Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Old news? (Score 1) 133

I didn't listen for years. When I listened again, Noorey had taken over. I listened for a week and never tuned in again. It shouldn't even have the name of the same show. Art wasn't about politics and religion. He was about crazy conspiracies and ghosts and aliens and absurd scientific claims and interdimensional stuff and One-World-Government crazy stuff. And he was clearly often just having a laugh to himself as he interviewed nutjobs with their nutjob claims.

Noorey is like one long infomercial where he alternates between promoting books and promoting religion/politics. It's damn gross (as are almost all of the people who came out of it like Howell, and even Simpson and so on).

I still remember the one show in the 90s when a guy called in and claimed to be in a cesna or something, flying toward and then over Area 51 -- live on the air -- and Art played along. The guy got into Area 51 and was going over the base, when he started shouting that he saw a laser and they tractor beamed him or something... then it went silent. Art totally played along, wondering if it was real or if it was a tall tale.. asking callers to report with more information when they had it. It was fucking ridiculous and insane and such a joy, as an adult, to listen to. It made me imagine that's what War of the Worlds must have been like for our grandparents in the earlier part of the century.

OH! I found it on youtube!:

Then, there was the ongoing thing about "Mel's Hole"... a hole on some guy's property that was supposedly infinitely deep and if you stuck a recording device in, you could hear the screams of people in hell being tortured. Dumb as fuck, but working at a tech desk in the middle of the night on a weekend on the twelfth floor of a downtown building that was otherwise dark and unoccupied in the late 90s as a 19 or 20 year old kid . . . the recording of the voices and the discussion gave me chills and I was creeped out the entire night.

It's really kind of sad that there isn't anything like that anymore and probably never will be. Everyone else takes the shit too seriously or mixes in too much religious bullshit or is selling seeds or gold or something dumb. Art was just a pure showman and it showed.

Comment Re:Old news? (Score 2) 133

Coast to Coast with Art Bell was an amazing show. His voice was a great partner through late dark nights (Noorey's is bland and annoying). He had on crazy guests and random-ass callers and they reveled in alien/conspiracy/ghost/multi-dimensional/pseudo-science-bullshit glory for like five hours every night. Yeah, you had to suspend your disbelief (and you got the sense that Art Bell felt the same way -- he entertained his guests and callers, but was always questioning and clearly sort of "in on the fun"), but it was just the sort of late night story-telling BS kind of thing that could occasionally get past your reality and critical-thinking and for just a second or two, send a chill up your spine (especially when it was 2am, dark as hell, and you were totally alone).

Then, he left and Noorey took over the show that Art created. He turned it into a right-wing religious love-fest. He never *ever* questions his callers or guests, never really digs deeper into the things they say or claim, never even seems prepared for interviews. All he does is have guests on who are pimping books, promotes their books, and sound like a piece of silly putty. Worse, he's a shitty interviewer and every topic he ever has is based around religion (angels, etc). It sucks so fucking bad. It's just a shill hack pimping a tired point of view with a bunch of goofy paranormal mumbo-jumbo coating it.

Apparently Art Bell even left a comment once somewhere basically referencing how the show had turned to total crap.

Seriously - go dig up some 1990s shows, when Art was in his prime and hadn't handed the show over to Noorey. It was fantastic (and so was Whitley Strieber, the author, who hosted every weekend). It was just this fantastic tall-tale-telling late-night-around-the-campfire party, even though you know everything they talk about in it is bullshit (well, except when they had people like John T. Drake aka Cap'n Crunch on there).

Comment Re:That does not sound awesome (Score 2) 160

This sort of effort is likely to turn an otherwise hard worker with a great work ethic who just happens to think for themselves instead of being an obedient sheep into someone who plays along on the outside, but harbors a seething hatred on the inside and therefore constantly sabotaged and undermines your system at every turn they can.

Comment Re:That does not sound awesome (Score 2) 160

On the other hand, this is already done and has been for decades. It is called requiring a college degree. That's why it often doesn't matter what your degree is in or if it is related to the job -- just having the degree proves that you can sit down and shut up and do what you're told and buy into the institution for four or five years straight.

Comment Re:That does not sound awesome (Score 1) 160

I read about how this is how adoptive parents used to (or maybe still do?) get their adopted children to depend upon and bond with their new parents. After adoption, they put the children through intense emotional drama and sort of force a "rebirth". Fortunately, it is now considered to be child abuse. Same theory applies, I think, though.

Companies show no loyalty to employees anymore, yet employees often feel this strange sense of obligated loyalty to their employers (I'm not averse to this, myself, either). So this makes this whole thing even sicker.

I suppose it's not too different from the military, where they break you down during the first couple of months and then rebuild you into an unquestioning, obeying, fighting machine.

The only difference being, of course, that you sign away a lot of your freedom when you join the military and you're going to be fighting against life and death. You're not looking to stick tab A in slot B for eight hours a day in a guy's business to feed your family

Comment Re:Not so fast (Score 1) 289

I guess maybe I can almost see the point he is trying to make. Maybe.

Ultimately, free speech should be free. HOrrible things should be allowed to be created for the sake of exercising that free speech. NObody has to love it or like it or even pay it any attention. As a society, we generally seem to draw the line at the point where the creation of the content itself involves harming people and that feeds a demand to see that harm.

In other words, snuff films (actual snuff films) and child porn are fucking hideous because they feed a demand to see death and child molestation by actually killing or molesting people.

However, those shitty SAW films are acceptable, because as hideous and stupid as they are, they don't involve any actual harm to any actual people.

I would place crime evidence under this same categorization. Those sites that archive photos of murders and terrible accidents using what I believe are mostly crime scene stuff (and therefore, probably publicly available stuff on file at courthouses or wherever) are showing actual harm and actual murder and actual crime, but they do not exist as part of some supply/demand that the snuff film/child porn production stuff does. Maybe that is starting to draw a fine line, but if it is on file to the public, then . . . so be it.

This is also where a lot of people who support unrestricted free speech but abhor child molestation become conflicted. One is bent toward the spirit of free speech and free society. As long as something does not directly impact an unwilling human being, then its their business. Even if it's repulsive or "against their morals" (think gay porn or something, I guess?). But what about depictions of these things? Are books that involve underage sexuality something that should be illegal, because of the subject of the material even though it is all fictional and doesn't involve any actual people? How about anime and drawings? How about the SAW films (which I would see as the violence/murder/snuff equivalent to real violence/murder/snuff equivalent to the book Lolita being compared or judged under the actual crime of child molestation).

It really puts the idea that you can say whatever you want and I will defend your right to do so even if I find it abhorrent. Is the line where it discusses or presents something hideous, but not real? Is just the concept alone something we decide is forbidden? Or do we decide that writing about serial killers is not the same thing as actual serial killers being serial killers?

Even worse is when we start to apply the whole "obscenity is a community standard" bullshit that the church and politicians pushed through in America decades ago and has resulted in idiotic bullshit like the FCC and the planet losing its shit over a nipple-slip.

Comment Re:This all sounds familiar (Score 1) 289

I'm sorry, but crime evidence is hardly the same thing as "snuff".

Snuff films are as abhorrent as child porn for exactly the same reason. Crime evidence (video, photos, etc), while very disturbing and not something most people would want to view, are different. Crime evidence of horrible crimes are gross, depressing, and horrifying -- but they are not created to meet the demand of a hungry audience consuming it. Snuff and child porn are directly created to satisfy a consumer demand (one feeds the other, presumably).

Comment Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score 1) 289

So free speech ends at the point where other people feel bad?

I'm sure there are a lot of movies and news stories that make the victim's family relive horrible memories and emotions, too. Should those be censored or banned?

Once again, it is important to remember that in a free society the cost of that freedom is potentially being disgusted, repulsed, or otherwise put-off. This whole site thing seems fucking hideous and grotesque and I don't know what is wrong with people who want to see that sort of thing -- but "it'll make people feel bad" is hardly justification for forbidding it.

Now, I could see some sort of privacy assertion being reasonable. That is a different beast.

And, again, it's a pretty dangerous thing to start going around asserting that free speech can only be applied to things which are political in nature. (Yes, I'm writing this from the aspect of the US and the Constitution; not Canada).

Frankly, your whole viewpoint is pretty disgusting and . . . frankly your concept of free speech has nothing to do with free speech.

Comment Re:Mob rule (Score 2) 289

Yeah, the whole "morality" thing is bullshit. It seems repulsive and horrible and it grosses me out that people would want to see this kind of shit (I'm sure we all stumbled across things like it in the earlier days of the net) . . . but unless it is violating some sort of privacy or something . . . . I just see it as the cost of a free society. (Yes, I know this is in Canada). In a free society, things are said, presented, and done that can be highly offensive to you and that is a good thing.

Comment Re:Things like this... (Score 2) 289

Yes it is. Read the Constitution. "Congress shall make no laws..."

It doesn't say "unless what you say hurts someone's feelings, is super gross, is obscene, isn't accepted by your local community, or is inciting hatred/violence/fear/etc".

It's a pretty dangerous thing to be going around trying to convince people that the freedom of speech has "limitations". Only in its application -- not in its spirit (or writing).

This is how we end up with idiots promoting the idea that "well, free speech is really only intended for journalists - fuck the rest of you".

Comment Re:Then maybe it's time for some new laws... (Score 4, Informative) 259

It doesn't matter. They are right. They do not need a warrant to track you. You know how we can confirm this? They have been tracking everyone. Gathering data on everyone. Violating the privacy and rights of everyone. Constitution and laws and ethics be damned. It doesn't matter. If our existing laws don't apply to them, then new laws won't, either. Make every law you want and their statement will still be correct... they will still not need a warrant to track you.

Sort of the same way fenced-in "free speech zones" are fucking abhorrent and against the law . . . and yet deployed and enforced, anyway.

I think any rational person sees how wrong all of this . . . but also how hopeless it is. The only option is to give up and accept it. That is exactly what they want, what they are counting on, and what will ultimately happen.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?" "Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."