Are the entertainment industries the unofficial advertising department of the illegal drug industry?

[UnSubRocky]

Bogan,

This goading of me might work well 20 years ago. But not these days. I have matured enough to understand this topic to the point that I would consider myself an expert. But, according to the law, because I have no accreditation in psychology, I am not considered an expert to explain the reasoning why I do not believe that the entertainment industry the unofficial advertising department of the illegal drug industry.

The research I have read over the years has led me to focus on related topics of aggression; catharsis; empathy; pluralistic ignorance; and other topics that I will recall as I progress through the topic. I had concluded that entertainment industries have a way of lowering the criminal element in society. Why you hold a contrary position, I will not know.

As to the topic of aggression, you might watch a violent movie or listen to a fast-paced song and feel a bit of aggression building. Part of the argument here is that the watcher or listener is trying to identify with the entertainment. This is a subconscious facet of humans to try find a common ground during an interaction. However, if we find that the content or behaviour of the interaction is objectionable, we normally try to cut short the interaction.

Catharsis: If you have viewed violent entertainment, after a while you start to develop a bit of catharsis in terms of putting your own problems into perspective. Last night, I watched the movie "Black Hawk Down", the story about the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. What I noticed about the theme of the movie was the complacency of the soldier characters on either side of the conflict. The Americans had a mission of capturing the leadership of the Somali warlords to try and bring about a peaceful resolution. However, the soldiers were met with a fierce resistance unlike what they were expecting. By the end of the movie, you felt a bit of sympathy for the characters of the movie. And you begin to refocus on how your own problems pale in comparison.

Empathy: How often do you watch a scene where someone gets hurt. I saw a scene where someone was shot and slowly bled to death because he could not get medical help. Speaking as someone who has been shot, I understand how important medical help is with grievous bodily harm incidences. Violent scenes can re-establish the motivation to keep cognisant of emergency medical care.

Pluralistic ignorance: This argument can go either way. A couple of years ago, I thought that I heard severe domestic violence taking place about 100 metres or more from my position. My first thought was to go to the nearest service station and ask the attendant to call the police. His reaction was to deny me the use of a phone or to make a phone call to the police. I tried to later use a public phone, which I found to be out of service. It took me 10 minutes to run home and make a call to the Police Link. The issue here to question is if that attendant at the service station had heard the commotion himself, would he have called the police himself? And if I was not wearing a beany to keep my head warm, would he have taken the request to call the police more seriously? Obviously, he had a duty to keep safe. I could have been there to rob him, for all he knew. But, I was there to get him to call the police over a domestic nearby. I would surmise that the attendant has been trained to abide by the safety and security practices of his workplace and was willing to let neighbours deal with the situation themselves. But, I was a concerned member of the public. Having watched movies about domestic violence, I have been more motivated to try reduce the likelihood of violence.

I have to find time to reference these claims with citations. So, without any argument based on evidence, I am free to be criticised by others who hold a contrary view. However, because you (Bogan) have no evidence to support your opinion, you are also in the same league of criticism.

[J o h n S m i t h]

I think Lisa likes it? All I need is one intelligent pupil.

[Bobby]

Bogan,

Half the people turn up at my concerts, just to see if I will drop dead on the stage.
Steven Tyler of Aerosmith, did just that, when he overdosed on stage and was pronounced dead where he lay.

Bullshit - he's alive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Tyler

[UnSubRocky]

If you don't like the topic, it's a free country, (despite Section 18C) take a hike. I think Lisa likes it? All I need is one intelligent pupil.

I am not going to burden myself with a topic that I wasted 2 years researching the topic only to conclude that the media industry has more success reducing antisocial behaviour. I have done the topic over and over. Why not concede that your argument is superstitious and a nonsense.

Concluded by who? The fake news press ? The same ones who hobnob with the stars in nightclubs, gala nights, and acting award presentations? They are all part of the same celebrity caste, Mr Rocky, and they all scratch each others backs. They all have the same idea that they are the smart ones, different from the peasants, and that they should all look out for each other. Class loyalty, you know? The funny thing is, unlike you, they really do know that the entertainment industry is creating never before seen before instances of serious criminal behaviour within their own societies. But they don't care. They will never care until some young gunman walks into a school of their own kids in Bel-Air or Hollywood High and starts gunning down their own kids.

Concluded by the various psychological organisations and statistical data available to show that violence rates and drug usage is on the way down. If you have ever walked around towns and cities and kept an awareness of the body language of people from different backgrounds, you might be able to pick out the drug users, the alcoholics, and those that abuse their bodies with junk food. I work across the road from a tavern. Actually, I live in Rockhampton -- therefore, I can live or work within 1 kilometre of a tavern, bottleshop or a nightclub. You can notice that those that look drug affected are probably the same kind of person that does not watch a great deal of television or listen to music. Maybe it is because they have hocked their televisions or cd players for drug money. But, much of the motivation for taking drugs is because it feels better than living the boredom of everyday life.

(continued)

[UnSubRocky]

Just like the tobacco companies, the entertainment industries and their celebrity class peers, will deny to the death that the entertainment industry can not affect people's behaviour and cause problems in their own societies. Just like the Tobacco Industries before them, who also claimed that their own product did not have any ill effects. They deny it because they are making fantastic amounts of money out of it. The entertainment elitists and their friends are not going to let the rivers of gold stop flowing just because they know that it is harming their own society, any more than Big Tobacco did. They all live in mansions and gated communities away from the hoi polloi anyway. But they must love you ma-a-a-a-te?

Tobacco industries had a mission to sell tobacco products. Tobacco products are on their way out in Australia. Less and less Australian people proportionally to the population are smoking these days than those Australians were back in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. That is despite how glamourised the idea of smoking is promoted in the media.

As for the entertainment industry, did you notice those closed cinemas during the lockdown in the year 2020? After the reopening, cinemas had a hell of a time getting patrons through the doors to make a profit. I have sat alone in cinemas to watch some entertaining movies that deserved more cinema patrons than it did. But, former cinema attendees found out that they could stream their latest release movies online for free. Others paid for their netflix subscriptions.

If you stop and listen very hard, you can hear them laughing their heads off at your statements.

Doctors normally call audio hallucinations a form of schizophrenia. I have schizophrenia. But, I do not get audio hallucinations. Perhaps you have a much worse case of schizophrenia.

Sorry ma-a-a--ate. I find those explanation vacuous and simplistic. You can not justify that logic with any reasoned argument. They are just stand alone declarations that some people may be silly enough to believe? But they are hardly convincing. Try writing 350 words proving your two premises and I will write 1000 proving mine. From the examples I gave above in my first post, it is screamingly obvious that people's behaviour is affected by the media. If you think that it isn't, then that idea is vehemently opposed by the advertising industry, who say the exact opposite. If you think that the media has no effect on human behaviour, then answer me just two crucial question. Do you support the advertising industry putting advertisements for alcohol and tobacco on children's TV. and in children's comics and magazines? If not, how do you reconcile your contradictory positions?

Let me put it to you this way: If you were shown what was going to happen to you tomorrow, would you want to know? I would love to know of all the major problems I would have in the future, so that I could avoid making them eventuate. The media has this type of hindsight trigger for their viewers. If you were to see someone else encounter a problem, would you learn from their mistakes?

The advertising industry has a goal of trying to sell products. If the product that they sold were illegal, or how the product was advertised breached some kind of law, you would not have the product being sold. Being an alcoholic (or at least I claim to be), whenever I see the product placement of alcohol in movies, I am not more likely to go out and buy the product. I am actually less likely to get drunk that night. From ages 10 up to my adulthood, I have been exposed to plenty of alcohol and tobacco placements in children's tv shows. The Simpsons being a primary example. But, I do not blame a children's program for my alcoholism. I blamed genetics and my social life for leading me down a health problem that I got from my voluntary alcohol consumption.

Even "good guy" heroes are always depicted as misfits who usually ignore authority and do whatever is necessary to get there way.

This is no accident. Violent movies in particular are engineered by clever people to appeal to low IQ, low status young males who may harbour deep resentments they are powerless to act upon. The violent entertainment industry knows it's customers. These are the vary same ones who are prone to engaging in revenge massacre behaviour. Constantly reinforcing the idea among dumb young men that Real Men are violent men, who get even with there enemies like their on screen heroes and mow them down, and who's actions attract the romantic attentions of the most beautiful young women, is most definitely not what an enlightened society should be putting in their stupid heads.

When you see "good guy" heroes ignoring authority and doing whatever is necessary to get their way, it is usually symbolic of the exigent circumstances that arise in the narrative that obstructs the protagonist from achieving his objectives. I was in a situation last year where some Michelin Man guy wanted to commit property damage against my car with his steel scooter. I was on the job at the time. I could either reverse and park my car, get out with a weapon and (threaten to) take it to his head. Or I could drive off to work and let the fat f***er think he got the better of me. I actually took the second option, because I did not want to chance having to deal with police and explain the situation. But, given that he had a potentially deadly weapon, I would be sure I would have no charges laid against me.

The media can really give you the hindsight to de-escalate a problem, in which you otherwise chose a more violent option if you were not exposed to violent media.

What you see, Mr Rocky, as a mature adult as entertainment, which makes you laugh because it turns the usual rules of society on their head, a young and stupid man can see as a script for displaying to the world that he is a Real Man, and not to be messed with.

I would love for you to show how a young and stupid man would not have acted out violence if violent media was not an issue. I hear that Martin Bryant loved to watch illegal pornographic movies and other objectional content. Perhaps you could have bed and breakfast with him at your place so that he could have avoided the massacre... and you would not have to worry about losing your Lee Enfield.

[UnSubRocky]

I think Lisa likes it? All I need is one intelligent pupil.

I was going to let Bogan's statement speak for itself. But, it was funny to read that.

[Bogan]

USR wrote

I am not going to burden myself with a topic that I wasted 2 years researching the topic only to conclude that the media industry has more success reducing antisocial behaviour. I have done the topic over and over. Why not concede that your argument is superstitious and a nonsense.

Then I commend your attempts to search for the truth, but I don't think much of your research skills. Where on earth you got the idea that the entertainment industry reduces crime because it keeps violent people of the streets, has got me? It is so ridiculously wrong, it is funny. If the entertainment industry prevents crime, it appears to be doing a lousy job of it. Crime throughout the western world is rising. I have a hardcopy of the copy of the book "Rising Crime in Australia" and you can download it here.

Rising Crime in Australia - The Centre for Independent Studies http://www.cis.org.au/publication/risin ... australia/

Crime is rising exponentially in this country, and I have compelling evidence that suggests it is also rising in every western country to levels undreamed of 50 years ago. If the entertainment industry supposedly reduces crime, then how do you explain this?

Here is a different argument for you. Crime in the western world began to rise steeply at exactly the same time that western governments liberalized their entertainment industries, and they began to allow this industry to sell products glamourising violence, revenge, criminal behaviour, violence against women and the ingestion of illegal drugs.

This coincided with another factor, which was easier divorce. I am not arguing against divorce. I am just saying that COMBINED WITH the liberalisation of entertainment industry censorship, it just happened to be significant factor. Around one third of children today live in one parent families, especially in the lowest social stratum, where welfare dependency, stressed out working mothers, and absent fathers, mean that children are not being adequately socialised by the parents. Instead, they are being socialised by TV sets and movies, who are providing role model heroes for them who are hardly model citizens.

Do you think that there is maybe a connection here that makes a lot more sense than the laughable idea that violent movies reduce crime? Your premise is like saying that smoking is good for you because it makes you think about your health. The fact that movies do influence children's behaviour in particular is the reason why every nation on earth has a system of grading movies to protect children. The problem is, entertainment industry moguls just keep thinking up ways to get around parental controls and pitch their dangerous products to kids. In addition, many 'adults" have a mental age a lot less than their chronological age. Martin Bryant had a measured IQ of 65, just about moron level.

Exposing such "adults" to movies glamourising vengeance behaviour, violent criminal behaviour, violence against women, stupid and dangerous risk taking behaviour, and drug abuse, is a much better explanation for rising crime, than your premise that violent entertainment reduces crime, especially when that is obviously not the case.

USR wrote

Concluded by the various psychological organisations and statistical data available to show that violence rates and drug usage is on the way down.[

That just happens to be completely and utterly wrong. I have no idea where you got your information? Every publication I have read points out that every scientific organization involved in Psychology, Psychiatry, and child psychology is unanimous in the agreement that violent media is responsible for rising crime rates. I have pages of notes on this, and I will happily submit them all to prove you are wrong. But I will just give you a taste so that you can understand that whoever gave you your information was lying to you.

When President Clinton asked the US Surgeon- General, to have his department begin collecting data, to try and ascertain if there was link between violent entertainment and real life violence, he was told by the Attorney General that there was no need. All of the studies had already been done. 40 years of scientific research had positively proven that link. Psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists had conducted hundreds of studies, confirming that the increasing levels of violence in young people had a cultural link.

Between 1990 and 1996, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Institute for Mental Health, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, issued a Joint Statement, in which they unanimously concluded that violence in the media contributed to violence in the real world.

The American Psychological Association (APA) report began "The scientific debate is over." The APA also testified before congress and stated " There is absolutely no doupt, that the increased level of TV viewing, is correlated to the increasing acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behaviour........Children's exposure to violence in mass media, can have harmful lifelong effects."

The American Medical Association (AMA) concluded in September 1996, "The link between media violence and real life violence has been proven by science over and over again."

U

SR wrote

If you have ever walked around towns and cities and kept an awareness of the body language of people from different backgrounds, you might be able to pick out the drug users, the alcoholics, and those that abuse their bodies with junk food. I work across the road from a tavern. Actually, I live in Rockhampton -- therefore, I can live or work within 1 kilometre of a tavern, bottleshop or a nightclub. You can notice that those that look drug affected are probably the same kind of person that does not watch a great deal of television or listen to music. Maybe it is because they have hocked their televisions or cd players for drug money. But, much of the motivation for taking drugs is because it feels better than living the boredom of everyday life.

That is a nice little observation, and a nice little social theory. Drug addicts don't watch the entertainment media? That sort of negates your own previous theory that the entertainment industry reduces crime by keeping criminals off the street, doesn't it?

USR wrote

Tobacco industries had a mission to sell tobacco products. Tobacco products are on their way out in Australia. Less and less Australian people proportionally to the population are smoking these days than those Australians were back in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. That is despite how glamourised the idea of smoking is promoted in the media.

Thank you, thank you, for bringing this topic up, Mr USR. The parallels between the tobacco industries and the entertainment industries are self evident, if you stop and think about it. My job is to make you think about it.

It is forbidden to advertise smoking in Australia because it will encourage people, especially young people, to smoke. The obvious reason? Because media messages and media images can, and do, affect people's behaviour.


For decades, tobacco companies refused to acknowledge that their products were dangerous, in exactly the same way that the entertainment industries today refuse to acknowledge that their products are dangerous. Both industries knew that they were lying. The tobacco companies knew that adults often became aware of serious health affects from continued smoking, and despite their attempts to make their products more addictive, many adults quit smoking. Or they died of lung cancer. Therefore, it was imperative for the tobacco companies to replace their dying or more intelligent customers with kids.

Tobacco companies were fully aware of the crucial importance of targeting children for their product. This was revealed from confidential company documents which were made public by disgusted employees. It was also revealed through admissions by one cigarette manufacturer, the Ligget Group Inc. Tobacco company researchers had discovered that most people began smoking when they were in the 10 to 14 year age group. Happily for the tobacco companies, this is the peak age of peer group conformity. In addition, kids who began smoking a particular brand at an early age, usually continued smoking that brand for life.

Legally prevented from pitching ads directly at children, cigarette manufacturer RJ Reynolds, targeted them by using a modern indirect advertising campaign. This campaign indirectly appealed to the emotional needs and aspirations of adolescents. By doing so they created one of the most successful advertising campaigns in history. RJ Reynold's advertising agency created a cool cartoon character, Joe Camel, that adolescents and teenagers would identify with. Joe Camel wore sunglasses, a white tee shirt, and a leather jacket, and he lounged around on motorbikes and convertibles.

The image suggested that Camel smokers were rebellious, non conformist young people who were self confident, and possessed a cool attitude. Exactly the image that many youngsters from low socio economic groups craved. Cheap trinket products like tee shirts and lighters were sold which had the Joe Camel logo. Beach sandals were manufactured which appealed to children, with a tread pattern which left camel hoof prints in the sand. Product give aways included Joe Camel posters, sunglasses, and embroided jackets. Rock concert promoters found that they had no trouble finding sponsors in the cigarette companies.

During the first three years of this campaign of Joe Camel advertisements, Camel's share of the illegal, under 18's cigarette market jumped from ) 0.5% to 32.8% which represented an increase in sales of $470 million for RJR Nabisco. Surveys showed that 91% of six year olds recognised Joe Camel, while only 60% recognised Ronald McDonald.

Naturally RJ Reynolds spokesmen, indignantly denied that their company would target children as customers for their addictive product. Joe Cool they argued, was meant to appeal to the 18 to 24 age group. Such a statement is impossible to disprove. Modern, indirect advertising campaigns simply create images. These images subconsciously appealed to the targeted consumer groups, in this case children. But they are subtle enough to to deflect criticism through plausible deniability. But the glib denials ignored the fact that adolescents and teenagers develop a fascination for the lifestyles of young adults. Teenagers and adolescents sit glued to television sets watching a succession of romantic soap opera's, with their endless sexual innuendo. This is because they are awed by the freedom, independence, and hedonism of the young adults shown in these shows. They can not wait to be one themselves, try out the lifestyle, and get in on the action. Young stars in these soaps are role models. They teach children how to deal with the asinine social situations that the programs writers dream up. The attention of the children is riveted on every detail of their favourite stars dress, speech, bearing, mannerisms, behaviour and social attitudes. Consciously and unconsciously, they seek to emulate them. This was the reason for the spectacular success of Joe Camel.

With tobacco advertising, especially advertising targeting children now banned, how do you think the clever guys at the advertising agencies got around that one, USR? Well, I will tell you how. They started sponsoring "incidental" smoking scenes in movies where role model heroes sucked away on cigarettes, once again displaying to kids, that smoking was a glamourous thing to do. And you don't think that movies make you do anything? Well mate, that would prompt a hearty roar of laughter from the pragmatic executives from the tobacco industries. So too, filmmakers and pop promoters must grin and give each other knowing winks. Once again, the cynical, media savvy servants of Mammon are displaying that they are considerably smarter than the naive and well meaning people like your good self, who defend the entertainment industries.

USR wrote

Let me put it to you this way: If you were shown what was going to happen to you tomorrow, would you want to know? I would love to know of all the major problems I would have in the future, so that I could avoid making them eventuate. The media has this type of hindsight trigger for their viewers. If you were to see someone else encounter a problem, would you learn from their mistakes?

People died of lung cancer caused by smoking every day. But did that prevent young people from taking up smoking? No. If you glamourise anything, many people, especially young people and dumb people, will emulate the behaviour. In the 1900's in Europe, the author Goethe wrote a sensational book called "The Sorrows of Young Werther". In the book, a young, educated, middle class man falls in love with his best friends wife. Unable to endure the fact that he could never have her, he commits suicide.

The book was a sensation and it was reprinted in many languages. That was until young, educated, middle class men started committing suicide, all over Europe. The suicides often had a copy of Goethe's book right beside them when they killed themselves. Officials in every country hurriedly banned the book before they ran out of young, educated men completely. If you glamourise suicide, a lot of people will commit suicide. If you tell your young men that dying for the emperor of Japan is just the most wonderful thing you can ever do, young men will let themselves be bolted inside of aeroplanes with a big bomb on it, and they will dive onto US warships, and blow themselves to smithereens.

If you glamourise anything, people will think it is glamourous and socially elevating thing to do. That is why you must never glamourise criminal behaviour, especially violent criminal behaviour, massacre behaviour, violence against women, and stupid, risk taking behaviour.

USR wrote

The advertising industry has a goal of trying to sell products. If the product that they sold were illegal, or how the product was advertised breached some kind of law, you would not have the product being sold. Being an alcoholic (or at least I claim to be), whenever I see the product placement of alcohol in movies, I am not more likely to go out and buy the product. I am actually less likely to get drunk that night. From ages 10 up to my adulthood, I have been exposed to plenty of alcohol and tobacco placements in children's tv shows. The Simpsons being a primary example. But, I do not blame a children's program for my alcoholism. I blamed genetics and my social life for leading me down a health problem that I got from my voluntary alcohol consumption.

Yeah. But you see the problem with that USR, is that other people, especially children, are not as smart as you. The inclusion of products into movie scenes is now endemic to the entire movie industry and it is called "Product Placement". Product placement has became so successful that it's use is now widespread throughout the industry.

The movie TOTAL RECALL showed 28 brands, PRETTY WOMAN 18 brands, and HOME ALONE showed an impressive 31 brands. Even James Bond's famous dictum for the perfect martini "shaken, not stirred", was changed in the Bond movie GOLDENEYE to "Smirnoff Black, neat" Bond no longer drives his traditional Aston Martin in the movie, it was changed to a BMW- Z3 . The movie industry even cross promotes with it's sponsors. Fast food restaurants sell toys that are characters in recently released movies. In return, scenes are included in movies showing Arnie, or Mel, or Gwyneth, feeding their faces at Mc Donalds or Burger king.

Of course, not all product placement can be beneficial to manufacturers. Ford Motor Car company executives were appalled that bad guys and gangsters always seemed to be driving around in a Ford model, the sleek black, Lincoln Towncars. These cars had been supplied by the Roger & Cowan product placement agency, who maintained a fleet of 550 Fords for use by the movie makers for a nominal fee. A solution was reached, when the agency convinced Ford to buy them a stock of General Motors Cadillacs. Now the bad guys drive black Cadillacs and get chased around (and caught) by good guys driving Fords.

The amazing success of product placement in movies, is a testament to the power of advertising combined with the power of movies. Together these mediums can set fashions, create cult followings, and produce images, that appeal to the emotional needs of young fans, who desperately wish to model themselves on their heroes. Significant sums of money are now spent on product placement advertising campaigns. This is because manufacturers, advertisers, product placement firms, and filmmakers, are convinced that the visibility of products used by role model heroes is a major factor in creating a demand for that product.

And this is why it is so dangerous, when filmmakers include scenes in their movies, showing role model stars using guns and drugs. This a form of product placement. No wonder the demand for drugs and guns is out of control among young people.

USR wrote

When you see "good guy" heroes ignoring authority and doing whatever is necessary to get their way, it is usually symbolic of the exigent circumstances that arise in the narrative that obstructs the protagonist from achieving his objectives. I was in a situation last year where some Michelin Man guy wanted to commit property damage against my car with his steel scooter. I was on the job at the time. I could either reverse and park my car, get out with a weapon and (threaten to) take it to his head. Or I could drive off to work and let the fat f***er think he got the better of me. I actually took the second option, because I did not want to chance having to deal with police and explain the situation. But, given that he had a potentially deadly weapon, I would be sure I would have no charges laid against me.

Then you are a man who can think clearly under stress. But most people can not do that. I can not do that. I tend to freeze up under stress, and I find it difficult to think. Anxiety is the mind killer, and that is why armies teach recruits how to react in very stressful situations until it becomes second nature. They can do it without thinking. Even today, if somebody gave me a Bren gun and called out "Gun firing, gun stopped!" I bet I could hit the ground and do IA on the Bren.

USR wrote

The media can really give you the hindsight to de-escalate a problem, in which you otherwise chose a more violent option if you were not exposed to violent media.

That is not what violent movies teach children and low status young men with low IQ's. The only way that today's on screen heroes react to stressful situations is to beat the ever lovin' shit out of anybody who crosses them.

USR wrote

I would love for you to show how a young and stupid man would not have acted out violence if violent media was not an issue. I hear that Martin Bryant loved to watch illegal pornographic movies and other objectional content. Perhaps you could have bed and breakfast with him at your place so that he could have avoided the massacre... and you would not have to worry about losing your Lee Enfield.

Teaching young people and children how to react in many social situations is what socialisation is all about. Voltaire once said that of all of France's enemies, the most dangerous were the English. Why? Because the English were taught to never react emotionally, but to think things out. It even became a saying attributed to Kipling. 'If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs......." In other words, "do not get emotional, stay cool and think."

Today's media is teaching the young and the dumb that real Men are violent men who don't get mad, they get even. With a gun, a knife, or a box of matches. it teaches them that Real Men wreak bloody vengeance on their tormentors Then some bullied kid walks into his classroom with a gun and starts shooting down the kids who tormented him, and we say "What was wrong with him!?" "Doesn't he know right from wrong!?"

TV was once hailed as "The greatest teaching tool ever invented." It is, but we had better be very careful of what it is teaching the young and the dumb.

[Bobby]

Any comment Bogan?

you just ignore me


Bogan,

Half the people turn up at my concerts, just to see if I will drop dead on the stage.
Steven Tyler of Aerosmith, did just that, when he overdosed on stage and was pronounced dead where he lay.

Bullshit - he's alive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Tyler

[UnSubRocky]

Bullshit - he's alive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Tyler

I think Bogan has conceded that. That is why he has not responded.

[Bogan]

To Mr Bobby. Thank you for correcting the information I had which was not correct. I did not reply to you because I did not like the tone of your reply. If you would like to contribute to this topic then please try and stay polite. I usually do not respond to hecklers and trolls. Sneery one liners are okay provided that is not all you have got. Some people are just hecklers and that is all that they can manage. Try writing 350 words on this topic and contribute positively. Use USR as an example for you to follow. He disagrees with me but we are not adversaries.