# Tivo Advertising SI Swimsuit Show - Not Happy



## Atomike (Jun 12, 2005)

Personally, I find this to be completely inappropriate advertising on my main Tivo page. I can't opt out. My family uses this device, and I'm quite upset that this show is advertised. 
The only point of this program is be prurient - treating woman like mere objects to be lusted after. I understand that many people today enjoy degrading women in this manner, but I don't think that it should be on my Tivo main page. Although KidZone is an option (and I'm pleased that at least this option exists), I find it a little insulting that I must jump through hoops to avoid this stuff (plus anyone who's used KidZone knows it's a poorly designed, overly obtrusive, and badly implemented feature).
If I didn't have lifetime service, I would have canceled my account yesterday.
If anyone has the contact information (written address or phone) of the CEO, or Vice Presidents, please PM me at your earliest convenience.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

I'm upset the quality was pretty poor. I sure wish Amazon would get HD downloads working soon. Btw, I didn't see anything in the ad objectionable.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Whatever you do - don't go to the beach!


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Seriously? You find it inappropriate that the words "Free SI Swimsuit Video" are on the main page of your TiVo? It's not like if you click on the selection you all of a sudden get a gaggle of scantily clad women jiggling on your TV screen (boy, wouldn't that be a tragedy). In fact, if you can figure out how to get the Swimsuit video to download from your TiVo, could you PM me?


----------



## Stu_Bee (Jan 15, 2002)

I was upset as well. I followed the link on my Tivo the other day and it just took me to the Find Programs base directory. No hot chicks anywhere. What did I do wrong?


----------



## jjberger2134 (Nov 20, 2002)

I am not going to go down the road and judge your morals - because they are your morals. What you find offensive is different than what others find offensive. I am not here to judge your morals and how you live your life.

However, this was a simple one line ad that said "Free SI Swimsuit Video". That in itself is not offensive. After you click on the ad, you need to go through several confirmation screens, including entering a PIN to download from Amazon. Never is there a graphic or a picture of scantily clad women. I cannot image what you could possible be offended about, other than the thought that TiVo is promoting something that you object to. If TiVo stops this sort of advertising, then they might as well pull all of the TiVoCasts and all of the guide data, for the fear that a network names a show that a TiVo user is offended by (example - HBO - Sex in the City). Oh yeah, and they may as well pull Unbox entirely, for the fear that a movie (such as I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry) gets a Gold Star advertisement.

As for protecting your family - you point out that KidZone is an option, but you choose not to use it. With KidZone you never see TiVo Central and thus never will see the ad.


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

Atomike said:


> If I didn't have lifetime service, I would have canceled my account yesterday.


Sell it on eBay.


----------



## bostlaw (May 16, 2005)

Oyyyyyyyyy.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

I hope you don't watch ESPN in your family room, aren't there commercials for SI Swimsuit issue w/ PICTURES in the commercial????

(yeah I know you have tivo, but write to ESPN before you write to TiVo regarding this)


----------



## Atomike (Jun 12, 2005)

I understand the ideas expressed here - that the actual product is not apparent, but rather merely the words. Ok - what if it was an ad for Playboy? For something even worse? What if it was for Pedophile porn?
It's just words, right? 
The fact is that words advertising an offensive product are offensive.
I believe Tivo has gone too far. If Tivo hasn't offended you yet, they might someday. And you'll only be able to blame yourself - Unless you tell them to stop now.

I don't get ESPN - I only get a handful of channels. I keep the TV pretty clean. Which is why this whole mess is so very disappointing.

I don't mind if people make fun of me over this - I've never minded being mocked for standing up.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Atomike said:


> What if it was for Pedophile porn?
> It's just words, right?


Is this seriously part of your counter argument?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Atomike said:


> I don't get ESPN - I only get a handful of channels. I keep the TV pretty clean. Which is why this whole mess is so very disappointing.


So you don't watch ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc? What do you watch? There is more objectionable material on PBS than that one line ad.


----------



## Stu_Bee (Jan 15, 2002)

"If Tivo hasn't offended you yet, they might someday."
heh. Good point.
But seriously....how did people find the download? The link took me nowhere.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

I think someone broke into Atomike's account and posted this as a well worded troll. 

I can't imagine anyone technical enough to own a Tivo would be insulted by the word swimsuit.

If this is a true post then I have a question for you Atomike.
Have you ever walked past a Victoria's Secret store? If so did you notice that 99% of the patrons are female? If so are these women "treating women (themselves) like mere objects to be lusted after?"


----------



## jjberger2134 (Nov 20, 2002)

Stu_Bee said:


> "If Tivo hasn't offended you yet, they might someday."
> heh. Good point.
> But seriously....how did people find the download? The link took me nowhere.


The link took me to the TiVoCast Main Menu, where I then clicked on Amazon Unbox, then paged down to "Free Downloads" (or something similar) then paged through a bunch of free downloads until I saw the SI entry. After clicking on the SI entry, the next page should show the summary information, followed by the required PIN entry for an Amazon download.


----------



## jjberger2134 (Nov 20, 2002)

ciper said:


> Have you ever walked past a Victoria's Secret store?


The window ads for Victoria's Secret are infinitely more revealing, and "degrading" to women (as the OP puts it) than this one line ad.

I would imagine that the OP does not take his family out much since the entire world is full of offensive material.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Atomike said:


> I understand the ideas expressed here - that the actual product is not apparent, but rather merely the words. Ok - what if it was an ad for Playboy? For something even worse? What if it was for Pedophile porn?
> It's just words, right?


I would not have a problem with a text ad for Playboy.

Your "pedophile porn" example betrays how extreme, to the point of absurdity, your feelings are on this. Not only is "pedophile porn" illegal - I would have a problem with an advertisement for shows about illegal products like "Where to Buy Meth in Your Neighborhood" or "How to Cheat on Your Taxes" - but the words "pedophile" and "porn" each carry a heavy connotation. Which word in in "SI Swimsuit Video" do you feel carries the same impact? 


> The fact is that words advertising an offensive product are offensive.
> I believe Tivo has gone too far. If Tivo hasn't offended you yet, they might someday. And you'll only be able to blame yourself - Unless you tell them to stop now.


It's a risk I'm willing to take.


> I don't get ESPN - I only get a handful of channels. I keep the TV pretty clean. Which is why this whole mess is so very disappointing.
> 
> I don't mind if people make fun of me over this - I've never minded being mocked for standing up.


Your expectations are unrealistic. I hope you take disappointment as well as you handle mockery.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Stu_Bee said:


> But seriously....how did people find the download? The link took me nowhere.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0013UF95M


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

hmmm

now PLAYING list

playing... like a game
a game of chance?

our TiVo is trying to get us to GAMBLE!

watch out folks!


----------



## bostlaw (May 16, 2005)

You are certainly entitled to register offense over anything you find to be offensive. Unfortunately (for you or for society), your standards vary significantly from mainstream societal norms. Nothing wrong with that. I suggest that you register your dismay with TiVo, and then make a decision as to whether you continue to suffer the offense or sell your unit (as I'm fairly certain that advertising standards will not likely change to accommodate your concern). There are certainly more salacious items on broadcast TV these days than a simple text advertisement for SI. As for your hypothetical regarding pedophile porn, well, I think even you know better than to suggest that there is anything remotely analogous in the hypothetical. Indeed, words are meaningful. Words can be powerful. A simple text ad for SI Swimsuit program is not going to be deemed to be offensive by the majority of society. Exercise your prerogative to discontinue use if you are unsatisfied with applicable standards.


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

Atomike said:


> I understand the ideas expressed here - that the actual product is not apparent, but rather merely the words. Ok - what if it was an ad for Playboy? For something even worse? What if it was for Pedophile porn?
> ...
> I don't mind if people make fun of me over this - I've never minded being mocked for standing up.


Making the comparison between girls wearing swimsuits and pedophilia is downright offensive to me.

You may believe that you are protecting your children by shielding them from knowledge about sex, but you are in fact doing them a huge disservice.

You strike me as someone who is on a mailing list of people who get notified to complain to the FCC whenever something that people such as yourself deem to be offensive is broadcast on TV or radio. You know, the Janet Jackson nipple crowd.

And yes, I have two children, and they are just fine in the morals department. If they happen to see something that people such as yourself qualify as objectionable and ask me about it, I tell them the truth. My kids will never have an unplanned pregnancy due to lack of knowledge of sex or lack information about the proper use of contraception and its availability.

You may feel that what you are doing is standing up, but in my opinion what you're doing is demonstrating your extreme lack of ability to handle any adult situation around your kids. Your children will be developmentally challenged because you are such a prude and are so closed-minded. Children living in environments where real life is never seen tend to generally behave badly and rebel in their teen years just so they can fit in.

Sex is not dirty, and it is not offensive. The naked human body is not offensive. And pretty girls that are all at least 18 years of age in swimsuits are beautiful.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

If you really find the TEXT objectionable.... then you really should turn on KidZone because you are WAY over-protective.



Atomike said:


> I don't mind if people make fun of me over this - I've never minded being mocked for standing up.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

This seems rather simple.

Kid to Dad - Dad what does that mean (SI Swimsuit Show)
Dad to Kid - It's a show of models showing swimsuits for people to buy.

Seems simple enough, it's not like you are explaining porn or something


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

latrobe7 said:


> Whatever you do - don't go to the beach!


No kidding. Or the the checkout at the grocery store.



Stu_Bee said:


> I was upset as well. I followed the link on my Tivo the other day and it just took me to the Find Programs base directory. No hot chicks anywhere. What did I do wrong?


That was really annoying (seriously). It should have gone directly to the download, as it's done with these promotions before. Must be a bug.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

finally an ad thread that made me giggle like a little boy "reading" a bra catalog. Say hi to your neighbors the Simpsons for me 


oh, and I was upset..........


upset it was not the Victoria's Secret extended ad I have been waiting for!

PS - whay are these degraded women flying off tp many fabulaous spots and getting paid very well. Sure it is the devil's world and money is the root of all evil and venial sin is widespread.... but strong morals should withstand such strong temptations. I did not get a TiVo to protect myself and family from the world


----------



## Luke M (Nov 5, 2002)

Tivo is a spam box.

I expect to see a "Make Money Fast" ad any day now.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Didn't someone get upset by this last year, or am I thinking of the person who was upset because of the military recruiting ad?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

I'm offended at your notion that depiction of the female form is offensive and I'm offended that TiVo Community Forum would carry expose me to something as offensive as your post.



Atomike said:


> The fact is that words advertising an offensive product are offensive.
> I believe Tivo has gone too far. If Tivo hasn't offended you yet, they might someday.


Yeah. I wish them luck with that.

You can have whatever values you please, but the fact is that what you're expressing is too far outside of the mainstream to expect any business to cater to it. The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is part of mainstream media. Retailers will prominantly display the issue, TV programs will have models on to promote it, news and magazine programs will do stories on it. If you're expecting to avoid the offense of simply being exposed to its existance then you should stay in your home and unplug your TiVo and our TV.


----------



## NealS (Feb 6, 2008)

I hope the OP never walks thru a TARGET or WALMART store. They might glance over at the SI SWIMSUIT cover and have a heart attack.

This whole thread is pretty funny.

Offended by the word swimsuit on the TiVo menu. OMG !!!


----------



## daperlman (Jan 25, 2002)

I am so mad I could spit. For gosh sakes they aren't even swimming


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jjberger2134 said:


> The window ads for Victoria's Secret are infinitely more revealing, and "degrading" to women (as the OP puts it) than this one line ad.


Heck, the "Get NAILED every night!" (or whatever it was) ad that was there previously, was "cruder" IMHO.


----------



## TiVotion (Dec 6, 2002)

Atomike said:


> The only point of this program is be prurient - treating woman like mere objects to be lusted after. I understand that many people today enjoy degrading women in this manner, but I don't think that it should be on my Tivo main page.


Er, I don't agree that women should be treated as objects "to be lusted" after and/or degraded. But at the same time, these women voluntarily choose to be swimsuit models. Aren't they then voluntarily "degrading" themselves?

Hey, I didn't force them to pose, but if they want me to look, by God I feel that it's my duty to do so.


----------



## Moebius (Nov 25, 2002)

Atomike said:


> The fact is that words advertising an offensive product are offensive.


The problem is that this day and age, everything is offensive to somebody. You can comment that it's a beautiful, sunny day, then be sued by someone who is sensitive to sunlight because you offended them.

Things you have said in this thread are probably offensive to some people, and I bet you'd think they're silly for it.


----------



## ewilts (Feb 26, 2002)

Atomike said:


> Personally, I find this to be completely inappropriate advertising on my main Tivo page.


I agree. Surely TiVo can find more friendly ads than this.
Seriously, how many people would hang an SI Swimsuit calendar in their workplace? If I tried, and my group is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination, I'd be asked to take it down. If I downloaded this show (and I didn't), my wife would not approve of me watching it while she was present.



> If anyone has the contact information (written address or phone) of the CEO, or Vice Presidents, please PM me at your earliest convenience.


You can write to Tom Rogers at 2160 Gold Street, Alviso, California. That address is supposed to be for their executive offices and is taken from one of their SEC filings.
Karen Bressner is the Senior Vice President of Advertising Sales - I'm guessing it's her team that sold this ad.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

ewilts said:


> If I downloaded this show (and I didn't), my wife would not approve of me watching it while she was present.


Haha I'm laughing at you. Would you mind if your wife watched the show when you weren't around? After all she may see a swimsuit she likes or a beach she wants to visit some day.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

ewilts said:


> If I downloaded this show (and I didn't), my wife would not approve of me watching it while she was present.


Seriously? Wow. Or is that you wouldn't want to watch it while she was present?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

NealS said:


> I hope the OP never walks thru a TARGET or WALMART store. They might glance over at the SI SWIMSUIT cover and have a heart attack.


It's worse. They have women's undergarments and swimsuits just hanging out there out in the open.
Right there next to the aisles.
The horror.



ewilts said:


> Seriously, how many people would hang an SI Swimsuit calendar in their workplace? If I tried, and my group is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination, I'd be asked to take it down.


You'd be asked to take it down because the company doesn't want to go anywhere near a sexual harrasment lawsuit.


----------



## NealS (Feb 6, 2008)

TiVotion said:


> Er, I don't agree that women should be treated as objects "to be lusted" after and/or degraded. But at the same time, these women voluntarily choose to be swimsuit models. Aren't they then voluntarily "degrading" themselves?
> 
> Hey, I didn't force them to pose, but if they want me to look, by God I feel that it's my duty to do so.


That's the way I look at it. No one is taking the hot looking women hostage, locking them up in a basement, withholding food from them, beating them, and telling them - Put on da stinkin' swimsuits, pose, get paid lots of money, and look happy damn it !!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

It just needed to be done. Enjoy, Atomike!!


----------



## Da Goon (Oct 22, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> It just needed to be done. Enjoy, Atomike!!


mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....................


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

SullyND said:


> Didn't someone get upset by this last year, or am I thinking of the person who was upset because of the military recruiting ad?


Ah, I remember that conversation, that was fun.



ewilts said:


> I agree. Surely TiVo can find more friendly ads than this.
> Seriously, how many people would hang an SI Swimsuit calendar in their workplace? If I tried, and my group is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination, I'd be asked to take it down. If I downloaded this show (and I didn't), my wife would not approve of me watching it while she was present.


Can you not see the difference between a line of text that says "swimsuit" and an actual picture (much like the wonderful one that DevdogAZ posted for us)?

Not to mention that if I wasn't allowed to do from home what I wasn't allowed to do from work, I'd go completely insane. What is appropriate for the office and what is appropriate for the living room are miles and miles apart for good reason.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> It just needed to be done. Enjoy, Atomike!!


No, it didn't.
Edit:
I'm not a prude by any means and the lady is quite pretty but if this image had popped up on my screen where I worked before I retired I'd have had to talk fast to keep from getting a reprimand - or worse.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

Atomike said:


> treating woman like mere objects to be lusted after. I understand that many people today enjoy degrading women in this manner


Have you actually read the SI Swimsuit Edition? If you take the time to actually look at it, you would find a non-objectifying, non-degrading, photographic depiction of human beauty. If you are unable to see this for the non-sexual content that it is, then that is your fault.


----------



## dorian (Feb 16, 2008)

There are only three topics on television nowadays:

1. Women are beautiful and desirable, regardless of size or age. 
2. Guys are bafoons and can only be creative when Lite Beer is brought into the equation.
3. Sharks

If that bothers you, turn off the television and go to the park. But you'll still find all three there.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

dorian said:


> There are only three topics on television nowadays:
> 
> 1. Women are beautiful and desirable, regardless of size or age.
> 2. Guys are bafoons and can only be creative when Lite Beer is brought into the equation.
> ...


what kind of parks do you go to, SHARKS?!?!?


----------



## BobB (Aug 26, 2002)

The only thing that bothered me about this ad line was that clicking on it did not immediately take me to the free SI swimsuit pics!


----------



## dorian (Feb 16, 2008)

MikeMar said:


> what kind of parks do you go to, SHARKS?!?!?


Yeah. Granted, they walk on two legs and don't have fins nor gills, but there are still lots of Sharks in Golden Gate Park.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

BobB said:


> The only thing that bothered me about this ad line was that clicking on it did not immediately take me to the free SI swimsuit pics!


+1.

I have to say Atomike is being a bit sensitive here. I don't like the advertisements at all, because I bought Tivo to skip advertisements. That said, I still sometimes get the ads for Viagra, and Cialis, and KY "personal" lubricant. That's a lot harder (heh) to explain to a child than a 5 word ad for swimsuit videos.


----------



## teavaux (Jun 29, 2007)

mattack said:


> Heck, the "Get NAILED every night!" (or whatever it was) ad that was there previously, was "cruder" IMHO.


There was also a "Too Hot For TV" ad on my main page.

The original poster has a point here. There is a significant percentage of the population that could be offended by certain kinds of ads. Hey TiVo - that's an opportunity for increased targeting, which means more money!

Tivo could have an "Ad Zone" settings page in the Tivo Options. Information from the options page can be used to help advertisers target ads for certain audiences.

For instance, one setting could ask if they want "family friendly" ads only. There are advertisers out there that would love to get the front page for them - family vacations, Pampers, the Hallmark channel, etc. It would also make sense to have family friendly ads only inside KidZone.

Of course, other settings in "Ad Zone" could be created to help further target advertisements.

Edit: And, by the way, I totally disagree with the original poster about KidZone. I love it and use it - and think it is a great, simple design. In fact, it is the main reason I went with TiVo over making my own MythTV box.


----------



## Reiver (Mar 31, 2007)

Atomike and ewilts I have two words for you:

Grow up.


----------



## Reiver (Mar 31, 2007)

RoyK said:


> No, it didn't.
> Edit:
> I'm not a prude by any means and the lady is quite pretty but if this image had popped up on my screen where I worked before I retired I'd have had to talk fast to keep from getting a reprimand - or worse.


And why would you be browsing a forum like TC while you were at work? Did you work for TiVo or something?


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

Reiver said:


> And why would you be browsing a forum like TC while you were at work? Did you work for TiVo or something?




.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Wel, now it's replaced on my Series 2 at least with an ad for Saw IV. Back to violence as usual, so no need to be upset anymore.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

MickeS said:


> Wel, now it's replaced on my Series 2 at least with an ad for Saw IV. Back to violence as usual, so no need to be upset anymore.


You can always go to SI.com. Their swimsuit ads have pictures. I'm sure it will be very disturbing for some people.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Interesting observation by another member here, regarding this video:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6009288#post6009288

As I wrote in my response there, this seems to be the first widescreen (not letterboxed) download for TiVo from Unbox.  Anyone seen any others?


----------



## dorian (Feb 16, 2008)

RoyK said:


> I'm not a prude by any means and the lady is quite pretty but if this image had popped up on my screen where I worked before I retired I'd have had to talk fast to keep from getting a reprimand - or worse.


You make a good point. But its not just about work. I was on a motorcycle community forum where a thread was started that had folks posting your typical "biker babe" pictures, and this particular forum was normally more about tech tips and less about socializing. One guy complained and the rest of us pretty much fired back at him about free speech, today's morals, etc... the same type of stuff we are seeing here.

Then one of the regulars made a simple argument. Paraphrased, he said, "I was clicking through posts this morning and happened on the thread with the attractive gals. Just as the page opened up my teenage grand-daughter came in the room and peered over my shoulder. I heard her gasp and bolt out of the room. I'll never be able to adequately explain to my family what that was all about."

Since then, I don't argue morality on the web. Everyone has different circumstance and beliefs. But the thumpers need to be as tolerant with the rest of the world as the rest of us are required to be of their beliefs. Modeling interactions on the needs of the minority smacks of intolerant cultures we tend not to emulate. But I do think the SI cover picture is inappropriate for this forum since it offers nothing but titillating shock value to this discussion.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Reiver said:


> Atomike and ewilts I have two words for you:
> 
> Grow up.


Sorry, but can't let this go.

Regardless of your opinion of whether the ad is appropriate or not, everyone on this forum has the right their opinion. Your comment was uncalled for and is not acceptable.


----------



## Moebius (Nov 25, 2002)

RBlount said:


> Sorry, but can't let this go.
> 
> Regardless of your opinion of whether the ad is appropriate or not, everyone on this forum has the right their opinion. Your comment was uncalled for and is not acceptable.


Wait, are you saying you were offended?

(just couldn't resist  )


----------



## sbourgeo (Nov 10, 2000)

ewilts said:


> Seriously, how many people would hang an SI Swimsuit calendar in their workplace? If I tried, and my group is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination, I'd be asked to take it down.


Two questions come to mind:


Do you keep your TiVo at the office?
Do you wear a blindfold when you go to the beach?


----------



## BiloxiGeek (Nov 18, 2001)

TiVotion said:


> Hey, I didn't force them to pose, but if they want me to look, by God I feel that it's my duty to do so.


To quote Chris Knight (played by Val Kilmer in Real Genius):


> It's a moral imperative


----------



## Moebius (Nov 25, 2002)

ewilts said:


> I agree. Surely TiVo can find more friendly ads than this.
> Seriously, how many people would hang an SI Swimsuit calendar in their workplace?


Perhaps the more important question would be "how many people would hang an SI Swimsuit calendar in their home?". If you consider that the TiVo is being used in the home, and ask that question, the ad makes a bit more sense.


----------



## Moebius (Nov 25, 2002)

So for the completely off-the-wall reference, this is starting to remind me of the first South Park Christmas Episode. Everything out there is going to offend somebody. The OP was offended by an ad for a swimsuit issue that has been around for years and years. Some people think he is silly for that. The trick is, something else that he finds appropriate would offend somebody else, and he'd probably think they're silly for it. Welcome to the "PC" world we now live in. Heck, I'm sure somebody out there is probably offended that the little TiVo guy isn't wearning pants.


----------



## dorian (Feb 16, 2008)

Moebius said:


> Perhaps the more important question would be "how many people would hang an SI Swimsuit calendar in their home?". If you consider that the TiVo is being used in the home, and ask that question, the ad makes a bit more sense.


I think if you ask that question of a married man with children, the vast majority would not have an SI Swimsuit calendar in their home unless it was tucked behind the tool chest in the garage. And since Tivo carries KidZone, I'm guessing they consider this type of a family unit a big part of their market.

I just learned what the term WAF means yesterday. It defnitely applies to this demographic.



Moebius said:


> .... the little TiVo guy isn't wearning pants.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

That advertisement was borderline. I can see both sides. It didn't offend me, but I'm from the Northeast. Considering that we can't block it or delete the ad, Tivo shouldn't have ads racier than that in the future. In some areas of this country, that's definitely a racy ad. In these same places, the SI Swimsuit issue has a jacket on it and is placed on the top shelf. Also, the Victoria's Secret TV show is aired at 3 AM instead of primetime. (I used to live in one of these places, so I know).

Some say we shouldn't go to the beach because you'd see the same thing. OK, show me where this beach is where all the women are that beautiful and all the swimwear is that revealing. Please.


----------



## lqaddict (Apr 5, 2005)

RoyK said:


> No, it didn't.
> Edit:
> I'm not a prude by any means and the lady is quite pretty but if this image had popped up on my screen where I worked before I retired I'd have had to talk fast to keep from getting a reprimand - or worse.


Maybe you should not visit the public internet forums from your workspace then 

In any case, sucks to be whoever is offended by a word advertisement on the Tivo - you should probably need to donate the Tivo to a good cause (PM me for an address, you do not have to spend a penny on the shipping, I can even provide you with the shipping packaging for free). 
Sucks to be whoever mentioned that they cannot hang the SI calendar in their workspace - you should envy me, I can stare at the bunny website all day long, and it is in the HR policy that allows me to


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

dorian said:


> I think if you ask that question of a married man with children, the vast majority would not have an SI Swimsuit calendar in their home unless it was tucked behind the tool chest in the garage. And since Tivo carries KidZone, I'm guessing they consider this type of a family unit a big part of their market.


Since there were no pictures in this ad, I don't think it's really comparable to having a picture displayed in your home.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> Some say we shouldn't go to the beach because you'd see the same thing. OK, show me where this beach is where all the women are that beautiful and all the swimwear is that revealing. Please.


I don't think anyone stated ALL the women or ALL swimwear on the beach look like that; but the next time you're in Orange County on some summer weekend, check out Huntington or Newport Beach. You're welcome.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

I've got a new solution for offensive situations.

Instead of "sensitivity training" for the offender, why not "insensitivity training" for the offendee? Why is it when someone, by their own opinion, finds something "offensive", it is so readily considered to be the fault of the "offender".


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

I say put duct tape over the ad.

There's no problem too big for duct tape.


----------



## anom (Apr 18, 2005)

MickeS said:


> Wel, now it's replaced on my Series 2 at least with an ad for Saw IV. Back to violence as usual, so no need to be upset anymore.


That's the first thing I thought of when I saw this thread. My Tivo seems to alternate between ads for the SI video and Saw IV. If I were the type to get upset about this kind of thing, I know which one _I'd_ find more offensive.


----------



## dorian (Feb 16, 2008)

SullyND said:


> There's no problem too big for duct tape.


:up::up::up::up::up:

Wiser words cannot be found in this or any other forum.


----------



## wickerbill (Apr 4, 2002)

I'm amazed at the number of people that seem to go through life looking for stuff to be offended by.


----------



## PMPTHATROX (Mar 22, 2006)

WOW!!! I had no idea any of this was on my TiVo until it was brought up when I looked here. Talk about great advertisement!!! I wonder who ATOMIKE works for?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

SullyND said:


> I say put duct tape over the ad.
> 
> There's no problem too big for duct tape.


Wouldn't that hurt when the models tried to peel it off?


----------



## usnret (Nov 25, 2003)

Not if they shaved first....


----------



## dorian (Feb 16, 2008)

BobCamp1 said:


> Wouldn't that hurt when the models tried to peel it off?


I'd pay to assist.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

MickeS said:


> As I wrote in my response there, this seems to be the first widescreen (not letterboxed) download for TiVo from Unbox.


Well, not quite, because it's still flagged as 4:3 instead of 16:9. That isn't a problem on my S3 -- I just toggle the Aspect to "Full" -- but it means that there's no way to watch it correctly on an S2. (Same as the EPIC-FU TiVoCast -- see my comments here.)


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> Well, not quite, because it's still flagged as 4:3 instead of 16:9. That isn't a problem on my S3 -- I just toggle the Aspect to "Full" -- but it means that there's no way to watch it correctly on an S2.


It displayed correctly on my 16:9 TV when I used my Series 2. Does it not correctly display on a 4:3 TV if you set the "TV Aspect Ratio" setting to 4:3 on the Series 2? I guess it won't... that would be a problem.

The thing is, the subset of Series 2 models that had this issue on 16:9 videos was probably smaller than the subset that has a 4:3 TV and would be affected by this. Of course, the latest software version for the Series 2 introduced the 16:9 problem on my TiVo, so I'm guessing that now maybe ALL series 2 models have this issue.


----------



## Solver (Feb 17, 2005)

I find it a bit funny how the advertiser feels "Swimsuit" is a more important word than "Sports" or "Illustrated."


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

dorian said:


> I think if you ask that question of a married man with children, the vast majority would not have an SI Swimsuit calendar in their home unless it was tucked behind the tool chest in the garage.


So now we know where to look in your house!


----------



## Da Goon (Oct 22, 2006)

I had cereal for breakfast.


----------



## Da Goon (Oct 22, 2006)

I always find it funny when a man with children finds the female form "offensive." How'd you get kids? By thinking "clean" thoughts all day? I know I had fun making mine.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

WOW what gets people excited !!! This SI was on Letterman including the model who was on the front cover, in fact his show was the first look the pubic had of the this SI cover on a large billboard near times square. How can anybody think *Swimsuit* is a dirty word is beyond me when ads on TV talk about some stuff i don't want to mention (to offend anybody) but I hate some of those ads, especially if their kids or woman are around. (Bob Dole ad as example)
Oh well.....


----------



## jjberger2134 (Nov 20, 2002)

lessd said:


> This SI was on Letterman including the model who was on the front cover, in fact his show was the first look the *pubic *had of the this


Subliminal thoughts? or Subconscious?


----------



## jerryez (May 16, 2001)

Where did Atomike go. No more response in three pages of comments.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

jerryez said:


> Where did Atomike go. No more response in three pages of comments.


Very few comments worthy of response.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Atomike hasn't logged in since his post, so kinda falling of deaf ears here


----------



## sbourgeo (Nov 10, 2000)

MikeMar said:


> Atomike hasn't logged in since his post, so kinda falling of deaf ears here


I even downloaded the video last night so I could further research his position. For someone who doesn't know the unbox password, the most offensive thing that I encountered was the word "swimsuit".

I've only watched a little of the downloaded video so far, but let's just say that I've added pineapples to the grocery list for next week...


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

What is or is not offensive is, by law and culture, based upon "community standards." That means that most people in a community would have to find it offensive. You cannot take the views of extreme "out-liers" into account because, then, everything would be offensive.

Atomike, I am afraid that, at least in this issue, you are an "out-lier." If you find what has been described here as offensive, I would suggest you not have a television in your home, go to the movies, or go to almost any public place aside from the most conservative of church gaterhings.

That is your right, although I do not think it will be good for your children's future if they are to function in a wider society at all.

The Amish would be a good example of a community that willfully separates itself from all that is "worldly" because it finds to do otherwise to be un-Godly. No one stops them from doing it. Their doing so doesn't force anyone else to follow their teachings.

That is fine.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MikeMar said:


> Atomike hasn't logged in since his post, so kinda falling of deaf ears here


well, he said he was just going to post his complaint and move on. Gotta respect a poster that sticks to his word, shows good moral character 

as for outliers idea. In Saudia Arabia people that like the swinsuit stuff would be called the outliers and AtomMike would be that somwhat unorthodox relative since his wife does not coverup completely and drives her ownself around.

I think the underlying resentment in this thread is the idea of intolerance for someone else's viewpoint. Atommike says no Simsuit ad on his TiVo which conflicts with others viewpoints. Others do not like the viewpoint of those condemning Atommike and some jokes made on being offended about people being offended.

basically tolerance is the only way for a large group to work and majority alone can not rule if there is a significant and genuine minority who should be included. That said intolerance of words alone is usually the start of a majority or minority seeking to censor others at the expense of the whole group.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

+1 :up::up::up:
--------------
clarification: :up: was to post 89. 90 slipped in before i clicked submit.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> as for outliers idea. In Saudia Arabia people that like the swinsuit stuff would be called the outliers


Yes. That is why it is based upon "community standards" and not world standards.

We are not in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dtremain said:


> Yes. That is why it is based upon "community standards" and not world standards.
> 
> We are not in Saudi Arabia.


but if you moved to Saudia Arabia you would not be happy with the idea of the majority making all decisions without regard for other honestly come by viewpoints. SO perhaps taking into account and being tolerant of other viewpoints is a good thing.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> but if you moved to Saudia Arabia you would not be happy with the idea of the majority making all decisions without regard for other honestly come by viewpoints. SO perhaps taking into account and being tolerant of other viewpoints is a good thing.


I am completely tolerant of other viewpoints.

"Community standards" is not measured by a majority. It is what is acceptable to the vast population, exempting only those views that would be on the extreme fringe.

It does not mean that those people's views do not deserve respect.

It only means that the standards of decency in a community cannot be based upon them.

So, just because a small handful of people find the printed words SI Swimsuit Edition, with nothing else, (which is what I understand we are talking about here), objectionable, does not mean that it should be barred from display to everyone else, which is what the OP proposes.

The OP is perfectly free to have his views, and perfectly free to have his family isolated from that which he finds objectionable if he so chooses, and to the extent to which he is able.

But, it is not the rest of society's job to protect him from offense when that which he finds offensive is not offensive in the eyes of almost everyone else that shares his "community."

If you can't understand the difference between being in a minority and being an out-lier, try to picture the extreme ends of a normal curve.

I would not, by the way, move to Saudi Arabia, under any circumstances, because the "community standards" there would, in fact, be way too restrictive for me. Like the OP, those who make policy in Saudi Arabia have no respect for the freedom of expression of others.

Is is the OP, not those who disagree, who has no respect for the freedom of expression of others. He is perfectly free to live as he chooses. My first suggestion to him, if he is so easily offended, is, and was, to get rid of his television. I can't imagine what he watches.

If you only watch Disney cartoons, sooner or later Daisy Duck iis going to put on a bathing suit and Donald's eyes are going to stretch out of his head.

That's a lot more objectionable than the words "swimsuit edition."

He is the one who lacks repsect for the freedom of others. He has the choice to avoid things he finds objectionable.


----------



## jjberger2134 (Nov 20, 2002)

dtremain said:


> So, just because a small handful of people find the printed words SI Swimsuit Edition, with nothing else, (which is what I understand we are talking about here), objectionable, *does not mean that it should be barred from display to everyone else, which is what the OP proposes*.


As previously stated, I do not agree with the OP that this material is offensive. I also do not think the OP is try to impose his views on others, as you imply here. Clearly in the original post, the OP is looking for a way to "opt out" of what he considers objectionable advertising.



Atomike said:


> Personally, I find this to be completely inappropriate advertising on my main Tivo page. I can't opt out. My family uses this device, and I'm quite upset that this show is advertised.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

jjberger2134 said:


> Clearly in the original post, the OP is looking for a way to "opt out" of what he considers objectionable advertising.


I disagree, because he then goes on to state that there is a way to "opt out" (Kidzone), but he does not wish to use it.

What he is objecting to is inoffensive beyond reason.

If he were being shown the magazine cover pasted several times above, he would have a right to complain about what is being shown to him and his family.

Let us not lose cite of the fact that what he is being shown are the words "SI Swimsuit Edition" and nothing more.

Come on!


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

jjberger2134 said:


> Clearly in the original post, the OP is looking for a way to "opt out" of what he considers objectionable advertising.


Opt out advertising? Funny! I like it. :up::up: Too bad it's not practical. The entire concept of advertising is that none of it is opt-out. If it was, I would like to opt out of all advertising for the rest of my life. Especially the loud ones.


----------



## Eleanor (Dec 1, 2004)

If you don't want to watch the download than don't. If you don't trust your children not to download it than you really do need to use KidZone. 
Seems simple enough to me.


----------



## Moebius (Nov 25, 2002)

It occured to me as I was walking past a rather large display standee of the Swimsuit Edition at the bookstore, it really makes a perfect example. In this case, the standee was right in the middle of the aisle in front of the magazines. What would the OP do in that store? Avoid the standee? Ok, simple enough, Kid Zone. Choose not to visit that store in the future? Again, simple enough, sell the TiVo and TV. Or just choose to ignore said display? Hmmmm.


----------



## SGR215 (Jan 20, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> It just needed to be done. Enjoy, Atomike!!


OH KNOES! MY EYES!!!!!!! 

Seriously though, this thread is hilarious. I almost died from laughter when an ad about swimsuit models was compared to pedophilia. :up:


----------



## NealS (Feb 6, 2008)

Still funny.

All this drama over someone being offended by seeing the word swimsuit on the TiVo menu.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dtremain said:


> If you can't understand the difference between being in a minority and being an out-lier, try to picture the extreme ends of a normal curve.


First was not tyring to imply you specifically were adversely intolerant. Sorry for any misunderstanding on that.

Yes, I know all about the bell curve and data points found outside the normal curve.

But that is my point about Saudia Arabia - we would both be considered being far outside the social norm there because The "majority opinion" on community standards is actually very rigidly controlled by the religious leaders and any other opinions are shut down quickly. My post turned into a warning on community standards that are set and rigid in their ways.

Clearly the OP wants advertising to be heavily censored in a way that is set and rigid. Something I also do not want.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

how did the op get tivo in saudi arabia anyway?


----------



## dmlove51 (Mar 17, 2004)

CrashHD said:


> how did the op get tivo in saudi arabia anyway?


Now THAT cracked me up, but I also appreciate the reasoned posts by Zeo and dtremain!


----------



## dubluv (Mar 3, 2006)

Atomike said:


> I understand the ideas expressed here - that the actual product is not apparent, but rather merely the words. Ok - what if it was an ad for Playboy? For something even worse? What if it was for Pedophile porn?
> It's just words, right?
> The fact is that words advertising an offensive product are offensive.
> I believe Tivo has gone too far. If Tivo hasn't offended you yet, they might someday. And you'll only be able to blame yourself - Unless you tell them to stop now.
> ...


you think you're going to see an advertisement for pedophile porn? c'mon, man, you've got to be kidding. are you saying that "SI swimsuit" is offensive? as stated by another, enable 'kidzone' and you're clean. tivo is trying to bring us more stuff, and also increase their revenues. i don't feel that's hurting anyone. and in case you haven't noticed, tivo has somehow managed to stay afloat, even after most cable operators have brought out their own dvr's. kudos for tivo to contantly bring innovative ideas to our NPL's. how about that Norton interactive ad that you could give a thumbs up to buy? pretty clever. of course, i've grown accustomed to tivo bringing us the best of what is out there. and take a chill pill, for g-d's sake.


----------



## mtchamp (May 15, 2001)

What if "Watch Hot Fudge Sundays Now" shows up on TiVo Central, that would be just too tempting. I might, in a moment of weakness, download it immediately and watch it. This could be very bad because it might condition me to order them more often in restaurants for dessert and then I might even start making them at home. The end result might be that I could become as fat as a house and of course it's all TiVo's fault. It's so wrong for my TV to tempt me to watch things that might not be good for me and I fear for others as well. However, I think I can resist. 

Temptation is everywhere in every form and free people make choices everyday without infringing on the rights of others.

In this new age of DVR advertising, ads like this one for SI allow for interested persons to obtain instant gratification with a link to an immediate download. It's a new and powerful temptation, much harder to resist than a standard 30 second commercial. Until the DVR and internet access, the ad required you to pay attention to viewing details and wait for the program to be broadcast. You were instructed to wait days, weeks, even months and tune in on a specific day, time and channel to get the desired program. 

This SI ad on TiVo Central has surely accomplished what no 30 second commercial ever could. Those who choose to watch the content can do so on demand. It's a wonderful service for those who really want to view it and at the same time, it's just too much freedom for others to handle.

Seeing how most all content will be available on your TV in an instant, same as over the internet, it really is time for the TV haters to finally throw the boob tube out the window or dumb down their TV's, live in the past and remove their DVR's.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

Atomike said:


> If I didn't have lifetime service, I would have canceled my account yesterday.


So, you have your price also.


----------



## shart (Feb 25, 2008)

I don't appreciate paying for my Tivo service only to have advertising thrown at me either - although I think ridiculing someone for something that they find offensive is wrong too. The point SHOULD BE that people have different standards for what they want to have in their house, and that they're paying for a service which is forcing advertising. Shouldn't the money we pay Tivo allow us to "opt out" of their advertising? There's certainly plenty of other "settings" available within the service - why not a "turn off all ads?" I don't want to turn on KidZone, but I DO want to to turn off advertising. I am just about to cancel my service as well, because I don't think I should have to pay Tivo for the privilege of forcing more ads at me...I already get plenty of those. But again, if you like it, more power to you, no need to ridicule others who don't. The point is, that there ought to be an "opt out."


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

shart said:


> I am just about to cancel my service as well, because I don't think I should have to pay Tivo for the privilege of forcing more ads at me...I already get plenty of those.


why not go all the way and cancel TiVo and the TV service. That will stop the ads and save you some bucks you can use for a service like Netflix... oh wait watch out for the ads on the mailers, oh and the ads on the DVDs. Hmmm.. newspapers and magazines are out.... new serivce called hulu... no, they throw in 30 sec ads to the streaming adn links to Amazon... UNBOX to the PC... that works but there is the Amazon UNBOX website and their ads
DirectTV and DISH send me ads in the mail already...

looks like you will need to go illegal with bit torrent to avoid any ads


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

shart said:


> I don't appreciate paying for my Tivo service only to have advertising thrown at me either ...


Did you read the Terms of Service before activating the service? It is clearly stated they can do this.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

My 2 cents-

tivo allows opt out- it's called kidzone- you can probably even set kidzone to allow all content and all channels (not sure how that is so restrictive and poorly designed as the OP implies) and it would basically keep you from ever having to look at tivo central unless you punched in 5 more key presses. Unfortunately some other features would need those 5 button presses to get to. So the OP's beef is that he doesn't like the opt out method. For that I think he's unreasonable. He has an option he just doesn't want to use it. So now tivo should rewrite all their code for his approval?

I also think he's views are very extreme- but isn't there some Jefferson quote or something about how we should protect the minority view points... So I don&#8217;t think it's a big deal the OP has the extreme views and I wouldn't ridicule him for his views.

I will ridicule him for his refusal to use the tool that tivo has given him called kidzone. And thinking that he shouldn't "jump through hoops" but the majority should to oblige his views. I think he&#8217;s just too lazy to figure out how and spend the 3 minutes to set up kidzone and for that he thinks the world should change to mirror his clearly minority view points.


----------



## dmlove51 (Mar 17, 2004)

> The point SHOULD BE that people have different standards for what they want to have in their house, and that they're paying for a service which is forcing advertising.


They're paying for a service. The service happens to include advertising that they don't like. Fine, they can either use kidzone to lessen the particular problem, or they can cancel TiVO service altogether. Noone is forcing them to use TiVO.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

rainwater said:


> I'm upset the quality was pretty poor. I sure wish Amazon would get HD downloads working soon. Btw, I didn't see anything in the ad objectionable.


I thought the quality was ok........er......so I have heard.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Eleanor said:


> If you don't want to watch the download than don't. If you don't trust your children not to download it than you really do need to use KidZone.
> Seems simple enough to me.


No, it's actually worse, because nobody can even see one second of video without the amazon pin #.

So it's 5 steps to find it, and then a pin # is needed.

So basically what the op is saying is he doesn't like letters of the alphabet on his Tivo.

-smak-


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> why not go all the way and cancel TiVo and the TV service.


Once again, duct tape offers a solution. Cover the entire screen and you won't have to see any ads ever again. Of course, you probably will want to hit mute as well to remove the chance of hearing an ad.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

SGR215 said:


> OH KNOES! MY EYES!!!!!!!
> 
> Seriously though, this thread is hilarious. I almost died from laughter when an ad about swimsuit models was compared to pedophilia. :up:


I am in love with Marissa Miller......well....er.....her boobs. Does that make me a bad person?


----------



## Moebius (Nov 25, 2002)

shart said:


> Shouldn't the money we pay Tivo allow us to "opt out" of their advertising? There's certainly plenty of other "settings" available within the service - why not a "turn off all ads?" I don't want to turn on KidZone, but I DO want to to turn off advertising. I am just about to cancel my service as well, because I don't think I should have to pay Tivo for the privilege of forcing more ads at me...I already get plenty of those. But again, if you like it, more power to you, no need to ridicule others who don't. The point is, that there ought to be an "opt out."


Do you subscribe to magazines or your local newspaper? You pay them money to flood you with ads too. Or if you subscribe to non-ota channels on cable. You're paying those networks and your cable company, both of whom flood you with countless ads.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Atomike said:


> Personally, I find this to be completely inappropriate advertising on my main Tivo page. I can't opt out. My family uses this device, and I'm quite upset that this show is advertised.


Interesting... that's how I feel about KidZone and the PTC.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jlb said:


> I am in love with Marissa Miller......well....er.....her boobs. Does that make me a bad person?


no, no,no you have it wrong. She is the bad person for allowing herself to be objectified. She should free herself from such sinful ways by getting a Burka. Have none of you been to Iran 

Maybe TiVo will balance things out with an menu ad for Burkas.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ......
> Maybe TiVo will balance things out with an menu ad for Burkas.


Fine with me too!


----------



## logicman1 (Jan 10, 2008)

shart said:


> ... Shouldn't the money we pay Tivo allow us to "opt out" of their advertising? ...


Doesn't the fact that Tivo allows you to "opt out" of all the advertising thrown at you by the cable service you pay for balance things out?


----------



## tluxon (Feb 28, 2002)

What is progressive fascism?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

tluxon said:


> What is progressive fascism?


Modern day China.

What do I win?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jlb said:


> Fine with me too!


man, what video games do you play!


----------



## Jebberwocky! (Apr 16, 2005)

MickeS said:


> Modern day China.
> 
> What do I win?


Tiananmen Square Commemorative Keychain!


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

MickeS said:


> Modern day China.
> 
> What do I win?


A buff from Survivor: China, autographed by Jeff Probst.


----------



## billy in slo (Oct 19, 2005)

Wow, you people are brutal! It never ceases to amaze how the same people who clamer for tolerance of a woman's "right" to choose or sexual orientation or cohabitation don't hesitate to rake a conservative Christian over the coals for expressing their opinion. I agree with the original poster. I have a 13 year old boy in the house. I also was shocked when I recorded the Superbowl and added time at the end in case it ran long and while fast forwarding to the end was assaulted with images which to me looked like porn, soft-porn maybe, but porn none the less. It was the S.I. program in question here and I was watching with my teenage son and wife. I couldn't find the clear button soon enough and I would not have watched it even if I was alone. True character is measured by what we do even when no one is around. The reference to pedophile programming is not that far fetched in a society that measures right and wrong by popular opinion, it is a slippery slope. I suggest a quick study of the downfall of once great societies which headed down that very path. The original poster made it quite clear it was not the word "swimsuit" and the inference that it was is an insult to even a person of average intelligence. The purpose of that programing is not to sell swimsuits. Give me a break guys.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

billy in slo said:


> The original poster made it quite clear it was not the word "swimsuit" and the inference that it was is an insult to even a person of average intelligence. The purpose of that programing is not to sell swimsuits. Give me a break guys.


Good point about the selling of swimsuits, even the front cover does not give you the brand (or cost) of that swimsuit (if it did I don't think their many woman that would purchase it for beach use). I think the swimsuit on the front cover was painted on the body of the model.


----------



## SGR215 (Jan 20, 2004)

The rationale of some people are amazing. It's as if people think that if we see one too many breasts we'll become sex-crazed pedophiles waiting in the shadows for our next victim. Actually, its often quite the opposite. The more you try to hide information about sex and treat it as if its some sort of disease from your children the more you risk them having issues with it later on in life. In extreme cases when they grow up they can be ashamed of their body, or grow to hate sex because it makes them feel "dirty". 

In many other countries topless women can appear on television and the topic of sex is discussed openly. Are people becoming sex-crazed maniacs because of it? Nope.

It's funny, I won't single out anyone but many people who are shocked and offended by things like this often have no problem watching violent action movies with their kids. "The bad guy got skinned alive? AWESOME! Wait.. was that a bare breast when the married couple was making out?!?! OMG GET THE FCC ON THE PHONE!"


----------



## dmlove51 (Mar 17, 2004)

_Wow, you people are brutal! It never ceases to amaze how the same people who clamer for tolerance of a woman's "right" to choose or sexual orientation or cohabitation don't hesitate to rake a conservative Christian over the coals for expressing their opinion. I agree with the original poster._

Actually, I think your logic is backwards. Those same people who believe a woman has a right to choose, or a homosexual to be, or people who want to cohabitate to do so, are also in full agreement that the OP absolutely has the right to choose -- the right to choose to cancel TiVO service, or to enable Kidzone, or to throw their TV in the garbage. The point is that he doesn't have the right to impose his beliefs on ME. Yes, I think his thinking is wrong, but I also think he can think whatever he likes, as long as he doesn't affect ME, which is what forcing TiVO to remove ads HE believes are objectionable, would do. I'm female, and I don't like the swimsuit issue (or the Victoria's Secret annual TV thing, or Hooter's for that matter), but I still don't think they should be banned.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

dmlove51 said:


> _Wow, you people are brutal! It never ceases to amaze how the same people who clamer for tolerance of a woman's "right" to choose or sexual orientation or cohabitation don't hesitate to rake a conservative Christian over the coals for expressing their opinion. I agree with the original poster._
> 
> Actually, I think your logic is backwards. Those same people who believe a woman has a right to choose, or a homosexual to be, or people who want to cohabitate to do so, are also in full agreement that the OP absolutely has the right to choose -- the right to choose to cancel TiVO service, or to enable Kidzone, or to throw their TV in the garbage. The point is that he doesn't have the right to impose his beliefs on ME. Yes, I think his thinking is wrong, but I also think he can think whatever he likes, as long as he doesn't affect ME, which is what forcing TiVO to remove ads HE believes are objectionable, would do. I'm female, and I don't like the swimsuit issue (or the Victoria's Secret annual TV thing, or Hooter's for that matter), but I still don't think they should be banned.


And here it's not the content that's the problem, it's the words "SI Swimsuit". which makes it even more ridiculous.


----------



## logicman1 (Jan 10, 2008)

MickeS said:


> And here it's not the content that's the problem, it's the words "SI Swimsuit". which makes it even more ridiculous.


I think the Taliban would disagree with your statement.


----------



## billy in slo (Oct 19, 2005)

My point wasn't that he was right or wrong, it was that he was bombarded with sarcasm and insults because of his beliefs. And his post was not a diatribe railing against society (as mine was) but merely a question as to whom he could contact to complain to.
I do not hide my children (5 in all) from being educated about sex and sexuality but I do not leave it up to S.I.'s swimsuit addition either. And I agree completely with the point about gratuitous violence which is also out of control. And one more thing, I don't think the topless women in Europe really have that much in common with the image being portrayed on TV by these super models. My wife and I have never hidden our nudity from our children until they decided on their own as they ran screaming from my room to put some clothes on dad.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

billy in slo said:


> Wow, you people are brutal! It never ceases to amaze how the same people who clamer for tolerance of a woman's "right" to choose or sexual orientation or cohabitation don't hesitate to rake a conservative Christian over the coals for expressing their opinion.


his "opinion" was that the text should not show on the menu ad and that is the same "opinion" you seem to be expressing. This "opinion" to censor some free speech is what people are arguing against as an invalid "opinion" in our free society.

again you live in a free society in which you can call to discontinue the TV service if you have issues controlling what is seen on your screen. True character is measured by taking responsibility for your own morals versus making everyone else have to bend to them. The OP clearly wants to start getting everyone to bend to his Moral outlook.

Surely you have noticed the sarcastic remarks about Saudia Arabia and Iran but the underlying truth in those remarks is that ANYTIME you try and legislate a total religous agenda it ends up failing in the hands of the few who want power instead of spiritual leadership. Personal Freedom to choose is the only benchmark that seems to work for society at large. I think a few historical examples of that can also be found as well.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

The people who rage about conservative Christians yet are tolerant of same sex couples may be intolerant of conservative Christians because they have observed that those people try to dictate other people's morality. The same-sex couples on the whole do not. I don't like people telling me how to live my life. I think people object to having people try to censor stuff they consider harmless.

I tried to find the video out of curiosity and wondered why there was not a link in the ad rather than a link to the Unbox page.


----------



## billy in slo (Oct 19, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> his "opinion" was that the text should not show on the menu ad and that is the same "opinion" you seem to be expressing. This "opinion" to censor some free speech is what people are arguing against as an invlaid "opinion" in our free society.
> 
> again you live in a free society in which you can call discontinue the TV service if you have issues controlling what is seen on your screen. True character is measured by taking responsibility for your own morals versus making everyone else have to bend to them.
> 
> Surely you have noticed the sarcastic remarks about Saudia Arabia and Iran but the underlying truth in those remarks is that ANYTIME you try and legislate a total religous agenda it ends up failing in the hands of the few who want power instead of spiritual leadership. Personal Freedom to choose is the only benchmark that seems to work for society at large. I think a few historical examples of that can also be found


Can't argue with that, well said. I jumped in more to address most of the responses which tore the guy a new one for his complaint.


----------



## tluxon (Feb 28, 2002)

MickeS said:


> And here it's not the content that's the problem, it's the words "SI Swimsuit". which makes it even more ridiculous.


I don't believe the OP agrees - and that's the point, isn't it? I'm quite certain the OP is more concerned about the images those words conjure than the words themselves.

No matter how sheltered someone might try to keep themselves and their family (as is their right - who are we to judge?), one would have to literally be blind to be unaware of what the SI swimsuit issue is about. There may be any number of people for any number of reasons (doesn't have to just be religious or Christian) who disdain "objectifying women" the way the swimsuit issue does. Most of us - primarily guys, likely - appreciate and enjoy it, which is largely the reason most primetime shows on television (especially on ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX) play on much the same thing. The thing is, it's a common understanding that primetime programming on major networks is "buyer beware" for such matters. The TiVo home menu - maybe not so much.


----------



## Heinrich (Feb 28, 2002)

I was offended too. I wish it had been Instinct Magazine's Swimsuit Edition

http://instinctmagazine.com/the-watercooler/page_7.html


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Atomike said:


> I understand the ideas expressed here - that the actual product is not apparent, but rather merely the words.


Well, are pictures more offensive than words? 'Not in their essence. A photograph (or video) of an offensive act is no more serious than the words expressing an offensive idea, but in this case it's neither. Indeed, although I find cheesecake pictorials to be irretrievably silly, I find them far less offensive than the fact it is an ad - irrespective of the content. In this case, however, it's an ad for a product I will never purchase, so the fact the product's cost is inflated by the ad doesn't really bother me personally. The only thing I find by which to be offended are the vast sums of cash dumped upon the morons who produce such drivel (and the photographic equivalent of drivel), who deserve nothing at all.



Atomike said:


> Ok - what if it was an ad for Playboy? For something even worse? What if it was for Pedophile porn?


Even an ad for kiddie porn is not the kiddie porn itself, words or otherwise. The crux of the matter is not that it is words instead of pictures, but that it is not the content itself. Of course, in the case of kiddie porn, it is not only illegal to produce the content, but also to promote or distribute it.



Atomike said:


> The fact is that words advertising an offensive product are offensive.


All advertising is offensive, in my view. So are all sports programs, soap operas, and network television. So are all political campaigns, and most so-called news programs. Ditto all religion, the use or sale of cosmetics, and Adam Sandler. I don't even want to think about Paris Hilton. If I went around worryng about all the offensive things in the world, I wouldn't have the time or energy to draw a breath.



Atomike said:


> I believe Tivo has gone too far. If Tivo hasn't offended you yet, they might someday. And you'll only be able to blame yourself - Unless you tell them to stop now.


Of course they have. There are very few companies who haven't offended me, or in many cases enraged me. It's not my prerogative to try to make them stop doing things I don't like just because I don't like them, though. I vote with the same right every American has at his fingertips: the wallet. If a company offends me more seriously than I can tolerate, I don't buy their products. I also of course may make use of my First Amendment right to voice my displeasure, as you have done. Kudos for that.



Atomike said:


> I don't get ESPN


Well, it's included wiht the package. My second biggest gripe is I can't get them to shut it off and refund me the subscription fees. My biggest gripe is I can't force them not to inflate the costs of the products I buy with the monies they spend on advertising on ESPN (and NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.)



Atomike said:


> I don't mind if people make fun of me over this - I've never minded being mocked for standing up.


I admire your integrity and your fortitude, although it doesn't take all that much fortitude to withstand criticism in a forum like this. In addition, as I have alreeady mentioned, I applaud you for speaking out concerning the things you find important. I only suggest you might consider picking your battles more effectively. On the other hand, I've been known to tilt a windmill or two in my time, so far be it from me to criticize. It's not appropriate for anyone to mock you (or anyone else), no matter what. You'd best expect some disagreement, though, as you have seen above.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

tluxon said:


> I'm quite certain the OP is more concerned about the images those words conjure than the words themselves.


There is no significant difference between the two. A phrase is nothing but an expression of an image or to put it another way a means to invoke an image.



tluxon said:


> No matter how sheltered someone might try to keep themselves and their family (as is their right - who are we to judge?), one would have to literally be blind to be unaware of what the SI swimsuit issue is about.


Actually most people are unaware of what the SI swimsuit issue is about, inlcuding - or rather especially - those who "read" it. It's about trying to bilk people of their money.



tluxon said:


> There may be any number of people for any number of reasons (doesn't have to just be religious or Christian)


No, indeed. I would estimate that a larger percentage of Muslims are offended by it than Christians. I slo suspect those women who are offended, or at least annoyed, but it are so inclined irrespective of religious concerns.



tluxon said:


> who disdain "objectifying women" the way the swimsuit issue does. Most of us - primarily guys, likely - appreciate and enjoy it


True, I would expect. It's silly if you ask me, but true nonetheless.



tluxon said:


> which is largely the reason most primetime shows on television (especially on ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX) play on much the same thing.


False, in my opinion. Men are sexually objectified just as much as women, especially in Prime Time and on Soap Operas, and the target is just as much women as it is men for the majority of programs out there. There are some notable exceptions, of course. Items like The Man Show and WFW Live objectify women much more than men and in a way similar to SI's swimsuit edition, but shows like Gray's Anatomy and even Sex in the City are targeted at a female audience a well as a male audience. Soap Operas are targeted virtually entirely at a female audience, and objectification of males in Soap Operas is rampant. It just has a different aspect.



tluxon said:


> The thing is, it's a common understanding that primetime programming on major networks is "buyer beware" for such matters.


The problem is, the buyer can't beware. They are forced to purchase the programming whether they want to or not and whether they even watch it or not.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

billy in slo said:


> I have a 13 year old boy in the house. I also was shocked when I recorded the Superbowl and added time at the end in case it ran long and while fast forwarding to the end was assaulted with images which to me looked like porn, soft-porn maybe, but porn none the less.


If you are offended, then don't watch the Superbowl. If you "just have to" watch the Superbowl despite it's pandering to attitudes of which you disapprove, then clearly your desire to watch sports is of greater importance to you than your moral indignation. If large numbers of people changed the channel because they were offended by the images on the screen, then the networks would drop the images like a hot iron. Moaning about it isn't going to change anything, no matter how many people do it. Cold, hard cash talks to the networks, and nothing else even whispers.



billy in slo said:


> True character is measured by what we do even when no one is around.


It's measured by what we do, period. What does the fact you watched the Superbowl despite it's supporting offensive advertising say about you? I don't mean that as an attack. I mean it as a serious question.



billy in slo said:


> The reference to pedophile programming is not that far fetched in a society that measures right and wrong by popular opinion, it is a slippery slope. I suggest a quick study of the downfall of once great societies which headed down that very path.


I can't think of even five major societies whose downfall was caused by a shift in morality. By contrast I can't think of even a single democracy which wasn't destroyed by an obsessiojn with "bread and circusses". In case you didn't know, the modern day incarnation of "bread and circusses" is "Social Security and the Superbowl".



billy in slo said:


> The original poster made it quite clear it was not the word "swimsuit" and the inference that it was is an insult to even a person of average intelligence. The purpose of that programing is not to sell swimsuits. Give me a break guys.


It's intent isn't to sell sex or objectification, either. It's to sell magazines. If Adventures in Muppetland could sell more copies than the Swimsuit Edition, then you couldn't get them to put on SI in favor of The Muppets if you held a gun to their heads. There is one and only one reason the magazine is produced: people buy it.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> his "opinion" was that the text should not show on the menu ad and that is the same "opinion" you seem to be expressing. This "opinion" to censor some free speech is what people are arguing against as an invalid "opinion" in our free society.


Well, hold on. I am the very first person on Earth to support freedom of speech and of the press and to speak out against censorship, but we're into a bit of gray area, here. Patently, an advertisement is *NOT* free speech, no matter what the Supreme Court might say. If it were free speech / press, then people wouldn't be forced to pay for it. To put it another way, it's one thing to try to prevent someone from speaking or publishing their thoughts, opinions, or creative expressions. It's a very, very different thing to prevent someone from forcing other people to pay for it, most especially when it is neither an opinion, a tutorial, nor a historical fact (aka "news") which is being conveyed. Think of it this way:

Freedom of speech requires that no one be able to prevent you from publishing a book. Is it freedom of speech to force everyone to purchase the book once you've published it?

The difference between censorship and seeking freedom from theft in this case has to do with why the content is being opposed.



billy in slo said:


> Surely you have noticed the sarcastic remarks about Saudia Arabia and Iran but the underlying truth in those remarks is that ANYTIME you try and legislate a total religous agenda it ends up failing in the hands of the few who want power instead of spiritual leadership.


Well, it's more fundamental than even that. Even in the presence of total separation between church and state, the most common reason an individual seeks to be a religious leader is the same as of those who seek to be political leaders, and that is because they want power. Put most simply, leaders want to be leaders. Religion or politics is mostly just the chosen means to that end. Otherwise, they wouldn't seek to be leaders, but simply devout religious followers or active poltical participants as the case would be. Invest both political and religious power into a single entity and you wind up with a despot (or group of them) whose opinion's can't be questioned, no matter how evil they may be.



billy in slo said:


> Personal Freedom to choose is the only benchmark that seems to work for society at large. I think a few historical examples of that can also be found as well.


How well it works is debatable. Whether it has actually ever been implemented in fact rather than putatively is also debatable. On the other hand, examples of the horrors which can result from supression of freedom of speech and the press or of a failure to separate church and state are thick upon the ground.

Nonetheless, as Sir Winston Churchill said "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Whatever the case, I certainly prefer it and am willing to fight for it, and freedom of speech and of the press are absolutely vital to a democracy, or even a halfway healthy monarchy.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> no, no,no you have it wrong. She is the bad person for allowing herself to be objectified. She should free herself from such sinful ways by getting a Burka. Have none of you been to Iran
> 
> Maybe TiVo will balance things out with an menu ad for Burkas.


How dare she earn hundreds of thousands of dollars for wearing fabric.

-smak-


----------



## lqaddict (Apr 5, 2005)

We're all here having a conversation, expressing our thoughts, even the original poster - this is our constitutional right - the freedom of speech. Now, if you want to impose on the society your religious believes - this is violation of the constitutional rights given to us by the U.S. Government - it is clearly stated that the United States of America maintains separation of the Government Institution and Religious organizations, correct? So, to whoever claims that Tivo and its advertising policies are violating their religious believes should complain about it to their religion organization, and not to FCC (Government organization), not to the Tivo officials (last I checked Tivo did not belong to any religious organizations, and they are subject to the Government regulation). The answer from your religion organization will most probably be do not use the Tivo.
Cliff notes: I want _Penn & Teller: Bul****!_ return to SHO!!!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lqaddict said:


> We're all here having a conversation, expressing our thoughts, even the original poster - this is our constitutional right - the freedom of speech. Now, if you want to impose on the society your religious believes - this is violation of the constitutional rights given to us by the U.S. Government - it is clearly stated that the United States of America maintains separation of the Government Institution and Religious organizations, correct?


This board is not a government owned entity, so "freedom of speech" has absolutely nothing to do with it. (For example the banning of stock and Tivo-extraction talk that happens around here.)

Plus, separation of church and state is NOT directly stated in the Constitution either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

billy in slo said:


> Wow, you people are brutal! It never ceases to amaze how the same people who clamer for tolerance of a woman's "right" to choose or sexual orientation or cohabitation don't hesitate to rake a conservative Christian over the coals for expressing their opinion. I agree with the original poster. I have a 13 year old boy in the house.


I would think a 13 year old boy would be most interested!


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

billy in slo said:


> Wow, you people are brutal! It never ceases to amaze how the same people who clamer for tolerance of a woman's "right" to choose or sexual orientation or cohabitation don't hesitate to rake a conservative Christian over the coals for expressing their opinion.


Where did the original poster say he was a Christian? Morality isn't limited to Christians or religious people, you know. Some of us heathens have morals too.


----------



## sbourgeo (Nov 10, 2000)

Heinrich said:


> I was offended too. I wish it had been Instinct Magazine's Swimsuit Edition
> 
> http://instinctmagazine.com/the-watercooler/page_7.html


And so the agenda of discrimination against masculinists and the oppression and sexual objectification of men continues...


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

I know we're largely poking fun at the OP, but the copy on the Cosmo magazine ad might be a little risque... saw it attached to the Jericho recording and it can also be found in Showcases. Something about "sex" and "sexy" - and it looks like you can subscribe right from the TiVo interface. Hmmm... I'm not a parent, but I don't think I'd mind the word/idea of "sex" whereas I'd mind junior making purchases on my credit card when I'm not looking.

Edit: I posted a video and tested my own video advertising with a possibly inappropriate product... 
http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2008-02/tivos-risque-advertising/


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

davezatz said:


> ... I'm not a parent, but I don't think I'd mind the word/idea of "sex" whereas I'd mind junior making purchases on my credit card when I'm not looking.


There are times when ya just need to (figuratively, not literally) smack junior upside the head.


----------



## Rebate_King (Nov 10, 2004)

The OP started this thread as a joke, right?


----------



## billy in slo (Oct 19, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> If you are offended, then don't watch the Superbowl. If you "just have to" watch the Superbowl despite it's pandering to attitudes of which you disapprove, then clearly your desire to watch sports is of greater importance to you than your moral indignation. If large numbers of people changed the channel because they were offended by the images on the screen, then the networks would drop the images like a hot iron. Moaning about it isn't going to change anything, no matter how many people do it. Cold, hard cash talks to the networks, and nothing else even whispers.
> 
> It's measured by what we do, period. What does the fact you watched the Superbowl despite it's supporting offensive advertising say about you? I don't mean that as an attack. I mean it as a serious question.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I think the network (TNT?) aired the S.I. show after the superbowl. It only showed up because I added time to the "live" broadcast.
I do find most advertising offensive. That is why I use TIVO and skip past commercials.
I am not offended by your question. Because I skip commercials, I am not sure exactly what offensive advertising is supported by the superbowl. I totally agree the choice is mine to not watch anything.
There is some truth to what you say regarding my desire to watch sports despite my moral indignation, but again that is why I have TIVO so I can make the choice not to view the offensive material.
And again you are correct, it is all about making money and me not watching, or even "moaning" about it won't change a thing.
Finally, I probably shouldn't start a discussion about historical societies and their downfalls because I really am not that knowledgeable about such things, my bad. Thanks for a civil and intelligent discussion though.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

davezatz said:


> Edit: I posted a video and tested my own video advertising with a possibly inappropriate product...
> http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2008-02/tivos-risque-advertising/


ironic that an ad for 'sex for dummys" and an ad for Cosmo popped up during the playing of the video at your site.

I do agree however that the one click and subscribed should not happen on the TiVo. TiVo should maintain a standard of having to do the proverbial 3 thumbs button and enter for any kind of transaction. In fact they should get a patent on that 3 thumbs and enter


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

David Platt said:


> Where did the original poster say he was a Christian? Morality isn't limited to Christians or religious people, you know. Some of us heathens have morals too.


Good point. One of the things that made me jump in this thread was the fact that all Christians would be branded by the thinking such as the OP exhibited. This idea of forcing the world to be good always rankles me. I know of no modern day worshipped diety from any of the major religions that tried to force people to be good. Punish the bad, sure but never did they want people forced into following them. Now the humans that follow the diety that is indeed another issue and our world history is full of the horror that becomes of that, including current headlines.

Sure the OP was talking about a small thing in the form of an ad but it is still the same principle. He is free to object to the ad of course but TiVo would be right in following social norms and legal guidelines in deciding on the ads they will run. Social norms are usually about protecting people and property so those making a case of protecting the girls from objectification have some merit except for the fact they make a boatload of money for it.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

mattack said:


> Heck, the "Get NAILED every night!" (or whatever it was) ad that was there previously, was "cruder" IMHO.





jjberger2134 said:


> As for protecting your family - you point out that KidZone is an option, but you choose not to use it. With KidZone you never see TiVo Central and thus never will see the ad.





magnus said:


> If you really find the TEXT objectionable.... then you really should turn on KidZone because you are WAY over-protective.


BTW, the get nailed ad showed up in Strawberry Shortcake under kidzone for me.

So to everyone railing on the OP about him using kidzone, that doesn't necessarily protect you either.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> BTW, the get nailed ad showed up in Strawberry Shortcake under kidzone for me.
> 
> So to everyone railing on the OP about him using kidzone, that doesn't necessarily protect you either.


now that IS a legitimate beef.

Tivo SHOULD keep kidzone a little less edgy then that. If for no other reason then they sell it as a feature to protect kids. Someone could get a hold of that and bash them pretty hard in the media that they are "selling sex" in the kidzone.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> now that IS a legitimate beef.
> 
> Tivo SHOULD keep kidzone a little less edgy then that. If for no other reason then they sell it as a feature to protect kids. Someone could get a hold of that and bash them pretty hard in the media that they are "selling sex" in the kidzone.


<Shrug> I thought so, but when I brought it up here http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=381840&highlight=nailed I was told I had a dirty mind and the thread was closed.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> <Shrug> I thought so, but when I brought it up here http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=381840&highlight=nailed I was told I had a dirty mind and the thread was closed.


you really got NAILED in that thread.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> <Shrug> I thought so, but when I brought it up here http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=381840&highlight=nailed I was told I had a dirty mind and the thread was closed.


I guess WE are the "right wing nut jobs" today- LOL.

But seriously- I'm not too worried about it personally-I can handle my kids without tivo. But really they should be carefull what they put in kidzone to protect the kidzone brand. For example- many of their kid guru guide partners would probably be a bit bent if a show that that got recorded as a result of their guide had such an ad attached. (then again maybe not- some of those shows they suggest I think some mihgt not want their kids to see...)


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Atomike said:


> I don't mind if people make fun of me over this - I've never minded being mocked for standing up.


Well, that's fortunate.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

billy in slo said:


> I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I think the network (TNT?) aired the S.I. show after the superbowl. It only showed up because I added time to the "live" broadcast.


OT, but I'm baffled by this. The Superbowl was of course on Fox, and they showed House after it.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

davezatz said:


> I know we're largely poking fun at the OP, but the copy on the Cosmo magazine ad might be a little risque... saw it attached to the Jericho recording and it can also be found in Showcases. Something about "sex" and "sexy" - and it looks like you can subscribe right from the TiVo interface. Hmmm... I'm not a parent, but I don't think I'd mind the word/idea of "sex" whereas I'd mind junior making purchases on my credit card when I'm not looking.
> 
> Edit: I posted a video and tested my own video advertising with a possibly inappropriate product...
> http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2008-02/tivos-risque-advertising/


I just looked at that at megazone's blog:
http://www.tivolovers.com/2008/02/27/ads-on-tivo-make-it-too-easy-to-buy-things/

His reader comment quoted is also very interesting.

THIS is stuff to be upset about, IMO. It's completely unacceptable that ordering can be done this way, and TiVo needs to change this ASAP. I know I ALWAYS expect some form of "By clicking, you accept bla bla bla" when ordering, and in this case there should be some form of PIN like with Unbox purchases.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

RoyK said:


> No, it didn't.
> Edit:
> I'm not a prude by any means and the lady is quite pretty but if this image had popped up on my screen where I worked before I retired I'd have had to talk fast to keep from getting a reprimand - or worse.


sorry, but if you are reading a forum such as this at work, you are taking whatever comes your way.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> sorry, but if you are reading a forum such as this at work, you are taking whatever comes your way.


Quite right. I should have known that in a dvr discussion forum there are always a few who will act like adolescents.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> sorry, but if you are reading a forum such as this at work, you are taking whatever comes your way.


I always read TCF at work, heck most of us are playing the werewolf games that are hosted here while at work.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> BTW, the get nailed ad showed up in Strawberry Shortcake under kidzone for me.
> 
> So to everyone railing on the OP about him using kidzone, that doesn't necessarily protect you either.


YAh, I thought Kidzone showed ads but had not setup a kidzone to verify that. In my opinion TiVo should not show any ads in kidzone at all. LEt them show up when Kidzone is off but it is for the public good to not show ads to young impressionable minds.

Also that click and boom, you ordered something or sent private info has no place in Kidzone even if they added in an extra "are you sure" screen


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

it's swimsuits. it's not like they're advertising playboy. definitely don't go to the beach.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

Einselen said:


> I always read TCF at work, heck most of us are playing the werewolf games that are hosted here while at work.


I surf here from work too, but short of real pornography, or other things prohibited by the TCF rules, I would blame no one but myself if I got busted for the content here.

Would you blame TCF or Tivo if you were to be reprimanded for playing games?


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

Just to be clear:

It's not TiVo's fault.

It's not SI's fault.

It's God's fault for making some women so good looking.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> sorry, but if you are reading a forum such as this at work, you are taking whatever comes your way.


Wrong.

Guideline #3:


> 3. There are people that read this forum at work. If something would not be considered "work safe" *(to a boss or HR person)*, then it shouldn't be posted.





Mikeyis4dcats said:


> I surf here from work too, but short of real pornography, or other *things prohibited by the TCF rules*, I would blame no one but myself if I got busted for the content here?


If you're going to quote the rules, you should know them first. Else you make yourself look like a fool.

Keep it clean or go somewhere else.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

This is getting bad - another thing GoHokies! and I agree on in the same week!

"3. There are people that read this forum at work. If something would not be considered work safe (to a boss or HR person), then it shouldnt be posted."

Exactly! And given today's rules and regulations most companies frown strongly on display of images of scantily clad people of either sex. The company I worked for flat out forbid them - specifically including swim-suit calenders, certain tool company calenders and the like. The consequences of violating the policy included termination.

Bottom line - there's a place for such things but use common sense folks.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

Rebate_King said:


> The OP started this thread as a joke, right?


I certainly hope so.


----------



## Da Goon (Oct 22, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> If you're going to quote the rules, you should know them first. Else you make yourself look like a fool.
> 
> Keep it clean or go somewhere else.


Citing seldom read forum rules really isn't a good excuse to defer responsibility for what you are looking at while at work. You clicked, therefore you are responsible. Last time I checked, my boss paid me to work, not to read internet forums. If something is offensive, then isn't it the mods job to clean it up? Get back to work people!  and don't forget to flame away while the boss ain't looking!


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Da Goon said:


> Citing seldom read forum rules really isn't a good excuse to defer responsibility for what you are looking at while at work.


Amazing that you can completely ignore your responsibility to know and follow the rules while preaching to me about my non-existent responsibility to not surf the web while at work and tell us that it's the moderators responsibility to clean up out-of-line posts, but (again) not your responsibility to know or follow the rules in the first place. Everyone has a responsibility but you. 

Truly boggles the mind. Try learning some personal responsibility for a change.


----------



## Da Goon (Oct 22, 2006)

Did I state I didn't read the rules? I have read the rules. I show personal responsibility by tending to my duties assigned to me at work instead of browsing the internet on my company's time.

If your boss saw you looking at "objectionable material" at work, do you really think that directing them to that forum's rules that forbid that material would actually get you anywhere? What would my boss say? He would say exactly what I stated in my previous post : You clicked, therefore you are responsible.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Da Goon said:


> Did I state I didn't read the rules?


Your responsibility is to know and follow the rules, not read them once and then ignore them, which is what your "seldom read rules" statement implied.



> I show personal responsibility by tending to my duties assigned to me at work instead of browsing the internet on my company's time.


Good for you, would you like a gold star? Fortunately, not everyone works at your place of employment, and occasional web browsing on a not-to-interfere basis is good to go with my current employer. Also, when I was in the Navy and underway on a ship, the only web surfing there available was on a DOD machine. Personal use of the internet was absolutely no problem at all, as long as you weren't visiting objectionable sites.



> If your boss saw you looking at "objectionable material" at work, do you really think that directing them to that forum's rules that forbid that material would actually get you anywhere?


Absolutely, in both previous examples.



> What would my boss say? He would say exactly what I stated in my previous post : You clicked, therefore you are responsible.


It's a good thing that the rest of us here don't work for your boss.


----------



## SGR215 (Jan 20, 2004)

For the record, some of us have jobs where surfing the Internet is allowed as long as we're not "on-call". Also, some of us work in a field where our Internet access isn't monitored. (Mainly because we're the ones in charge of monitoring/controlling everyone elses Internet experience... among other things.  )

On a day where I'm not too busy I surf Digg, many video sites, this forum, and much more. All of which is allowed. So I would think twice about saying "you shouldn't be surfing the net at work!"


----------



## logicman1 (Jan 10, 2008)

If I'm eating lunch at my desk I have no problem surfing the net. Also not sure why anyone here cares about what someone else does while they are at work.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> Amazing that you can completely ignore your responsibility to know and follow the rules while preaching to me about my non-existent responsibility to not surf the web while at work and tell us that it's the moderators responsibility to clean up out-of-line posts, but (again) not your responsibility to know or follow the rules in the first place. Everyone has a responsibility but you.
> 
> Truly boggles the mind. Try learning some personal responsibility for a change.


last I checked neither Da Goon nor I violated board rules.

And he's 100% right, ultimately YOU are responsible for being on this site. Only you will shoulder the blame if the hammer falls. Your boss can't fire someone on an online forum because you were surfing the net. If you work at a place that has low tolerance and the means to catch you at it, then I bet they have a rather clear internet usage policy, and being here most likely violates it.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Da Goon said:


> Last time I checked, my boss paid me to work, not to read internet forums. If something is offensive, then isn't it the mods job to clean it up? Get back to work people!


Last time _*I*_ checked, we all don't work for *YOUR* boss.

There are PLENTY of jobs where surfing the net is acceptable. I know 911 dispatchers that work graveyard, there is nothing to do but wait for calls. They are ENCOURAGED to surf the web to stay awake and alert. Same with EMT's and firefighters who's 'job' is to sit around and watch TV or surf the net until they get a call. Some people are self-employed but share an office with others.

Some people (like me) are paid by performance. Meaning my company could care less what I do all day, because if I'm not generating revenue I'm not getting paid.

And last I checked, people with 'normal' jobs get breaks / lunch....


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> last I checked neither Da Goon nor I violated board rules.
> 
> And he's 100% right, ultimately YOU are responsible for being on this site.


correct and YOU (and everyone else) are also 100% responsible for posting within the rules while being on this site. If someone contacted the forum and explained that had a reprimand or worse at work because of a picture that came up directly in a thread then banning the user who posted it would not seem out of the question to me.

for the record, my boss, would chuckle at the whole debate/pictures here and simply warn me not to get him in hot water with HR and some other co-worker.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

This is why employers crack down on nude/partially nude pictures.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7DE143FF930A15752C0A967958260

Rather than be faced with potentially expensive legal problems the prudent employer these days just strictly forbids any action that might be somehow construed as sexual harassment.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lqaddict said:


> We're all here having a conversation, expressing our thoughts, even the original poster - this is our constitutional right - the freedom of speech. Now, if you want to impose on the society your religious believes - this is violation of the constitutional rights given to us by the U.S. Government


*WHAT?!* No offense intended, but are you seriously insane? The U.S. government has never given anyone any rights - nor for that matter has any other government in history. The purpose of all government is to limit or even eliminate the rights of its constituents, not to give them to them. First of all, our rights weren't given to us - certainly not by any government - they were earned by our ancestors who fought for them. They continue to be earned by all of us who continue to fight to maintain them. The battles for freedom, by the way, are not always just on the battlefield and not fought only by soldiers or militia with weapons. They are fought by teachers, parents, students, doctors, carpenters, lawyers, waitresses, you name it. Every time someone stands up for their rights, they fight a battle for freedom, small though it might be. Secondly, the official outline which attempted to prevent the government from taking away our rights is found in the first ten amendments to the the Constitution of the United States of America, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution isn't the government, it is the document which defines it, and the Bill of Rights isn't even exactly a part of the constitution. It tells the government (mostly Congress) what they can't do, not what they're supposed to do. The government would be ecstatic if the Bill of Rights didn't exist, as well demonstrated by its frequent attempts to void the document.



lqaddict said:


> - it is clearly stated that the United States of America maintains separation of the Government Institution and Religious organizations, correct?


Nope. The Bill of Rights talks about freedom of religion, but not of separation between church and state. The main body of the Constitution would be where that would be discussed, because it is the main body which speaks of the proper roles and prerogatives of the three branches of the federal government, but it doesn't specifically allow for what we term "the separation of church and state". At the time the Constitution was written, the notion as we know it today was not yet fully formed, and it is clear the founding fathers thought there would be a state religion for each state. Up until that time, it was the way it was done.

The closest the Constitution comes to establishing a separation of church and state is in article six, where it says, "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." In the First Amendment it is required that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", but it in no way prevents the reverse, which is to say it doesn't prevent a religious faction or individual from exerting control over the government or some aspect (probably legislative) of it. It certainly doesn't prevent a citizen from requesting some sort of reform based upon religious principles.

Separation of church and state is a really excellent idea, but it's not in the Constitution to any significant extent. Personally, I'll take my moral principles well purged of any religious folderol, if you don't mind. I want my government to try to prevent someone from blowing my head off for the fun of it. Leave the maintenance of my soul to me, if you don't mind.



lqaddict said:


> So, to whoever claims that Tivo and its advertising policies are violating their religious believes should complain about it to their religion organization, and not to FCC (Government organization)


The same amendment which guarantees freedom of religion, also guarantees the right to bellyache to whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants. He's free to write a 500,000 page treatise on why he hates the name "Tivo" and send it to TiVo, the FCC, or both, if he wants, as long as he doesn't threaten anyone, divulge state secrets, or attempt extortion in the treatise. The fact his dislike might be religiously motivated is irrelevant. TiVo and the FCC are equally free to use the treatise for toilet paper if they are running short.

Returning a bit more to the point, it's my opinion the OP should take care to raise his children in such a way that they can handle whatever moral dilemmas are tossed their way rather than trying to prevent them from ever having to have any with which to deal. As an analogy, it is not the best way to help insure a healthy child to prevent them from ever coming into contact with germs, but rather to allow them to be exposed to germs on a regular basis and innoculate them against the more dangerous diseases. I for one never have purchased a Sports Illustrated, swimsuit edition or not, and it's highly unlikely I ever will. The OP should similarly refrain from purchasing one, and if he wants my advice he should also make it clear to his children he believes the content to be inappropriate and why. He is also perfectly free to attempt to convince us in a rational manner of his point of view, which is precisely what he has done. We are also free to express opposing opinions either simply as a matter of discourse, or in a real attempt to change his mind. Telling him to shut up is not appropriate.


----------



## robm15 (Feb 23, 2004)

Wow Irhorer, good post!


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dmlove51 said:


> Those same people who believe a woman has a right to choose, or a homosexual to be, or people who want to cohabitate to do so, are also in full agreement that the OP absolutely has the right to choose -- the right to choose to cancel TiVO service, or to enable Kidzone, or to throw their TV in the garbage.


Yes, I believe everyone has made that very clear. The main issue on the other side of the fence, however, is that many of the dissenting opinions have in one way or another told the OP to keep quiet, and that is not an acceptable attitude, no matter what they might think of the OP's opinion. He not only has a right to act on his own personal behalf, but he has every right to express his opinion and to defend it in discussion. I might be inclined to say he exceeded the boundaries of that right had he become abusive, but he has maintained a perfectly polite demeanor, not to mention maintaining a rational discourse. We need to listen to what he has to say. We don't have to agree with it even in the least measure, and we have every right to argue the point as long as both sides might like. He deserves his due respect.



lqaddict said:


> The point is that he doesn't have the right to impose his beliefs on ME. Yes, I think his thinking is wrong, but I also think he can think whatever he likes, as long as he doesn't affect ME, which is what forcing TiVO to remove ads HE believes are objectionable, would do.


You're treading three thin lines, here. He has every right to complain to TiVo about whatever he wants and to request they make whatever changes he wants regardless of the motivation for the request. You are equally free to ask TiVo not to implement his request for whatever reason you like, although I can't really imagine any consumer uninvolved with the company being promoted ever actually requesting commercials.

The second thin line is that he does have every right to attempt to convince you to change your mind. He just doesn't have the right to force you to change your mind or to force you into a situation against your will.

The third thin line here is caused by the presence of a third party. I think his intent here was to attempt (or at least to wish) to get other people to support him in a campaign to change TiVo's mind. This is also perfectly within his rights. The thing is, all actions of the people within a society affect the other members and the society as a whole. At some point, the line will be crossed between asserting one's own rights and excessively impacting another individual's freedoms. Exactly where that line lies is sometimes a very, very difficult question to answer. Frankly, taking the larger view, I really don't think we're very near that line in this case. I truly don't think the OP's (or his children's) moral battlements are anywhere nearly as in danger of breech as has been expressed, but I also don't think anyone's freedoms of speech or expression would be seriously impacted by the absence of an advertisement. Mind you, this is purely my opinion, and I'm not going to have a heart siezure if either or both of you truly disagree, but do you really?



dmlove51 said:


> I'm female, and I don't like the swimsuit issue (or the Victoria's Secret annual TV thing, or Hooter's for that matter), but I still don't think they should be banned.


Now this isn't even close to being a thin line. There is a *vast* difference between censorship - government or otherwise - and convincing a company not to carry a particular advertisement. As I mentioned in a previous message, an advertisement, even a very creative advertisement, is not an example of freedom of expression. What's more, convincing a private element not to publish a certain content through simple persuasion is not the same thing as having something banned. The exercise of persuasive arguments carries no force of authority, and so there is no potential for the abuse of authority. Censorship is at its foundation an exercise of authority.

Do I think TiVo should dump the SI commercials? No. (Or not in preference to dumping all the others, anyway.)

Do I think it is inappropriate for the OP to ask they do so? No.

Do I think they will? You've got to be kidding me.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

billy in slo said:


> I do find most advertising offensive. That is why I use TIVO and skip past commercials.


Me, too. Isn't that amazing? 

I also use Video Redo to remove commercials from TiVo-to-Go materials.



dmlove51 said:


> I am not offended by your question.


I am happy you are not, because I truly meant no offense. I just wanted you and especially the others involved on both sides of this discussion to consider very carefully before suggesting others endure an effective cost to themselves on behalf of the author when the author is unwilling to bear certain expenses himself. In particular this often happens not due to overt selfishness on the part of the author, but due to the fact the author is unaware of his bias. It's a very human failing, and we all have blind spots. I personally feel it is incumbent upon all of us to point out such blind spots when we notice them. The thing is, sometimes those blind spots can be very tender, and it is easy to hurt the feelings of those we attempt to enlighten. I sincerely tried not to be offensive, but I know all too well I might easily have failed.



billy in slo said:


> There is some truth to what you say regarding my desire to watch sports despite my moral indignation, but again that is why I have TIVO so I can make the choice not to view the offensive material.


Well, yes, but it's sort of making an end run around the underlying morality. I'm not criticizing you for this, mind you. It's a clever compromise. Frankly, the world might be a better place if more people made such compromises rather than refusing to budge one way or the other. I'm sure I can learna lesson from it, for that matter.



billy in slo said:


> And again you are correct, it is all about making money and me not watching, or even "moaning" about it won't change a thing.


Unfortunately, it is. I don't like it any more than I imagine you do, but it's one of the facts of life.



billy in slo said:


> Finally, I probably shouldn't start a discussion about historical societies and their downfalls because I really am not that knowledgeable about such things, my bad.


'Not at all. One needn't be an expert on an interesting subject to start a discussion about it. It's a great way to learn, for one thing. It's also a great way to broaden one's horizons. I definitely do recommend that anyone who is interested in what causes societies to form and to disintegrate (and we all should be concerned about this) do some reading of the writings of the individuals who experienced those downfalls. It's also instructive to read up on the social norms of those societies when they were waxing. One is likely to be very surprised, even shocked by the things those very vibrant societies considered normal or even highly socially desirable.

Barring that, however, I always found Robert Heinlein to be a good read.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> <Shrug> I thought so, but when I brought it up here http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=381840&highlight=nailed I was told I had a dirty mind and the thread was closed.


I just can't believe it. Did that guy seriously believe that DIY had any other intent in sculpting the ad the way they did other than a double entendre? Is he truly so naive as to think the consumer wasn't supposed to interpret it that way?

I also find it offensive they closed the thread.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Social norms are usually about protecting people and property so those making a case of protecting the girls from objectification have some merit except for the fact they make a boatload of money for it.


Well, the point is it isn't the girls who are in the ads that bear the brunt of objectification. I disagree with the idea for quite different reasons, but their point is valid from that perspective.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

bored now


----------



## MasterOfPuppets (Jul 12, 2005)

I've read roughly 7 posts of this thread.
But I'm really to enter it in the race for the prestigious title of "Most Ridiculous Thing on the Internet"


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dorian said:


> There are only three topics on television nowadays:
> 
> 1. Women are beautiful and desirable, regardless of size or age.
> 2. Guys are bafoons and can only be creative when Lite Beer is brought into the equation.
> ...


That's not quite true. It's largely true of network television, but not of all television. One of my TiVos just captured the three part series of Pride and Prejudice on Masterpiece Theater, several great Bogart films, and Portrait of Jennie. It also has a number of episodes of Modern Marvels. Even Mythbusters only pays very light homage to #1 in their treatment of host Keri Byron, almost never accedes to #2, and only rarely deals with sharks.

Besides, I like sharks, moreso having dived with them upon occasion.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> 3. There are people that read this forum at work. If something would not be considered work safe (to a boss or HR person), then it shouldnt be posted...
> 
> Keep it clean or go somewhere else.


That rule is rather self defeating, if you ask me. If I were to read this forum from work during work hours (and they do monitor our web browsing), I would be called onto the carpet, a lack of pornography notwithstanding. 'And well I should be. Hobbyist and recreational fora are for recreation, not wasting an employer's resources. I have no problem with the requirement that the forum be kept clean, but anyone reading it on company time is due for a reprimand - or worse - regardless of the content.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MasterOfPuppets said:


> I've read roughly 7 posts of this thread.
> But I'm really to enter it in the race for the prestigious title of "Most Ridiculous Thing on the Internet"


A discussion which touches upon the very foundations of our personal rights and freedoms is what you consider ridiculous? A discussion of the proper behavior for discourse among intelligent adults is what you consider ridiculous? Surely the OP's focus for his consternation could arguably have involved a more controversial issue than an ad for a slightly risque publication (whose content would have gotten a publisher jailed and heavily fined in the year I was born), but the topics we have unearthed are anything but even remotely ridiculous.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> That rule is rather self defeating, if you ask me. If I were to read this forum from work during work hours (and they do monitor our web browsing), I would be called onto the carpet, a lack of pornography notwithstanding. 'And well I should be. Hobbyist and recreational fora are for recreation, not wasting an employer's resources. I have no problem with the requirement that the forum be kept clean, but anyone reading it on company time is due for a reprimand - or worse - regardless of the content.


Yours must be a very happy place to work. 

They fact you are not permitted to surf the web at work does not negate the fact that many other of our posters do surf at work. Although some may be doing it against company policy, many companies now realize that as long their work doesn't suffer a little bit of surfing will not hurt.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> I just can't believe it. Did that guy seriously believe that DIY had any other intent in sculpting the ad the way they did other than a double entendre? Is he truly so naive as to think the consumer wasn't supposed to interpret it that way?
> 
> I also find it offensive they closed the thread.


Your guess is as good as mine....


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

RBlount said:


> Yours must be a very happy place to work.


Yeah, it is, as well evidenced by the fact we've fired far more people than have quit, and that more than 1/3 the local staff has been with us more than 15 years apiece. Five of us have been with the company more than 25 years apiece. Of the 12 people who have quit over the years, 3 quit to move out of town with their spouse, 3 returned and 2 others asked to return but were turned down. In an anonymous survey done a couple of years ago, every single member of the team I am on (22 of us) rated my boss' performance as very good or better. I've certainly never found anything on the web half as much fun as the work I do. Well, mostly. Every job has it's frustrating moments, of course. Goofing off doesn't make those moments any better, however. The best remedy is just to knuckle down and get through the frustrating bits as quickly as possible so one can get back to the fun stuff.



RBlount said:


> They fact you are not permitted to surf the web at work does not negate the fact that many other of our posters do surf at work.


I did not say we're not permitted to surf the web. I said our web usage is monitored.



RBlount said:


> Although some may be doing it against company policy, many companies now realize that as long their work doesn't suffer a little bit of surfing will not hurt.


By definition any use of company resources which doesn't benefit the company hurts the company. It may not hurt much, but it is a waste of those resources. I frequently surf the web on company business. I never surf the web on company time using company equipment for non-company business.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> By definition any use of company resources which doesn't benefit the company hurts the company. It may not hurt much, but it is a waste of those resources. I frequently surf the web on company business. I never surf the web on company time using company equipment for non-company business.


Fortunately, the vast majority of the rest of us don't work in the same situation as you and are permitted (and take advantage) the ability to use the internet for recreational purposes.

The owners of the forum recognize that and made the rules accordingly.

I'm not too sure why it is so hard for you people to understand that not everyone has the same working situation as you do and are unable to respect that fact.


----------



## MasterOfPuppets (Jul 12, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> A discussion which touches upon the very foundations of our personal rights and freedoms is what you consider ridiculous? A discussion of the proper behavior for discourse among intelligent adults is what you consider ridiculous? Surely the OP's focus for his consternation could arguably have involved a more controversial issue than an ad for a slightly risque publication (whose content would have gotten a publisher jailed and heavily fined in the year I was born), but the topics we have unearthed are anything but even remotely ridiculous.


Get carried away much?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

logicman1 said:


> If I'm eating lunch at my desk I have no problem surfing the net. Also not sure why anyone here cares about what someone else does while they are at work.


Well, eating lunch is not properly "at work", and your boss' coming down on you for what you do on break is much more of a gray area. Clearly there are activities unacceptable even while on break, but the list is much smaller than when one is not on break. Surfing still uses someone's internet resources, but unless your company is an internet provider or has metered internet services, it isn't your employer who foots the bill. Assuming for simplicity's sake the person is not on break, however:

1. It's theft. Extremely petty theft to be sure, and not legally actionable outside the company, but theft nonetheless. You are making use of someone else's resources (time, money, and internet bandwidth) for your own purposes without their consent. The company may not mind that you are pilfering their resources, but pilfering them you are.

2. It means that work which could be being done is not. It's goldbricking, again whether the company tolerates it or not.

3. It increases the price and decreases the quality of the goods and services the consumer must buy. One reason the company may not mind is they simply pass the costs of sloth, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness along to the consumer. In the end, it is the public from whom you are stealing, and that most certainly is our business. Do you really like having to pay an extra $300 - $500 for a car because of the goldbricking by the people in the automotive industry? Shoddy performance by anyone affects us all.

4. It is a piss-poor attitude, and while a lousy attitude is not illegal, it is far from socially acceptable.

5. It is blatantly unfair to other co-workers who pick up the slack of the person who is not handling his full share of the load. In many work environments, every five minutes someone goofs off is an extra five minutes someone else must work, possibly without additional pay. Of course this varies wildly with the work environment. If the individual is a firefighter or other emergency response personnel, then they are paid to wait around for something to happen. These individuals usually have some additional non-emergent responsibilities, but the very nature of the job requires the level of those responsibilities be somewhat minimal and of a completely non-urgent, non-sequential nature. Nothing they do when not on an emergency can't wait until later, and a few minutes surfing the web has no impact on other individuals. Others, like me, have large numbers of other people waiting upon my output to be able to do their own jobs. Waiting an extra 5 minutes for me means they must work that much harder to meet their deadlines. Add an extra 5 minutes from each of my colleagues, and we have managed to waste an entire hour of that person's time, forcing them to try to get 8 hours work done in 7 hours, or else to work an extra hour to get the work done.

I shouldn't have to explain any of this. Who is teaching ethics to Americans - or rather failing to?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> Fortunately, the vast majority of the rest of us don't work in the same situation as you and are permitted (and take advantage) the ability to use the internet for recreational purposes.


The vast majority of us do work in a situation similar to me. Some do not, but the simple fact is inefficiency impacts every one of us, the fact the employer may look the other way notwithstanding. Buddy Hackett pointed this very fact out in a humorous - and quite explicit - fashion in one of his stand-up routines. If it's pervasive enough for a comedian to poke fun of it in a comedy routine then it's extremely common.



GoHokies! said:


> I'm not too sure why it is so hard for you people to understand that not everyone has the same working situation as you do and are unable to respect that fact.


I understand it very well. As is customary, however, I am speaking to the most common situation, not special cases. Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I personally don't have a problem with an individual seeking out pornography per se. I do have a real problem with them wasting resources on other people's time no matter whether it involves pornography or not. One is just adolescent. The other is theft. For the odd individual whose responsibilities allow leisurely distraction without impacting other people, browsing the web "on company time" hurts no one. For the rest, it hurts everyone, a lakadaisical attitude on the part of the employer and the employee notwithstanding. Vast sociological problems are not built primarily by the actions of a few sociopaths. They are built by the billions of tiny little misdeeds of the common man.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MasterOfPuppets said:


> Get carried away much?


'Virtually never. Do you fail to understand what causes the major problems we face as a society much? A mountain of garbage is not made by one or two incredibly messy individuals producing tons of refuse. It is made by millions of people each tossing away a candy wrapper or two. The huge problems we suffer as a society are not caused by a comparative handful of murderers, rapists, and thieves. They are caused in the most part by 300 million people not bothering to stop and think how their ordinary day to day actions impact the health of society. Jeffrey Dahmer is not the problem. John Q. Ordinaryguy is. A moderate number of overtly antisocial activities won't destroy a society. Billions, even trillions of tiny little moral and ethical infractions will.

If every single person in the US endeavored to do just one extra tiny good deed a day and avoid one tiny ethical infraction every day, at the end of the year there would be nearly an additional 110 trillion additional good deeds floating around and the same number of fewer little infractions. If we arbitrarily assign the paltry value of $.01 to each act (I submit they are worth much more than this), then we would have an additional $2.2 Billion of value added to the society. Curing cancer, stopping teenage pregnancy, eliminating hunger and malnutrition, and stopping terrorism cold are trivial compared with this level of activity. 'Just one tiny good deed a day, like smiling at a stranger or patting a colleague on the back, and one tiny ethical amendment, like not taking your woes out on your spouse or telling the cashier she accidentally gave you an extra penny in change.

It's the tiny things that matter, not the big ones. There are over six billion people on this planet. The next time you are inclined to do something of less than pristine virtue and shrug it off as "no big deal", consider what will happen when six billion other people do the very same thing, day after day afer day.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Do you really like having to pay an extra $300 - $500 for a car because of the goldbricking by the people in the automotive industry? Shoddy performance by anyone affects us all.


Feel free to blame for higher prices of epileptic drugs then since when I slack off I cost the University money which then in turns cost the company paying the University to conduct the study which then in turns costs the end consumer who will be paying the money to the company once the drug is out on the market. Man what a butterfly effect that is.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> 1. It's theft. Extremely petty theft to be sure, and not legally actionable outside the company, but theft nonetheless. You are making use of someone else's resources (time, money, and internet bandwidth) for your own purposes without their consent. The company may not mind that you are pilfering their resources, but pilfering them you are.


 Web browsing a forum like TCF simply does not take much bandwidth and my Company does not have to provide extra to enable it. If I used a VPN connection solely to personally surf then yes - that would be a theft of resources as those are closely sized for need.



> 2. It means that work which could be being done is not. It's goldbricking, again whether the company tolerates it or not.


 depends completely on the work. My work is all about projects and deadlines and timely response to any issues. Those are my metrics that I organize my time management around I exceed expectations routinely while still surfing. Others are in the same boat of having time to acceptably surf while at work without shirking their daily duties.


> 3. It increases the price and decreases the quality of the goods and services the consumer must buy. One reason the company may not mind is they simply pass the costs of sloth, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness
> 
> 4. It is a piss-poor attitude, and while a lousy attitude is not illegal, it is far from socially acceptable.


again you assume that everyones work is structured like your work. The example of emergency response individuals was presented in which it actually increases their effectiveness to be mentally engaged in smething in the downtime as they await and need to be ready to spring into action fully awake and mentally ready. Also see my project and deadline structure of work which does not provide for me filling up every minute from 9 to 5. Also the medical evidence on how breaks provide for a better and more efficient work versus 4 or more straight hours of effort. You are making assumptions as if every work surfer is exactly the same, that is not the case and a poor attitude on your part that detracts greatly from any argument you make here.


> 5. It is blatantly unfair to other co-workers who pick up the slack of the person who is not handling his full share of the load. In many work environments, every five minutes someone goofs off is an extra five minutes someone else must work,


no one said everyone should surf while at work. what was said is that many may be surfing from work in a completely acceptable way. Your postings will need to account for that - just as you should account for your own productivity so it does not effect co-workers. exact same type of personal responsibility. EXACT SAME.


> Others, like me, have large numbers of other people waiting upon my output to be able to do their own jobs. Waiting an extra 5 minutes for me means they must work that much harder to meet their deadlines.


 Why is making your co-workers suffer by not following agreed upon work rules different from making a co-forum member suffer by not following the agreed upon posting rules?


> I shouldn't have to explain any of this. Who is teaching ethics to Americans - or rather failing to?


what you are explaining is not what others are debating about. That is your disconnect on this conversation.


----------



## logicman1 (Jan 10, 2008)

lrhorer said:


> Well, eating lunch is not properly "at work", and your boss' coming down on you for what you do on break is much more of a gray area. ... blah... blah... blah ...
> 
> I shouldn't have to explain any of this. Who is teaching ethics to Americans - or rather failing to?


No one else at my company has to pick up my slack. I put in as many hours as necessary to get my work done on time. The result of my work usually saves the company money in increased productivity of other emplyees and more than makes up for the cost of my net surfing.

Who appointed you Chief of the Ethics Police? While I can't speak for anyone else here I certainly don't need your holier than thou lectures.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> I just can't believe it. Did that guy seriously believe that DIY had any other intent in sculpting the ad the way they did other than a double entendre? Is he truly so naive as to think the consumer wasn't supposed to interpret it that way?
> 
> I also find it offensive they closed the thread.


The thread was closed because of the petty arguing.

And DYI created the ad that way because the show was in fact called "NAILED AT NINE".


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

MickeS said:


> The thread was closed because of the petty arguing.


It was closed prematurely.


----------



## dalesd (Aug 2, 2001)

ewilts said:


> You can write to Tom Rogers at 2160 Gold Street, Alviso, California. That address is supposed to be for their executive offices and is taken from one of their SEC filings.
> Karen Bressner is the Senior Vice President of Advertising Sales - I'm guessing it's her team that sold this ad.


Thanks to the OP for bringing this SI Swimsuit program to my attention. I hadn't planned on downloading and watching this, but now I have and will.

I'll even write a note to Mr. Rogers and Ms. Bressner and thank them for this.

That ought to cancel out *Atomike*'s complaint.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Aaaaand, we're back.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Well, eating lunch is not properly "at work", and your boss' coming down on you for what you do on break is much more of a gray area. Clearly there are activities unacceptable even while on break, but the list is much smaller than when one is not on break. Surfing still uses someone's internet resources, but unless your company is an internet provider or has metered internet services, it isn't your employer who foots the bill. Assuming for simplicity's sake the person is not on break, however:
> 
> 1. It's theft. Extremely petty theft to be sure, and not legally actionable outside the company, but theft nonetheless. You are making use of someone else's resources (time, money, and internet bandwidth) for your own purposes without their consent. The company may not mind that you are pilfering their resources, but pilfering them you are.
> 
> ...


Apparently you missed my post, but I'll pass on to the 911 dispatchers. EMT's and firefighters I know that they are thieves with a piss poor attitude.





Adam1115 said:


> Last time _*I*_ checked, we all don't work for *YOUR* boss.
> 
> There are PLENTY of jobs where surfing the net is acceptable. I know 911 dispatchers that work graveyard, there is nothing to do but wait for calls. They are ENCOURAGED to surf the web to stay awake and alert. Same with EMT's and firefighters who's 'job' is to sit around and watch TV or surf the net until they get a call. Some people are self-employed but share an office with others.
> 
> ...


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Apparently you missed my post, but I'll pass on to the 911 dispatchers. EMT's and firefighters I know that they are thieves with a piss poor attitude.


No, but you should try reading what I write before making snide comments. What I very specifically said was that it did *NOT* apply to people whose jobs do not require them to actively do anything until an emergent need arises. EMT techs, ER personnel, and firefighters are examples, and there are others whose jobs are not tied directly to emergencies, as well. Radio dispatchers are yet another example.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MickeS said:


> The thread was closed because of the petty arguing.


In a thread with only 16 posts? There wasn't enough time to get into any really serious bickering. There were some inappropriate posts to be sure, but closing the thread was an over-reaction, in my opinion.



MickeS said:


> And DYI created the ad that way because the show was in fact called "NAILED AT NINE".


Did something in my post suggest I was so stupid as not to realize that? What's more, only someone either extremely unfamiliar with colloquial English, extremely unintelligent, or seriously humor impaired would fail to recognize the fact the show's name itself is a double entendre. That the ad itself made use of the same double entendre in no way makes it less of a salacious pun.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> No, but you should try reading what I write before making snide comments. What I very specifically said was that it did *NOT* apply to people whose jobs do not require them to actively do anything until an emergent need arises. EMT techs, ER personnel, and firefighters are examples, and there are others whose jobs are not tied directly to emergencies, as well. Radio dispatchers are yet another example.


No offense, but you've been posting several posts at a time each taking the thread in a different off-topic direction, it's becoming rather confusing to follow the conversations and understand your point...

There are a lot of categories that make web surfers not 'petty thieves with piss poor attitudes'. One situation is one where people are SOLELY compensated based on performance. Meaning you don't work, you don't get paid. You aren't stealing from anyone but yourself. If I surf at 1:00, it doesn't matter, it comes out of my pocket. I also am working evenings often...



lrhorer said:


> In a thread with only 16 posts? There wasn't enough time to get into any really serious bickering. There were some inappropriate posts to be sure, but closing the thread was an over-reaction, in my opinion.


Criticizing the mods decisions decisions is not only against the rules, but generally a bad idea....

My only point in bringing up that thread was the fact that I was accused of having a 'dirty mind' for thinking it inappropriate...


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Einselen said:


> Feel free to blame for higher prices of epileptic drugs then since when I slack off I cost the University money which then in turns cost the company paying the University to conduct the study which then in turns costs the end consumer who will be paying the money to the company once the drug is out on the market. Man what a butterfly effect that is.


Well, first of all, while I realize you are being sarcastic, do you realize that the butterfly effect is a very real and valid scientific principle? The issue with the butterfly effect, of course is that chaotic systems cannot have their outcomes over significant time period predicted by the initial conditions.

That however, was not my point. The point is, vast large scale effects - chaotic or not - are essentially invariably built from extremely tiny components. An atom is an unimaginably tiny thing - less than 200 trillionths of a meter in diameter (for the largest naturally occurring atoms). Not one single fundamental component of the entire Earth is larger than that, yet put together enough of them and you have something the size of Earth, or even of Jupiter. A star like our Sun is many hundreds of times larger yet even than Jupiter, and it is made of even smaller components than the Earth and Jupiter.

Will one person goofing off for a few hours - or even a few days - surfing the web make a tremendous difference to the world at large? Almost certainly not. When 300 million people do it, it's an entirely different matter. If it is perfectly OK for one person to do it, then with only a few exceptions it is OK for every person to do it. Will it seriously impact society for 300 million people to spend a few minutes every day on someone else's time goofing off? You had better believe it.

Not only that, but it is human nature that if given an inch, the recipient is highly likely to attempt to take a mile. I knew one manager who thought it would be OK to allow all his employees to go home 5 minutes early on Fridays. A few months later he looked up at 13:30 one Friday and noticed the office was completely empty except for himself and one other worker. What level of goofing off is acceptable? Five minutes? If so, then why not six? If six is OK, why not twelve? What's really so bad about goofing off an entire afternoon? After all, that University grant is for millions of dollars, and the drug companies are making billions of dollars, so why not goof off four days a week? After all, the drug company doesn't really care, right?

You illustrate my point all too well. Human beings have an almost limitless capacity for justifying their own actions, and the grossest possible infractions against humanity virtually always start with a minuscule violation of ethics.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bottom line it here

is it ok for someone to post NON-work safe stuff in this forum simply because, as you argue at great length, no one should be surfing from work.

or do you agree that people should abide by the rule and make their postings work-safe because after all, people are indeed surfing from work


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> bottom line it here
> 
> is it ok for someone to post NON-work safe stuff in this forum simply because, as you argue at great length, no one should be surfing from work.


No, of course not. It's against the rules. I never once suggested anyone should intentionally violate the rules.



ZeoTiVo said:


> or do you agree that people should abide by the rule and make their postings work-safe because after all, people are indeed surfing from work


I disagree strenuously. People should not post content which is against the rules because it is against the rules. The putative reasons for the rules are not relevant to the requirement to abide by them.

A discussion of the validity of the putative reasons a rule exists has absolutely nothing to do with following it. It doesn't even necessarily have much to do with the validity of the rule.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

This thread has gone from strange to stranger.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

logicman1 said:


> No one else at my company has to pick up my slack.
> 
> I put in as many hours as necessary to get my work done on time.


I certainly hope so, and I applaud you for it. There are a vast number of people of whom it is not true, though. Indeed, a very significant number of the hours I must work every week are nothing more or less than picking up others' slack. The same is true for those others of my colleagues who similarly don't goof off.



logicman1 said:


> The result of my work usually saves the company money in increased productivity of other emplyees and more than makes up for the cost of my net surfing.


The thing is, I hear very similar comments from my colleagues and others whose work volume and quality is way, way below par, let alone approaching a level of excellence. Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying I don't believe you or that your work ethic and quality of work in any way resembles that of the individuals in question. I am simply saying that if you can make the statement, then true or not so can they, and they do.

The heart of the issue is the fact no one thinks of themselves as an evil person, and to that end everyone has some rationale why the behavior which is in fact unethical is for some reason not unethical in their case. Again, I am not saying you are rationalizing away your responsibility in the matter as opposed to fully owning up to all your responsibilities. I believe you when you say you are meeting all your responsibilities. The problem is, all that most people can see is that you are surfing the web on company time and so it must be OK for them to do so as well. You see, that is the thing about ethics. In order to be properly ethical, one must not only avoid all ethical violations, one must avoid at cost even the appearance of ethical violations.



logicman1 said:


> Who appointed you Chief of the Ethics Police?


Who said I was arresting you? It is the job of the police to apprehend suspected criminals, not to determine the laws or who is or is not in fact a criminal. I am a citizen of the United States of America, and it is the absolute duty of every citizen to participate in the process of determining who is and is not a criminal. Of course we are actually speaking of ethics, not morality, but the principle is the same. Depending on the situation, it may be inappropriate NOT to speak up in consideration of ethical or moral issues. In any case, it is not inappropriate for me to speak up. No offense intended, but if you don't like it it's just tough, because it is both my right and my duty.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - _possibly a paraphrase of a statement by Edmund Burke_



logicman1 said:


> While I can't speak for anyone else here I certainly don't need your holier than thou lectures.


Perhaps not. There are plenty of people who don't, but someone does. In fact, vast numbers of people do. A recent poll of college students found that 80% saw nothing wrong with cheating on exams. The number of people who pilfer office supplies from their employer is staggering. Driving down the road for even a short distance one encounters an astonishing number of people who have no regard whatsoever for the safety and well being of the other people on the road. I live less than 5 miles from my office, and the other day in one morning I counted 8 serious violations of traffic laws which placed other motorists in significant jeopardy just because the drivers did not wish to accept the consequences of their own incompetence.


----------



## logicman1 (Jan 10, 2008)

lrhorer said:


> I certainly ... blah... blah... blah...


Your duty? You are probably the most pompous person I have ever encountered. It's obvious that you consider yourself an authority on any and all topics. Do you enjoy the sound of your own voice as much as you enjoy seeing page after page of your words here? Give it a rest. Find some hobbies too because it appears you have way too much time on your hands.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

logicman1 said:


> Your duty? You are probably the most pompous person I have ever encountered. It's obvious that you consider yourself an authority on any and all topics. Do you enjoy the sound of your own voice as much as you enjoy seeing page after page of your words here? Give it a rest. Find some hobbies too because it appears you have way too much time on your hands.


Dude, you're attacking the poster, not his argument. That means you lose. Your entire reply is based on only your unique situation, you ignore everything else, and it comes across as remarkably defensive. You just prove his point. Since you felt the need to include logic in your name, how about using some of it?


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

balboa dave said:


> Dude, you're attacking the poster, not his argument. That means you lose. Your entire reply is based on only your unique situation, you ignore everything else, and it comes across as remarkably defensive. You just prove his point. Since you felt the need to include logic in your name, how about using some of it?


I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with that, lrhorers pompous, overblown posts are so verbose that they are just about completely impossible to read, not to mention completely off point.

Rather than just accept the fact that some people do surf from work (which I think that I found buried in one of his treatises) he continues to use this opportunity to tell us what a wonderful worker he is (even picking up the slack from the dastardly and evil web surfing THIEVES(!!!) that do little other than steal from the companies pockets, and how the scourge of web surfing on the companies dime is going to bring about the fall of civilization as we know it.

Either lrhorer is trying to paint us all with the same brush (in which case he's completely and utterly wrong), or he just feels the need to enlighten us about his unique situation (in which case we completely and utterly suffer from a lack of caring). Either way his posts in this thread are almost completely without value.

Logicman's situation is hardly unique - for one, I heartily agree with him, and I doubt that I'm alone.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> It doesn't even necessarily have much to do with the validity of the rule.


so why did you hijack the topic to go on at great, self serving length about not posting from work?


----------



## logicman1 (Jan 10, 2008)

GoHokies! said:


> ... Logicman's situation is hardly unique - for one, I heartily agree with him, and I doubt that I'm alone.


Should we do a poll?


----------



## logicman1 (Jan 10, 2008)

This is amazing! Here are the statistics on lrhorer's postings to this thread so far:

Paragraghs: 42
Words: 6,290
Characters: 28,884
Characters (with spaces): 35,173

The novel Ulysses by James Joyce contains 250,000 words. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to when lrhorer might reach or exceed it?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

logicman1 said:


> This is amazing! Here are the statistics on lrhorer's postings to this thread so far:
> 
> Paragraghs: 42
> Words: 6,290
> ...


Let not stop now, let see how many months this thread can stay in the top 10...somebody should give this to Lettermen. It doesn't feel like it but this thread is only 10 days old. (and the ad is now off TiVo)


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

logicman1 said:


> This is amazing! Here are the statistics on lrhorer's postings to this thread so far:
> 
> Paragraghs: 42
> Words: 6,290
> ...


He is also the most prolific poster in this thread.


```
User Name  	 Posts
lrhorer            21
ZeoTiVo            15
MickeS             10
logicman1           7
RoyK                7
Moebius             6
dorian              6
GoHokies!           6
Adam1115            6

(Listed shortened for simplicity)
```


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

old7 said:


> He is also the most prolific poster in this thread.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


The gap between Professor Lrhorer and Zeo would be even wider if you factored in the length of their posts, too. 

Woohoo, 7 posts!


----------



## SGR215 (Jan 20, 2004)

GoHokies! said:


> The gap between Professor Lrhorer and Zeo would be even wider if you factored in the length of their posts, too.
> 
> Woohoo, 7 posts!


Honestly, I think this thread can be explained in a few simple words. Allow me to explain:

Throughout the development of particle physics, there have been many objections to the extreme reductionist (or greedy reductionist) approach of attempting to explain everything in terms of elementary particles and their interaction. These objections have been raised by people from a wide array of fields, including many modern particle physicists, solid state physicists, chemists, biologists, and metaphysical holists. While the Standard Model itself is not challenged, it is contended that the properties of elementary particles are no more (or less) fundamental than the emergent properties of atoms and molecules, and especially statistically large ensembles of those. Some critics of reductionism claim that even a complete knowledge of the underlying elementary particles will not lend a thorough understanding of more complicated natural processes, while others doubt that a complete knowledge of particle behavior (as part of a larger process) could even be attained, thanks to quantum indeterminacy.

Reductionists typically claim that all progress in the sciences has involved reductionism to some extent.

Daniel Dennett defends ontological reductionism, which he says is really little more than materialism, by making a distinction between this and what he calls "Greedy reductionism": the idea that every explanation in every field of science should be reduced all the way down to particle physics or string theory. Greedy reductionism, he says, deserves some of the criticism that has been heaped on reductionism in general because the lowest-level explanation of a phenomenon, even if it exists, is not always the best way to understand or explain it. Richard Dawkins describes the alternative as "hierarchical" reductionism[2]: organisms can be described in terms of DNA, DNA in terms of atoms, atoms in terms of sub-atomic particles; but there is no need to deal with details of sub-atomic particles to explain animal behavior if one can make adequate explanations and predictions at a higher level.

Both Dennett and Steven Pinker argue that too many people who are opposed to science use the words "reductionism" and "reductionist" less to make coherent claims about science than to convey a general distaste for the endeavor. Furthermore, these opponents often use the words in a rather slippery way, to refer to whatever they dislike most about science. Dennett suggests that critics of reductionism may be searching for a way of salvaging some sense of a higher purpose to life, in the form of some kind of non-material / supernatural intervention. Dennett terms such aspirations "skyhooks," in contrast to the "cranes" that reductionism uses to build its understanding of the universe from solid ground.

In recent years, the development of systems thinking has provided methods for tackling issues in a holistic rather than a reductionist way, and many scientists approach their work in a holistic paradigm. When the terms are used in a scientific context, holism and reductionism refer primarily to what sorts of models or theories offer valid explanations of the natural world; the scientific method of falsifying hypotheses, checking empirical data against theory, is largely unchanged, but the approach guides which theories are considered. The conflict between reductionism and holism in science is not universal--it usually centers on whether or not a holistic or reductionist approach is appropriate in the context of studying a specific system or phenomenon.

In many cases (such as the kinetic theory of gases), given a good understanding of the components of the system, one can predict all the important properties of the system as a whole. In other cases, trying to do this leads to a fallacy of composition. In those systems, emergent properties of the system are almost impossible to predict from knowledge of the parts of the system. Complexity theory studies such systems.

The concept of downward causation poses an alternative to reductionism within philosophy. This view is developed and explored by Peter Bøgh Andersen, Claus Emmeche, Niels Ole Finnemann, and Peder Voetmann Christiansen, among others. These philosophers explore ways in which one can talk about phenomena at a larger-scale level of organization exerting causal influence on a smaller-scale level, and find that some, but not all proposed types of downward causation are compatible with science. In particular, they find that constraint is one way in which downward causation can operate.[7] The notion of causality as constraint has also been explored as a way to shed light on scientific concepts such as self-organization, natural selection, adaptation, and control.

This there by leads me to the conclusion I must be right and everyone else must be wrong; despite the fact we're arguing purely about opinion.

/thread


----------



## old7 (Aug 7, 2002)

SGR215 said:


> Honestly, I think this thread can be explained in a few simple words. Allow me to explain:
> 
> Throughout the development of particle physics, there have been many objections to the extreme reductionist (or greedy reductionist) approach of attempting to explain everything in terms of elementary particles and their interaction. These objections have been raised by people from a wide array of fields, including many modern particle physicists, solid state physicists, chemists, biologists, and metaphysical holists. While the Standard Model itself is not challenged, it is contended that the properties of elementary particles are no more (or less) fundamental than the emergent properties of atoms and molecules, and especially statistically large ensembles of those. Some critics of reductionism claim that even a complete knowledge of the underlying elementary particles will not lend a thorough understanding of more complicated natural processes, while others doubt that a complete knowledge of particle behavior (as part of a larger process) could even be attained, thanks to quantum indeterminacy.
> 
> ...


Yes, but can you back that up with anything other than speculation and innuendo? 

Wait, can I say innuendo on a family forum? Maybe we should tag this thread as NSFW.


----------



## SGR215 (Jan 20, 2004)

old7 said:


> Yes, but can you back that up with anything other than speculation and innuendo?
> 
> Wait, can I say innuendo on a family forum? Maybe we should tag this thread as NSFW.


I think it'll be easier to understand if I give you an example of it regarding a friend of mine. Now this is the story all about how, My life got flipped, turned upside down, And I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there, I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air. In West Philadelphia I was born and raised On the playground is where I spent most of my days. Chillin' out, maxin', relaxin all cool, And all shootin' some b-ball outside of the school. When a couple of guys who were up to no good, Started makin' trouble in my neighborhood. I got in one little fight and my mom got scared, And said "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in bel Air." I whistled for a cab, and when it came near, The license plate said "fresh" and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cat was rare, But I thought "Nah forget it, Yo home to Bel Air." I pulled up to the house about seven or eight, and I yelled to the cabby "Yo homes, smell ya later." Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, To sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel Air.


----------



## TomJHansen (Nov 6, 2000)

SGR215 said:


> I think it'll be easier to understand if I give you an example of it regarding a friend of mine. Now this is the story all about how, My life got flipped, turned upside down, And I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there, I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air. In West Philadelphia I was born and raised On the playground is where I spent most of my days. Chillin' out, maxin', relaxin all cool, And all shootin' some b-ball outside of the school. When a couple of guys who were up to no good, Started makin' trouble in my neighborhood. I got in one little fight and my mom got scared, And said "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in bel Air." I whistled for a cab, and when it came near, The license plate said "fresh" and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cat was rare, But I thought "Nah forget it, Yo home to Bel Air." I pulled up to the house about seven or eight, and I yelled to the cabby "Yo homes, smell ya later." Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, To sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel Air.


OK, now that's funny.


----------



## client (Nov 10, 2006)

mattack said:


> Heck, the "Get NAILED every night!" (or whatever it was) ad that was there previously, was "cruder" IMHO.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

SGR215 said:


> In West Philadelphia I was born and raised On the playground is where I spent most of my days. Chillin' out, maxin', relaxin all cool, And all shootin' some b-ball outside of the school.


bet he surfs from work with no thought for his co-workers at all


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Well well, this thread was finally reported.

I see at least two pictures that are against the rules, some flames, and questioning the moderators in public.

From the rules:



> 7. No Flaming - On the Internet, flaming is giving someone a verbal lashing in public. There is to be no flaming of members of this forum, other people, or any company.





> 15. Moderators decisions are NOT to be questioned in public. PMs are encouraged. If a moderator closes or moves a thread, do not start another one on the same topic. This includes veiled or similarly named threads solely designed to protest a moderating decision. These will be considered "questioning the moderators" and will result in the user starting them being temp-banned. If you have a question for a moderator on a decision, you can send a PM to any one, and we will get back to you. Moderators and users may not see things the same way, we do understand that. Please understand, we do things we think are right for the site, but we are very approachable.





> 2. This is considered a family forum. TiVo is a family product. There are many members that are minors and many people that post with their children looking over their shoulder. If it shouldnt be viewed by minors, then it shouldnt be posted.
> 
> 3. There are people that read this forum at work. If something would not be considered work safe (to a boss or HR person), then it shouldnt be posted.


All of these rules were violated so now I will close the thread.


----------

