View Poll Results: What would you like to see?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • The "loud" bill passed

    37 53.62%
  • The "loud" bill defeated

    11 15.94%
  • Network executives tied down and forced to repeatedly listen to Crazy Train

    17 24.64%
  • I clicked the link to get to this poll - LOL

    4 5.80%
Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 161

Thread: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

  1. #151
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    "I've been told." So, nothing that's documented...?
    I have no reason to doubt what they told me, considering it's their business, and it's not in their interest to do things which turn off customers. Do you think they sit around, Monte Burns-style, fingers steepled, laughing at the hapless masses?



    No. I've used the proper language. Vast difference from your attempts to bend the meaning of words, my friend.
    All you did was repeat yourself as though I hadn't even responded. Your "proper language" was the equivalent of "nuh-uh!!!!!!!!!!!!" said over and over.


    Now here you go trying to change the subject, which is, may I remind you, the outside manipulation of volume for television commercials. But, because you need some schoolin'.....
    That may be what you erroneously think I'm talking about, or what you're shifting TO in order to "save" your argument, but that's not at all what I'm referring to.

    The text of the bill does not limit "the rule" to "outside manipulation," and I'm referring to the original sound mixes of the commercials themselves, which, if louder than this standard, would have to be mitigated.

    Of course, general government mandating of particular volume levels for broadcasters, regardless of what it is, is entirely different issue, to which I also object. I'm perfectly capable of finding the volume control if it annoys me, and I don't need the government's help.


    Sonny Jim, I'm completely cognizant of the piece in question. You pretending otherwise won't change the fact that you're still wrong - the song in question remains the composition in question, regardless of the volume.
    Holy cow -- if you think the volume isn't part of the composition, you don't know a thing about music, and that's a fact . . . darlin'.


    Find any recording of Bolero and the volume increases/decreases AS THE INSTRUMENTS ARE PLAYED, without anyone having to manually manipulate the volume of the technology that is reproducing the composition.
    In other words, the musicians are playing their individual parts more vigorously and with more force in certain portions of the piece. The final recording is true to the volume increase that was intended by the composer. Changing the volume manually does not change the volume at which each of the instruments were played during the performance/recording. NOR does it change the musical piece in question.

    Perhaps you're trying to say that you MANUALLY increase the volume as the song plays, because your physical manipulation of the recording will somehow "improve" on the original song.

    Really?

    Or maybe you're trying to tell me that Ravel instructed everyone (in perpetuity) that plays a recording/reproduction of his works should manually increase the volume at bars 36-42 (or whatever)...

    Seriously, man. [/QUOTE]

    Right, that fits exactly with how I've been describing the analogy, to a T. Precisely. Yeah. Now who's "bending the meaning" of things?

    If you're right, you shouldn't have to make anything up. Or is this simply, like your premature sniggering that I'd "fallen for" the word "volume," another failure of yours to read properly?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    The increase of volume during commercials serves two simultaneous purposes:

    To pull your attention to the latest important feminine hygeniene erectile dysfunction products now available.

    To punish you for not needing them.

  3. #153
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I have no reason to doubt what they told me, considering it's their business, and it's not in their interest to do things which turn off customers. Do you think they sit around, Monte Burns-style, fingers steepled, laughing at the hapless masses? All you did was repeat yourself as though I hadn't even responded. Your "proper language" was the equivalent of "nuh-uh!!!!!!!!!!!!" said over and over. That may be what you erroneously think I'm talking about, or what you're shifting TO in order to "save" your argument, but that's not at all what I'm referring to. The text of the bill does not limit "the rule" to "outside manipulation," and I'm referring to the original sound mixes of the commercials themselves, which, if louder than this standard, would have to be mitigated. Of course, general government mandating of particular volume levels for broadcasters, regardless of what it is, is entirely different issue, to which I also object. I'm perfectly capable of finding the volume control if it annoys me, and I don't need the government's help. Holy cow -- if you think the volume isn't part of the composition, you don't know a thing about music, and that's a fact . . . darlin'. In other words, the musicians are playing their individual parts more vigorously and with more force in certain portions of the piece. The final recording is true to the volume increase that was intended by the composer. Changing the volume manually does not change the volume at which each of the instruments were played during the performance/recording. NOR does it change the musical piece in question. Perhaps you're trying to say that you MANUALLY increase the volume as the song plays, because your physical manipulation of the recording will somehow "improve" on the original song. Really? Or maybe you're trying to tell me that Ravel instructed everyone (in perpetuity) that plays a recording/reproduction of his works should manually increase the volume at bars 36-42 (or whatever)... Seriously, man. Right, that fits exactly with how I've been describing the analogy, to a T. Precisely. Yeah. Now who's "bending the meaning" of things? If you're right, you shouldn't have to make anything up. Or is this simply, like your premature sniggering that I'd "fallen for" the word "volume," another failure of yours to read properly?
    Blahblahblahblahblah...



    You've already convinced yourself that you cannot possibly be wrong about anything, and you're determined to believe your silly preconceived notions are correct, facts be damned. The bottom line is, volume is not content, no matter how many times you fall on the floor in a tantrum over it.

    Continue your fest on your own, my poor deluded man. My work is done here, and you know what they say about arguing with idiots....




    P.S. Using the quote function properly might make your vapid argumentation easier to follow (but no less valid, sorry to say).

  4. #154
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Geeze - people on this site will b*tch about anything

  5. #155
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,705

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I'm not seeing the clause in the Constitution allowing the government to regulate the volume of cable television commercials.
    And there have been plenty of times that the United States has engaged in unconventional constitutional behavior despite the lack of explicit authorization-and the public has not mourned such an interpretation (and have in fact, given it a round of applause).

    Sometimes despite people calling Americans lazy or supportive of unconstitutional behavior, the American public is in support of action in one regard, and produces little if any unintended consequences that may make us regret such a choice.

    Frankly, lowering the volume will be a supported measure, probably help advertisers, give further legitimacy to Dolby's attempts, and create a more enjoyable viewing experience for millions of Americans.

    The random idea of cutting off one's access to television for it is unlikely because despite the fact that Americans don't like loud commercials, they have to put up with it to receive the service that is in limited providers' hands.

    A relatively harmless measure goes through, and people complain out of the sheer principle of it. It's nearly amusing.
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 01-05-10 at 02:24 AM.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  6. #156
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Don't like loud commercials?

    Tell your cable company that when they stop the BS with the advertisements they can call you and you'll resubscribe.
    There--the voice of reason---no sense in making a Federal case of it.
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

  7. #157
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Blahblahblahblahblah...



    You've already convinced yourself that you cannot possibly be wrong about anything, and you're determined to believe your silly preconceived notions are correct, facts be damned. The bottom line is, volume is not content, no matter how many times you fall on the floor in a tantrum over it.

    Continue your fest on your own, my poor deluded man. My work is done here, and you know what they say about arguing with idiots....

    P.S. Using the quote function properly might make your vapid argumentation easier to follow (but no less valid, sorry to say).
    I see. Your entire rebuttal to everything I said is "nyaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're wrooooong!!!!!!!!!!!"

    And going to a dig about a formatting error? I'm sure I have at least one typo somewhere above. Want to bring that up, too? Because that has a huge bearing on the substance of any argument, of course.

    Look, all you've done is declare I'm wrong and address an argument I didn't make. To say volume is not content is to say that if the orchestra played "Bolero" at the same low volume all the way through the piece, it would be the same piece. You want "vapid"? That's vapid, and I think you know that. If you think it's not, you want to explain in detail how it's wrong? You want to get a composer's opinion on that?

    And apparently, you're proceeding from a false assumption anyway, as I pointed out, because you think this is only about "outside manipulation" of volume levels. It isn't. Read the bill.

    Besides, the broadcaster doesn't do squat to raise the volume of commercials. The original sound mix of the commercials is what's loud, not "outside manipulation." The creator does it, not the broadcaster. In fact, even if the broadcaster leveled peaks, the commercials would still be louder because their peaks been compressed.

    So, in the end, I guess all you DO have left is to march off in a huff, like what you just did.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 01-05-10 at 12:06 PM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #158
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    And there have been plenty of times that the United States has engaged in unconventional constitutional behavior despite the lack of explicit authorization-and the public has not mourned such an interpretation (and have in fact, given it a round of applause).
    Whatever "unconventional constitutional" behavior may be, you claim it's still constitutional.

    Since the Constitution does not permit the federal government to regulate the electromagnetic spectrum, all such laws are indeed unconstitutional.

    Since the Constitution does not permit the federal government to control the volume of a human public speaker, it cannot be construed to permit the federal government to control the volume of a mechanical device intended to transmit human speech and other forms of audible communication.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Sometimes despite people calling Americans lazy or supportive of unconstitutional behavior, the American public is in support of action in one regard, and produces little if any unintended consequences that may make us regret such a choice.
    Until you discover that said law will be manipulated and interpreted in the courts to punish radio talk show hosts from raising their voices to stress a point.

    Also, the very fact that Congress can waste time discussing a issue as minor as television volume control should bother everyone, given that the issue isn't anywhere on the nation's Top Ten List of Real Problems.

    Currently that list looks something like this:

    Jobs
    Economy
    Jobs
    Government destruction of health care
    Jobs
    Invasion of the US by Mexico
    Jobs
    War in Afghanistan
    Jobs
    Obama's incompetence
    Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Frankly, lowering the volume will be a supported measure, probably help advertisers, give further legitimacy to Dolby's attempts, and create a more enjoyable viewing experience for millions of Americans.
    If millions of Americans want it, then millions of Americans can exercise their power through the free market place to influence their cable TV companies and advertisers to clean up their act.

    Congress has not only no business interfering but it actually has important things it should be doing instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    The random idea of cutting off one's access to television for it is unlikely because despite the fact that Americans don't like loud commercials, they have to put up with it to receive the service that is in limited providers' hands.
    Ah, you mean the Congress should pass legislation ending the local monopolies cable companies have in many of their distribution areas so they can become subject to market forces, therefore forcing the reductions in prices and improvements in service that free markets always impose when competition is allowed.

    Also, Americans have a choice, several of them: sit around and whine about loud commercial segments between segments of television programming that can in no wise be construed as essential to their health, or they can turn off the idiot box until their service providers and advertisers learn who's in control of that oh-en-slash-oh-eff-eff switch, or they can participate in yet another gang-bang on the Constitution to expand Congressional authority into areas it has no place being.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    A relatively harmless measure goes through, and people complain out of the sheer principle of it. It's nearly amusing.
    Yes, the principle that the Congress is limited is nothing important. Why, what would have happened if government had been limited as the Constitution directs? There wouldn't have been a federal reserve, hence no Great Depression. There wouldn't have been FHA, and hence no Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac, and thus the banks would have been risking their own money all these years, and hence there would have been no 2008 economic meltdown. There would have been no deficit spending and hence no fifty trillion dollar national debt and unfunded obligations.

    Awful thing, limiting Congress, isn't it?

  9. #159
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I'm not seeing the clause in the Constitution allowing the government to regulate the volume of cable television commercials.
    Interstate commerce
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  10. #160
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    That's not correct.

    Now, commercial speech is a less-protected form of speech -- and to be honest, I was waiting for someone to bring it up, just to see if they actually knew anything about First Amendment jurisprudence -- but it's still speech and it's still protected, just not the same degree as political speech.
    What protection exactly does the First Amendment cover to advertisements?
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •