Television,

The reason why we like to keep things clean and civil around here is because children often use this site as a research tool for their readings of Bradbury. The reason we like to protect our children from unsavory language and opinions expressed in an uncivil or hateful manner is the same reason why you would keep your children from entering say a nudie bar or X-rated movie. Some of us would like to preserve the innocence of our children for as long as possible. You may disagree and allow your children to be exposed to the world using an "anything goes" kind of rule. By deferring to those of us who don't, you lose nothing and you may still allow your children to visit sites you feel are more in line with your way of raising your children. (Plus, being polite is always a good thing. And fun, too.) But if we defer to your way of thinking, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle when it comes to their innocence.

Is it too much to ask to watch your language and how you express your opinions? Surely the Internet is big enough for all of us.

Best,

Pete

Finally I am not alone...
Cheers, Translator

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
I agree. Let's keep this a good, clean site where people young and old can come for information on Bradbury. This post/thread does not contribute to that. Language concerns and civility are not inappropriate considerations just because many think there are no limits on crudeness.

yeah let's just dumb things down and clean them up until every piece of literature, film and commentary on the market is suitable for children.

And only children.

I NEVER NEVER thought I would be so damned disappointed by Ray Bradbury, it's like the Easter Bunny came to my house and shit on my bed instead of leaving candy eggs.

Arguing for crudity. I'm fascinated. Are you saying political and literary issues can only be addressed using crude language?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Arguing for crudity. I'm fascinated. Are you saying political and literary issues can only be addressed using crude language?

Crude language is a tool and a damned good one. It expresses rage, anger, shock and bewilderment. It is sometimes the only appropriate response in the face of the inexplicable.

When I say inexplicable, I'm referring to the fact that Ray Bradbury's website is populated by bible-thumpers and progressives are considered shit disturbers. In RB's literary world bible-thumpers and conservatives are the enemy, unfortunately this apparently isn't so in his real personal life. I prefer to believe that age has dulled his intellect and intuitions than to believe that he's come to disagree with what he's written in the past about the sanctity of the individual and his right to free expression in the face of a potentially tyrannical government.

dig420,
Actually, I don't believe Bradbury has written anything suggesting bible-thumpers or conservatives were his or anyone else's enemy. In fact, in Fahrenheit 451, the "good guys" help carry on the tradition of literature by memorizing different parts of the bible. And much of his other writings seems to incorporate some of his Christian influence, though with what belief system he identifies himself is another issue. The spirit of Bradbury suggests more acceptance of people, whether "conservative, bible-thumpers" or "liberals" or anyone of various religions, etc. You clearly have not grasped this concept and seem to miss the essence of both the man and his writings.

Well said! Bravo!

And you can argue with the superstituous anyway. Theology...hah! A non-science if ever one existed. As the great, late Robert Heinlein wrote:

"Anything that cannot be expressed in numbers is not science. It is opinion."

I paraphrased that, but I believe it's pretty close.

It is a widespread phenomenon in the USA: focus on hysterically protecting children (keeping kids away from nudity and sex - do you have any idea how much sexual neurosis is created by this unsophisticated, puritanical policy, biblethumpers?) and reading "the good book". These and similar activities create an illusion of leading a good life, and makes it easier to partake in the great environmental and social crimes of the developed world (and the USA, I am sorry to say, is the worst in these respects).

How can anyone claiming to love Ray Bradbury's work not be appalled at this completely ridiculous affair of trying to stop Mr Moore from calling his movie "Fahrneheit 9/11". As far as I know, Ray Bradbury NEVER wrote a short story or book entitled "Fahrenheit 9/11". Am I wrong? Or are you seriously saying one artist cannot ALLUDE to the title of a work by another artist? What would happen to the arts if that were possible?

I think som people here think they are "better" Bradbury fans by sticking with him no matter what.

M'thinks there's a story here somewhere.

PS. Yes, I KNOW I said I was leaving.

quote:

Originally posted by Yestermorrow:
dig420,
Actually, I don't believe Bradbury has written anything suggesting bible-thumpers or conservatives were his or anyone else's enemy. In fact, in Fahrenheit 451, the "good guys" help carry on the tradition of literature by memorizing different parts of the bible. And much of his other writings seems to incorporate some of his Christian influence, though with what belief system he identifies himself is another issue. The spirit of Bradbury suggests more acceptance of people, whether "conservative, bible-thumpers" or "liberals" or anyone of various religions, etc. You clearly have not grasped this concept and seem to miss the essence of both the man and his writings.

Wannabe censors and repressive political figures are CLEARLY, CLEARLY the enemy in Bradbury's work, and if you claim otherwise you're simply distorting his work and his intentions to keep yourself from being included in the enemy camp.

Dig420,

I see you backed away a bit from attacking us Bible-thumpers. Good for you. Now maybe you'll reconsider the use of crude language. Again, I beseech you, children are present. Our children. Perhaps yours. Please, by all means, express your opinions passionately, but do so using a civil tone without hatefulness. That's not too much to ask, is it?

Translator,

Were you talking about me? Or our "guests?"
If me, why, I'm honored. If the "guests," you might want to re-consider after reading their posts. Man, these people make talking with you a genuine pleasure.

Best,

Pete

quote:

Originally posted by Dig420:

No, I haven't backed away from you bible-thumpers, imho you're not better than any Al-Quaeda cell member. Anti-science, pro--censorship, anti-humanist by definition. You are the enemy of any progressive society. The lower crust of the pie. Witch burners and torturers.

Can I be any more clear for you?

Intellectual failing, or plain hate speech? A true witch-burner would burn this for sure!


[This message has been edited by dandelion (edited 06-21-2004).]

I have raised children. I made a decision early on that I would not censor myself for my children and I always spoke to them with the same vocabulary as I spoke with anyone else. It's not that I wanted my little girl to use the 'f' word . . . but I really really didn't want her to be a hypocrite. I figured the best way to teach her how to NOT be a hypocrite was to NOT be a hypocrite myself.

I am appalled that this website, devoted, essentially, to art, has participants that believe any kind of censorship, be it for the sake of unnnamed putative children or social mores or whatever, is acceptable.

The inability to distinguish between Biblical fundamentalists (Bible-thumpers) and Al Queda -- who regularly, in apparently good conscience -- murder thousands of innocent persons (in violation of the Qur'an) is an intellectual failing I find disturbing.

Much of science is opinion. Science alters it's claims as it gets new evidence. This, by the way, is one of its strengths. Dogmatic science is no better than dogmatic religion.

Religion, also, evolves throughout the ages, though not without controversy and growing pains.

On raising kids with swearing. Of course, it's a personal choice. What you do/did in your home is your business. I see your position as a false alternative, however. The choice was not (a) teach the kids to swear, or (b) be a hyprocrite. You could have chosen to keep your own language at a "higher" level. This way you can teach your kids to use language in a positive way without being a hypocrite.



[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-21-2004).]

tmarie,

Mega-dittoes to what Mr. Dark said. As a newcomer to this site, you've missed out on prior discussions on censorship. (Few of us are for complete, unfettered freedom. For instance, I'm sure you and I are fairly close about the issue of banning child pornography.) But what you call censorship is nothing more than applying standards. The same thing you do when raising children.

And are your freedoms really restricted if, say, you're banned from spitting on the sidewalk in one place but may do so somewhere else? That's kinda like how this works. Feel the need to curse freely when expressing your opinions? Why not obtain a free blogger site and spew away? Nothing to stop you. (Unless, of course, you use the site to post child pornography.)

Best,

Pete

EXMORT
don't let anyone run you out, you make good points and have every right to do so. This is a public board. If the moderator wants to make is a 'censored' board she can, but to me that means hiding your head in the sand over a very contemporary and hot issue at the moment. It's what people are doing today, closing the doors to opinions that question. I think Bradbury is being incredibly childish and going against what I always thought was inherent with artists, that they put their work out to share and inspire. These days the 'buck' seems to rule. "Waaaa, it's my title and Moore can't make any money off it Waah Waah Waah.." To bad, Ray but Moore does not take your title, it's a take off from your title, be flattered, Moore is exercising free expression, something F451 is about, but maybe not what you are about huh? You'll probably sell a few more copies of your book over this, there's some profit for you so be gracious, you won't win many fans over your tantrum. Your shallow principles are showing IMO.

Ummm, Pete, you haven't even seen Moore's movie. You are basing your opinion and making the automatic assumption that it is something "bad" simply because of the campaign against him. How pathetic that seems.