<< This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. >>
That’s only 'cause you’re using your sex-filter. For the rest of us, it’s a temptress in a teapot.
beagledave,
calm down. So I skip over the ‘quote’ boxes unless I see my name or it’s in the OP. Sorry if that made me miss that info.
I wonder how they label their filters. “Punch in the nose?” “nipple slips?” Also I’ve always been disturbed that it’s always sexual content and graphic violence. Shouldn’t it be graphic sex and violent content we worry about?
First of all, what is your problem, you are the one who needs to be realistic. First of all it is more probable that the government (especially post Janet Jackson) may make it mandatory to include such a device in DVD players. The serial killer remark is just stupid so I won’t comment. :rolleyes:
Did you even read where I said people without children shouldn’t have to pay for this if they don’t want it. If people want that option they can get it, but don’t make me pay for this useless extra.
If I recall correctly V-chips are mandatory on TVs, so I feel my concerns are reasonable. Why don’t you address that?
I have no problem and am being realistic.
No, the serial killer comment was very relevant to your “this MAY happen so we should be worked up about it” spiel.
[QUOTE}
Did you even read where I said people without children shouldn’t have to pay for this if they don’t want it. If people want that option they can get it, but don’t make me pay for this useless extra.
[/QUOTE]
And you know how much it would add to the cost of a DVD player? Or are you talking out of…well, thin air?
And how much did they add to the cost? The cost of ALL electronics equipment, including DVD players, has gone down precipitously, a trend which will continue even in the very unlikely event that his technology is mandated.
So far, that seems questionable.
No, you’re comparing apples oranges.
I think you are the one talking out of your “thin air”.
Whether it is one or 100 dollars, I don’t want anyone telling me I have to pay something if I don’t want or need it. What is so hard to understand about that?
Yes, and the price would be even lower if they didn’t have to have that extra chip that I won’t use.
Nope, it’s not questionable in the least.
No, I’m not. You’re making the same “it COULD happen” argument that black-helicopter conspiracy theorists make about social security numbers, stoplight cameras and UPC codes—“They COULD be abused…”
And you’re incorrect.
The totally unrealistic attitude behind it. You pay for things you don’t want or need every single day, including paying taxes to send other people’s children to public schools.
Do you know this or are you just assuming?
[QUOTE=RikWriter]
Nope, it’s not questionable in the least.
[quote]
Sure, whatever you say.
No I’m not. I made a reasonable comment and you’re bringing up wacko nonsense.
Again, apples to oranges. Paying for schools is part of the “price” for belonging to a society. Can you not see the difference between paying for a educational system that benefits society and paying for a piece of electronic equipment for personal use?
Oh, I’m sure the TV companies payed for the chips themselves out of the goodness of their hearts.
Oh the delicious irony…
No, your comment was not reasonable and my response was not nonsense.
If you don’t like that example, there are many others. Almost every electronic device you buy has features you don’t use but that you paid for anyway. My cell phone has features I’ve never use and never will use, including a locator feature I sure as hell don’t want on it. I have a Swiss Army knife that has over a dozen tools, but I’ve only ever used three of them.
The TV manufacturers don’t price their wares to cover their costs, they price them to sell. That’s why they’re so cheap.
I’m afraid you have this backwards.
Yes, but you have a choice in this matter. If you want to get a bare bones cell or pocket knife, you can. Or if you want one that has all the latest buttons and options, you can. They’re not regulated and told they have to include XY&Z in order to be sold. Choice, it is a beautiful thing.
If the government decides to get involved and force makers to include various things, then I don’t have a choice.
No, they price them to make a profit. If a line does not make them sufficient money they will discontinue it and make something that will. They will also charge whatever the market will tolerate. If people are willing to spend a little more, then thats what they will charge. If not, then they will drop the price in order to get rid of them and come up with something else to make up the difference.
Be thou not afraid, because I do not.
And so far NO ONE has said you have to have it either, nor is that likely.
And if my aunt had testicles, she’d be my uncle.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Surprise! another nonsense response
No, you haven’t added anything reasonable or relevant for me to agree with. So unless that happens I’m done here.
Running away since you can’t counter a single argument I’ve made. eh? Fitting. People who react with emotion rather than logic frequently have trouble forming a coherent argument.
There was a review of this product - or something practically identical - in the WSJ, October 3, 2002 (Walt Mossberg)
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1033604816555650793,00.html (subscription required)
Nobody forces anybody to use such products. You can turn it off. But the thing ruins great works of art…
:rolleyes: Once again you are the one throwing out illogical nonsense comments. You are the one who has not addressed one argument in a coherent fashion. You are the one getting overly emotional and unable to make rational comment.
Just out of morbid curiosity - if the privacy of your home is an unfit (by your standards) location for swearing, where is the time and place?
Am I? What happened to: “So unless that happens I’m done here?”
Were you lying then? Or did you just let your emotions make you forget your own words?
You left out the part about “with your family.” It has nothing to do with the fact they’re in the house, and everything to do with being polite around your family. Sorry if you don’t understand why I prefer this…but no one is forcing you to agree with it. Or to use the DVD player with the filter, for that matter.
I’m not Rik, but FWIW if I’m at the park or mall with my toddler…I expect that hearing swearing from strangers is an inevitable “risk”.
If I’m in my own home I’d rather have greater control over swearing from strangers, thanks.
As for me…I may swear at home, but I try NOT to do so around the toddler, if possible.
YMMV.
In that and this instance I changed my mind because I am not going to let you accuse me of “running away” and being irrational, when it is you who has not countered one argument.