| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/01/2005 11:56:39 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
... How come you don't see Americans saving children from prostitution in Thailand? ..... |
Do we see Canadians saving children from prostitution in Thailand? |
No, because we mind our own business. Other culture, differant values. It's sad to say but, for them, of course it's problem, but they don't perceive it as bad as North-American people would. It would be stupid to go there and start a war (or even military presence) over something so wrong for us, but not something that they like to see a war going on on their grounds for... That way, we are not imposing our cultural values upon them.
Think about it... |
Just like the Hitler regime didn't perceive the holoucast as bad as those busybodies in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and some other cultural 'imposers' did. At least SOME enlightened countries, like Sweeden, France, Norway, and Spain had the decency not to attempt to force alien standards of morality on the third reich.
Now you have a problem with Americans not "saving children from prostitution in Thailand", yet Canada's inaction here is OK? Why be consistent? |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 11:57:16 PM · #152 |
Television influences that way Americans see the world around them...
Here are 15 facts concerning American TV viewing habits that may surprise you?
1) Time per day that TV is on in an average US home: 7 hours, 40 minutes
2) Amount of television that the average American watches per day: over 4 hours
3) Time spent daily with screen media for U.S. children age six and under: about 2 hours
4) Percentage of US families with children age 0-6 with at least one television: 99
5) Percentage of US households with 3 or more TVs (2003): 50
6) Percentage of parents who say that if they have something important to do, it is likely that they will use the TV to
occupy their child: 45
7) Percentage of Americans who always or often watch television while eating dinner: 40
8) Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49
9) Time per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 38.5 minutes
10) Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked, would rather watch TV than spend time with their fathers: 54
11) Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: 59
12) Percentage of Americans who can name three Supreme Court Justices: 17
13) Percentage of local TV news broadcast time devoted to advertising: 30
14) Number of TV commercials viewed by American children a year: 40,000
15) Number of TV commercials seen by the average American by age 65: 2 million
As Count Floyd would say: ...scary, very scary, boys and girls...
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 12:03:18 AM · #153 |
| Did this thread get abducted too.............. Enough already,,,,,, |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 12:04:37 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Television influences that way Americans see the world around them...
Here are 15 facts concerning American TV viewing habits that may surprise you?
1) Time per day that TV is on in an average US home: 7 hours, 40 minutes
2) Amount of television that the average American watches per day: over 4 hours
3) Time spent daily with screen media for U.S. children age six and under: about 2 hours
4) Percentage of US families with children age 0-6 with at least one television: 99
5) Percentage of US households with 3 or more TVs (2003): 50
6) Percentage of parents who say that if they have something important to do, it is likely that they will use the TV to
occupy their child: 45
7) Percentage of Americans who always or often watch television while eating dinner: 40
8) Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49
9) Time per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 38.5 minutes
10) Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked, would rather watch TV than spend time with their fathers: 54
11) Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: 59
12) Percentage of Americans who can name three Supreme Court Justices: 17
13) Percentage of local TV news broadcast time devoted to advertising: 30
14) Number of TV commercials viewed by American children a year: 40,000
15) Number of TV commercials seen by the average American by age 65: 2 million
As Count Floyd would say: ...scary, very scary, boys and girls... |
And considering the great amount of simplistic and mind numbing idiot shows, lacking in any redeeming intellectually stimulating content, that come on American TV its even scarier. |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 12:10:36 AM · #155 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Now you have a problem with Americans not "saving children from prostitution in Thailand", yet Canada's inaction here is OK? Why be consistent? |
No I don't. That was used for an example to show the US would not want to save a country just out of kindness. There's sad economics envolved in wars (wich by the way are inevitable, and the world could not fuction without... Read Orwell's 1984). To make a war, it costs money, so like any other business, to make an investment, it has to profit somehow. That's how wars work...
But you see... Canada, is not in the war business... That's not what wnat to produce. It's not our department. Of course, we do have an army. Our army (Blue Helmets) are sent in countries to clean up wars. When the Americans are done blowing all that money on fireworks and the party's over and the heros are gone, our humble, peaceful soldiers go to these countries and help out cleaning up. Re-establishig peace, rebuilding villages, bring back clean water, give medical care,etc.
Of course, the countrys we help out are countries that are interesting to make business trades (natural ressources)...
But no, I don't blame the US for not doing anything in Thailand. I never wrote that and believe to be quite consistant.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 12:15:07 AM · #156 |
How far are these comments from the initial thread. There seem to be individuals who thrive on confrontation, taking turns bashing each other.
Could we get back to the intitial topic,,,,,,,or is that too much to ask for. |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 12:24:00 AM · #157 |
Why don't you get us on track?
Originally posted by RayEthier:
How far are these comments from the initial thread. There seem to be individuals who thrive on confrontation, taking turns bashing each other.
Could we get back to the intitial topic,,,,,,,or is that too much to ask for. |
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 12:32:55 AM · #158 |
[quote=Olyuzi] Why don't you get us on track?
Sure, just go to page one and read the very first entry. Hope that helps |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 12:41:04 AM · #159 |
lol
Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=Olyuzi] Why don't you get us on track?
Sure, just go to page one and read the very first entry. Hope that helps |
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 12:46:31 AM · #160 |
13 posts ago I did try and posted something related to the op...I guess you missed it, or haven't been reading the entire thread. Do you want me to post it again? It starts like this:
If you think it's bad now with photographers getting harassed wait until after the inauguration in a few weeks, or wait until Alberto Gonzales gets approved for John Ashcroft's Attorney General post, or when the Domestic Security Enhancement Act gets passed...
Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=Olyuzi] Why don't you get us on track?
Sure, just go to page one and read the very first entry. Hope that helps |
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 09:17:24 AM · #161 |
Me like pie.
Originally posted by blemt:
Pie? |
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 09:58:07 AM · #162 |
1
Message edited by author 2005-01-02 09:58:32. |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 10:18:20 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by achiral:
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 07:37:07 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by grandmarginal:
Originally posted by deapee:
What do you have to be proud to live in canada for? What has canada done? What interest does anyone have in anything that goes on in canada?
|
What has canada done? Canadian troops openned the way for Americans in Dieppe during WWII. They were there way before Americans were even concerned about it... The Canadians are the great heros that remained in the US shadow.
Why am I pround of being a Canadian? My government had the balls to say NO. We will not join you guys in bombing a bunch of innocent civilains in order to punish those that yes, like you said, beheaded and mistreated it's own people... And don't kid yourselves... USA does not want to protect anybody but those who have something of value (Is oil something of value? yes, yes it is...) How come you don't see Americans saving children from prostitution in Thailand? What's in thailand that America could use?
That's one of the reason why I'm proud to be a Canadian. |
If more people and countries shared your views, we would have more terroists running around making this world a far more dangerous place to live. If you hate America so much....PLEASE do not come to visit. In fact, I hope they look you over REAL close at the border! |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 07:45:36 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by 4score:
If more people and countries shared your views, we would have more terroists running around making this world a far more dangerous place to live. If you hate America so much....PLEASE do not come to visit. In fact, I hope they look you over REAL close at the border! |
Absolute paranoia. Again, I never wrote that I hated America. Put aside your feelings for a few minutes and analyse what I'm saying. What I'm saying about the USA is not all bad. But I believe there is a feeling of doubt that may cause people to over-react.
But anyways, this thread started with a different subject and I will abstain from continuing this discussion here.
Message edited by author 2005-01-02 19:55:07.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 07:54:39 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Television influences that way Americans see the world around them...
Here are 15 facts concerning American TV viewing habits that may surprise you?
1) Time per day that TV is on in an average US home: 7 hours, 40 minutes
2) Amount of television that the average American watches per day: over 4 hours
3) Time spent daily with screen media for U.S. children age six and under: about 2 hours
4) Percentage of US families with children age 0-6 with at least one television: 99
5) Percentage of US households with 3 or more TVs (2003): 50
6) Percentage of parents who say that if they have something important to do, it is likely that they will use the TV to
occupy their child: 45
7) Percentage of Americans who always or often watch television while eating dinner: 40
8) Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49
9) Time per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 38.5 minutes
10) Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked, would rather watch TV than spend time with their fathers: 54
11) Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: 59
12) Percentage of Americans who can name three Supreme Court Justices: 17
13) Percentage of local TV news broadcast time devoted to advertising: 30
14) Number of TV commercials viewed by American children a year: 40,000
15) Number of TV commercials seen by the average American by age 65: 2 million
As Count Floyd would say: ...scary, very scary, boys and girls... |
I am an American, I hate Tv especially reality TV. So this must meen all Americans hate Tv.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 08:22:06 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Television influences that way Americans see the world around them...
Here are 15 facts concerning American TV viewing habits that may surprise you?
1) Time per day that TV is on in an average US home: 0 minutes
2) Amount of television that the average American watches per day: 0 minutes
7) Percentage of Americans who always or often watch television while eating dinner: Not me
8) Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: Not me
9) Time per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: a few hours
11) Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: I can!
12) Percentage of Americans who can name three Supreme Court Justices: I can name them all!
14) Number of TV commercials viewed by American children a year: 0
|
I've changed some of the numbers to reflect my Television viewing habits. But still, you can use your statistics to reflect on the true Americans. I'm just not representative enough, I guess.
Message edited by author 2005-01-02 20:22:50. |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 08:31:24 PM · #168 |
| Ohoomm,pie! ......... pie! pie! pie! |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 09:01:26 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by xtabintun:
Originally posted by Morgan:
Television influences that way Americans see the world around them...
Here are 15 facts concerning American TV viewing habits that may surprise you?
1) Time per day that TV is on in an average US home: 0 minutes
2) Amount of television that the average American watches per day: 0 minutes
7) Percentage of Americans who always or often watch television while eating dinner: Not me
8) Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: Not me
9) Time per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: a few hours
11) Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: I can!
12) Percentage of Americans who can name three Supreme Court Justices: I can name them all!
14) Number of TV commercials viewed by American children a year: 0
|
I've changed some of the numbers to reflect my Television viewing habits. But still, you can use your statistics to reflect on the true Americans. I'm just not representative enough, I guess. |
James, every time I offer these statistics, someone offers a view similar to your response. I know that folks like you are out there, and it pleases me to hear from you. Especially since you can name all of the Supreme Court Justices.
But, think about it.
If you are not watching your statistical share of TV, then someone else has to watch twice as much as the average statistics in order to derive the resulting numbers. So, as sane and perhaps unique as you may be, there is someone out there that is balancing the scales the other way....Hmmmm
Cheers, Michael
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 09:20:53 PM · #170 |
Morgan,
That's not how it works. Those "stats" are derived from an extremely small sampling of the population. The statisticians say they are accurate, but who knows? Nobody's actually timed all the TV usage in America, so that for every hour I haven't watched someone else has watched an 'extra" hour...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 09:34:52 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Morgan,
That's not how it works. Those "stats" are derived from an extremely small sampling of the population. The statisticians say they are accurate, but who knows? Nobody's actually timed all the TV usage in America, so that for every hour I haven't watched someone else has watched an 'extra" hour...
Robt. |
Actually, this is very big business and impacts the cost of airtime for commercial TV spots.
You are right, statistics are often taken like you described. As well, the good folks at AC Nielson and the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement (BBM) do actually have monitoring devices installed in many tens of thousands of homes to electronically monitor who is watching what.
So, big brother is watching...
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 09:38:17 PM · #172 |
Nielsen Media Research's Operations Center in Dunedin, Florida, processes this information each night for release to the television industry the next day. To comprehend the dimension of the task, consider that Nielsen Media Research collects information from approximately 25,000 households starting about 3 a.m. each day, processes approximately 10 million viewing minutes each day, and has more than 4,000 gigabytes of data available for customer access the next day.
|
|
|
|
01/02/2005 09:47:13 PM · #173 |
I'm well aware of Nielsen and how they gather their stats. My point is that to "reason" from those statistics that if one person watches half the TV then another person has to be watching twice the TV, is faulty. Statistics of this sort don't work that way. The key thing, for me, is the number 25,000; that's one quarter of one percent of the population of NYC, more or less, let alone the nation. I don't take it as a given that these are valid statistics when projected across the population as a whole.
As far as I'm concerend, Nielsen ratings rank right up there with deBeers Consolidated (the diamond monopoly people) as one of the great commercial scams of all time.
Robt.
Edited to add: I ain't disputing YOU, Morgan; I am disputing the entire Nielsen monopoly on TV Ratings, and the uses to which people put these statistics. Was it Mark Twain who said "There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics!"?
Message edited by author 2005-01-02 21:49:18.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2005 06:37:29 PM · #174 |
You should also take into concideration people like me who will leave the house with the tv on. How's that for statistics? You can't judge an individual based on ANY statistic. All they prove is what the people they tested did. Then they use mathematics to create an equation. The answer of which is what you call statistics (as if you didn't know :P)
Along with that. Assuming that it's the same person watching the tv every time it's on would be ludicrous. I have my wife, twin daughters (whom only watch the animated Robin Hood) and myself. What I watch is completely different from what my wife watches. Unless you are tuned in to the person recieving the signal, than statistics are just guesses.
It's silly to argue over the amount of 'truth' derived from these types of statistic gathering specimine. It's like judging the city based on one of those mall questionaires that they pay you 10 bucks or whatever to fill out.
I could be wrong, but unless you have a 'black box' from the cable company that sends your particular households viewing ratings to the company. Then you're not counted anyway, unless you want to believe the cable people are tapping into the set, which is a new thread on it's own covering conspiracy theory and all that. They could on the other hand intercept which signals are most frequently sent (like when you order HBO or SKINAMAX).
It's sort of like, 'best actor'. Only to those who were able to vote. I have never seen a ballet (spelling?) to vote. I have never been asked my opinion. I bet 90% of this site if not all have never voted for 'best actor'.
alright, sorry. That's enough.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2005 01:50:51 PM · #175 |
I wanted to weigh in on this conversation as someone from the Law Enforcement Side. I have been doing this job for 14 years and I teach the 4th Amendment (search and siezure) to officers, in addition to being a very busy outdoor photographer. I get hassled also, but I have not had my rights restricted. I hope I can shed some light...
Police operate in general on two principles, reasonable suspicion that crime may be afoot, and probable cause, which are the facts and circumstances that lead a reasonable man to believe that a crime has been commited or is about to be commited.
Reasonable suspicion is needed for an officer to detain a subject in order to more fully investigate a certain situation. There are numerous cases that support this. There are "bright line" rules as to what officers can do during this investigative stop. Generally departments have a timeline that a citizen can be detained on these type of stops, such as 1 hour, before it is deemed an "arrest". There are other factors that play into it, but I will leave that to you to research. I would like to go through what you said in your post, and hopefully you will have a greater understanding of why the officers conducted themselves the way they did.
"Just wanna say I'm just about completely fed up with getting hassled for taking pictures. I was harrassed by a construction site supervisor today. I was on the public sidewalk near his site shooting in.
He demanded to know who I was and who I worked for. I told him I shoot for personal enjoyment and told him I was sorry and would leave. At which time I started walking back toward my Jeep. He then jumped the fence and approached me. I pulled out my cell phone and called the police because I felt he was putting me in danger." (You did the right thing here. You were doing absolutely nothing wrong, so you called the police to report a problem giving them a reason to come and detain all parties to investigate the disturbance.)
"The police showed up a second later, asked for my ID and all the while interrogated me as to why I was there. They don't understand what personal enjoyment is...and kept bringing up 9/11. They said my actions were 'very suspicious'." (Now I am sure the officers talked to both parties here, and they asked for everyone's I.D. in order to make a criminal check to make sure you were not wanted for anything, and I am sure the construction person was handled the same way. As far as the interrogation, if you called to report an incident you were involved in and waited around for the officers, they are going to detain all parties until they are satisfied that they got to sembelance of the truth and no crime has been commited. As we all know, cops are never lied to. Sure there was probably mention of 9/11, and there was probably mention of you being suspicious photographing a building under construction, but it is not as if these officers were driving down the street, stopped you and held you against your will. You called, they were investigating even though you may have not liked the "tone" or "direction" the questions were going. To them and their judgement, it may have been suspicious based on the answer you gave them about photographing for personal enjoyment.)
"They wouldn't give me my ID back and basically detained me for about 45 minutes all the while asking me personal stuff like where I worked, if I was a Private Investigator, and over and over again why I was taking picture of a construction site."(Again, they were investigating a possible crime you called in. You felt the construction guy was possibly going to do you some physical harm (coersion) by his actions toward you. A bit overzealous on the construction guys part. I think so. So this detainment is well within the legal timeframe allowed. This is not an arrest, even though you were not allowed to leave because they had your I.D.)
"My answers were the same the whole time although they didn't believe me -- personal enjoyment." (Again...it looks like they were getting to the bottom of the story. Seeing if yours changed...all part of investigation principles.)
"Finally, they gave me my ID back and told me to leave. I'm not the type to create an arguement about anything, so I just hopped in my jeep and left with my tail between my legs."(No arrest made...good day...there was probably not enough evidence of a crime on either part to support the probable cause needed to make one.)
--
"Should I do anything about this or just stop taking pictures of things that might seem 'suspicious'? "(Should you do anything about this? I do not see what you can do. It appears that the officers acted within the total framework of the 4th Amendment. Remember..you called them to have them come investigate your claim. If they treated you rudely...go to internal affairs and make a report. They should have been professional about it, and if they were not and the claim is valid, I.A. will punish them. Should you stop taking pictures of things that might seem suspicious? ABSOLUTELY NOT! We would be talking about something completely different if the officers just stopped you out of the blue photographing a building that you have every right to. I am a staunch supporter of individual rights, and if you have right to be there, let em know...)
I hope it sheds a little light and helps you out with your decision on how to deal with this.
For those of you that have "press credentials". If you find yourself in this same situation, it is not considered fake i.d. where I am, but it would be suspicious. Just tell them you are a freelance photographer...leave it at that...text
Message edited by author 2005-01-13 13:54:12. |
|
