necks at all times...!


----------



## mike3775 (Jan 3, 2003)

Just wait till the next season. I guarentee that they will incorporate this stuff into an epsidoe and I will find it hilarious.

I'm glad I sent it to my PC and DVD. I loved that episode.

If a show offends you that much, don't watch. I am so sick of a minority telling me what I can and cannot watch or do in this country.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

> originally posted by *mike3775*
> If a show offends you that much, don't watch. I am so sick of a minority telling me what I can and cannot watch or do in this country.


Unless it's something that offends you, in which case you'll be up on your soapbox just like them.


----------



## askewed (Sep 12, 2000)

lee espinoza said:


> there has to be a line and "I" think this was over it.


I disagree that there has to be a line. It implies that without the line something awful will happen. I disagree on that point too.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> Unless it's something that offends you, in which case you'll be up on your soapbox just like them.


I have never been offended by a song or a show of any kind.

I've been bored, unimpressed, disappointed, and grossed out by shows. That doesn't make me want to force them out of existence for everyone else. I just don't understand the fascist mentality.


----------



## Ingersoll (Jan 15, 2003)

mike3775 said:


> I am so sick of a minority telling me what I can and cannot watch or do in this country.


Eh, the vocal, whacked minority I can ignore. It's the majorities that I'm sick of.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Spire said:


> You mean Catholic. Many religious people aren't Catholic.


Silly boy.. they don't count. 



lee espinoza said:


> I know the pope said were the blood was originating (and it was not her butt) but that still does not make it right by ME


So the word of the Pope isn't good enough for you? Isn't he supposed to be infallible?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I'm also in the "if you don't like it, don't watch it" camp. But there are content standards enforced by the cable networks all the time. If companies won't sponsor a show because their customers won't buy their products if they sponsor a show that offends them, then we can't expect the network to run the show. If they made an episode about me that portrayed me that offensively, I'd use whatever influence I had to keep it from getting on the air. If it bothered me, I could refuse to buy from companies that sponsor it, and I could encourage like-minded people to do the same. If I can get persuade enough people so that it will matter to the sponsors and therefore the network, they might consider my request. That's all that's going on here - no government censorship (in this case at least, that I'm aware of) or fascism, just people with more influence than you convincing the network not to run the episode. Yeah, the outcome might suck, but some people here are misrepresenting how that outcome is being effected.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Just remember, if you're successful getting one thing you dislike removed, someone else might be successful getting something they dislike removed, but you would've liked it, and now you're not gonna have it.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

dswallow said:


> Just remember, if you're successful getting one thing you dislike removed, someone else might be successful getting something they dislike removed, but you would've liked it, and now you're not gonna have it.


"First they came for South Park, but I wasn't a South Park fan; so I said nothing...."


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

SparkleMotion said:


> I have never been offended by a song or a show of any kind.
> 
> I've been bored, unimpressed, disappointed, and grossed out by shows. That doesn't make me want to force them out of existence for everyone else. I just don't understand the fascist mentality.


I was offended by "Jackass" in all it's incarnations. Therefore I wouldn't watch.


----------



## lee espinoza (Aug 21, 2002)

busyba said:


> So the word of the Pope isn't good enough for you? Isn't he supposed to be infallible?


Dam I not that crazy to think he's infallible. 

Why is everybody ganging up on me?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

lee espinoza said:


> Why is everybody ganging up on me?


Because you're more fun when you're surrounded by a bunch of guys?


----------



## bigcb37 (Jun 14, 2002)

Its a saterical CARTOON...people need to get over this stuff. Whats the worst thing that could happen after viewing this ep? South Park rips on everyone...they blasted Scientology earlier this season too...and if the Scientologists are not complaining (or suing) then the Catholics really need to look in the mirror.

I am so sick of all the politically correct, easily offended people complaining. Its South Park! What did you expect. There has been much worse material on this show.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

bigcb37 said:


> and if the Scientologists are not complaining (or suing) then the Catholics really need to look in the mirror.


I never thought I'd see the day when the $cieno's were the reasonable ones.   

please don't sue me....


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

dswallow said:


> lee espinoza said:
> 
> 
> > Why is everybody ganging up on me?
> ...


Get a room you two.


----------



## lee espinoza (Aug 21, 2002)

bigcb37 said:


> Its a saterical CARTOON...people need to get over this stuff. Whats the worst thing that could happen after viewing this ep? South Park rips on everyone...they blasted Scientology earlier this season too...and if the Scientologists are not complaining (or suing) then the Catholics really need to look in the mirror.
> 
> I am so sick of all the politically correct, easily offended people complaining. Its South Park! What did you expect. There has been much worse material on this show.


I think you are 100% right, I was offended but that does not mean the episode should be pulled!!!

Americans don't have the right not to be offended.


----------



## bgreen5 (Feb 4, 2000)

Magister said:


> I guess I need to go back to the texts, I just never think of Tourette's and OCD as Diseases...
> 
> Both those too are definatly on a different level than some idiot sucking down Beer and cheap wines.


I wouldn't presume to address all people who have drinking problems with a single broad brush, but there's ample evidence that many alcoholics have become so as a result of self-medicating for anxiety disorders.

Now, I don't know where things stand on classification of anxiety disorder these days... condition/disease/illness... but it's certainly a biochemical fact of life that has huge consequences for lots of people.


----------



## jasoncarr (May 3, 2002)

lee espinoza said:


> but they never had a jewish religious icon bleeding out his or her rear end


Just wait.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

lee espinoza said:


> but they never had a jewish religious icon bleeding out his or her rear end


No, they just had Cartman try to organize a second Holocaust. But I guess that's okay.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I just went and watched the episode in question. 



The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights needs to get the sand out of its vagina.


----------



## Spire (Jun 6, 2001)

knownzero said:


> No, he said "Many 'religious' people aren't Catholic", and I posit that with one billion members, discounting the 1.1 billion people that aren't religious worldwide, that makes it roughly 1 in 5 religious people on earth that are Catholic. Seems to me like there are many religious people who are Catholic! Just as there are many religious people who are Hinduist and Islamic (roughly the same membership in each, more Islam, less Hindu maybe). Unless they changed the definition of many: A large number of persons or things, I disagree.


Mike Farrington and Pablo are correct; you completely misunderstood what I meant.

If one in five religious people are Catholic, then four out of five religious people are _not_ Catholic. Four out of five religous people -- that's many religious people, right? And they're _not_ Catholic. Many religious people are not Catholic.

I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Spire said:


> I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand.


When some people see "religion" in a sentence they strive to take offense, usually without much thought.


----------



## Spire (Jun 6, 2001)

dswallow said:


> When some people see "religion" in a sentence they strive to take offense, usually without much thought.


Ack -- let's not turn this into a religious discussion.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

mike3775 said:


> If a show offends you that much, don't watch. I am so sick of a minority telling me what I can and cannot watch or do in this country.


No one is telling you what you can and cannot watch, any more than you can dictate what Comedy Central decides to air.



SparkleMotion said:


> I've been bored, unimpressed, disappointed, and grossed out by shows. That doesn't make me want to force them out of existence for everyone else. I just don't understand the fascist mentality.


One more simplistic way to understand it is to consider that the people complaining to the network and the network are, generally speaking, exercising the same rights you are. If they are "fascist" by voicing their opinion, then so are you by making your post. It works both ways.

That said, the term "fascist" really doesn't make much sense in this context.


----------



## Zen98031 (Sep 29, 2005)

I'm not really all that worked up about it. If it were the Government stepping in and saying that this show could no longer be aired then I would be up in arms. If a private group exercises their consumer muscle and convinces a company to see things there way, well, that is how free enterprise works. Now if another group wants to organize and counter this with a complaint of their own and get the company to change it's mind then they are totally within their right to do so as well. I do not feel any of my rights are in danger because of this because it is exactly how free enterprise should work, without government interference. 


Mitch


----------



## myriadian (Sep 20, 2002)

yeah but can you ever imagine a scenario where a group of people complain about a show on xian tv because it's filled with too much religious zealotry and skewed facts and regressive views and could adversely impact youth and elderly alike, and is offensive to a slim margin of the public who can or cannot watch it completely by choice? would that show ever get pulled?

radical xians are running rampant, why won't the gov sanction these religious zealots?

M.

p.s. yes, i know it's not a government action on the network but it's still a chilling choice, that they would bow under some obscure complaints from ppl who 'believe' in a fantasy.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

myriadian said:


> p.s. yes, i know it's not a government action on the network but it's still a chilling choice, that they would bow under some obscure complaints from ppl who 'believe' in a fantasy.


As opposed to "bowing" to some obscure (and largely unreadable) complaint by someone on a message board who believes in his/her own "fantasy."

I'd say that Constitution 101, English 101 and Religion 101 are in order.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

There are no Jewish religious "icons."

Thou shalt not make graven images, remember?


----------



## ChofuHS (Apr 15, 2004)

The "right" has learned well from the "left." Just say you are offended, get petitions, protest, get what you want. The American way. The First Amendment flows both ways.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

What's amusing to me about this thread.

Person 1: You may be offended if you're religious.
Person 2; You mean Catholic, as religiou and Cathoilc aren't the same thing, as they're non-Catholic religious people.

Argument enseus.


----------



## Granny (Mar 29, 2005)

I loved the episode. It was shockingly sacrilegious. No one is offended by the portrayal of gays, of jews, or of Tom Cruise? What would Brian Boytano do? What a pile of hippocrates. Anyone offended should not be watching South Park in the first place. It exists to offend. Pulling an episode is just fodder for more edgy material. I can't wait. Cartman is the Anti-Christ. :up: :up: :up:


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

I don't see what the big deal is. South Park makes fun of religion all the time. The recent episode with Tom Cruise and the Chrisitan Scientists come to mind. 

Also, there was the priest molestation episode. Why didn't the Catholics complain about that? If I were a Priest I would have been offended. Oh yeah they didn't want to bring any more attention to an already embarassing situation!


----------



## MasterOfPuppets (Jul 12, 2005)

Spire said:


> Mike Farrington and Pablo are correct; you completely misunderstood what I meant.
> 
> If one in five religious people are Catholic, then four out of five religious people are _not_ Catholic. Four out of five religous people -- that's many religious people, right? And they're _not_ Catholic. Many religious people are not Catholic.
> 
> I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand.


Are you saying there's more religions than Catholicism???  Shocking news indeed...I don't understand...

If you were offended by this episode...of South Park (did you think you were watching The Cosby Show???)...I have a suggestion to remedy the situation...

1. Bend over
2. Grab the cork wedged deep into your anus
3. Pull hard while bracing for the loud 'popping' sound
4. Exhale deeply


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

MasterOfPuppets said:


> Are you saying there's more religions than Catholicism???  Shocking news indeed...I don't understand...
> 
> If you were offended by this episode...of South Park (did you think you were watching The Cosby Show???)...I have a suggestion to remedy the situation...
> 
> ...


The same activity could be undertaken by the relatively small group of people who actually believe they have any right to choose what the providers choose to air, beyond the ratings impact, or who are offended that a group of people exercised the opportunity to voice their opinion.


----------



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> I don't see what the big deal is. South Park makes fun of religion all the time. The recent episode with Tom Cruise and the Chrisitan Scientists come to mind.
> 
> Also, there was the priest molestation episode. Why didn't the Catholics complain about that? If I were a Priest I would have been offended. Oh yeah they didn't want to bring any more attention to an already embarassing situation!


The priest one bothered me because although I totally understand the desire to make fun of pedophile priests, it sort of perpetrated the myth that "most" priests are molesters.

I was also bothered by the repeat I saw this week where they were making fun of parents who are afraid of pedophiles. I can tell you because a bunch of my professors are prison psychologists, that parents should be very afraid and vigilant. They go where kids are and they know how to get kids to trust them. And there are a lot of them!


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> There are no Jewish religious "icons."


What about Barbara Streisand? They got to her already anyway 

I shall reiterate once again, if someone is going ballistic over this instead of just turning it off, then they are obviously lacking faith in their religion. If they think that an episode of a cartoon can be that damaging then they simply must not believe in their chosen faith strongly enough. Perhaps they see the same flaws that the cartoon points out? It still all boils down to disaprin.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

Figaro said:


> I shall reiterate once again, if someone is going ballistic over this instead of just turning it off, then they are obviously lacking faith in their religion. If they think that an episode of a cartoon can be that damaging then they simply must not believe in their chosen faith strongly enough. Perhaps they see the same flaws that the cartoon points out? It still all boils down to disaprin.


That is as illogical as saying that if you defend your mother from slanderous statements it must mean you don't love her and you don't have faith that everyone else will love her in spite of the negative comments.

It is just plain dumb to conclude that because a person or group is outspoken on an issue that it must mean they don't believe in the issue.

Some of the arguments in this thread as just outstanding.


----------



## TeeSee (Jan 16, 2003)

lee espinoza said:


> I think you are 100% right, I was offended but that does not mean the episode should be pulled!!!


...and banned forever. Including through future DVD sales.

"I don't like it so I'm changing the channel" seems so much more reasonable than "*I* don't like it so YOU can't watch it - ever".


----------



## VinceA (May 13, 2002)

The cynical side of me thinks Comedy Central is milking this so they can bring the episode back later as the "banned episode" or "the episode THEY don't want you to see". Either that or they'll make sure they play it up big on the DVD release ads: "includes the infamous episode", blah, blah blah.

Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a Roman Catholic, yes I saw the episode. I thought it was a little funny, especially the Randy parts with needing a miracle to stop drinking. I didn't send any hate mail to CC. I'm a firm believer in the "don't like it, don't watch it" principle.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

TeeSee said:


> "I don't like it so I'm changing the channel" seems so much more reasonable than "*I* don't like it so YOU can't watch it - ever".


Thats logical... only if you completely leave out the fact that the people who complained did not pull the show, and you leave out the fact that by posting your notes here you are participating in the same activity as the group.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

VinceA said:


> The cynical side of me thinks Comedy Central is milking this so they can bring the episode back later as the "banned episode" or "the episode THEY don't want you to see". Either that or they'll make sure they play it up big on the DVD release ads: "includes the infamous episode", blah, blah blah.


I've been thinking the exact same thing.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Hansky said:


> Thats logical... only if you completely leave out the fact that the people who complained did not pull the show, and you leave out the fact that by posting your notes here you are participating in the same activity as the group.


And that in turn is logical if you only have a passing familiarity with logic.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

busyba said:


> And that in turn is logical if you only have a passing familiarity with logic.


Gee, what an insightful, intelligent, factual response.


----------



## TeeSee (Jan 16, 2003)

Hansky said:


> Thats logical... only if you completely leave out the fact that the people who complained did not pull the show, and you leave out the fact that by posting your notes here you are participating in the same activity as the group.


How am I not being logical? These people want to censor what everyone sees because THEY are offended. Right?

And can you respond with a mature attitude this time, please?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Hansky said:


> Gee, what an insightful, intelligent, factual response.


Okay, how's this?



> only if you completely leave out the fact that the people who complained did not pull the show


Sure, they did not pull the show themselves, but they exerted undue influence to have the show pulled. If you want to split hairs, that's fine, but spare us the sarcastic indignation when you get called on it.



> and you leave out the fact that by posting your notes here you are participating in the same activity as the group


Presumably, you mean the activity of excersizing one's free speech rights and voicing one's opinion. Which is fine, except your ignoring the means, manner and intent of that voicing.

Whether that's from a lack of comprehension or willful deceit, I can't say.

All I can do is point out that the group is engaging in a campaign of intimidation in order to mold the television landscape into a shape that they deem acceptable, at the expense of people who would seek to be entertained by things that go beyond the precepts of an archaic 2000 year old book.

So how exactly is it that we are participating in the same activity??? 

There. Better?


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

busyba said:


> Okay, how's this?
> 
> Sure, they did not pull the show themselves, but they exerted undue influence to have the show pulled. If you want to split hairs, that's fine, but spare us the sarcastic indignation when you get called on it.


"Undue influence" -- pretty funny. Meaningless, but funny.



> Presumably, you mean the activity of excersizing one's free speech rights and voicing one's opinion. Which is fine, except your ignoring the means, manner and intent of that voicing.


Interesting. I am ignoring it, but you can't identify anything other than them voicing their opinion (well, you have identified zip). Much like "undue influence."



> Whether that's from a lack of comprehension or willful deceit, I can't say.


Apparently there are many details you can't say.



> All I can do is point out that the group is engaging in a campaign of intimidation in order to mold the television landscape into a shape that they deem acceptable, at the expense of people who would seek to be entertained by things that go beyond the precepts of an archaic 2000 year old book.


In other words, they are voicing an opinion you don't like and you tried to come up with a paragraph of mostly nonsense to make it sound different. You fail.



> So how exactly is it that we are participating in the same activity???


That is painfully obvious. Please don't take my post to be "undue influence" or a "campaign of intimidation."

Yes, you are the expert on logic. Real impressive!


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Hansky said:


> <...deflection, handwaving and snide rhetoric....>


If anything is "painfully obvious", it is your desire to argue baseless points solely for the sake of hearing yourself speak.

Enjoy your mental masturbation.

*plonk*


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

busyba said:


> If anything is "painfully obvious", it is your desire to argue baseless points solely for the sake of hearing yourself speak. Enjoy your mental masturbation.
> 
> *plonk*


Yes, a couple centuries of countless examples of people using their opportunity to speak out and influence are "baseless points." My, you are quite the genius, especially given the junior high comebacks. They always add to the discussion.

Good call on bailing.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Busyba, before you take handsky with any level of seriousness you might want to check out his mindless rantings and innability to answer a simple direct question here http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=276088&page=1&pp=50 start at the end and work your way up.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

D'OH! I can't believe I fed the troll. I'm usually better about things like that; I guess I wasn't paying attention.

I also can't believe I hadn't written him off before, since I was somewhat active in that particular thread. I think though I might have already been unsubscribed by the time he jumped in.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

Langree said:


> Busyba, before you take handsky with any level of seriousness you might want to check out his mindless rantings and innability to answer a simple direct question here http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=276088&page=1&pp=50 start at the end and work your way up.


After reading the quoted thread, and having followed this, I am reminded of a certain main character from Confederacy of Dunces.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

busyba said:


> D'OH! I can't believe I fed the troll. I'm usually better about things like that; I guess I wasn't paying attention.
> 
> I also can't believe I hadn't written him off before, since I was somewhat active in that particular thread. I think though I might have already been unsubscribed by the time he jumped in.


In other words, you can't form a true thought on the subject so you bailed out with the oft-used "troll this, troll that."



Langree said:


> Busyba, before you take handsky with any level of seriousness you might want to check out his mindless rantings and innability to answer a simple direct question here http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=276088&page=1&pp=50 start at the end and work your way up.


Yes, that would be the thread where a few posters who did not have the ability to grasp rather straightforward concepts pulled everything they could to throw crap against the wall. Shockingly, that included the "troll this, troll that" line.

Great job at.... well... your troll post. Again.

Maybe someone will come along and actually provide an actual thought on what is "undue influence," or the other terms pitched in the prior thread and stay on topic. Of course, if it is easier to cry troll after bailing out with a whimper... That always works well in life.


----------



## cptodd (Jun 30, 2002)

this episode sounds just as bad as one on Drawn Together where God (I think it is god) is in the confessional booth talking to the camera and then someone sticks their "you know what" through the glory hole. God sees it and sniffs it and then "boings" it with his finger. That was too much even for me though I did LOVE it and thought it was hilarious. 

I also caught the Scientology episode and thought that was excellent as well. I have to see this one now.


----------



## nedthelab (Oct 4, 2002)

This new victorian age we aer in is getting old fast - love being told what I can and cant watch


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

Hansky said:


> Maybe someone will come along and actually provide an actual thought on what is "undue influence," or the other terms pitched in the prior thread and stay on topic.


Instead of wasting our time, just "google it." I wonder where I got that idea?


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Hansky said:


> Of course, if it is easier to cry troll after bailing out with a whimper... That always works well in life.


Well, there's no doubt you're an authority on "bailing out with a whimper. Putz.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

jradford said:


> Instead of wasting our time, just "google it." I wonder where I got that idea?


You mean to say that Google will provide me with an explanation from the same person who raised the issue in this thread, on this forum, on the subject of South Park and the pulled show?? After all, that is the question. Yes, what a genius idea that is!



latrobe7 said:


> Well, there's no doubt you're an authority on "bailing out with a whimper. Putz.


Of course, you forget the part where I spent several posts with detailed explanations, only to run into a little group of internet bedwetters who cry and whine when they have nothing left -- as in this thread. I hate to break it to you, but I am not in the world of thousands of posts on a message board, crying "troll" when someone hurts my poor little feelings, or gathering the ladies for a little pity party. Better yet, going back through old unrelated posts just to whine. What a joke of a life.

So.... I asked again. Where is the "undue influence," or any improper conduct on the part of the group that complained about the show. It seems like an easy question.


----------



## kiljoy (Mar 24, 2001)

Wow, this Hansky guy is a total moron.

Tony


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Hansky said:


> Of course, you forget the part where I spent several posts with detailed explanations, only to run into a little group of internet bedwetters who cry and whine when they have nothing left -- as in this thread. I hate to break it to you, but I am not in the world of thousands of posts on a message board, crying "troll" when someone hurts my poor little feelings, or gathering the ladies for a little pity party. Better yet, going back through old unrelated posts just to whine. What a joke of a life.


Yakkity, yack, yack.

Just wanted to jump in and pull your string one more time, troll.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> Yakkity, yack, yack.
> 
> Just wanted to jump in and pull your string one more time, troll.


Ah, the internet romper room - the one place outside of nursery school where these laughable lines mean anything.


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

Are you guys arguing a point or just arguing over arguing? I tried to find one, but it just seems to be insults.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

We were originally arguing a point... now people are just playing whack-a-troll.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Hansky said:


> Ah, the internet romper room - the one place outside of nursery school where these laughable lines mean anything.


I see Captain Redundant has checked in again, once again displaying about half the insight and originality of a magic 8-ball.

You belittle this place, yet you continue to participate. 

I do agree with you on one point, my line was pretty funny.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I hate to break it to you guys, but auditions for South Park aren't held here anymore; you gotta go to the studio.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

dswallow said:


> I hate to break it to you guys, but auditions for South Park aren't held here anymore; you gotta go to the studio.


South Park? What is that?


----------



## pcguru83 (Jan 18, 2005)

VinceA said:


> The cynical side of me thinks Comedy Central is milking this so they can bring the episode back later as the "banned episode" or "the episode THEY don't want you to see". Either that or they'll make sure they play it up big on the DVD release ads: "includes the infamous episode", blah, blah blah.


My thoughts exactly. Great marketing ploy.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

kiljoy said:


> Wow, this Hansky guy is a total moron.


Seriously, what a maroon.


----------



## MassD (Sep 19, 2002)

nedthelab said:


> This new victorian age we aer in is getting old fast - love being told what I can and cant watch


Well... considering that Congress is trying to extend the FCC's athority to police cable with the same guidelines as broadcast TV and radio.... it is only going to get worse.

Seriously... if things keep getting worse, the only thing that will be on TV are reruns of the Walton's and The 700 Club.


----------



## canyonero! (Apr 24, 2002)

Kind of strange that the main message of the show, that AA and 12 step programs in general are often nothing but ways of passing responsibility of a serious problem off to god gets totally overlooked. That STATE MANDATED rehabilitation sends people into these group is a travesty, and one that the SP guys took direct aim at. 

Yet that message gets overlooked, because a STATUE has blood coming out of it, in a cartoon. 

I enjoyed the episode. I didn't find it to be extremely funny, or even my favorite SP Christmas episode (that easily goes to the forest critter Christmas). I understand why some people would get offended at the defilement of their icons. I don't understand forcing what some find to be enjoyable entertainment off the air due to being offended though. I'm a pretty rational guy. I get offended at some things too. But I'm not nearly pretentious enough to think that just because I'm offended means that others shouldn't watch.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

I skimmed most of this thread but didn't delve into certain arguments. Obviously there are many sides of this and 'your' side is always right. Let's not forget that. 

There is one overriding issue regarding this and all such 'shock' shows that I have. 

We live in a democracy, which in theory means majority rules. However what majority is the problem here. I'll start off by saying I'm in the camp that says if you dont like it turn it off. I thought it was disrespectful in many ways but I'm not going to say take it off the air. I choose to watch. And I'm glad to see no one brought up the kids argument (a-la the other HBO thread) because that's totally the parents' fault if kids are watching this.

But i digress. in a 'perfect' world, we'd vote on every show and the ones most liked would be on and all the crap wouldn't be on. But we all have different tastes and then some people wouldn't be happy of course. Ratings attempt to sort this out but I don't care what the statisticians say, I think even 100K sample isn't really 'what people want.' so we are left with the ratings system and writing campaigns and complaints etc to rule our tv viewing choices. 

If no one complains, can you assume no one was offended? No.....it's just they choose to not report the behavior. However when you get a group of people who, in fact or appearance, have power.....democracy is out the window. Even if 1/2 the real population voted to keep a show on, if the perceived power of that complaining group is great, they will yank a show. I guess you call that politics, overreacting or bending over. 

I dont know how to fix this problem. But last time I checked, no one forced you to watch tv, much less a specific program. So butt out if you don't like something. Dont take away my candy and I won't touch yours.

I just hope this organization that complained is as vociferous in each and every disrespectful instance they see on tv and complain as hard. There's stuff on the news that offends me greatly and I do wish they would complain about all that violence. I just want happy stuff on the news, not blood and guts. Oh wait, I can turn the channel...why can't they?


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

I won't tell people what they can and can't watch... except According to Jim. It's the work of Satan and shouldn't be allowed on the air.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

newsposter said:


> We live in a democracy, which in theory means majority rules.


That is incorrect. We live in a representative republic. That means the majority elects the representatives that make the rules. It's not the same thing at all and in fact is designed to prevent majority rule (which is fickle and often not well considered).



> But i digress. in a 'perfect' world, we'd vote on every show and the ones most liked would be on and all the crap wouldn't be on.


That's just nuts. In a perfect world, all the shows would be on and we'd watch whatever we wanted


----------



## canyonero! (Apr 24, 2002)

newsposter said:


> But i digress. in a 'perfect' world, we'd vote on every show and the ones most liked would be on and all the crap wouldn't be on.


Because what is popular is the best? Just using your TV analogy, that would mean shows like Arrested Development wouldn't be on the air, because it wouldn't garner enough votes. Taken further, why does everything have to be voted on? What happened to self choice?

Eh, macquariumguy said it better.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

If anyone can change the current TV system I'd welcome it. Please proceed. 

We are all helpless (unless you are a member of a powerful group)


----------



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

MassD said:


> Well... considering that Congress is trying to extend the FCC's athority to police cable with the same guidelines as broadcast TV and radio.... it is only going to get worse.
> 
> Seriously... if things keep getting worse, the only thing that will be on TV are reruns of the Walton's and The 700 Club.


The Waltons! Stop you're killing me!
While it's true that South Park unnerves me sometimes (really sometimes I'm afraid I'm going to burn in hell for laughing at some of the stuff I do), the 700 Club is so much more offensive on so many levels. Forget being offended for being Catholic or Jewish, that guy makes me embarrassed to be human. Wasn't he actually calling out for an assassination of someone once? He's total fruitcake nuthead! (Pat Robertson, I mean.)


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

Looks like Romper Room went off the air.



newsposter said:


> There is one overriding issue regarding this and all such 'shock' shows that I have.
> 
> We live in a democracy, which in theory means majority rules. However what majority is the problem here. ... But i digress. in a 'perfect' world, we'd vote on every show and the ones most liked would be on and all the crap wouldn't be on. But we all have different tastes and then some people wouldn't be happy of course. Ratings attempt to sort this out but I don't care what the statisticians say, I think even 100K sample isn't really 'what people want.' so we are left with the ratings system and writing campaigns and complaints etc to rule our tv viewing choices.


You can't commpare TV shows with the system of government. TV is not a democracy (or a republic). It is an exercise of which entertainment businesses can put something on the air that makes more money than the other guy. Ratings are just the measuring stick for that.

If the network thinks it will lose money on a show, for whatever reason, the show is likely gone. If they think they can pull a show for a publicity stunt, and make money, that'll work too. Business 101.



> I dont know how to fix this problem.


I trust that you don't really think the use of the power of persuasion is not really a "problem."



> But last time I checked, no one forced you to watch tv, much less a specific program. So butt out if you don't like something. Dont take away my candy and I won't touch yours.
> 
> I just hope this organization that complained is as vociferous in each and every disrespectful instance they see on tv and complain as hard. There's stuff on the news that offends me greatly and I do wish they would complain about all that violence. I just want happy stuff on the news, not blood and guts. Oh wait, I can turn the channel...why can't they?


Because some people care about society as a whole and they don't have a "see no evil, hear no evil" attitude. You may not agree with a particular group or cause, and tactics can vary widely, but that is the bottom line. All kinds of special interest groups exist to (in their belief) protect an interest, or a group, or to further an interest or group. Many are useful,many are not. The fact that they exist is a good thing.


----------



## MLR930 (Dec 26, 2002)

JohnJr said:


> It was a great episode.
> 
> The animal christmas episode always grosses (sp?) me out a lot more.
> 
> ...


Hail Satan!


----------



## MassD (Sep 19, 2002)

newsposter said:


> ...in a 'perfect' world, we'd vote on every show and the ones most liked would be on and all the crap wouldn't be on.


We do vote... it's called ratings. If no one watched a show, it ends up getting canceled because no one would want to pay money to advertise on it. No advertising revenue = no reason to keep the show on TV.

This is a case where people who don't watch a show, or have any desire to watch a show, want it banned because they don't like, or are offended, by the content. Rather than just excersize their right to not watch it themselves, they choose to impose their will those who do.

Let's just start the weekly book burnings and be done with it.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

MassD said:


> This is a case where people who don't watch a show, or have any desire to watch a show, want it banned because they don't like, or are offended, by the content. Rather than just excersize their right to not watch it themselves, they choose to impose their will those who do.
> 
> Let's just start the weekly book burnings and be done with it.


Much like people want to impose their will by trying to keep Arrested Development on the air at the expense of the show that has to get cut. If people want to watch a quality show like "Stacked" they should be able to without the interference of people who want to keep other shows on, right?

We can argue the difference in details, but it is all part of the same ball of wax. For most people, it isn't the more important principle; rather, it is whether their personal life is affected.

The "book burning" hyperbole sounds good on the thin surface, but that is about it. Television is based inherently on ratings, advertising, income, etc., and special interests play a role in probably the overwhelming majority of programming. More importantly, the network "burned" the show - not the religious group.

If it turns out the the network can later profit from the controvery (assuming it gets beyond forums like this), people can start whining about the small special interest group that got the show back on by using undue influence, yada yada yada. After all, if we really wanted a true public vote on the show, it would almost be a guarantee of the show going down in flames.

Through all the things thrown against the wall, it still comes down to people exercising the age old method of voicing their opinion, and a company making a business decision (whatever that may turn out to be). When those things go away, everyone is in trouble.


----------



## wannaB (Sep 19, 2005)

The same folks that say if you do not like South Park turn it off are the same ones offended by Speedy Gonzalez, Dukes of Hazzard or any other show not PC....... It really is funny to watch people argue one point until you turn the page and they are arguing the opposite.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

MassD said:


> We do vote... it's called ratings. If no one watched a show, it ends .


i guess my problem is with the ratings system...i discount statistical methods for it and since we all will have to have 'some' sort of digital box in our houses in a few years (OTA in our new tv...cable...satellite etc), I felt that they should have put in a chip to monitor our ACTUAL viewing habits, not what some theoretical statistician says. that's the 'perfect' world. Then no one could argue who is watching what. They do it for cars without our permission...why shouldn't tv be the same?

unfortunately, proving my theory is near impossible without electronic means as I doubt the same people who refuse to reply to the census will be more apt to let us know their viewing habits.

this model would be pefection for the advertisers because they could more accurately target their ad dollars.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

newsposter said:


> i guess my problem is with the ratings system...i discount statistical methods for it and since we all will have to have 'some' sort of digital box in our houses in a few years (OTA in our new tv...cable...satellite etc), I felt that they should have put in a chip to monitor our ACTUAL viewing habits, not what some theoretical statistician says. that's the 'perfect' world. Then no one could argue who is watching what. They do it for cars without our permission...why shouldn't tv be the same?


Wow... the "perfect" world is where ALL of your TV viewing habits can be, and actually are, monitored! Even I am not going to take that into a whole other subject.

I do have one question - who places any kind of similar device in your car, without your permission?


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Hansky said:


> Wow... the "perfect" world is where ALL of your TV viewing habits can be, and actually are, monitored! Even I am not going to take that into a whole other subject.
> 
> I do have one question - who places any kind of similar device in your car, without your permission?


one of tons of articles..just the first that came up in a search
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html

WASHINGTON  Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by the National Transportation Safety Board (search) to require electronic data recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United States.

---and yes, I dont see how knowing what every single person is ACTUALLY watching wouldn't without a doubt prove what people wanted (unless they left their tv on all day while they were at work etc). i'd call that the "perfect" ratings system. I"m not getting into privacy debates as that's not the issue here. The model is perfect from the perspective of knowing what 100% of people have their sets tuned to, not just 1000 people's data and having them choose what we watch.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

newsposter said:


> one of tons of articles..just the first that came up in a search
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132056,00.html
> 
> WASHINGTON  Some safety and privacy experts are reacting with apprehension, others with all out condemnation over a recent ruling by the National Transportation Safety Board (search) to require electronic data recorders or "black boxes" in all new cars manufactured in the United States.


Ah... those. I'd compare that to the Tivo software sending information in order to make the box work (as they generally claim, true or not), as opposed to tracking all your viewing habits. The boxes in cars are meant to record how the car is actually working, as opposed to tracking your whereabouts (as some rental companies do). It is an interesting topic.... but probably one degree too many off the thread so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

I'd have to brush up on my research but i'm 99.9% sure tivo software does more than make the box work. They can tell how many times you rewound to see the Janet Jackson blooper. That was in the news the next day and a well known fact. So I'm positive they can see exactly what you watched and when...and how often..etc. So I look at tivo as a wonderful tracking tool...but with a lot of people unplugging the phone line..not very timely info


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

What makes you think that tivo recorded that? They could just as easily have done a survey.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> What makes you think that tivo recorded that? They could just as easily have done a survey.


Assuming you are talking about the janet thing:

LOS ANGELES, California (Hollywood Reporter) -- When Justin Timberlake tore at Janet Jackson's leather outfit during Sunday's Super Bowl half-time show, TiVo users took notice.

Then they took notice again and again, using the digital video recorder to replay the event and to pause at the crucial moment in order to discern just what it was that Jackson had revealed to millions of Americans.

TiVo said that particular halftime stunt was the most replayed moment not only of the Super Bowl but of all TV moments that the young company has ever measured.

TiVo said it used its technology to measure audience behavior among 20,000 users during the Super Bowl. The exercise revealed a 180 percent spike in viewership at the time of the -- as Timberlake refers to it -- "wardrobe malfunction."

One notable TiVo user apparently unimpressed with the performance of Timberlake and Jackson was FCC chairman Michael Powell, who launched an investigation into the bare-breasted matter. Powell is so taken with TiVo that he once referred to it as "God's machine."

This marks the third year that TiVo has released details of its second-by-second review of how Super Bowl viewers used their TiVo units. Not only did users pause and replay the infamous portion of the halftime show more than any moment during the game, but they also did the same for some commercials.

TiVo's top two commercials, based on user behavior, are both from Bud Light: a romantic sleigh ride interrupted by a flatulent horse and a sharp-toothed dog demonstrating his unusual way of scoring a beer for his master.
------
this clearly indicates tivo looked at 20000 machines via the phone line, not calling 20000 of their users during/after the game, which would have not been a smart thing to do. Doubt any survey could get this much data and be so perfect down to the second.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Interesting. I wonder if this was done in LA or some other pilot area only.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

IIRC, TiVo collects usage statistics from everyone who hasn't opted out. Their privacy policy states that only aggregate data is stored (and I believe the most granular grouping is zip code), so they have no way of compiling information on an individual viewer, so don't freak out. 

There are plenty of threads on this topic to be found in the TiVo sections.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> Interesting. I wonder if this was done in LA or some other pilot area only.


I'm really surprised that regular forum members are unaware of this. This is nothing new. For the past few SuperBowls, they have posted some stats on who reqound what. Expect the same for this years game.


----------



## MassD (Sep 19, 2002)

Hansky said:


> Much like people want to impose their will by trying to keep Arrested Development on the air at the expense of the show that has to get cut. If people want to watch a quality show like "Stacked" they should be able to without the interference of people who want to keep other shows on, right?


Apples and oranges.

With AD, Fox decided to cancel the show. The show's fans, the ones who actually watch the show, have started a campaign to keep it on TV.

With this South Park episode, it wasn't a case of this show or something else... the show was pulled after some religious groups put pressure on Viacom to do so.

The two are drastically different situations.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

MassD said:


> Apples and oranges.
> 
> With AD, Fox decided to cancel the show. The show's fans, the ones who actually watch the show, have started a campaign to keep it on TV.
> 
> ...


It was meant to be a example that is completely different than the issue here (although "Stacked" viewers apparently do exist), but the bottom line is that both groups are exercising their opportunity to persuade in terms of what is on TV, even if it is for different reasons.

Posters here are doing the exact same thing as the religious group, just for different reasons.

Apples and oranges - same food group.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> I'm really surprised that regular forum members are unaware of this. This is nothing new. For the past few SuperBowls, they have posted some stats on who reqound what. Expect the same for this years game.


They probably dont read the owners manuals either. It's in back...but it's there.


----------



## nedthelab (Oct 4, 2002)

I hope it does not come down to having to buy DVDs for everything - the conservative right - stay out of my living room!!!!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

newsposter said:


> They probably dont read the owners manuals either. It's in back...but it's there.


they don't even need to do that. They just read this forum or listen to the news. It gets talked about EVERY year, and will be talked about AGAIN this year. Guaranteed.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

nedthelab said:


> I hope it does not come down to having to buy DVDs for everything - the conservative right - stay out of my living room!!!!


doesn't walmart ban certain videos? or is it just video games?


----------



## Zen98031 (Sep 29, 2005)

nedthelab said:


> I hope it does not come down to having to buy DVDs for everything - the conservative right - stay out of my living room!!!!


I can't believe people still don't get this after pages and pages of discussion, the conservative right is not in you living room! A group of people exercising the same right all of us here are exercising said that they had a problem with this episode. This is something everybody in America has a right to say. Now Comedy Central had two choices, they could tell them to take a flying leap or pull the show. Both decisions are well within their rights, it was their choice, not the group that complained. Right now it is not clear what their reason was to pull the episode, some have suggested it was to generate buzz or to boost DVD sales or whatever. I'm sure they had a good reason for doing so whatever it was. But the basic fact is that nobody did anything wrong and nobody's rights were violated and nobody is in your living room telling you what you can and cannot watch. Unless Comedy Central operates out of your living room? If so let them know I said "Hi".

Mitch


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Hansky said:


> Posters here are doing the exact same thing as the religious group, just for different reasons.
> 
> Apples and oranges - same food group.


Well that is not what this poster is doing. When I see the Jeebus Brigade on TV I just change the channel. I don't call the network and tell them to remove the show because it offends me.

Dude, food groups are all done. It's all about the pyramid now.

Silly Troll, Tricks are for kids.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

Figaro said:


> Well that is not what this poster is doing. When I see the Jeebus Brigade on TV I just change the channel. I don't call the network and tell them to remove the show because it offends me.


Nice confusion of what you would do with the overriding principle. Most posters on this board are publicly voicing their opinion on the various shows on TV, just as the religious group did. Just like tens of thousands of of other special interest groups do every day, on thousands upon thousands of issues. It is not really a hard concept to grasp, and certainly should be 5th grade civics.

Wait... is this where I cry "troll" so my point will sound better? After all, that works so well in daily life for people over the age of about 13.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Hansky said:


> Nice confusion of what you would do with the overriding principle. Most posters on this board are publicly voicing their opinion on the various shows on TV, just as the religious group did. Just like tens of thousands of of other special interest groups do every day, on thousands upon thousands of issues. It is not really a hard concept to grasp, and certainly should be 5th grade civics.
> 
> Wait... is this where I cry "troll" so my point will sound better? After all, that works so well in daily life for people over the age of about 13.


There is no confusion my under the bridge dwelling friend. There is a big difference between seeing something you don't like and changing the channel and seeing you something you don't like and demand the channel to pull it and apologize. Surely a graduate of 5th grade civics like yourself should be able to grasp something like that?


----------



## Zen98031 (Sep 29, 2005)

Figaro said:


> There is no confusion my under the bridge dwelling friend. There is a big difference between seeing something you don't like and changing the channel and seeing you something you don't like and demand the channel to pull it and apologize. Surely a graduate of 5th grade civics like yourself should be able to grasp something like that?


So, you don't have a problem with Comedy Central making a business decision, you just have a problem with people who exercise their rights and complain about something?

You must live in a constant state of annoyance, my sympathies.

Mitch


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Zen98031 said:


> So, you don't have a problem with Comedy Central making a business decision, you just have a problem with people who exercise their rights and complain about something?
> 
> You must live in a constant state of annoyance, my sympathies.
> 
> Mitch


No I have a problem with people using coercion to impose their religious beliefs upon me. It's TV, if you don't like what is on it change the channel or turn it off. You want to complain about it fine, but don't start demanding that things be changed for everyone because it doesn't suit you. No one is forcing you to watch anything. It's not displayed in a public or government space. Just turn it off and shut the **** up!


----------



## Zen98031 (Sep 29, 2005)

Figaro said:


> No I have a problem with people using coercion to impose their religious beliefs upon me. It's TV, if you don't like what is on it change the channel or turn it off. You want to complain about it fine, but don't start demanding that things be changed for everyone because it doesn't suit you. No one is forcing you to watch anything. It's not displayed in a public or government space. Just turn it off and shut the **** up!


First off they are not imposing any religious beliefs upon you, I'm sure that they did not spend even 1 second of thought on you. Their beef was with a television station, you had nothing to do with their decision to complain, I can assure you.

You do not have a right to view any episode, it is up to the television station to air whatever they want. People do however, have a right to complain about whatever they want any way they want. If you are advocating taking away peoples rights then I would suggest you rethink your position. If you want the show back you have every right to organize a group of your own and convince Comedy Central to change their mind, after all it was their decision, not the group that voiced a complaint they had every right to make. For the record I do not have any problem with them airing the show again if they choose to do so. I have a huge problem with people who want to take away another groups rights just because they do not agree with them. Now if all you are doing is complaining about that group then I don't have a problem with it, as you have every right to complain about them however you see fit, just as they do.

Mitch


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

When did I ever say that people should have their rights taken away? I simply believe that demanding that a TV show be taken off the air because of the fact that you don't like the subject matter is stupid. Once again, it is TV. No one is forcing you to watch it. South Park is not being taught in our schools. You have a choice as to whether or not you watch it. If someone feels that they have to get it pulled from the airwaves to protect the "innocent" then they are borderline book burning lunatics. I have called CC and told them that I enjoyed the episode and that I would like to see it again.


----------



## Zen98031 (Sep 29, 2005)

OK, just wanted that cleared up, thanks.

Mitch


----------



## jasoncarr (May 3, 2002)

Zen98031 said:


> I can't believe people still don't get this after pages and pages of discussion, the conservative right is not in you living room!


I would say that classical conservatives would abhor anyone telling them how to conduct their business or personal affairs.

IMO, the sensible right has been hijacked by the busybody religious right who IMO might be very pleased to have Christian Sharia law in the US. It is an abomination but I fully expect to see evangelical suicide bombers blowing up secular targets in the US this decade.

Fanatics are fanatics, no matter the flavor, and they are the real enemy to civilization.

jc,
who read an article last year in a Dallas paper refering to a demographic called "South Park Republicans": pro-business, secular, and sense of humor intact.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

Figaro said:


> When did I ever say that people should have their rights taken away? I simply believe that demanding that a TV show be taken off the air because of the fact that you don't like the subject matter is stupid.


That is the difference between people who take an active role in society, and people who just worry about what happens in their own little life. Rather than acknowledge and understand this, and then use their same opportunities to influence, some people just throw around terms like "coercion," "undue influence," "troll" and the many other ridiculous phrases used here and elsewhere. In other words, that IS simply a roundabout way of complaining that people exercised their rights. Now that, is "stupid."



> I have called CC and told them that I enjoyed the episode and that I would like to see it again.


What a novel idea.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

*Hansky*, Taking an active role in society doesn't necessarily require taking an activist role. By watching or not watching something on TV you are speaking through your viewing practices. When it comes to TV that should be enough. When you start running hither and yon in order to get a TV show removed that you simply could have turned off, you have basically become a public nuisance. Who is forcing these people to watch the show? How many of them actually watched it? Are these the same people who are going after the show on NBC now? It is something that you have personal control over, there is no need to go beyond that. The little TV show can't hurt you so just turn it off so you can go cry in the corner to your mythological friend.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

jasoncarr said:


> I would say that classical conservatives would abhor anyone telling them how to conduct their business or personal affairs.
> 
> IMO, the sensible right has been hijacked by the busybody religious right who IMO might be very pleased to have Christian Sharia law in the US. It is an abomination but I fully expect to see evangelical suicide bombers blowing up secular targets in the US this decade.
> 
> ...


I think they'd abhor the _government_ telling them how to conduct their business or personal affairs (they certainly should if they claim to favor limited government), but this is not such a case; it is one group of private citizens _persuading_ a privately owned (i.e. not by the government) business to conduct its business in a certain manner.

I don't disagree that they're busybodies and I generally favor the change the channel approach, but this result was not achieved by force of law. And while I suspect you're correct that some of those involved might be pleased to achieve the same ends by force of law, that doesn't mean that all of them would. There is still a clear distinction in principle between the two approaches.


----------



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

4inziksych said:


> The Waltons! Stop you're killing me!
> While it's true that South Park unnerves me sometimes (really sometimes I'm afraid I'm going to burn in hell for laughing at some of the stuff I do), the 700 Club is so much more offensive on so many levels. Forget being offended for being Catholic or Jewish, that guy makes me embarrassed to be human. Wasn't he actually calling out for an assassination of someone once? He's total fruitcake nuthead! (Pat Robertson, I mean.)


And it only took him a couple of days to prove my point yet again.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/05/robertson.sharon/index.html

Can't someone just put a muzzle on this idiot?


----------



## Zen98031 (Sep 29, 2005)

I fully expect that Southpark will have an episode soon that addresses this very situation. Have a feeling that by the time it is over the group that pressed to have the show removed will be wishing they had just stayed quiet.

Mitch


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

4inziksych said:


> And it only took him a couple of days to prove my point yet again.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/05/robertson.sharon/index.html
> 
> Can't someone just put a muzzle on this idiot?


It's a rather interesting story about why ABC Family still must broadcast that garbage. I can't understand why they ever agreed to the deal; with their money they should've just started from scratch rather than taking over another network just to save time in garnering carriage agreements.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

Figaro said:


> *Hansky*, Taking an active role in society doesn't necessarily require taking an activist role.


To cut it short, let's assume we can spend a good part of the day plugging in "activitsts" who took a role in shaping the country for the better, based on whatever interest group they represented. Again, it comes down to understanding the concept versus agreeing/disagreeing with the particular point of view. Given that you attack the concept of them voicing an opinion in the first place (as in the above quote and other posts), it seems you fall into the category of people who just attack the fact that an opinion is stated.


----------



## TeeSee (Jan 16, 2003)

Hansky said:


> ...it seems you fall into the category of people who just attack the fact that an opinion is stated.


Don't you hate people like that?


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Zen98031 said:


> I fully expect that Southpark will have an episode soon that addresses this very situation. Have a feeling that by the time it is over the group that pressed to have the show removed will be wishing they had just stayed quiet.
> 
> Mitch


Id love a show where the poke fun at the group and only say nice words and have a totally over the top 'nice, clean' show. Point out examples in history of where things like this have caused the overruns of dictators and things like that. Then remind them of the disclaimer that they shouldnt even be watching the show and if they dont like it, how could they possible know about it since they dont like it and dont watch it?


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

TeeSee said:


> Don't you hate people like that?


Not at all, because as evidenced, a few people have little problem addressing the subject matter from a perspective beyond which cartoon is playing, what people on a TV message board will think, or whether or not they agree with a particular group's agenda. Just as obvious, some people cannot and others don't grasp the difference.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Ok Mr. Hansky the anti-christmas poo, exactly what planet are you from? You aren't even arguing a point anymore. 

Let's just end this, I am going to say red and you are going to say blue. I think that pretty much sums it up.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

turquoise


----------



## Waldorf (Oct 4, 2002)

Somewhat related to this thread, I just received this email:



> Channel 12 is taking a poll wanting to know if you would be offended by the new show being aired tonight on NBC. Although some other states have chose not to air it, our local NBC has decided to do it! The show is "The Book of Daniel". In a nutshell it's about a minister/priest who's wife is an alcoholic, his son is gay and probably something crazy with the daughter. There's a man who plays Jesus but I'm absolutely certain it's not the biblical Jesus that we know to be true.
> Please just cast your vote against this show. It sounds like a total mockery of Christianity.
> 
> Don't how long the poll last so hurry. Thanks!
> http://www.azcentral.com/12news/upfront/#poll


Thanks to this email, I voted that the show (which hasn't even aired yet) doesn't offend me, AND I'm kinda looking forward to seeing it now. It'll probably be terrible and get canceled and I'll get another email... "WE DID IT!"


----------



## choccy (Jan 1, 2001)

> Do you find the premise of the NBC show "The Book of Daniel" to be offensive?
> Yes 77.78%
> No 16.67%
> Not sure 5.56%
> Total Votes: 36


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Waldorf said:


> Somewhat related to this thread, I just received this email:
> 
> Thanks to this email, I voted that the show (which hasn't even aired yet) doesn't offend me, AND I'm kinda looking forward to seeing it now. It'll probably be terrible and get canceled and I'll get another email... "WE DID IT!"


That's rich! I wasn't aware that an entire state had decided to not run the show. Oy!


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

> _The show is "The Book of Daniel". In a nutshell it's about a minister/priest who's wife is an alcoholic, his son is gay and probably something crazy with the daughter. There's a man who plays Jesus but I'm absolutely certain it's not the biblical Jesus that we know to be true.
> Please just cast your vote against this show. It sounds like a total mockery of Christianity.
> 
> Don't how long the poll last so hurry. Thanks!
> http://www.azcentral.com/12news/upfront/#poll_


If a group is offended and wants to protest, fine. As pointed out, that's their right. It annoys the hell out of people who would rather them just turn the channel, but it's their right, so be it.

It's this crap, (as quoted above), that pisses me off. "Cast your vote against it because It *SOUNDS LIKE A TOTAL MOCKERY* of Christianity." Nice. Let's not even take the time to actually SEE if it mocks our faith, let's just assume it does and run with it.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

jradford said:


> It's this crap, (as quoted above), that pisses me off. "Cast your vote against it because It *SOUNDS LIKE A TOTAL MOCKERY* of Christianity." Nice. Let's not even take the time to actually SEE if it mocks our faith, let's just assume it does and run with it.


It was the smug arrogance of "it's not the biblical Jesus *that we know to be true*" that amused me:


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

After reading this thread, I sent a mail to Comedy Central last week. Today I got a reply:

Dear Viewer:

Thank you for your letter regarding the "South Park" episode entitled
"Bloody Mary." We appreciate your concerns about the potential
influences of outside special interest groups on the media and
enterainment industries and particularly Comedy Central. Though Comedy
Central did not include the "Bloody Mary" episode in a special year-end
marathon of "South Park" episodes in deference to the Holidays, "Bloody
Mary" did in fact air in every one of "South Park's" normally scheduled
repeat timeslots. As satirists, we believe that it is our First
Amendment right to poke fun at any and all people, groups, organizations
and religions and we will continue to defend that right. Our goal is to
make people laugh, and perhaps if we're lucky, even make them think in
the process. *Despite misleading claims from those who would like to
claim victory, we have not permantly shelved the "Bloody Mary" episode
from future airings due to outside pressure nor will we exclude it from
future DVD releases.* (bold emphasis mine)
Sincerely,
Comedy Central Viewer Services

So it looks like either things got blown out of proportion or Comedy Central is backpedalling the decision not to include it in the DVD. Either way I say :up:


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Booyachaka!

I guess every now and then, the good guys win one. :up:


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

busyba said:


> Booyachaka!
> 
> I guess every now and then, the good guys win one. :up:


thanks for reminding me i never watched the dvds of da ali g season 2


----------



## myriadian (Sep 20, 2002)

isn't it 'booyakasha'?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

myriadian said:


> isn't it 'booyakasha'?


probably... that sounds right.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

spam coming???


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

what an awesome thread bump


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> what an awesome thread bump


I figure Matt or Trey found the thread


----------

