What a strange world we live in as far as the inconsideration of the act. Nothing new under the sun there though. But concerning VHS tapes; they have definitely seen their day pass by. Now all I need is for the DVD recorders to drop in price a bit more as we await the next software technological step for home movie entertainment.

Sometimes it's hard being so stupid, but I always manage to pull it off.

I used to work at a Blockbuster and believe me, there is no way that even one single Blockbuster store could watch every single VHS movie that is returned to ensure no tampering was done. I spent countless 8 hour shifts doing nothing but rewinding tapes and putting them in their boxes the right way. Even with DVDs as popular as they are nobody seems to rent the big hit movies on VHS anymore so you can stroll in at your leisure and grab a copy of a new release the day it hits shelves and not have to spend time complaining that the new release is all gone.

On another note, Blockbuster (at least when I used to work there) is run by Mormons who are vehemently against adult content. The most risque content they rented at the store I worked at was "steamy dramas".

hey, that's funny. i just always assumed that you couldn't record onto vhs tapes that you bought from the store that already had something recorded on them. but i guess i was wrong. damn... if i only knew this 10 years ago when everyone actually still watched vhs's. good times.

I was in conversation with a Borders bookstore employee about a year back who told me the store's 5 year goal was to completely phase out VHS by 2006. But by then it'll be easy to burn dildo action into Bambi DVDs. So whattaya gonna do? The real issue here: Why was the tape's porn loving previous renter checking out HOME ALONE 3 FOR GOD'S SAKE? I smell prevert on multiple levels.

hold on a sec - you're making a big deal because a child saw 2 people going at it? You're making it sound like the child watched her parents be brutally murdered right in front of her. "Their daughter is going to have some issues and deserve some sort of compensation." - what? Is Blockbuster sponsoring your site for you to say this? Blockbuster is one of the largest purveyors of one of the sickest acts of depravity in our society - Censorship. In a nutshell, Blockbuster uses it's weight to put pressure on movie producers/directors to dilute their artistic vision to fit in with the "Family" oriented video chain. I'm not challenging that families right to sue, and I'm not making an attempt to say that children should be allowed to watch porn - but on the other hand, demonizing sex *makes* it perverted, if sex is regarded with respect, then it won't be "dirty." When sex is labeled depraved, only the depreaved will have sex. That kid won't have "issues" - and if she does, I'm sure they've got a lot more to do with ultra-protective, conservative parents than they would with a 5 minute clip of the birds and the bees.

to the last entry:
who says sex in the public eye is a good thing? many people in this world still do have morals, and appreciate others' efforts to censor out things that they dont want to see. thats why we have the rating system. I'm not sure if ANY good parents would want their children watching hardcore porn on a children's video. When sex is thought of as "love" in society, and about as innocent as a kiss, something is seriously wrong. sex, or at least porn, is about lust and satisfying your natural instinct and desires to copulate. its not 'cute' or 'okay' in any way to illegally copy porn on to a movie in hopes that some KID is going to get their hands on it. im glad the parents had a problem with it, because if they just turned their head on something like that (like im sure SOME PEOPLE would) and not do anything about it then its a sick perverse world we live in.

to the last entry:
then clearly *you* are the one who can't handle sex.

"many people in this world still do have morals, and appreciate others' efforts to censor out things that they dont want to see"

I disagree completely with your sentiment that morals has anything to do with allowing other people to determine what's right or wrong. So as to avoid appearing obtuse in the case that's not what you meant, more to the point, FREEDOM doesn't just mean the right to say or watch want to you want, but the responsibility of monitoring FOR YOURSELF what kind of exposure you allow yourself or your children to other peoples' ideas or interests. The first amendment doesn't just apply to what you think is fair and balanced, it protects everyone's rights from being alienated from their own society..

"When sex is thought of as "love" in society, and about as innocent as a kiss, something is seriously wrong"

Really? wow! So then we should feel guilty about sex? Or just pretend like we actually hate it and don't want to have it? You're going to have to explain to me exactly why Sex should be viewed as something sick as compared to a kiss. And for what it's worth, nudity would be just as bad, correct? I mean, you talk about lust and satisfying desires, well, doesn't nudity expose the human sexuality? It's entirely possible that a man looking at a naked women might start getting those carnal desires, thinking about committing sins of the flesh! Well then art classes should be banned. Art should be banned! Well, maybe not all art, only the kind of art that violates the (apparently) delicate moral fabric of this "sick perverse world we live in." But whose morals are we to use as the standard? Yours? Mine? Jerry Fallwells or Pat Robertsons? Because the worst thing "ANY good parents" would want to have to do is actually have a discussion with their kids. Right? Remember the old days when parents just told their kids to shut up and sit down? Yeah, that sure was the golden age or parenting boy, I'll tell you.

"its not 'cute' or 'okay' in any way to illegally copy porn on to a movie in hopes that some KID is going to get their hands on it."

I agree soley on that point alone. It's depraved and deliberately malicious; not a prank that I find particularly funny. But to level a finger at the whole of the world and call it sick is not only passing judgement on an entire planet for the act of an independent pervert, it's outright ignorant. And kep the First Amendment out of this.

As to the last: 8) Posted by: William Ahern (xxx.10.50.3)
June 29, 2004 02:55 PM

Not to sound too ignorant, but your reply is so Money, kick it up a notch, Bamm on point. I love democracy. Power to the people. Freedom for the Masses... WOW. What can I say about that long and articulate rant, except damn you need to Run for Office.

ah, to debate on something so controverse in todays society, and to attempt to get your point across by altering the opposer's perspective on the idea he came to battle...what a waste of time.

I'm not saying sex altogether is a bad thing. It's everyone's choice to make whether you want to take that chance or not. and I'm also not saying that I'm practicing celibacy or anything, because if you ask me that's completely absurd. All I'm saying about this is that not everyone shares the same principles as others and its not right to force your ideas on someone else.

About the censorship issue, if you want to have explicit content available when you turn on the tv, there are stations specifically for that. but if you dont want your children or...parents...to turn on the tv and see things that should (in my perspective) be private, thats where censorship comes in - so the rest of the world can watch tv or listen to the radio without having to edit out every word themselves or close their eyes every time there's someone gettin it on.

About the sex issue, there is no way you can say that sex is as innocent as a kiss. There are things called STDs, one in particular that's deadly - AIDS. everyone knows about this, yet the virus seems to be spreading. This is proof that not everyone uses protection, or the protection doesnt work. remember back to junior high health class when the teacher said "the only 100% way of not getting it is by not doing it"? well, its true. Which brings me to the other part of sex not being innocent. sex besides being for pleasure has one purpose: to make babies. duh. That's why its a chance that a person must be willing to take, or be ignorant of the consequences. if they want a baby, then obviously its not an issue. If they cant have a baby, then its not an issue. if they cant afford a baby, dont want a baby, and/or are not monetarily/physically/mentally ready for a baby, then it IS an issue, and is an extremely large chance they are taking should they decide to have sex, because then its not just themselves they could be affecting. notice that I never declared sex as being "sick". that was a word that you had put in my writing.

About nudity, yes, i believe nudity should be a private thing. hey, if you belong to a nudist colony im sorry if i offend you but i dont think people should just strut around the streets naked. not only is it uncivilized, its dangerous. would you want to have people compare your size to the size of the next person walking down the streets naked? dont think so. what happens when you trip and fall? i know i dont want my privates to have road rash.
I doubt that's what you meant about nudity, though. I think you mean more along the lines of pornography, right? I believe I already covered what I thought about porn. either keep it private, or dont have it if you dont like it. I live in Las Vegas, porn city. I think even you would get sick of the amount of porn here. you cant take your family down to the strip, thats for sure, and if you do, dont look any direction but straight. its on the buildings, on the ground, on the taxis, on the billboards, in peoples' hands, EVERYWHERE. I dont consider it appealing to be loaded with porn. It puts you into a fantasy land where everyone's got a hot body. what happens when you go home to your wife and say, "damn, you ugly"? a slap in the face and grounds for divorce. Dont try to throw art into this because its all based on opinion as well. some people consider a red dot in the corner of a large canvas to be art... do you?

I did not write to start a debate, argument, or any other form of verbal war. I am probably outnumbered by the amount of people that believe in what you believe, and I dont plan on forcing my opinion on everyone. I read what you wrote and I'm just reinforcing what I meant when I previously wrote.

alright, someone that stands up for his moral beliefs! dont see many of those peeps round anymore. you go scott!

sorry, that was a girl in the office. dont listen to her.

I was standing up for my moral beliefs too, or is it that mine don't count because I disagreed with the Religious Right?

yeah, thats it. geez, bozo, get over it. you dam liberals just wanna fight all the time. take a break, will ya?

George, you talk about liberals fighting but you call him a bozo. get a life.

yeah, you really make sense too, timmy boy. if you take 'bozo' as fightin words, you got some sort of pointy stick up YOUR butt. "huh huh, get a life, thatll hit him deep..." go watch your mamas porn tape, you bleeding-hearted pansy baby!

OMG - this discussion degraded from semi-intelligent discourse to flat out obnoxious name calling. George, if you haven't anything worthwhile to add, why did you even bother to post? Since I disagree with you too, would you like to throw some kind of disgusting, sexist comment my way while you're at it?

i never said i was sexist, but im sure there's something i can pull out of my sleeve thatll piss you off. i think the so-called "semi-intelligent discourse" ended as soon as one of you homosexual-sympathizing, sex-obsessed, polically correct (or so they say) bushwackers spoke up about your "rights". "waa, im not represented here. i must be a minority. im gonna go on strike because i got fired from a job." "waa, they're too rich. make them have more taxes so i can sit on my ass as i always do, and get money that other people worked for." "waa, i have a problem with masturbation because i look at the hustlers magazine in the bathroom. lets make up a term to make it seem like a physical disorder rather than me actually being screwed up in the head." "waa, the news channel didnt put my interview on tv. i must be a victim of censorship. lets make our own newspaper and just complain all day about it." now, woman, if you're sick of reading this, turn your head. thats what you damn democrats say anyway, isnt it? "if you dont like it, dont watch it!" complain, complain.

Ahah. "George" - I get it now. Well, that certainly is a fairly accurate representation of the mindset of the man currently considered the President.
A) you're parodying the Conservative Right-Wing platform by making them out to sound like arrogant, presumptive jerks who regard the opinion's of other people as insignificant or merely only the level of a 2-year-old who just peed their pants. Excellent!
B) You really believe that string of hateful bile. Ouch.

Scott - let me address your statements, and please understand that I do not consider a debate on the same line as a verbal war. There is no animosity coming from me (unlike others who have entered into this thread). Simply put, I read your comment, and commented back. When I initially read your statement, you came off a little hostile, so I apologize if my ranting caught you off guard. Also, I do not consider debating a waste of time (because otherwise we have a House, Senate and Congress as well as a Judicial system who waste a ton of time on our dollar!)
I did not alter, in any way, any of the quotes I took from your comments. Nor shall I do so here.

"I'm not saying sex altogether is a bad thing."
I inferred this from your first comment:
"When sex is thought of as "love" in society, and about as innocent as a kiss, something is seriously wrong"
Within the context of this statement, I took the meaning or usage of the word "love" to be defined as something good or sacred, and to think of sex similarly as something good or sacred is, according to your staetement as I interpreted it, a ridiculous notion; and since love and sex cannot be considered the same, sex can not be good or sacred (as per my generalized definition). So on this point I strongly disagree. When I make love to my girlfriend, it is exactly because I love her and enjoy sharing the pleasure and closeness with her. It is indeed good and sacred. I also do not feel that this is a violation of any kind of moral code. I am speaking strictly on the terms of sex between two people for pleasure, not pornography or publicly exhibited sex.

"About the censorship issue, if you want to have explicit content available when you turn on the tv, there are stations specifically for that."
No, I may not have been clear enough on this issue. TV is regulated, and after 10pm (in the US) racier, more adult-themed content is allowed to be broadcast, and that fine. But censorship doesn't begin and end with what's on Television. And that is precisely the reason that I *did* bring art into this. Art museums have nude paintings in there, and there are people who would like to see these great pieces of art removed because of this. I call that censorship and I disagree with it. And while I too would not prefer to see or practice walking around naked in public, I also don't see the need to force people to suffer humility in their nakedness. It just isn't something to be ashamed of - nor is it practical to walk around without clothing. Btw, I am an artist, and yes, I understand the prinicple of the Big Red Dot on white canvas as artistic, even if I don't like it or understand it.

"About the sex issue, there is no way you can say that sex is as innocent as a kiss."

I wasn't focusing on innocence and sex in any part of my previous rebuttal, and while I'm tempted to dissect the meaning of "innocence," the point is that both sex and a kiss are physical expressions of affection, just on different levels.

"notice that I never declared sex as being "sick". "
You never made that comment, no. Nor did I ever say that you did. The comment that I made, "But to level a finger at the whole of the world and call it sick" was a direct response the this following comment that you *did* make,"...because if they just turned their head on something like that (like im sure SOME PEOPLE would) and not do anything about it then its a sick perverse world we live in." If these parents had not done anything then, by your account, the entire world is sick becuase of this one couple's (hypothetical) inaction? I should think it is bad form to use just two people as a barometer for the entire world and the values of the billions of people living in it.

Scott, I'm sure you're a bright kid and if it makes you feel any better you share the majority view here. I did feel though, at times, you were not really understanding what I was saying, no matter how clear my attempts were at expressing my views. There is nothing to get offended or upset about when someone disagrees with you and chooses to take you into a debate over a topic (and I make this assumption because you implied that Debating is some kind of fight or war, which it is not. What George is doing is not bedating, *that* is warring and it's uneccessary).

sorry for the long post - I like to be thorough ;-)

William:

I'm glad we can come to terms with this subject, or at least see each other's point of view. If the rest of the world could stop arguing about things like this, and see that everyone is different, perhaps we wouldn't have to turn debates into arguments. thank you for your cooperation, and I hope we can influence people like that "george" character to realize that the world isn't one-minded.

I love porn so I don't see any reason why Blockbuster can't rent it. The first amendment gives people the right to watch whatever they want. The parents should let their 4 year look at porn cause it's fun and educational how, if you teach kids at an early age on how to have sex then they won't be loss. Besides grown folks can't have all the fun let kids watch XXX porn too. Children get horney.