|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #143624] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 05:44 |
|
"chris" <whovian222 [at] msn.com> wrote in message news:1128533781.512300.311940 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I just watched Sci-Fi Channel's remake of the old series Battlestar
> Galactica. Well, part of it anyway. I gave up after an hour and a half
> or so. It was too depressing. Too typical of modern Hollywood.
>
> I'm not particularly a fan of the original 1978 Battlestar series. I'm
> not the sort of person who gets so deeply involved in any TV show or
> movie that I start to think the characters are real and that anyone who
> criticizes them is insulting my personal friends. I'm not writing this
> to defend the honor of the "real" Captain Apollo or any such thing. I'm
> writing it as a commentary on the pathetic world-view of modern
> Hollywood. (I did think it was an interesting series, that it had a lot
> of potential but that if often didn't live up to it. But that's another
> story.)
>
> Why did Sci-Fi Channel decide to do a remake of Battlestar? Surely it
> was because the series had an enduring popularity. While, as I say, I'm
> not a great fan of the original series, there are many many people out
> there who are. SciFi no doubt hoped to cash in on this built-in
> audience.
> Updating the story
>
> Of course like any remake, they had to "update" the story. We expect
> that. What's the point of doing a remake if you don't have anything new
> or different to say? You might as well just pop the old one back in the
> DVD player. But what was SciFi's idea of how to update the story?
> A technical lament
Here is a guy who knows what he is talking about and is not working public relations
for BSG Hollywood Homosexuals here.
Ultimately, the ratings of BSG show the reaction of the public toward the muck in
the new BSG, which hover around a 2 rating consistently,
compared to the 12 and 13 ratings of Star Trek: The Next Generation before the
Hollywood Homosexuals took over in Hollywood and perverted the science fiction genre.
Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) 1987-1994
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9) 1993-1999
=================================================
http://stng.36el.com/st-tng/trivia/press_notes.html
December 7, 1987
For week ending Nov. 22, Paramount's Star Trek: The Next Generation
was third highest ranked show in syndication for second
consecutive week with 12.7 Nielsen average audience rating.
For week ending Nove. 15, Star Trek had 12.1 rating. Star Trek became
third highest-ranked show in syndication on season-to-date basis as of
week of Nov. 15. Third place flip-flopped weekly between
World Wrestling Federation and The Oprah Winfrey Show.
In season-to-date ratings (from debut of shows through Nov. 22), order is
Wheel of Fortune, 17.1; Jeopardy, 13.3; Star Trek: The Next Generation,
10.9; World Wrestling Federation, 9.8; and The Oprah Winfrey
Show, 9.2.
================================================
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6952/ratings.htm#ds95
DS9 Episode [1997-98] Rating Rank Households
A Time To Stand 5.4 8 5,340,000
Rocks and Shoals 5.2 9 5,070,000
Sons and Daughters 4.8 12 4,750,000
Behind the Lines 5.1 17 4,980,000
Favor the Bold 6.0 11 5,880,000
As of January, 1997, the average cost for a 30-second advertisement on DS9 was $77,000.
*As of January, 1998, the average cost for a 30 second advertisement on DS9 was $58,000,
the eighth highest rate, down from last year, but still above Hercules and Xena's $40,000 going rate.
================================================
Politics
============================================================ =====
> As a lover of science fiction, I was impressed with the way the
> original series didn't look like it was obviously made in California in
> 1978. For example, I've always found it a little -- naive, for want of
> a better word -- that characters in most TV and movie science fiction,
> even when it is supposedly set hundreds or thousands of years in the
> future, all appear to be from 20th century California. A particularly
> absurd example: There was an episode of Star Trek in which Kirk
> realizes that a powerful alien being they have just met is really his
> planet's equivalent of a mischevious little boy. And to explain this to
> Spock, he rhetorically ask him if when he was a boy he also didn't pull
> little pranks, "like dipping little girls' pigtails in inkwells". Ummm
> ... did they really have inkwells in the Vulcan Science Academy? These
> people have warp drives and phasors and matter transporters and ... and
> they write with pens that have to be dipped in inkwells? Even in our
> time, such a reference is seriously out of date. Maybe when the
> script-writer went to school they still had inkwells; I don't think
> I've ever seen one outside a museum. Surely the writers could have come
> up with some sort of schoolboy prank that would be consistent with the
> technology they're telling us these people have.
>
> In most Hollywood science fiction, the men wear clothes that look an
> awful lot like 20th century Western clothes. Just ask yourself: Which
> would stand out more on the streets of a modern American city: A man
> dressed as a character from a recent science fiction movie? Or a man
> dressed in the style of Victorian England? Or traditional Indian garb?
> Or pretty much any time or place other than current America or Europe?
> (I use "man" in the non-generic sense here: women in science fiction
> have a tendency to wear far fewer clothes than anything worn in public
> in real life. I've concluded that warp drive engines must produce a lot
> of heat, to make the ships so warm that the women find it necessary to
> run around in so little clothing. But that's another story.)
>
> The original Battlestar did quite well on that score. The people wear
> clothes that look different from contemporary Western clothes. They use
> rectangular coins for money. They play a card game using octagonal
> cards. The characters have odd -- but not ridiculous or unwieldy --
> names like "Tigh" and "Iblis". They have different words for many
> things, like they talk about a man and woman getting "sealed" rather
> than "married", which leaves the audience to wonder if it is just a
> different word for the same thing or if it is not quite the same
> institution. The series has often been faulted for using a bunch of
> made-up units of time -- a "yaren", a "micron", and so on. But I
> thought this was a strong point. Our units of time -- years, months,
> hours, and so on -- are all based on the motions of the Earth through
> space -- how long it takes to go around the sun once and so on. These
> people were supposed to not even know where Earth was, it was just an
> old legend to them. Why would they be using Earth-based time
> measurements? Oh, and in what had to be a clever way to make the show
> work for a varied audience, they invented their own exclamations: When
> the characters were angry or frustrated they would shout "frack!" or
> say "what a bunch of faldercarb". It's never clear just how nasty these
> words are supposed to be. Are they the equivalent of "bummer" and
> "darn", or are they the height of vulgarity in their culture? That
> little move let the viewer imagine the talk to be as mild or nasty as
> seemed appropriate to him.
>
> In the new Battlestar, they tossed all this. The characters wear 20th
> century American clothes. They use 20th century American language,
> right down to the slang words and obscenities. (Lots of obscenities.)
> Their cities all look like Los Angeles. They even went out of their way
> to rename the characters with 20th century American names, explaining
> that the names from the old series are nicknames and call signs.
> Indeed, at one point they refer to the space ship carrying the
> president of this interplanetary republic by the call sign "Colonial
> One", an obvious borrowing from the American "Air Force One". Are we
> really expected to believe that a civilization hundreds of light years
> away, that has had no contact with Earth for thousands of years, would
> have coincidentally invented such a similar name for the chief
> executive's personal vehicle? It's just silly.
>
> As a lover of science fiction, that would have been enough to make me
> dislike the remake. But as someone who observes our culture, there were
> far more interesting differences.
> The character of the characters
>
> In the original series, the main characters are all admirable people.
> Adama is a wise and decisive leader. Tigh is his practical and
> dedicated lieutenant. Apollo, Starbuck, and Sheba are brave and daring
> soldiers. Serena is a loving mother. And so on. Of course to keep them
> believable they are not perfect. Adama sinks into despair when his wife
> is killed and neglects his responsibilities. Starbuck is a gambler and
> a womanizer. Etc. From a literary point of view, they are all
> characters that we can like and care about. From a realism point of
> view, they are people we can readily see playing important roles in
> saving their civilization from destruction: they have the stature and
> the ability to make things happen.
>
> The remake tears all the heroes down. Starbuck (who is curiously recast
> as a woman) becomes an obnoxious troublemaker who is in and out of
> prison. Tigh is indecisive, petty, and an alcoholic. Adama is not
> widowed but divorced. Apollo is a self-centered jerk.
>
> In the original, Adama's son Zac dies bravely fighting the enemy while
> politicians dither about sending help. In the remake, Zac dies in a
> training accident and it's all Adama's fault because he pressured him
> to join the military when he had no desire or ability to pursue such a
> career. A loving father who grieves for his son is replaced with a
> tyrannical father who destroys his son's life -- literally in this case
> -- by setting standards that he cannot possibly meet. Wow, we've never
> seen that character in a Hollywood production before.
>
> The producer explained that they wanted to make the characters more
> "realistic". Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that this sorry
> set of losers could succesfully unstop a toilet, never mind save a
> civilization on the brink of destruction. Maybe people who spend their
> lives spaced out on drugs, who are consumed with petty jealousies, who
> cannot get along with any other human beings ... maybe such people can
> be succesful Hollywood film producers, but they rarely achieve great
> things in the real world.
> Pointless PC
>
> Oh, I mentioned that Starbuck, one of the fighter pilots in the
> original, was recast as a woman. I presume this was a nod to political
> correctness, but if so, it was rather pointless. The original already
> had a number of female fighter pilots among its characters. In the
> remake, as far as I could see they left out all the female fighter
> pilots, and then turned some of the male fighter pilots into females.
> Huh? They even changed a black male -- Boomer -- into a white female.
> Doesn't this just leave them even on the PC score card? They also
> changed Tigh from black to white, but maybe after they turned him into
> a drunken moron they figured it would be less PC to leave him black.
> Future Faith
>
> In the original, the people have a religion that at least some of them
> take seriously. Of course it's not Judaism or Christianity or Islam,
> because these religions are rooted in historical events that these
> people would know nothing about. So instead their sacred scriptures
> talk about how God saved their people when they fled the planet Kobol
> and that sort of thing. I found this one of the most interesting things
> about the original series: They had a religion that was not
> Christianity, but that was the sort of religion that a Christian would
> expect people living far away on another planet to have. Their religion
> is tied to specific historical events, it involves belief in God, and
> it inspires people to hope, ro right moral conduct, and to the pursuit
> of truth.
>
> In the remake, religion is something that inspires fanatics to kill
> innocent people.
> The way the future was
>
> In the original, the characters are proud that their technology is
> superior to that of their enemies. Technology is viewed as a creative
> act that people engage in to solve their problems. Their enemies use
> technology too, of course. Indeed their enemies are technology --
> they're robots. But this just means that technology can be used for
> good or ill. Indeed, this is pretty much the whole point of one
> episode, "The Gun on Ice Planet Zero": technology can be used for good
> or for evil, and it is the responsibility of people to use it properly.
>
> In the remake, people are afraid of technology. The fact that their
> technology fails them in a crucial scene shows that it is dangerous to
> rely on it. The fact that their enemies are robots is one more proof
> that technology is evil.
> Not unique
>
> Battlestar is far from the only example; it's just the last one I
> happenned to see.
>
> Remember Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible? The original series was about
> a group of dedicated, intelligent, highly-skilled spies who fight
> communism. Indeed, in the classic American tradition, they don't even
> work for the government: they're some kind of independent spy
> entrepreneurs. I don't recall the characters ever debating whether or
> not freedom is better than tyranny. The answer was obvious: they just
> went in there and did their jobs. In the remake, they are turned into a
> bunch of corrupt manipulators who kill innocent people just to protect
> their own positions. For of course, to modern Hollywood, the idea of an
> independant American who fights corrupt foreign governments as a "hero"
> ... they just don't see that as a believable character. It's almost a
> side note that the remake was completely unable to reproduce the thing
> that made the original series interesting -- their complex plots and
> sophisticated gadgets. The best they could come up with was a miniature
> hidden video camera. How clever.
>
> Remember A Very Brady Movie? The original was about a (mostly) loving
> family who solved their problems with honesty, integrity, and hard
> work. In the remake when the father talks about doing what's "right"
> it's a big joke, and the family is portrayed as a bunch of simpletons
> because they don't realize that homosexuality is okay now, etc. As the
> end credit rolls by, they play a song from the original that talks
> about a "time for change". But in the original the context was that a
> boy was growing up and now becoming a man. In the remake the context is
> clearly that morality has changed and these people just didn't get it.
>
> In the war movies of the 50's, courage and patriotism were the ideal.
> When a character ran from the battle this was a tragedy: If he was the
> hero in the story, in the end he would return to the fight braver than
> anyone. If he was the villain, his shame would be left as a disturbing
> message for all. In modern Hollywood, the character who stays to fight
> is portrayed as either a crazed killer or a dupe of the corrupt
> establishment.
>
> In the romance movies of the 50's, marriage and fidelity were the
> ideal. When a character considered an affair or divorce this was a
> tragedy: If she was the hero in the story, in the end she would return
> to her husband and repair the relationship. In modern Hollywood, a
> woman who abandons her husband is portrayed as liberated, finally
> overcoming societal conventions that would trap her in this loveless
> marriage. (Of course to make the story work, the abandoned spouse is
> always portrayed as inconsiderate, abusive, or otherwise at fault.) In
> the old Hollywood the ultimate romance was marriage. In the new
> Hollywood the ultimate romance is a one-night stand.
> Hollywood Revisionism
>
> In short, the originals and the remakes represent two vastly different
> world views. When Hollywood decided to remake Battlestar, they had to
> "modernize" it. That is, they had to replace the worldview of the
> original writers, who still clung to many outmoded ideas like family
> and patriotism and faith and honor and intelligence, with a more modern
> worldview based on cynicism and decadence and mockery.
>
> How typical of modern Hollywood! They look back at the work that their
> predecessors did in the past -- especially in the 40's and 50's -- and
> they see that there is something about it that is so much better than
> what they do today. Not all of it, of course. There was plenty of junk
> made back then. But there was a lot produced then that was clearly so
> much better than anything being produced in Hollywood today. And people
> know it: That's why there's nostalgia for some of those old movies and
> TV shows. But they don't know how to begin to recapture that quality in
> an original production, so they try to do a remake. But of course, they
> have to make it "modern". And so they proceed to gut everything that
> made the original good and replace it with the same trash they produce
> every day.
>
> People liked the old Hollywood productions because it upheld the ideals
> they believe in. People despair of the new Hollywood because it attacks
> these same ideals. How often have you heard critics praise a Hollywood
> production with a phrase like "it challenges the audience's
> middle-class assumptions"? Translation: It deliberately insults the
> audience. Modern Hollywood delights in telling Americans not only that
> they are failures. And not because you fail to live up to your ideals,
> but rather because those ideals are worthless, stupid, and out-of-date.
>
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #143642 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 07:28 |
|
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:44:15 -0700, "John Shocked"
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
[quoted article snipped]
>Here is a guy who knows what he is talking about and is not working public relations
>for BSG Hollywood Homosexuals here.
>Ultimately, the ratings of BSG show the reaction of the public toward the muck in
>the new BSG, which hover around a 2 rating consistently,
>compared to the 12 and 13 ratings of Star Trek: The Next Generation before the
>Hollywood Homosexuals took over in Hollywood and perverted the science fiction genre.
>
>
>Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) 1987-1994
>Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9) 1993-1999
>
>=================================================
>http://stng.36el.com/st-tng/trivia/press_notes.html
>
>December 7, 1987
>For week ending Nov. 22, Paramount's Star Trek: The Next Generation
>was third highest ranked show in syndication for second
>consecutive week with 12.7 Nielsen average audience rating.
>For week ending Nove. 15, Star Trek had 12.1 rating. Star Trek became
>third highest-ranked show in syndication on season-to-date basis as of
>week of Nov. 15. Third place flip-flopped weekly between
>World Wrestling Federation and The Oprah Winfrey Show.
>In season-to-date ratings (from debut of shows through Nov. 22), order is
>Wheel of Fortune, 17.1; Jeopardy, 13.3; Star Trek: The Next Generation,
>10.9; World Wrestling Federation, 9.8; and The Oprah Winfrey
>Show, 9.2.
>
>================================================
>http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6952/ratings.htm#ds95
>
>DS9 Episode [1997-98] Rating Rank Households
>A Time To Stand 5.4 8 5,340,000
>Rocks and Shoals 5.2 9 5,070,000
>Sons and Daughters 4.8 12 4,750,000
>Behind the Lines 5.1 17 4,980,000
>Favor the Bold 6.0 11 5,880,000
>
>As of January, 1997, the average cost for a 30-second advertisement on DS9 was $77,000.
>*As of January, 1998, the average cost for a 30 second advertisement on DS9 was $58,000,
>the eighth highest rate, down from last year, but still above Hercules and Xena's $40,000 going rate.
>================================================
>
>Politics
[More of the same quoted artice snipped]
So, the article you quoted has a laundry list of things he didn't like
about BSG, as well as some other shows and movies. NONE of the
arguments are germain to yours. It's not some plot to turn us all
into sodomites, and such, or if it is, the writer of the quoted post
missed it too.
For the record, while I don't agree with it - I do see where he's
coming from. File it under different strokes.
As too ratings.
THTHTHTHBPT!
Even an average thinker like yourself has to admit to the following:
1. ST:TNG was not limited to cable TV - it was in fact aired in
almost every major market in the US, BSG - with the exception of a
few episodes shown on sister Network NBC, is limited to Cable TV.
2. ST:TNG wasn't the ratings monster in the first two seasons that it
turned out to be by the end. It took a long time, and a semi-major
overhaul of the show in little but important ways to get it where it
got.
3. ST:TNG was shown, for the most part, in prime time, or in the 7 -
8 p timeslot, which meant it would have attracted move viewers. BSG
is on at 10p on Frifdays, with a repeat at 11p on Mondays.
4. The content of the shows themselves is substantatively different,
and the producers of BSG have made no secret of it. It was never
going to be aimed at kids, and still isn't. Want ptoof? Seen any BSG
toys at Torys are Us? TNG was positioned for the most part as 'family
friendly'. AND it already had a built in viewer base that was 10
times what BSGs was.
5. ST:TNG is Pre Digital Cable (with one or two markets possibly
excepted - but I'm not positive on that.) That means that there were
next to no 'Super-Targeted' demi-networks. No six channels of
Cartoons, no 5 channels of discovery, etc. Nothing ... repeat ...
nothing is drawing the same numbers in this day and age as it would
have in pre digital cable days. 2 Million viewers (US only, BTW) is a
hell of a decent number for a network like Sci-Fi.
That said - you cannot use lower viewership numbers, (The telling
number, btw, is 'Share' not total households.) to talk about anything
but viewership. They certainly can't be used to prop up your wildly
paranoid assertions that it's all a plot. You can, however, use said
numbers to make the argument that censorship is unneeded.
Applying your logic, 1/5 of the number of people who watched ST:TNG
watch BSG - which means that 4/5 of them have decided not to - which
means that there is no need for cencorship as the majority of people
aren't watching it. Meaning the system works. If it sucks, if it
offends you, turn it off.
I have stated before, you need to find somethng else to do besides
obsess over a TV show. You really do. You know what's outside the
door to your house? A Whole world filled with fresh air, and
librarys, and ... here's the good part, real live women. Really, is
your life so empty that this is all you have? It's taken me 1/2 an
hour to write this, and you post like 20 times as much every day.
Even assuming that you write twice as fast as I do, that's still 5
hours writing about nothing...every day.
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #143657 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 07:51 |
|
"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:54c9k155be8fuli14iafkih134p3jg4j0l [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:44:15 -0700, "John Shocked"
snip
> Really, is your life so empty that this is all you have? It's
> taken me 1/2 an hour to write this, and you post like 20 times
> as much every day. Even assuming that you write twice as fast
> as I do, that's still 5 hours writing about nothing...every day.
He doesn't write anything new. He just cuts-and-pastes the same old crap.
He has been spamming the same crap for almost a year, day after day, week
after week, month after month. Forward all of his posts to abuse [at] cox.net.
Include the headers and a brief note asking Cox to put a stop to his
off-topic spam.
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #143658 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 07:56 |
|
"Tom Conner" <tconner [at] olopha.net> wrote in message
news:oX21f.6995$zQ3.2917 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:54c9k155be8fuli14iafkih134p3jg4j0l [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:44:15 -0700, "John Shocked"
> snip
>> Really, is your life so empty that this is all you have? It's
>> taken me 1/2 an hour to write this, and you post like 20 times
>> as much every day. Even assuming that you write twice as fast
>> as I do, that's still 5 hours writing about nothing...every day.
>
> He doesn't write anything new. He just cuts-and-pastes the same old crap.
> He has been spamming the same crap for almost a year, day after day, week
> after week, month after month. Forward all of his posts to abuse [at] cox.net.
> Include the headers and a brief note asking Cox to put a stop to his
> off-topic spam.
The only time those of us who have been here a while see any of JS's BS is
when foolish people don't just kill file him and move on. Except when
people reply to him I live a pretty much JS free existence. So please do us
all a favor and don't respond. Just add him to your kill file and leave it
at that, because many of us add those who repeatedly respond to JS to the
killfile as well.
Outrider
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #145071 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 12:54 |
|
"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:54c9k155be8fuli14iafkih134p3jg4j0l [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:44:15 -0700, "John Shocked"
> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> [quoted article snipped]
>>Here is a guy who knows what he is talking about and is not working public relations
>>for BSG Hollywood Homosexuals here.
>>Ultimately, the ratings of BSG show the reaction of the public toward the muck in
>>the new BSG, which hover around a 2 rating consistently,
>>compared to the 12 and 13 ratings of Star Trek: The Next Generation before the
>>Hollywood Homosexuals took over in Hollywood and perverted the science fiction genre.
>>Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) 1987-1994
>>Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9) 1993-1999
>>=================================================
>>http://stng.36el.com/st-tng/trivia/press_notes.html
>>
>>December 7, 1987
>>For week ending Nov. 22, Paramount's Star Trek: The Next Generation
>>was third highest ranked show in syndication for second
>>consecutive week with 12.7 Nielsen average audience rating.
>>For week ending Nove. 15, Star Trek had 12.1 rating. Star Trek became
>>third highest-ranked show in syndication on season-to-date basis as of
>>week of Nov. 15. Third place flip-flopped weekly between
>>World Wrestling Federation and The Oprah Winfrey Show.
>>In season-to-date ratings (from debut of shows through Nov. 22), order is
>>Wheel of Fortune, 17.1; Jeopardy, 13.3; Star Trek: The Next Generation,
>>10.9; World Wrestling Federation, 9.8; and The Oprah Winfrey
>>Show, 9.2.
>>================================================
>>http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6952/ratings.htm#ds95
>>
>>DS9 Episode [1997-98] Rating Rank Households
>>A Time To Stand 5.4 8 5,340,000
>>Rocks and Shoals 5.2 9 5,070,000
>>Sons and Daughters 4.8 12 4,750,000
>>Behind the Lines 5.1 17 4,980,000
>>Favor the Bold 6.0 11 5,880,000
>>
>>As of January, 1997, the average cost for a 30-second advertisement on DS9 was $77,000.
>>*As of January, 1998, the average cost for a 30 second advertisement on DS9 was $58,000,
>>the eighth highest rate, down from last year, but still above Hercules and Xena's $40,000 going rate.
>>================================================
>>Politics
> [More of the same quoted article snipped]
> So, the article you quoted has a laundry list of things he didn't like
> about BSG, as well as some other shows and movies. NONE of the
> arguments are germain to yours. It's not some plot to turn us all
> into sodomites, and such, or if it is, the writer of the quoted post
> missed it too.
> For the record, while I don't agree with it - I do see where he's
> coming from. File it under different strokes.
Actually, I do not agree with where this guy is coming from, since he is relying on a religious crutch
rather than forming his own views based on his own personal morality and perception of the nation's morality.
I just say he knows what he is talking about, and is not likely a Hollywood Homosexual hack.
> As too ratings.
> THTHTHTHBPT!
> Even an average thinker like yourself has to admit to the following:
>
> 1. ST:TNG was not limited to cable TV - it was in fact aired in
> almost every major market in the US, BSG - with the exception of a
> few episodes shown on sister Network NBC, is limited to Cable TV.
87% of the households in the US have either cable TV or satellite TV service, which would provide access
to the Scifi and other cable channels. (60% cable and 27% satellite, Aug 2005 study).
http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=200 5117
> 2. ST:TNG wasn't the ratings monster in the first two seasons that it
> turned out to be by the end. It took a long time, and a semi-major
> overhaul of the show in little but important ways to get it where it got.
Evidence of early ratings ?
Of course, the original BSG and the original Star Trek series had failed to maintain an audience, so
the pressure was on to build up an audience. Star Trek: The Next Generation succeeded at this and
proved that science fiction TV could be a hit. It was a tremendous success story.
And Patrick Stewart, who had previously only been known to US audiences in the PBS borne BBC series
I, Claudius, was the main guy responsible, along with excellent science fiction scripts and storylines.
Scripts and Storylines which did not involve Sodomy, which is repulsive and drives away viewers.
> 3. ST:TNG was shown, for the most part, in prime time, or in the 7 -
> 8 p timeslot, which meant it would have attracted move viewers. BSG
> is on at 10p on Frifdays, with a repeat at 11p on Mondays.
That meant that there was huge competition from the other channels.
> 4. The content of the shows themselves is substantatively different,
> and the producers of BSG have made no secret of it. It was never
> going to be aimed at kids, and still isn't. Want proof? Seen any BSG
> toys at Toys are Us? TNG was positioned for the most part as 'family
> friendly'. AND it already had a built in viewer base that was 10
> times what BSGs was.
Targeting is designed to attract viewers, not drive them away. It is not acceptable to drive away viewers
who might be interested in your product. What would be your reaction to this if you were a BSG series investor ?
I do not agree that the series is not targeted at children. It is targeted at you and your kids.
Science fiction largely appeals to kids and kids' imaginations about fancy and futuristic concepts.
> 5. ST:TNG is Pre Digital Cable (with one or two markets possibly
> excepted - but I'm not positive on that.) That means that there were
> next to no 'Super-Targeted' demi-networks. No six channels of
> Cartoons, no 5 channels of discovery, etc. Nothing ... repeat ...
> nothing is drawing the same numbers in this day and age as it would
> have in pre digital cable days. 2 Million viewers (US only, BTW) is a
> hell of a decent number for a network like Sci-Fi.
Again, 87% of the country household have access to Scifi Channel.
> That said - you cannot use lower viewership numbers, (The telling
> number, btw, is 'Share' not total households.) to talk about anything
> but viewership. They certainly can't be used to prop up your wildly
> paranoid assertions that it's all a plot. You can, however, use said
> numbers to make the argument that censorship is unneeded.
The 2 Share is what seems to guarantee Scifi Channel/BSG programmers their job.
Star Trek: The Next Generation was receiving a 12 to 13 rating share back then,
going head to head with the other networks. 3rd rated show of any kind in the country,
behind Wheel Of Fortune and Jeopardy.
> Applying your logic, 1/5 of the number of people who watched ST:TNG
> watch BSG - which means that 4/5 of them have decided not to - which
> means that there is no need for censorship as the majority of people
> aren't watching it. Meaning the system works. If it sucks, if it
> offends you, turn it off.
Wrong. The problem is that the 2 Rating is guaranteeing these Scifi Channel/BSG programmers
their job. Higher ups should be demanding a much higher rating from such a show and fire the programmers
responsible when the show fails to achieve the rightful science fiction TV rating.
> I have stated before, you need to find somethng else to do besides
> obsess over a TV show. You really do. You know what's outside the
> door to your house? A Whole world filled with fresh air, and
> librarys, and ... here's the good part, real live women. Really, is
> your life so empty that this is all you have? It's taken me 1/2 an
> hour to write this, and you post like 20 times as much every day.
> Even assuming that you write twice as fast as I do, that's still 5
> hours writing about nothing...every day.
It is not just a single TV show. There is a whole Hollywood Homosexual campaign ongoing
in movies and on HBO (Homosexual Box Office -- homosexual dominated US premium channel)
and other channels to sell Sodomy and Organized Crime products like Drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes),
Gambling, Prostitution to you and your kids.
This campaign and its content must be Banned by government action.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #145080 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 14:49 |
|
"Outrider" <curtm97982 [at] satxnospam.rr.com> wrote in message news:6031f.4545$0c.3956 [at] tornado.texas.rr.com...
> "Tom Conner" <tconner [at] olopha.net> wrote in message news:oX21f.6995$zQ3.2917 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:54c9k155be8fuli14iafkih134p3jg4j0l [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:44:15 -0700, "John Shocked"
>> snip
>>> Really, is your life so empty that this is all you have? It's
>>> taken me 1/2 an hour to write this, and you post like 20 times
>>> as much every day. Even assuming that you write twice as fast
>>> as I do, that's still 5 hours writing about nothing...every day.
>> He doesn't write anything new. He just cuts-and-pastes the same old crap.
>> He has been spamming the same crap for almost a year, day after day, week
>> after week, month after month. Forward all of his posts to abuse [at] cox.net.
>> Include the headers and a brief note asking Cox to put a stop to his
>> off-topic spam.
> The only time those of us who have been here a while see any of JS's BS is when foolish people don't just kill file him and move
> on. Except when people reply to him I live a pretty much JS free existence. So please do us all a favor and don't respond. Just
> add him to your kill file and leave it at that, because many of us add those who repeatedly respond to JS to the killfile as well.
> Outrider
This guy reads every single one of my posts.
He just does not want you to read my posts and he would consider it a great personal victory
if he could con you into not reading my posts by claiming he himself does not read them.
That is how much of a piece of trash he thinks you are.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #145167 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 20:13 |
|
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 03:54:16 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:54c9k155be8fuli14iafkih134p3jg4j0l [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:44:15 -0700, "John Shocked"
>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> [quoted article snipped]
[more snippage]
>> 5. ST:TNG is Pre Digital Cable (with one or two markets possibly
>> excepted - but I'm not positive on that.) That means that there were
>> next to no 'Super-Targeted' demi-networks. No six channels of
>> Cartoons, no 5 channels of discovery, etc. Nothing ... repeat ...
>> nothing is drawing the same numbers in this day and age as it would
>> have in pre digital cable days. 2 Million viewers (US only, BTW) is a
>> hell of a decent number for a network like Sci-Fi.
>
> Again, 87% of the country household have access to Scifi Channel.
depends on how you define "have access"
SciFi is on digital cable only on some cable systems (ie- Comcast), so its
not really accessible to over 1/2 of their cable subscribers who are still
on analog cable (Comcast lists a 42.6% digital cable pentration as of 2Q05)
According to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, about
64% of 73 million cable customers still view in analog (down from 91% in
2000), so it seems likely that the maximum number of households that could
watch BSG (or any SciFi channel show) is significantly lower than the
number that could have seen ST:TNG
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #145213 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 02:16 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
<total snip>
And he likes to pretend no interest in religion. HA!
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #145215 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 02:19 |
|
I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
> I do not agree that the series is not targeted at children. It is
> targeted at you and your kids. Science fiction largely appeals to kids and
> kids' imaginations about fancy and futuristic concepts.
BULLSHIT! I'm 36, *no kids*, and I am a _huge_ sf fan (going to an sf
convention this weekend, in fact). You simply have no fucking clue what
you're on about.
--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #145229 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 03:59 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 03:54:16 -0700, "John Shocked"
<jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
[Snipped]
>87% of the households in the US have either cable TV or satellite TV service, which would provide access
>to the Scifi and other cable channels. (60% cable and 27% satellite, Aug 2005 study).
> http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=200 5117
You need to drill down the reasearch a bit more. The 87% number
sounds about right, but of that 87%, how many have Sci-Fi channel?
>
>> 2. ST:TNG wasn't the ratings monster in the first two seasons that it
>> turned out to be by the end. It took a long time, and a semi-major
>> overhaul of the show in little but important ways to get it where it got.
>
>Evidence of early ratings ?
>Of course, the original BSG and the original Star Trek series had failed to maintain an audience, so
>the pressure was on to build up an audience. Star Trek: The Next Generation succeeded at this and
>proved that science fiction TV could be a hit. It was a tremendous success story.
>And Patrick Stewart, who had previously only been known to US audiences in the PBS borne BBC series
>I, Claudius, was the main guy responsible, along with excellent science fiction scripts and storylines.
>Scripts and Storylines which did not involve Sodomy, which is repulsive and drives away viewers.
Buzz! Wrong! Thanks for playing.
Stewart was in a major supporting role in at least 2 major american
films before ST:TNG, Excalibur, and Dune. Additionally, he appeared
in the 70s Miniseries Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, and various other
TV productions.
While I agree that he was a major reason for the success of the TNG
series, he was not the only reason.
>> 3. ST:TNG was shown, for the most part, in prime time, or in the 7 -
>> 8 p timeslot, which meant it would have attracted move viewers. BSG
>> is on at 10p on Frifdays, with a repeat at 11p on Mondays.
>
>That meant that there was huge competition from the other channels.
Depends on the market - the individual stations picked their own time
slots, which meant that they would have probably used some sort of
Demographic research to determine what the best slot for the show was
in their area.
>> 4. The content of the shows themselves is substantatively different,
>> and the producers of BSG have made no secret of it. It was never
>> going to be aimed at kids, and still isn't. Want proof? Seen any BSG
>> toys at Toys are Us? TNG was positioned for the most part as 'family
>> friendly'. AND it already had a built in viewer base that was 10
>> times what BSGs was.
>
>Targeting is designed to attract viewers, not drive them away. It is not acceptable to drive away viewers
>who might be interested in your product. What would be your reaction to this if you were a BSG series investor ?
>I do not agree that the series is not targeted at children. It is targeted at you and your kids.
>Science fiction largely appeals to kids and kids' imaginations about fancy and futuristic concepts.
Targeting is done to gather the most viewers of a particular group -
and advertising is then tailored to suit. Kids shows are used to sell
toys, cereal, and sneakers. See any ads for captain crunch during
BSG? And again, if they were after your kids as a viewer, they would
be licensing stuff like crazy.
As to my reaction were I an investor? Were I an ADVERTISER, which is
who you probably mean, my reaction would be 'how many of x demographic
that we want are we getting?' Advertisers purchase time on specific
shows when their own research tells them that the demographic they
want to reach watches it.
[snipped]
>> Applying your logic, 1/5 of the number of people who watched ST:TNG
>> watch BSG - which means that 4/5 of them have decided not to - which
>> means that there is no need for censorship as the majority of people
>> aren't watching it. Meaning the system works. If it sucks, if it
>> offends you, turn it off.
>
>Wrong. The problem is that the 2 Rating is guaranteeing these Scifi Channel/BSG programmers
>their job. Higher ups should be demanding a much higher rating from such a show and fire the programmers
>responsible when the show fails to achieve the rightful science fiction TV rating.
Non-Sequitur. When did 'Rightfull Science Fiction TV rating' enter
the argument?
>> I have stated before, you need to find somethng else to do besides
>> obsess over a TV show. You really do. You know what's outside the
>> door to your house? A Whole world filled with fresh air, and
>> librarys, and ... here's the good part, real live women. Really, is
>> your life so empty that this is all you have? It's taken me 1/2 an
>> hour to write this, and you post like 20 times as much every day.
>> Even assuming that you write twice as fast as I do, that's still 5
>> hours writing about nothing...every day.
>
>It is not just a single TV show. There is a whole Hollywood Homosexual campaign ongoing
>in movies and on HBO (Homosexual Box Office -- homosexual dominated US premium channel)
>and other channels to sell Sodomy and Organized Crime products like Drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes),
>Gambling, Prostitution to you and your kids.
>This campaign and its content must be Banned by government action.
>
>Politics
Oh Bullshit!
Aside for the fact that said campaign exists only in your mind - you
haven't offered any real evidence (your overactive imagination does
not count), and when presented with logical arguments, you simply
ignore them and repost a few hundred words, deflect them with a
circular and self-supporting counter argument, or flat twist the facts
in a show of linguistic gymnastics which boggles the mind - I really
think you're missing the point.
Go back and read the Constitution. What part of 'Congress Shall Make
No Law..." is unclear to you? It DOESN'T also say 'Unless it's for
your own good.' It means that Congress DOES NOT have the power or
authority to censor what I say or write. At the very most, BSG
violates local obscenity laws - fine, let the individual communities
ban it. BUT for the love of God and Country PLEASE consider before
asking for censorship this simple truth:
The next thing that might get banned as 'objectionable' is your free
speech.
>
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #145253 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 10:26 |
|
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 05:56:18 GMT, "Outrider"
<curtm97982 [at] satxnospam.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Tom Conner" <tconner [at] olopha.net> wrote in message
>news:oX21f.6995$zQ3.2917 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:54c9k155be8fuli14iafkih134p3jg4j0l [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:44:15 -0700, "John Shocked"
>> snip
>>> Really, is your life so empty that this is all you have? It's
>>> taken me 1/2 an hour to write this, and you post like 20 times
>>> as much every day. Even assuming that you write twice as fast
>>> as I do, that's still 5 hours writing about nothing...every day.
>>
>> He doesn't write anything new. He just cuts-and-pastes the same old crap.
>> He has been spamming the same crap for almost a year, day after day, week
>> after week, month after month. Forward all of his posts to abuse [at] cox.net.
>> Include the headers and a brief note asking Cox to put a stop to his
>> off-topic spam.
>
>The only time those of us who have been here a while see any of JS's BS is
>when foolish people don't just kill file him and move on. Except when
>people reply to him I live a pretty much JS free existence. So please do us
>all a favor and don't respond. Just add him to your kill file and leave it
>at that, because many of us add those who repeatedly respond to JS to the
>killfile as well.
>
>Outrider
>
Are you kidding? I haven't had this much fun in months! This clown
is a howl!
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #145893 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 16:07 |
|
"lacunae" <lacunaeREMOVE [at] THISnyc.com> wrote in message news:pan.2005.10.06.18.13.00.455101 [at] THISnyc.com...
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 03:54:16 -0700, John Shocked wrote:
>> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message news:54c9k155be8fuli14iafkih134p3jg4j0l [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:44:15 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>> <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> [quoted article snipped]
> [more snippage]
>>> 5. ST:TNG is Pre Digital Cable (with one or two markets possibly
>>> excepted - but I'm not positive on that.) That means that there were
>>> next to no 'Super-Targeted' demi-networks. No six channels of
>>> Cartoons, no 5 channels of discovery, etc. Nothing ... repeat ...
>>> nothing is drawing the same numbers in this day and age as it would
>>> have in pre digital cable days. 2 Million viewers (US only, BTW) is a
>>> hell of a decent number for a network like Sci-Fi.
>> Again, 87% of the country household have access to Scifi Channel.
> depends on how you define "have access"
> SciFi is on digital cable only on some cable systems (ie- Comcast), so its
> not really accessible to over 1/2 of their cable subscribers who are still
> on analog cable (Comcast lists a 42.6% digital cable pentration as of 2Q05)
> According to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, about
> 64% of 73 million cable customers still view in analog (down from 91% in
> 2000), so it seems likely that the maximum number of households that could
> watch BSG (or any SciFi channel show) is significantly lower than the
> number that could have seen ST:TNG
From what I have heard it is very unusual for Scifi Channel not to be in the main course of 125 analog channels.
Either way, customers who have interest in science fiction TV will choose the bundle which includes
Scifi Channel for a minor additional cost. It is available to them if they believe truly that Scifi Channel
contains programming which qualifies as science fiction TV.
A big factor for these people is what they remember about Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, since the
homosexual muck in that series left a bad taste with many viewers and just that horrific memory
could be preventing the few people who are in this situation from investing to obtain the Scifi Channel.
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #145894 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 16:09 |
|
"The Secretary of HomInt3rn" <ý|<®åñ539ô9 [at] \/\/0é|\/|.6®0> wrote in message news:Maj1f.98316$oW2.54915 [at] pd7tw1no...
>I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
> Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to The Easily Shocked Cherry:
>> I do not agree that the series is not targeted at children. It is
>> targeted at you and your kids. Science fiction largely appeals to kids and
>> kids' imaginations about fancy and futuristic concepts.
> BULLSHIT! I'm 36, *no kids*, and I am a _huge_ sf fan (going to an sf
> convention this weekend, in fact). You simply have no fucking clue what
> you're on about.
Which convention. This one ?
========================================================
http://www.scifi.com/events/event.php3?event_id=11304
OUTer Gay/Lesbian SF Film Fest
Conventions 11/5/2005 - 11/6/2005
The OUTer Gay and Lesbian SciFi/Fantasy Film Festival celebrates its second year as a showcase for films
by, for, and about gay, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender in the genre of science fiction, fantasy, and horror.
Official site: www.outerfilmfest.com.
Location: 2300 Village Way Drive, Austin, Texas
=========================================================
Politics
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #145905 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 18:15 |
|
"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:e4cck1dj530st5d937s769jmrkrhs0982g [at] 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 05:56:18 GMT, "Outrider"
> <curtm97982 [at] satxnospam.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tom Conner" <tconner [at] olopha.net> wrote in message
> >news:oX21f.6995$zQ3.2917 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:54c9k155be8fuli14iafkih134p3jg4j0l [at] 4ax.com...
> >>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:44:15 -0700, "John Shocked"
> >> snip
> >>> Really, is your life so empty that this is all you have? It's
> >>> taken me 1/2 an hour to write this, and you post like 20 times
> >>> as much every day. Even assuming that you write twice as fast
> >>> as I do, that's still 5 hours writing about nothing...every day.
> >>
> >> He doesn't write anything new. He just cuts-and-pastes the same old
crap.
> >> He has been spamming the same crap for almost a year, day after day,
week
> >> after week, month after month. Forward all of his posts to
abuse [at] cox.net.
> >> Include the headers and a brief note asking Cox to put a stop to his
> >> off-topic spam.
> >
> >The only time those of us who have been here a while see any of JS's BS
is
> >when foolish people don't just kill file him and move on. Except when
> >people reply to him I live a pretty much JS free existence. So please do
us
> >all a favor and don't respond. Just add him to your kill file and leave
it
> >at that, because many of us add those who repeatedly respond to JS to the
> >killfile as well.
> >
> >Outrider
> >
>
> Are you kidding? I haven't had this much fun in months! This clown
> is a howl!
Welcome to the John Shocked kill file. Have fun playing with the other
fools.
|
|
|
| Re: The anti chrisian values of battlestar galactica [message #145966 ] |
Sa, 08 Oktober 2005 18:26 |
|
Earl Grieda wrote:
> "Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
> news:e4cck1dj530st5d937s769jmrkrhs0982g [at] 4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 05:56:18 GMT, "Outrider"
>><curtm97982 [at] satxnospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tom Conner" <tconner [at] olopha.net> wrote in message
>>>news:oX21f.6995$zQ3.2917 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>"Kevin Kitching" <kitching1 [at] cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:54c9k155be8fuli14iafkih134p3jg4j0l [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:44:15 -0700, "John Shocked"
>>>>
>>>>snip
>>>>
>>>>>Really, is your life so empty that this is all you have? It's
>>>>>taken me 1/2 an hour to write this, and you post like 20 times
>>>>>as much every day. Even assuming that you write twice as fast
>>>>>as I do, that's still 5 hours writing about nothing...every day.
>>>>
>>>>He doesn't write anything new. He just cuts-and-pastes the same old
>
> crap.
>
>>>>He has been spamming the same crap for almost a year, day after day,
>
> week
>
>>>>after week, month after month. Forward all of his posts to
>
> abuse [at] cox.net.
>
>>>>Include the headers and a brief note asking Cox to put a stop to his
>>>>off-topic spam.
>>>
>>>The only time those of us who have been here a while see any of JS's BS
>
> is
>
>>>when foolish people don't just kill file him and move on. Except when
>>>people reply to him I live a pretty much JS free existence. So please do
>
> us
>
>>>all a favor and don't respond. Just add him to your kill file and leave
>
> it
>
>>>at that, because many of us add those who repeatedly respond to JS to the
>>>killfile as well.
>>>
>>>Outrider
>>>
>>
>>Are you kidding? I haven't had this much fun in months! This clown
>>is a howl!
>
>
> Welcome to the John Shocked kill file. Have fun playing with the other
> fools.
>
>
John Shocked, mine and Pussyfart Eva's idol! FM...
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 05:53:56 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10395 Sekunden |
