Ok. I'm at work and I'm often sending these off without a whole lot of forethought and/or precision... So I apologise if I seem like a Kaczynski-ite. Thanks for such a respectful response. But I continue to have a problem with the notion that because a lot of people are "entertained" by something then that thing is therefore "valid" and worthy of some respect as "Entertainment." Jerry Springer?? Howard Stern?? Limp Bizkit?? Throwing Christians to the lions?? Sorry, man, but I don't buy it. I'm not looking to go back to the 50s, but I think it's quite clear that we've suffered a major degradation in what's generally considered to be entertaining...
A
Anon
(view)
Ok. I'm at work and I'm often sending these off without a whole lot of forethought and/or precision... So I apologise if I seem like a Kaczynski-ite. Thanks for such a respectful response. But I continue to have a problem with the notion that because a lot of people are "entertained" by something then that thing is therefore "valid" and worthy of some respect as "Entertainment." Jerry Springer?? Howard Stern?? Limp Bizkit?? Throwing Christians to the lions?? Sorry, man, but I don't buy it. I'm not looking to go back to the 50s, but I think it's quite clear that we've suffered a major degradation in what's generally considered to be entertaining...
posted 2000.03.14
posted on March 14th 2000
