neurosIs magazIne Issue 1
_____.---.___________.---.______________________________________:
| | | _| | | . | . | | __(______) | __|
| . : | . _| : | : | : |__ : | |__ : |
| : . | : | . | | | | | . | | . |
|___|_____|__|____|_______|___|---|_______|_______|______|_______|
: gh/blade
. - neurosIs magazIne -
Hello. I hope you enjoyed or are about to enjoy our first issue
of Neurosis. I'll let you in on some stuff about Neurosis that
wasn't important enough to have it's own artical. First off, NEU
was coded completely in Microsoft Quick Basic 7.1 Extended using
100% original code. The magazine began on November 5th and all
the articals were uploaded to the Neurosis World Headquarters,
Cracked Ice BBS (908 446 9416), by November 25th so as to give
me some time to code the magazine.
If you are interested in joining as a writer, coder, artist,
musician, editor, etc. please call Cracked Ice and apply by
leaving me (Mystic Plague) E-mail. The board does not support
pirated software, so users of all kinds are accepted.
Extra special thanks to Chromatik, Grey Hawk, Dragoon Kain,
Turgeon, Terminal Velocity and all the writers who participated
in this months issue.
Hopefully, next months issue will be written in Turbo Pascal as
opposed to Basic which is now obsolete thanks to Dragoon Kain's
programming talents. This will provide for a faster, smaller,
all around magazine in both context and look.
Its the start of the month, which means you can pick up Blade &
Broken art packs and I strongly suggest that you do!
I'm still wondering who came up with the name Neurosis. If it
was you, please leave me mail on Cracked Ice. Someone suggested
it in a voting question and here it is! I'd like to give credit
where credit is due. Which brings me to the fact that if there
is anyone out there who didn't get credit in this pack, let me
know so I can throw something in for you in the next issues nfo
file.
There's nothing left to say but Happy Holidays!
NFL Officials: Get Back On Track
By Turgeon
The National Football League officiating is purely pathetic. The official's jobs must be severely scrutinized by Jerry Seeman (supervisor of officials) and he must punish them as any other employer would do to an employee who wasn't doing his job as expected. Former National Football league quarterbacks Phil Simms and Joe Theismann ripped the NFL officials on ESPN on Sunday night (10/30/94). They accused the zebras of two weeks of horrible calls and bad judgments. I believe that it has been going on a bit longer than that.
Entire officiating crews deserve nothing better than to be fired on the spot after a week of blatant miscues. Theismann said that it was "Blatant, absolutely horrible, horrible officiating. In football at the professional level, if you blow enough plays at quarterback, you're not going to have a job. I think they ought to do the same thing to the officials. We might have been better off with replacement officials and let this group go on strike." I agree totally with him. These guys work during the week and officiate professional football on Thursdays (rarely), Sundays, and Mondays where they seem to actually strive to not make jackasses of themselves on national television. I'm sure if they had done so poorly in their 'regular' jobs, they would be at least reprimanded, if not fired. They do not deserve to ruin the integrity of the National Football League with their piss-poor antics.
Simms, who was an opponent of instant replay while in his playing days (don't the Giants wish he was still quarterbacking them to the playoffs?), vehemently called for a return of the video to watch over poor human jugment by those guys with glasses as thick as their wrists. It most definitely needs to be reinstated!
Simms and Thesimann were urinated off about the calls which involved Herman Moore of the Detroit Lions in a game against the Giants and a fumble call on Dave Brown of the G-men last week. Simms said, "They (Giants) could have won the last two weeks with routine good calls, calls that were not made."
According to a spokesman for the National Football League, the NFL will review the tapes of the controversial calls (I hope they have plenty of time on their hands). Each official is supposedly graded each week, and I would not hesitate to slap a failing mark on a bunch of these nitwits.
Rob Moore catches a pass from Jets quarterback Norman (he deserves to have his legal name used after playing like manure) Esiason which is apparently enough for a first down. The officals then push back the spot about 7 inches (they must have gone blind after playing with themselves at halftime) and the Jets miss the first down by about 2 inches. This was a very cruicial and tremendously blown call which prompted Jets defensive end Donald Evans to yell sweet nothings into the ear of Bernie Kukar (the referee with the pain in the ass voice), who immediately takes his yellow hanky out of his pocket (I told you they were fooling around in the locker room at halftime) and throws it up in the air as if it will stop the savage beast from coming back for more. Then Kukar pushed Evans out of the way, causing him to go ballistic which draws another flag. Future Hall of Famer Ronnie Lott comes darting in in defense of his teammate and causes an official's hat to be thrown on the field because they ran out of flags (guess they had A LOT of fun during halftime). All of these nonsensical penalties were totally unnecessary especially after they blew the damn game. Funny thing is that I think the colts had 18 men on the field the entire game (11 players and 7 officials) because there was not ONE SINGLE penalty on them. This is totally impossible and I am not sure if it has ever happened in the history of the NFL.
Herman Moore catches it in the end zone for a touchdown, or did he drop it? "The official that had the best look at Moore's touchdown 'catch' called it incomplete, called it a bobble. He got overruled, and my question is: by whom? Who could've had a better view? If I'm an official, and I see it, and I make the call, I'm not going to have anybody talk me out of it. But like everything else, it's seniority. Jerry Seeman has no explanation except 'We Blew it,'" said Theismann.
Of the two football games that I watched entirely this Sunday, the 'wrong' team ended up the victor. This is coming from a season ticket holder who 'deserves' better being that I indirectly pay for these losers salaries, although it comes out of my dad's pocket :) Anyway, this had better stop before the players strike against the striped men who belong behind the bars they wear on their shirts because, perhaps, they are secretly gambling on games which they can most likely cause to go in their favor. Kind of like when Pete Rose bet AGAINST his own damned team like the selfish rat-faced lunatic that he is. He doesn't belong in Cooperstown by any stretch of the far-fetched imagination, just like Orenthal James (OJ) Simpson has no right to his own life after brutally executing two people who were guilty of what, living? I don't think so! Get a life :) Let's play some damn hockey!
By Turgeon ˛ Cracked Ice BBS SysOp ˛ 908-446-9416 ˛ 11/02/1994
Modem Love
By Michelle Breden
There once was a not so good looking man. His name was Russel. Now, Russel had trouble talking to women, so he resorted to his modem. Using this and his computer Russel could talk to women from all over the state and he could be whomever he wanted to be. Tonight, Russel was criminal lawyer from New York City, of course, Russel really wasn't a lawyer. he worked for the local amusement park. Russel met many new and interesting people or so they said. But, there was one lady that took him by suprise. Alice didn't lie and when he asked, "what do you do for a living?" she said, "I sweep the floor at a beauty salon near me", and when he asked, "what do you look like", she replied, "Oh..not so great, I have black hair and brown eyes, I'm 5'4 and slightly overweight." He was taken aback by her honesty but he was still not so sure of himself. When she asked, "what do you look like?", he replied "I'm about 6'1, I have blond hair, piercing green eyes and great build." She was very impressed with his description and said "wow whats a gorgeous guy like you doing talking to an ugly duck like me." He wondered to himself why he was bothered, considering there was plenty of good looking girls that would talk to him. Then Russel came to the conclusion that she was lying and was trying to play herself down so that when they met, he wouldn't be disappointed. He said, "you have a great personality and thats all that matters to me." Alice thought this was the sweetest thing anyone had ever said, even though Russel knew he was lying through his teeth.
Alice and Russel continued talking and decided that they should meet. Their date was set for Friday night, they would meet at Bennigans. Alice would be wearing a blue dress and Russel a suit. They figured there was no way they could miss each other since Russel would have on a 3 Stooges tie. Russel was very nervous and excited about his date, for one he hadn't been on a date since highschool and he was afraid he would say the wrong thing. That was if she even talked to him after she saw he wasn't the gorgeous hunk he described. Russel was no hunk, in fact he was outright disgusting. He has long sgraggly blond hair and gray eyes. He was around 5'4 and at least 80 pounds overweight. Russel tried to remain calm, got dressed and drove to the restaurant.
Russel walked into the crowed room. He scanned the crown for someone that had on a blue dress and then he saw Her. She was beautiful, she had shiny black hair and big brown eyes. He looked her up and down and noticed she had on a royal blue dress, could this be Alice he thought to himself yes, yes it must be. Russel gathered up all of his courage, walked over to the woman and asked, "Are you Alice?" She said, "Are you Russel?", with a slight giggle in her voice. Russel replied "Yes, I am nice to meet you." Alice just looked at Russel, giggled, and said "Then I'm not Alice."
Windows 95? HA! How about NT?
By Nitro
In case you already don't know WIndows 95 (or 96 depending when they get the damned thing out) is going to be the next version of Microsoft Windows. Now this has been in the works for years now (2.6, but who's counting?) and is possibly going to be out by 2/4 of '95 (They never said 1995, 2095, 2195, etc, etc.). The major features of this are preemptive multitasking, 32-bit programs, no DOS needed, "complete" DOS and Windows compatibility, and crash resistence. Well let us check out these features one by one. Preemptive multitasking means the you can run more than one program at the same time but the Operating System decides when a program has hogged enough of the computer and gives the CPU to another program. Which is exactly what OS/2 users enjoy right now (This includes me). Right now I have a CD Player, this text editor, and a download running all at the same time. Now we should be able to do this all in WIN95 but unfortunatly only if you use only DOS and WIN32 programs. Once you introduce Windows 3.X (Hereafter called WIN16) programs the system will not preemtively multitask the WIN16 programs. Instead it waits for the WIN16 program to finish and then run WIN32 or DOS apps. Hmmm... Sounds kinda like what most people can do now... And what OS/2 does better. WIN16 sessions are preempted and you can make several WIN16 sessions. As far as not needing DOS and having 32-bit programs that's true. WIN32 programs can run from 60% to 70% faster. In fact MS has a new policy where you have to have a WIN32 compliant program to get that "Windows Compatable" logo on the box. And DOS has been eliminated. now DOS runs under Windows. This means no more 640k barrier. Of course you currently have to load any DOS drivers at startup and have it in EVERY DOS or WIN16 session. MS will probable have changed this by the time Windows 95 is out so that's nothing really. Now as far as complete DOS compatiblility, that's almost impossible. The only thing completely compatible with DOS is the original 16-bit real mode DOS. But it is pretty damned close. And DOS programs will become few in a few years anyway. Crash resistance can be summed up in one sentence. If one program locks the others aren't affected. Now this is usually true of OS/2, Windows NT, and Windows 95 but sometimes bad coding will screw around with the computer and lock it. But still it does a good job since a General Protection fault will only stop the program that started it. this is the greatest thing ever to happen to Windows! Now all this sounds great, right? Well here's a catch. I said before that It doesn't preemptivly multitask WIN16 programs. Well that also stops any calls to the system to start another WIN32 or DOS program. Now just this will make the whole thing a flop. But isn't it nice that Windows NT can run all WIN32, WIN16, and most DOS programs preemptivly? Now since everyone will have been programing in WIN32 who would buy anything but NT? So Windows 95 makes MS a few million and then after word gets around about how bad it is MS stops production and releases a newer, cheaper, Windows NT that everyone buys because it has so many programs written for it. If MS didn't think of this from the begining they must have thought of it by now. If you have any comments, complaints, corrections, MS Bashing Jokes, or anything intresting to say, E-Mail me at Cracked Ice BBS (908-446-9416), Flamenet node #69:303/6, Renegade Support Net node #50:130/14). The name to send it to (That is to say, me) is Nitro (RGSNet: address it to Robert Mackanics).
Violence in Televions
By Brass Hat
There must be a cause for the homicide and violent crime rate to be spinning out of control. Most studies point to simple lack of sensitivity and selfcontrol. Some studies also point a finger to a possible culprit. The cathode ray tube, television, or boob tube, has only been around for 40 years, yet it has possibly replaced creativity in our society. Violence in television is a serious issue these days. The violent crime rate in the United States is growing swiftly. This could possibly be relating to the very high amount of violence in television.
There are two sides to this argument.
We will now present both of them, with complete objectivity. However, the writer will present his own viewpoint at the end of the article.
Why Violent Television Should be Controlled
There are many reasons support controlling the violence and sex on TV. The simple fact that it affects children negatively is more than enough to warrant a swift censorship on the electronic baby-sitter. By the time most children are 21, they have seen at least 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence. The stories flood the front pages of newspapers: a five year old child burns down his family trailer, killing his two year old sister, after seeing the popular MTV show "Beavis and Butthead". Two young men, ages 18 and 24, were run over after trying to recreate a scene in the film "The Program", in which football players lie down between lanes of a highway to show their courage. Surely they could have been saved by some sort of censorship or control.
The False Sense of Reality
Watching violent television also gives children a false sense of reality. In the film "Home Alone 2", the star of the film, Macauly Culkin drops bricks one of his pursuer's heads. The man stands up after being hit, then is hit again by another brick. Young, impressionable children begin to think that if you are hit or shot, you can just get back up and continue to function normally. In the real world, unfortunately, things are not like that, but children believe they are. They may get into situations in which a television character would come out unscathed, but they are killed or maimed for life.
Increased Aggression
More than 1,000 studies have shown the direct connection between aggressiveness and violence on TV. These acts of violence dull the senses, make children less sensitive to their surroundings, and more apathetic to life in general. Thousands of hours of programming, both violent and nonviolent, distance children from their peers and family. When they are distanced from a social life, they become more at risk for major depression. They also have trouble dealing with life later on because they cannot deal with people. Childhood is the time to learn about life and how to work with it. If this preparation for life is denied, later years will be difficult to manage because there is no knowledge to base major decisions on, therefore causing or assisting in major depression . In this way, they slowly sink into a sad cycle of low popularity and academic achievement. When children watch violent programming, they become more aggressive. When they go to school, this aggressiveness works against them. Their social contacts are low, and people really do not want to be friends with them or even be around them because they are very violent. They do not have any activities outside the home because they are not wanted by their peers. These children return to television, which accepts them without question, and the cycle is repeated. it also lowers academic performance by denying time that would be used for constructive things, thereby reducing academic success.
In the period between 1952 to 1972 (which does not include the recent jumps in the crime rate), the rate of juveniles arrested for serious and violent crimes jumped a huge 1600 percent. This was the period in which television ascended to its role in society. Television also affects people's grasp of reality. For instance, they think that violence is much more likely to happen to them in the time span of a week if they watch violent programming. According to Leonard Eron, Ph.D., the chair of the American Psychological Association's Commission on Violence and Youth, "Television violence affects youngsters of all ages, both genders, and all socioeconomic levels and levels of intelligence". In a study that lasted 32 years, Dr. Eron found that television violence carries throughout generations. In 1960, he was studying a group of 875 eight year old children. He found that in male children there is a direct relationship between violence on television and aggressiveness in school. After ten years, he studied the original group of children. He found that those had been less aggressive at age eight but watched more violent television were more hostile than those who had been more aggressive but watched less violent television. When the original subjects were 30 years old, Dr. Eron checked their arrest records. Those who had watched more violent television were arrested for more serious and violent crimes. Not only that, but they were also more vicious under the influence of alcohol and preferred violence to discipline their children. Their offspring also preferred to watch violent programs. Dr. Eron concludes, "What one learns from the television screen seems to be transmitted even to the next generation."
Reduced Creativity and Sensitivity
A study in a small town in Canada before and after the arrival of television showed some remarkable connections between children and television. Physical aggression such as pushing and hitting, and verbal aggression, such as yelling and arguing, were recorded on a playground between children in grades 1 through 5. Two years after television arrived, the rates for the same age groups had skyrocketed. Before television, the children in this town scored significantly higher on creativity tests than two other towns that had had television for seven and fifteen years, respectively. After television arrived, the creativity scores fell to the same levels as the other towns. In grades 2 and 3, many children took longer to become fluent in reading after television arrived. Children's sensitivity is dulled when they watch violent programs. Two groups of children were tested for their affectability. One group had not watched violent programming for some time. The other had been watching 42 hours a week. The two groups were shown a six minute segment of an extremely violent movie. Their perspiration, respiration, and heart rates were measured during the film. The group that had watched 42 hours a week had significantly less response to the scene, proving that their sensitivity had been dulled severely.
Why the Networks Don't Control Their Programming More Strictly For broadcasters, sex and violence translate into money. If they do not take the responsibility to take care of children's minds, then the government must. The networks say that they are voluntarily controlling their output of programming, but in recent years budget cuts have made this difficult. In the 1970s, the networks had about 75 watchdogs who made sure there was no offensive material in commercials or shows. Now, the numbers have dropped to 30 to 35 censors per network. Many show producers are letting certain language in that was considered unacceptable only ten years ago. They may be trying to control their programs, but they are not doing enough. Many children are unsupervised when they watch television. Parents who work cannot be responsible for their child's television viewing, therefore, the networks must be.
The First Amendment and Television
The First Amendment is to protect different viewpoints, not to defend things that are harmful to the country. The broadcaster's rights stop where the rights of the families begin. There must be some control to ensure that no one's rights are infringed on.
Conclusions on Censoring Violence on Television
All of the reasons stated above are just causes for controlling television. A direct correlation between aggressiveness and television violence has been shown. Several examples of the tragedies that television can cause have also been presented. It is obvious that television has a negative effect on how children function. However, there is also another side to this debate, one which does not agree with controlling television.
Why Television Should not be Censored
The other side of the debate deals with the idea of freedom of speech. There are also many reasons why television should not be censored. These ideas have to do with the beliefs that our forefathers wrote in the Constitution. They also have to do with the fact that television can be a very useful medium in education.
The First Amendment and Censorship
The First Amendment guarantees that the United States government shall not place any restrictions on the right of expression. And if violence was controlled, who would decide what was violent and what was not? A censorship board controlling America's media sounds like something out of '1984'.
Controls Already In Place
Most network and cable channels already have some voluntary controls. They have ratings and many channels do not place violent movies before 9 o'clock or next to television shows. Some stations have even gone as far as not promoting violent movies during children's programming. Government interference is not necessary.
News, the Real World, and Violence in Television
What happens in real life is much more violent than what is on television. There is much more violence in the news than in other shows. During the Rwandan civil war, CNN cameras showed extremely graphic pictures of children butchered by government troops. The video pictures showed scores of children, stacked, laying in pools of blood with flies buzzing on them. Many of these Violence can also be made into an educational experience, if only the parent takes some time to discuss the program with their child. The parent should ask questions such as, "Would you have done something like that?" and "Was violence necessary to solve that conflict?" Also, the more a child talks about or uses a program as a model for playing, the more enriching the experience becomes. Where Does the Responsibility for Education Lie?
Parents should also set the rules for television viewing because different sets of parents may have different values. The networks should not decide how to raise someone's children, the parents must learn to do that. Even if the new V-chip program, which blocks certain shows (as requested by the parents), is enacted, children could still go somewhere else to get their television viewing. For instance, the five year old who burnt down his trailer with his sister in it did not see "Beavis and Butthead" at his own home, because it did not have cable. He had gotten his ideas elsewhere in the trailer park. After the death of the two young men who had tried to re-enact "The Program", Touchstone Pictures recalled over 1,200 copies of the film and edited out the scene in later versions.
Conclusions on Not Censoring Violence in Television
It is obvious that the networks are doing something about violence on television. The rate of violent acts on prime-time is at a 20 year low, and they have a set of rules regarding the time slots of violent movies. In fact, children had missing appendages, which were shown in subsequent scenes. The correspondent said they had been hacked apart by machetes. Nothing anywhere near that graphic would be allowed on regular television, or even on cable channels. However, that is the way the real world is.
A Clear Downward Trend
There was an all time high of violent crimes per hour in 1992. In 1973, there were about 100 acts per hour. Also in 1973, there were 4.9 violent acts per hour in prime-time. By 1984, there was an high of 6.9 acts per hour in primetime. In the same year, there were 150 violent acts per hour in real life. However, by 1992, the television rate had fallen to a low of 2.9 acts per hour. The real life rate continued to climb, up to 218 . Controls are unnecessary, the rate of violent crimes on television is already falling. In Figure 2, it is obvious that there is a clear trend downward. However, in Figure 1, it is apparent that even though the television violence rate is falling, the reallife violence rate is still rising.
The Good Side of Television
Television can also act as a teacher, as it is very good for educational purposes. When TVOntario broadcast a series called "The Phoenix and the Carpet", a television series for children based on stories by Enid Nesbitt, children flocked to libraries to check out Nesbitt's books. Thus, television, when used in for good things, can further the reading experiences of a child. the television industry is the one that suggested the V-chip, which gives parents back the control they once had over television. Government interference is not neces-sary. If Congress really wanted to reduce the crime rate, then it should spend its time and money protecting people from real threats, like guns and drugs, not a tool that can be valuable in education.
Opinions on Censorship of Violence in Television
After carefully examining the facts that both sides of the debate are using and spending a great deal of time reporting those facts in this paper, I have come to my own conclusion on what should be done with the large amount of violence in television. My personal opinion is that the government should attempt to put some controls on television, on account of the huge rate of violent crimes in the United States. Other countries in the world have also had increases in violence rates, but none as dramatic as in our country. The government has tried many things to stem this flow of brutality, but none have worked. Congress and the president have tried to attack this problem from where it ends, at the actual scene of violence. However, what should be done is to assault the issue from where it begins, in the home. Television is probably the root of most of the violence in this country. Therefore, it must be controlled before it is too late and all is lost.
