"The infamous 'R' rating!" (spoken in a mysterious 'dooooom' voice)

[Falkon]

Ok, Sciros and Siren, i can appreciate where you are both coming from, and Siren your examples of quotes are kinda giving us all something to think about, but honestly, this thread is turning into a "love-hate" thread, if you will. In no way did I intend for this to become a world war controversy. i dunno, just seems that we're starting to get real pissy here.

However, Sciros, I must admit, you are controversially debating your opinions, saying that you are for it, then against it, back for it, then not decided. I dunno.


Back to the topic. Supposing we [i]were[/i] to let a child see a violent movie, what bad or harm is going to come of it? I mean, maybe if we let them see a violent movie every day, no, even every [i]week[/i],then it could harm or corrupt them, but I mean letting them see a violent movie every once in a while isn't going to make them "oh-I-am-so-gonna-kill-you-because-of-the-way-you-look, you filthy b*****d"

Like I have stated before, I have known no one who is "killingly violent", if you will, from a movie or video game. This is why it really should be the parents discretion if a child sees a movie.

Then again, thinking about that, that is really al that the rating system is doing, because if you get a parent to come with you or whatever you can see it.
Hmmm...

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Again, I'm unsure why this is so confusing to everyone. I have no problem with restrictions being lifted, and that much I always made clear. "Why not?" indeed. But the only time I actually suggested any sort of reasonable solution was when I said that the rating system needs to be adjusted. Which I said [i]before[/i] you referred to me as proposing the removal of the restrictions. Obviously I'd be fine with both approaches, but even in my first post I said that the rating system was inappropriate. I said that theaters impose restrictions based on an inappropriate set of guidelines.

As for me "changing my tune," I'd really like to know where exactly you think I did that, because I didn't.

That "moral relativism" discussion you mentioned, Siren, was a prime example of you not understanding a single word I said. Everything went right over your head, and you ended up thinking that I was "against moral relativism" or something else equally ridiculous. Talk to James if you want to know what I was talking about; he understood it far far better than you. And honestly it doesn't factor into this discussion.

[QUOTE]...Did I just read what I thought I read? You do not feel it's appropriate for a 10-year-old to watch adult films, but you're refusing to step-in when another child may be watching something that you feel (know) they shouldn't?[/QUOTE]
Yes, because it's without my jurisdiction. Why should I tell other people how to raise their kids? I shouldn't, actually.

[QUOTE]Nine years old? Not even in middle school? Fifth grade at most, and you're saying age restrictions don't matter--sorry, almost don't matter--for a child fresh out of Elementary School? Forgive me for saying so, but that is utterly ridiculous. You're talking about letting a child who is not yet ten go see Animal House, Taxi Driver or Apocalypse Now.[/QUOTE]
You're thinking along different lines altogether. I said "it doesn't really matter" because it's probably not gonna come up as an issue. I don't know of too many nine-year-olds who were upset over not being able to see whatever R-rated film. Young children watch other kinds of TV, they go to bed earlier, etc. in comparison to teens. And when a kid reaches his/her teens, the parents should judge based on their child's maturity level what sorts of movies he/she can see.

[QUOTE]EDIT: Just another thing I'd like you to clarify, if you weren't sure where my points were being based on, how is it possible to say they're inaccurate?[/QUOTE]
This is an exercise in logic: Bob says the earth is flat. I am not sure what he bases his claim on, but it is inaccurate.
Confused?

[Falkon]

Jesus. You two sound like a pair of bickering old people, trying to get to eat the string beans first.

You are making such a big deal of it. You could have just stated which side youre on, and let that be the end. In fact, why don't we just do that.


I'm against the damn system.

[Zeta]

I am curious as to how Siren thinks the rating/restriction system [i]does[/i] work?

I am just curious because of some of the points we bring. Siren is for adjustments. ;-) I say this because of one major thing.

The rated R restriction says you have to have an adult guardian with you to view the movie. Siren, you say that as long as you have written/verbal permission, it is all right to see? But isn't that an [i]adjustment[/i] to what is said? You have to have a parent or guardian, you have to. But now the permission is an adjustment of what is actually put forth.

So right there, you have said you want to adjust the restriction/rating system. You may say that it is a trivial matter, but in reality it isn't. And what you said is that you favor an adjustment of the system, contrary to what you have been saying about the rating/restriction system being fine. Which obviously it isn't, if you are making your own adjustments. Which is exactly what Sciro's is saying. ;)

[MischiefEclipse]

I think almost everyone raises good points. It also seems, however, that a few points use the belief that some people view these R movies differently. Which is one reason, I believe this is so, that the MPAA is there. A lot of people don't see kids getting bothered by movies that the MPAA sais is not right for that age group. So a parent may think, "Wow, this rating system dosn't apply here." A thought such as this one could very well lead to others like it, meaning that that parent becomes more lenient overtime, thinking their child has seen it all, so more of the same couldn't do any harm. Now, this is not the case for many people, seeing as how some people i know really take the movie rating system to heart.

Leniency is not neccesarily rienforcing the things portrayed in, as generaly seen, innapropriate movies, but its not telling the kid No, either. Highschoolers may think that those movies that they really would like to see, but aren't allowed to are nothing compared to what they see at school. BUT! Did you ever think to ask why school is full of sexual acts, violence, and swearing? Could it be because the kind of movies, video games, and music that they weren't technically allowed to watch and listen to, were watched, played, and listened to by them anyway?

Ooh... a pattern. Although, I'll tell you that the movie theater restrictions can bee an almost painful inconvenience. But, hey, they don't want to be sued!

[Brasil]

Falkon, I deeply and heartily apologize for this, and I regret replying even after you expressed your disgust, but I'd just like some clarification, that's all, because some of this is just rather underdeveloped.

With Lore's blessing, I'm replying.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Again, I'm unsure why this is so confusing to everyone. I have no problem with restrictions being lifted, and that much I always made clear. "Why not?" indeed. But the only time I actually suggested any sort of reasonable solution was when I said that the rating system needs to be adjusted. Which I said [i]before[/i] you referred to me as proposing the removal of the restrictions. Obviously I'd be fine with both approaches, [b]but even in my first post I said that the rating system was inappropriate[/b']. I said that theaters impose restrictions based on an inappropriate set of guidelines.[/quote]I've bolded a particular point here. You did not go into the Rating system itself, apart from [i]briefly[/i] mentioning it. The majority of your first post was attacking the [i]Restriction[/i] system, not the Rating system. Yes, you were listing reasons for declaring the Rating system inappropriate, but the fact remains that you were concentrating on the Restrictions and not the Ratings, and attempting to expose faults within the Restrictions themselves.

That has been your focus all along, Sciros, even in your very first post: The Restrictions. Now, since the mid-point of the thread, when it was pointed out that the "Why not?" for lifting the restrictions would be detrimental for the movie-going populace, in that with no restrictions in place, incredibly questionable material (read: adult films) could be accessible to minors, you've since changed your focus to the Rating system.

Your above paragraph is certainly a mixed message.

[quote]But the only time I actually suggested any sort of reasonable solution was when I said that the rating system needs to be adjusted. Which I said [i]before[/i] you referred to me as proposing the removal of the restrictions.[/quote]Your first post was the [i]initial[/i] post on [url="http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=42955&page=2&pp=15"][u]this page[/u][/url]. Nowhere in your first post (before my "referring to you as proposing the removal of the restrictions," which was the [i]second[/i] post on that page) did you mention anything remotely resembling suggestions regarding changing the Guidelines.

[QUOTE]As for me "changing my tune," I'd really like to know where exactly you think I did that, because I didn't.[/QUOTE]I've quoted quite a bit that shows that, and others here are understanding my points, even the thread starter. You've contradicted yourself, rambled, and generally, presented a very fractured and incoherent argument that has flip-flopped quite a bit.

[QUOTE]That "moral relativism" discussion you mentioned, Siren, was a prime example of you not understanding a single word I said. Everything went right over your head, and you ended up thinking that I was "against moral relativism" or something else equally ridiculous. Talk to James if you want to know what I was talking about; he understood it far far better than you. And honestly it doesn't factor into this discussion.

Yes, because it's without my jurisdiction. Why should I tell other people how to raise their kids? I shouldn't, actually.[/QUOTE][url="http://www.moral-relativism.com/"][u]Moral Relativism[/u][/url]. It seems to me that you latch onto a phrase or idea that you think (or perhaps convinced yourself that) you understand, and when someone begins debunking your points about it, you believe they don't know what they're talking about. In that discussion you and I had, you explicitly stated, and quite vehemently, I might add, that moral relativism "has no place in society." I'm just going to quote the first paragraph of the site I just linked to:

[quote name='Link]Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are [url="http://www.cultural-materialism.com/"]culturally based[/url'] and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."[/quote]Do correct me if I'm wrong, but the precise idea you've been arguing for here [i]is[/i] moral relativism, in fact arguing here that it does have a place in society, and in a discussion where we're talking about [i]moral standards[/i], moral relativism certainly is a factor here, or [i]at least[/i] a discussion point.

[QUOTE]You're thinking along different lines altogether. I said "it doesn't really matter" because it's probably not gonna come up as an issue. I don't know of too many nine-year-olds who were upset over not being able to see whatever R-rated film. Young children watch other kinds of TV, they go to bed earlier, etc. in comparison to teens. And when a kid reaches his/her teens, the parents should judge based on their child's maturity level what sorts of movies he/she can see.[/QUOTE]Okay, so if it isn't an issue to begin with, why bring it up? Why argue about it? Why use it as support to say that the Restriction system is bunk?

The Ratings/Restrictions apply to all ages in the same way. Why do 9-year-olds not factor into this discussion, but teens do? Is it just a matter of age? Are parents just going to suddenly start evaluating their child's maturity level when their child becomes a teenager? Or perhaps are they always evaluating their child's maturity level? I still don't see how your point supports your thesis. Perhaps I'm just dense, or perhaps you're not doing as well as you think you are?

[quote]This is an exercise in logic: Bob says the earth is flat. I am not sure what he bases his claim on, but it is inaccurate.
Confused?[/QUOTE]The Earth is proven to be round. Have you proven anything in this thread? Have you had any definitive and clear answer in your replies? The answer is no. Even now, you're denying that you ever said something when it's very clear you did in fact say it. I've provided quotes and linkage, yet you still are adamant that you didn't say/mean that.

Zeta, to answer your question, you will find that I was one of the very first people here to suggest the written/verbal permissions as a solution to the "problem," even when I didn't see a problem to begin with. I've stayed consistent throughout this thread. Honestly, I don't think there need to be any adjustments at all. If people are so upset over this, though, then I suggested, and do suggest, the written/verbal permissions exception being made official.

I think some are missing my point with that. I'm not saying I disagree with the Rating/Restriction system. In fact, I agree with it. I don't see a problem with it, but if people are getting in such a hissy-fit over it, I've suggested a solution.

That's not contradictory to my points or thesis. I've stayed true to what I said in my very first post, that there is no problem with the Rating/Restriction system.

[Zeta]

But if there isn't a problem with it, then why get the verbal/written permission? If you are so for it as you are saying, and that nothing is wrong with it, you wouldn't use a verbal/written permission. You would go with your parents and that is it for a rated R movie. By saying that you get around the restrictions that are in place, show that it doesn't work for you. You want to see the movie, yet you can't unless a parent is with you. That is what is supposed to happen. But yet, you gave a way for others to basically undermind the rating system, a way which you have also followed. I am curious as to how that is saying they work? For the R movies at least. You made an adjustment, pure and simple. Implying that that specific restriction doesn't work for you. How is that [i]not[/i] an adjustment? When you change a little thing here and there, it is an adjustment. In your case it was getting the verbal/written permission, when it is supposed to be that you have to have a parent/guardian accompany you to the movie.

Again I repeat, if you see no problem with it, then why did you not follow it? If there was no problem with it, you would have went with your mom/dad. But again, no one wants to see a movie with their parents, some movies at least.

You may have stayed true to your argument the whole thread, which as I understand is nothing is wrong with the rating/restriction system and that nothing should be changed. But your example doesn't stay true to your nothing is wrong with the rating/restriction system. Obviously something is wrong if you yourself don't follow it.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Zeta]But if there isn't a problem with it, then why get the verbal/written permission? If you are so for it as you are saying, and that nothing is wrong with it, you wouldn't use a verbal/written permission. You would go with your parents and that is it for a rated R movie. By saying that you get around the restrictions that are in place, show that it doesn't work for you. You want to see the movie, yet you can't unless a parent is with you. That is what is supposed to happen. But yet, you gave a way for others to basically undermind the rating system, a way which you have also followed. I am curious as to how that is saying they work? For the R movies at least. You made an adjustment, pure and simple. Implying that that specific restriction doesn't work for you. How is that [i]not[/i] an adjustment? When you change a little thing here and there, it is an adjustment. In your case it was getting the verbal/written permission, when it is supposed to be that you have to have a parent/guardian accompany you to the movie.

Again I repeat, if you see no problem with it, then why did you not follow it? If there was no problem with it, you would have went with your mom/dad. But again, no one wants to see a movie with their parents, some movies at least.

You may have stayed true to your argument the whole thread, which as I understand is nothing is wrong with the rating/restriction system and that nothing should be changed. But your example doesn't stay true to your nothing is wrong with the rating/restriction system. Obviously something is wrong if you yourself don't follow it.[/QUOTE]I understand your point, and I see where you're coming from, and it is a legitimate point, but it wasn't an issue or a problem for me back then, because I didn't treat it as a problem. It was simply something at the movie theatre. I didn't get upset over it. I didn't get into a hissy-fit over it. I didn't kick and scream, and I didn't get "uppity." It didn't bother me at all that I couldn't get in to an R-rated movie without my mom, because I knew it was rated R, and I knew that I wouldn't be able to dance around the Restriction on my own. The only reason I was able to get in was because my mom was there, which was a parental permission.

I believed in the Rating/Restriction system back then, and I still do.

I didn't see it as an obstacle back then, and I still don't see it as an obstacle now, and that's why I see these rantings and ravings about the evils of the system to be just a little bit ridiculous, because people are getting themselves worked up over nothing.

That's why I've kept asking, "So what?" when I've replied in this thread. It's simply not an issue, and the mentality that makes it an issue is, like I said previously, the "Freshman boy who is pissed because he's not getting to see Freddy vs Jason" mentality.

There's nothing inherently wrong about either the Ratings or the Restrictions. They're a problem because people want to make them a problem. And, considering that the last movie listing I saw had about [i]three[/i] R-rated movies versus approximately [i]fourteen[/i] G to PG-13 movies, I just don't see how the whole "R Restriction" is all that bad. It's not as if the entire theatre is off-limits, and I'm sure Sky Captain is as equally entertaining as RE:Apocalypse.

I honestly think that people are just wanting to complain about something, and the Ratings/Restrictions system has become their target lately.

[Zeta]

Yes, I don't believe that you would have thrown a hiss fit or anything. But again, the fact remains that you adjusted them to fit your needs. You may not have seen it that way back then, but in light of this topic, you did adjust them because you were unhappy with them. You don't have to throw a hissy fit to mean you are unhappy with something. And you did exactly what some are saying in this thread. That they are guidelines and shouldn't be enforced as heavily as they are. If you had no problems with the rating/restriction system, you wouldn't have seen it in the first place. But the fact that you did, and didn't follow the "rules" set forth, shows that you do in fact have a problem with it, you just won't get all pissed off about it. It's and adjustment to a system that you claims is perfectly fine. If something is perfectly fine, there is no need to adjust it.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Zeta']Yes, I don't believe that you would have thrown a hiss fit or anything. But again, the fact remains that you adjusted them to fit your needs. You may not have seen it that way back then, but in light of this topic, you did adjust them because you were unhappy with them. You don't have to throw a hissy fit to mean you are unhappy with something. And you did exactly what some are saying in this thread. That they are guidelines and shouldn't be enforced as heavily as they are. If you had no problems with the rating/restriction system, you wouldn't have seen it in the first place. But the fact that you did, and didn't follow the "rules" set forth, shows that you do in fact have a problem with it, you just won't get all pissed off about it. It's and adjustment to a system that you claims is perfectly fine. If something is perfectly fine, there is no need to adjust it.[/quote]
But one thing we need to keep in mind here, is that the Restriction system does have the "Must be accompanied by parent or guardian" byline.

In a sense, this means that the parental written/verbal permission clause is already instated in the Restriction rules, so though it may seem like I was bypassing the Restrictions, in fact, I was following them, and not making any adjustments, because I was adhering to the "Must be accompanied by a parent or guardian" foot-note, by having my mom there with me as we purchased the tickets.

When you think about it, that wasn't an adjustment at all, because it was already included as a foot-note, as it were, in the Restriction system itself, and this brings me back to one of my first points in this thread, that the Restriction system is not an issue to begin with, and certainly not an issue when you have the parents there with you, which is emphasized in the Restrictions themselves, and is what I did.

I was still following the Restrictions. Interesting, isn't it?

[Zeta]

To be or go with as a companion.-Defination of accompany

To be with, or go with. When many think of the word accompany, they think of the person going with them the full time. If your permission was a byline or footnote, it would say something along the lines as "written/verbal permission accepted", but it doesn't. When it says MUST be accompanied with an adult, it doesn't mean they take you and buy tickets. It means they will sit in the theatre with you, and watch the movie. There is no footnote to it. They are supposed to be with you the full time, to go with as a companion. If the persmission thing is included in that, which I am very curious as to how you got that out of the restrictions, it would say so. Why would it say so? Because many people are oblivious to that so called footnote or yours. So yes, you did adjust it. It says you must be accompanied by parent or guardian, which you obviously were not. They gave their persmission, which is not what the guidelines say. Since that is the case, not only you adjusted it, but the ticket seller did as well. It is a known fact that when they say accompanied by a parent or guardian, that they mean in the theatre with you, not just take you there. If that wasn't the case, someones parent could drop them off and they would technically have accompanied them.

[MischiefEclipse]

The being accompanied by a parent rule is just a suggestion. The choices vary from Theatre to theatre on how they will conduct things. Personally, I have seen a movie theatre not care who gets into an R rated film at all. I have also been to a theatre that simply asks for permission of the parent for their child to see the movie. And I have been to theatres that require some adult buy your ticket and be in the theatre with you.
Each movie theatre decides what it wants done in terms of kids seeing restricted films.

So, I hope that everyone can clearly see that the movie theatres' restriction polocies are not an issue here. :eek:

[Zeta]

Exactly!!!! It is just a suggestion! But then why won't they let you go without one in many theatres? That is what people have been saying all along, that they are basically just guidelines, and are something that shouldn't have to be enforced in the ways they are.

But they are an issue. If they are just guidelines, no theatre should have to completely restrict someone from seeing a rated R movie. If theatres around the nation don't follow the so called restrictions, why bother enforcing them at all really? It gets people confused or upset. A 10 year old won't walk into some freaky, bloody movie, they have more sense than that. But a teen will. They know what they will be seeing, and if they so choose it, they will see it.

[MischiefEclipse]

[QUOTE] Exactly!!!! It is just a suggestion! But then why won't they let you go without one in many theatres? That is what people have been saying all along, that they are basically just guidelines, and are something that shouldn't have to be enforced in the ways they are.

But they are an issue. If they are just guidelines, no theatre should have to completely restrict someone from seeing a rated R movie. If theatres around the nation don't follow the so called restrictions, why bother enforcing them at all really? It gets people confused or upset. A 10 year old won't walk into some freaky, bloody movie, they have more sense than that. But a teen will. They know what they will be seeing, and if they so choose it, they will see it. [/QUOTE]

Lawsuits. People are sue-Happy now-adays. Even if a child won't [I]want[/I] to see a horrow movie, as you're saying for some reason, the point is that he could. Seeing as how the movie theatre is where the movies are shown, they are very potentially liable for any ill affects a child's parents could blame them for. It seems that people are suing bussinesses for more and more stupid reasons. So that is why, no matter the inconvience to someone's everyday life, it is a good idea for the movie theatres to do this.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Zeta]To be or go with as a companion.-Defination of accompany

To be with, or go with. When many think of the word accompany, they think of the person going with them the full time. If your permission was a byline or footnote, it would say something along the lines as "written/verbal permission accepted", but it doesn't. When it says MUST be accompanied with an adult, it doesn't mean they take you and buy tickets. It means they will sit in the theatre with you, and watch the movie. There is no footnote to it. They are supposed to be with you the full time, to go with as a companion. If the persmission thing is included in that, which I am very curious as to how you got that out of the restrictions, it would say so. Why would it say so? Because many people are oblivious to that so called footnote or yours. So yes, you did adjust it. It says you must be accompanied by parent or guardian, which you obviously were not. They gave their persmission, which is not what the guidelines say. Since that is the case, not only you adjusted it, but the ticket seller did as well. It is a known fact that when they say accompanied by a parent or guardian, that they mean in the theatre with you, not just take you there. If that wasn't the case, someones parent could drop them off and they would technically have accompanied them.[/QUOTE]Ah, but isn't your post there splitting hairs in a gray area? You'll notice that there isn't any specification of what "accompany" means in the descriptions that Boba Fett has provided:

[quote]R - Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some locations). This signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their children to see it. An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a film's use of language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use.[/quote]If you were to go to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), you'd find that "accompany" does not specifically mean "be there the entire time."

When you mention "known fact that when they say accompanied by a parent or guardian, that they mean in the theatre with you, not just take you there," you're actually applying a commonly applied definition that is neither the precise one, nor the only one. The fact of the matter is, there is no specific usage of the word, "accompany," listed in the Ratings/Restrictions.

The definition commonly used is a type of misnomer, as there are at least seven other types of definitions found in the OED, a dictionary I use for all of my definitions; it's quite thorough. I'd link to it, but you wouldn't be able to view the page. Shinmaru wasn't able to see it, even with a direct link. I suspect it has something to do with certain computer configurations and the Rutgers network I'm on.

[quote=OED]To make any one, to make oneself, become or act as a companion.


I. To accompany one thing to or with another.

1. To accompany (a person or thing) to (another): to add as companion; to associate; to add or conjoin to. Obs.

1483 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-c.html#caxton"]CAXTON[/url] Gold. Leg. 174/1 As many as ye can conuerte to your feythe..ye shal haue lycence to baptyse them and to accompanye them to your lawe. 1553-87 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f2.html#foxe"]FOXE[/url] A. & M. (1596) 127/2 The King againe gathered his men..& with fresh souldiours to them accompanied, met the Danes.
2. To accompany (a person (obs.) or thing) with (another): to send it with (or give it) the accompaniment or addition of; to supplement it by; to join to it. (Rare and less correct const. by.)

1629 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h4.html#howell"]HOWELL[/url] Fam. Lett. (1650) 163, I thought it a good correspondence with you to accompagne it with what follows. 1655 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-c.html#ld-burghley"]LD. BURGHLEY[/url] in Fuller Ch. Hist. IX. 167, I have thought good to accompany him with these my letters. 1810 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-t.html#w-taylor"]W. TAYLOR[/url] in Robberds Mem. II. 285 Accompanying my letter by a copy of the ?Tales of Yore.? Mod. He accompanied the word with a blow.

3. refl. To associate or unite oneself with. Obs.

1477 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-r2.html#earl-rivers"]EARL RIVERS[/url] (Caxton) Dictes 119 Accompanye the with good peple and thou shalt be one of them. 1650 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-w2.html#sir-a-weldon"]SIR A. WELDON[/url] Crt. & Char. K. James 62 And did accompany himselfe with none but men..by whom he might be bettered.
[img]http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mb/dag.gif[/img]II. To accompany (sc. oneself) with others. Obs.
[img]http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mb/dag.gif[/img]4. intr. (by omission of refl. pron.) To accompany with: to associate, consort, or keep company with; euphem. to cohabit with. Obs.

1534 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-b2.html#ld-berners"]LD. BERNERS[/url] Gold. Bk. M. Aurel. (1546) Gijb, Suche as accompanyeth with man-killers and murtherers. 1577 Test. of 12 Patr. When Anan was marriageable, I gaue Thamar unto him, & he likewise of a spite accompanied not with her. 1676 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-c2.html#clarendon"]CLARENDON[/url] Surv. Leviath. 257 Those men who had accompanied with them all the time. 1760 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h4.html#t-hutchinson"]T. HUTCHINSON[/url] Hist. Col. Mass. Bay (1765) v. 461 A young woman was not less esteemed for having accompanied with a man.

5. absol. To associate in a company; to congregate; to meet, to unite or combine. Obs.

1540 WHITTINTON Tully's Off. I. 70 Swarmes of bees do accompany..for as moch as they be companable by nature. 1577 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h2.html#hellowes"]HELLOWES[/url] tr. Gueuara's Fam. Ep. 27 Noblenesse and contention did neuer accompanie in one generous personage.

III. trans. (from 4, by omission of with.) To accompany persons or things.
6. To remain or stay with; to keep company with; euphem. to cohabit with. Obs.

c1500 Remedie of Loue in Speght Chaucer (1602) 308 b/1 If she sit idle..not accompanide..with maidens I meane, or women. 1580 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-s2.html#sidney"]SIDNEY[/url] Arcadia (1622) 195 Shee vsed no harder wordes to her, then to bid her go home, and accompanie her solitarie father. 1660 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-c3.html#r-coke"]R. COKE[/url] Power & Subj. 161 We teach, that upon Festival and Fasting times every man forbear to accompany his wife.

7. fig. To tenant or fill (a place) with company. Obs. rare.

1631 Celestina XXI. 201 What hast thou done with my daughter? where hast thou bestow'd her? who shall accompany my disaccompanied habitation?

8. To go in company with, to go along with; to convoy; to escort (for safety), to attend (as a retinue). (The passive formerly took with, now by.)

c1460 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f2.html#fortescue"]FORTESCUE[/url] Abs. & Lim. Mon. (1714) 48 Which Ambassatours..schal nede to be honorably accompanyd. 1494 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f.html#fabyan"]FABYAN[/url] I. ii. 8 Accompanyed with a great Nombre of Troyans..[he] landed in the countre of Italye. 1588 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-s2.html#shakes"]SHAKES.[/url] Tit. A. I. i. 333 Panthean Lords, accompany Your Noble Emperour and his louely Bride. 1659 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-r2.html#rushworth"]RUSHWORTH[/url] Hist. Collect. I. 76 The Marquiss went privately accompanied with the Earl of Bristol. 1722 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-d.html#de-foe"]DE FOE[/url] Hist. Plague 43 That no neighbours nor friends be suffered to accompany the corpse to church. 1801 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-s5.html#strutt"]STRUTT[/url] Sports & Past. I. i. 11 The ladies often accompanied the gentlemen in hunting parties. 1876 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f2.html#freeman"]FREEMAN[/url] Norm. Conq. III. x. 462 The Earl went as a pilgrim, accompanied by his wife.


b. fig. Of things personified or viewed as companions.

1477 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-r2.html#earl-rivers"]EARL RIVERS[/url] (Caxton) Dictes 91 Couetise hath accompaigned them from their childehode. a1541 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-w3.html#wyatt"]WYATT[/url] Complaint (1831) 161 So shall mine eyes in pain accompany my heart. 1611 BIBLE Heb. vi. 9 Wee are perswaded better things of you, and things that accompany saluation. 1645 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-f2.html#fuller"]FULLER[/url] Good Thoughts (1841) 23 Lord, I read how Jacob (then only accompanied with his staff) vowed at Bethel, that..he would make that place thy house. 1856 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-m3.html#mill"]MILL[/url] Logic (1868) I. v. §4. 109 One attribute always accompanies another attribute. 1875 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h.html#hamerton"]HAMERTON[/url] Intell. Life I. iii. 14 His adviser prescribed a well-cooked little déjeuner à la fourchette, accompanied by half a bottle of sound Bordeaux.

9. To go along with, or characterize, as an attribute or attendant phenomenon. (The passive still takes with, but by is sometimes found.)

1731 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-s5.html#swift"]SWIFT[/url] Pref. to Sir W. Temple's Wks. I. 254 To prevent him from finding them in other Places very faulty, and perhaps accompanied with many spurious Additions. 1751 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-j.html#jortin"]JORTIN[/url] Serm. (1771) I. IV. 62 Their faith was accompanied with greater degrees of fervour. 1794 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-s5.html#sullivan"]SULLIVAN[/url] View of Nat. I. 179 The sparkling flame and vivid heat which accompany the rapid combustion produced by that air [oxygen]. 1869 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-p2.html#phillips"]PHILLIPS[/url] Vesuvius iv. 112 The ejections of scoriæ were accompanied by bellowings. 1878 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-g.html#gladstone"]GLADSTONE[/url] Prim. Homer 148 The wisdom of Nestor is amusingly accompanied with self-complacent reflection.


10. Music. To join a singer or player, by singing or playing on any instrument an additional part or parts. (The player is said also to accompany the singing or piece sung, as well as the singer; and to accompany, with music, on the instrument.)

1583 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-g.html#golding"]GOLDING[/url] Calvin's Deut. xliii. 255 A gratious and pleasaunt melody wherein wee be accompanied with the Angels of heauen. c1680 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-b4.html#sir-t-browne"]SIR T. BROWNE[/url] Tracts 124 This hymn accompanied with instrumental musick. 1753 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-r.html#richardson"]RICHARDSON[/url] Grandison (1781) VI. liv. 351 After breakfast, Lucy gave us a lesson on the harpsichord. Sir Charles accompanied her finger, at the desire of the company. 1845 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h3.html#e-holmes"]E. HOLMES[/url] Mozart 26 A lady asked him if he could accompany by ear an Italian Cavatina..[he] accompanied it with the bass without the least embarrassment. 1869 [url="http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-o.html#ouseley"]OUSELEY[/url] Counterpoint xx. 162 The counter-subject is a supplementary melody, intended to accompany the subject and answer.

The preposition used after the passive accompanied is still somewhat unsettled. As in passives generally, it was formerly with; but by is now always said of personal agents, and, it appears, of things personified or viewed as active agents: ?He was accompanied by two policemen,? ?a ship accompanied by several native junks.? When accompany is used causally, with introduces the secondary agent or instrument, as ?he accompanied the word with a blow;? and this is of course retained in the passive, ?the word was accompanied with a blow (by him).? Hence with is used in the passive whenever the agency may be looked upon as merely secondary, or as an accompaniment rather than a companion, even though no primary agent is expressed, ?The operation was accompanied with much pain.? Cf. associated, combined with; attended with pain, by satellites; followed by unpleasant symptoms. [/quote]As you can see, there is much more to the definition than simply, "To be or go with as a companion."

I find the portion concerning the Police Officers very interesting. An officer can accompany a criminal to prison, but they're not going to go in the cell with them. They're not going to stay there the entire time.

A similar case would be an Agent and his talent. The Agent would certainly accompany his talent to the game, but he's not going to sit with the athlete the entire game, if he even sits with the athlete at all.

Just from those two examples, "Accompany" definitely doesn't only mean "staying there the entire time," and I think it's unwise to not consider the other types of definitions and other usages of the word. Don't you agree?

I think MischiefEclipse raises a good point about the Lawsuits, too. This is another very good and solid reason for establishing the Rating/Restriction system. It is very much concerned with everyone's well-being, and as we discuss this more and more, I think the systems' functionality and usefulness are becoming clearer and clearer.

EDIT: There are a few typos here and there, so if something sounds weird, just let me know. Chances are, I missed a word in typing my reply, lol.

[Zeta]

If it doesn't mean to accompany them the whole time, then why don't they allow it plainly? If as you say it isn't said at all, they have no right to restrict you to see a movie, even if they are afraid of lawsuits. If it doesn't say it as specifically as you say, you are free to do whatever you want, even wtihout any adjustments. But the thing is, you are not.

When looking at rating/restrictions things at theatres, sometimes there are pictures. Now in the rated R, do you see a little kid? No. You see a 17 year old, and two adults, can't remember if there are any else? But you don't see someone younger than 17 in the pictures. So naturally the saying "under 17 has tobe accompanied by an adult/guardian" combined with the picture of no young'ns in the picture, people assume that they either have to be with you the whole way, or not at all.

I don't think I have been too clear with my points in this topic I apologize. What I am advocating is that written/verbal permission should be enough to let you into a Rate R movie. I never said that we should get rid of them, as I think Eclipse thought i meant? What I meant is that they are just guidelines, and if you have the obvious written proof of a parent, or a parent comes with you to buy the ticket for you, that should be enough to let you into the movie. In many places I have been around the country, they haven't allowed me to do so, even when my mother was standing in front of them buying me the ticket.

I am saying they should be adjusted so that written/verbal permission is enough to let one into a movie. Many, many people look at the restrictions and see that you have to have an adult with you if you are under 17 as the final point, basically, that period. That if you are not 17 and your mom/dad won't be seeing the movie with you, you can't see it. Lots of people see it as that, without even thinking that written/verbal permission should be enough. In some places that is enough, in same it isn't. But how much more proof do you want if you have a note signed by a parent, or the parent is with you buying you your ticket? Written proof is enough to rent rated R movie from places such as Hollywood Video. What is the difference between being allowed to rent when you are under the age of 17, but aren't allowed to see the movie on the big screen when you parent is there to buy the ticket? Hell, you probably see more things on the rented version with deleted scenes and such, so in essence - in my mind at least - more emphasis ( all right, I have no clue how to spell that word, lol) on the renting of Rated R movies. Many times, they continue things times ten of what they would have seen in theatres.

[Falkon]

[QUOTE=MischiefEclipse]The being accompanied by a parent rule is just a suggestion. The choices vary from Theatre to theatre on how they will conduct things. Personally, I have seen a movie theatre not care who gets into an R rated film at all. I have also been to a theatre that simply asks for permission of the parent for their child to see the movie. And I have been to theatres that require some adult buy your ticket and be in the theatre with you.
Each movie theatre decides what it wants done in terms of kids seeing restricted films.

So, I hope that everyone can clearly see that the movie theatres' restriction polocies are not an issue here. :eek:[/QUOTE]
Also keep in mind, Mischief, that some theatres hire workers that dont really give a s**t whether a little kid goes in or not. Sure, it [i]might[/i] have to do with the theatres policy, but some people, teenagers, for example, who work there, think, "Ahh, whatever. I watch R rated films, so what's it gonna hurt if a year old sees the film?"
So, what I am saying here is that a lot of the time it may not be the theatres restriction, but more of what the ticket salesman thinks is right. It's like any job: you'll have some slackers and some hard workers. It's just how things work.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Zeta']If it doesn't mean to accompany them the whole time, then why don't they allow it plainly? If as you say it isn't said at all, they have no right to restrict you to see a movie, even if they are afraid of lawsuits. If it doesn't say it as specifically as you say, you are free to do whatever you want, even wtihout any adjustments. But the thing is, you are not.[/quote]
Why don't they follow it plainly? Like you've said previously, most only know the one definition of the word. It's a general mass ignorance.

There's no specification there, but the only reason it's restricted like that is because people think that's the only definition. That's all it is.

[QUOTE]When looking at rating/restrictions things at theatres, sometimes there are pictures. Now in the rated R, do you see a little kid? No. You see a 17 year old, and two adults, can't remember if there are any else? But you don't see someone younger than 17 in the pictures. So naturally the saying "under 17 has tobe accompanied by an adult/guardian" combined with the picture of no young'ns in the picture, people assume that they either have to be with you the whole way, or not at all.[/QUOTE]
I know of the pictures you're referring to, but it's hard to discern age in those, so you couldn't necessarily say, "Oh, that person is 17, and that person is 6, and that's a parent over there." Yes, there are height differences, but that's not an accurate assessment of age. Come to think of it, that's probably why you don't see many of those pictures anymore. Again, it's not any fault in the Ratings or Restrictions; it's because people aren't aware of what the actual terminology means.

[QUOTE]I don't think I have been too clear with my points in this topic I apologize. What I am advocating is that written/verbal permission should be enough to let you into a Rate R movie. I never said that we should get rid of them, as I think Eclipse thought i meant? What I meant is that they are just guidelines, and if you have the obvious written proof of a parent, or a parent comes with you to buy the ticket for you, that should be enough to let you into the movie. In many places I have been around the country, they haven't allowed me to do so, even when my mother was standing in front of them buying me the ticket.

I am saying they should be adjusted so that written/verbal permission is enough to let one into a movie. Many, many people look at the restrictions and see that you have to have an adult with you if you are under 17 as the final point, basically, that period. That if you are not 17 and your mom/dad won't be seeing the movie with you, you can't see it. Lots of people see it as that, without even thinking that written/verbal permission should be enough. In some places that is enough, in same it isn't. But how much more proof do you want if you have a note signed by a parent, or the parent is with you buying you your ticket? Written proof is enough to rent rated R movie from places such as Hollywood Video. What is the difference between being allowed to rent when you are under the age of 17, but aren't allowed to see the movie on the big screen when you parent is there to buy the ticket? Hell, you probably see more things on the rented version with deleted scenes and such, so in essence - in my mind at least - more emphasis ( all right, I have no clue how to spell that word, lol) on the renting of Rated R movies. Many times, they continue things times ten of what they would have seen in theatres.[/QUOTE]
And that's what I've been saying: written/verbal permission is enough to get you in. It's not prohibited by the Ratings/Restrictions system. It's just that many, many people simply don't realize that.

I'm going to repeat what I've been saying all along: the movie Ratings/Restrictions are not an issue or a problem. It's a general mass mis-interpretation of the terminology used that's the problem. That's why I've been saying the Ratings/Restrictions are fine. Because they're not the problem.

[Zeta]

But they are the problem if they are vague in saying what and what isn't allowed. Obviously they are the problem, if people are mis-interpreting them all over. How can they not be the problem then? When something is vague, they should clear it up. But again, in many many places written/verbal permission is not enough. You cannot say that it is enough, when in many places it is not. It is foolish to base that on the fact that you have been able to get into them. Go all around the country, and you will see that it is not enough. Yet you claim it is, when you in fact, do not know for a fact. I am one who has had my mother with me at the ticket counter to buy a rated R ticket, yet they wouldn't selll me it since she wasn't going to see it. Right there is one theatre that doesn't follow your "written/verbal permission is enough" statement. [b]And that's what I've been saying: written/verbal permission is enough to get you in.[/b] You make it sound like it starts and ends there, like it is final.

Come man...when someone looks at those pictures and sees a guy in a leather jacket, they aren't going to think he is 6 years old.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Zeta's absolutely right about pointing out that in many theaters it's necessary for your parent to watch an R-rated film with you in order to be allowed admission. Written or verbal permission (if indeed you think written permission is admissible given that verifying its authenticity is ridiculously difficult at best) maybe [i]ought[/i] to be enough, but it by no means IS if you're gonna generalize.

[Brasil]

Yes, and why, do you two think, that the movie theatres only apply that one definition and that one definition alone? Because they are not aware of the other uses of the word. The complaints here stem not from the supposedly "vague" language used in the Ratings/Restrictions; the complaints here stem from the theatres not being able to sufficiently and comprehensively apply the Restrictions, because they are unaware, like the general public, of the other eight or so uses and meanings of the word, "Accompany." Until this thread, some of you were unaware of those definitions.

You see, it isn't a matter of anything being vague; it's a matter of others not understanding the fullest meaning of a word. The terminology used in the Restrictions is specific; it's the understanding of the terminology that is vague.

[Zeta]

I'm not saying that everyone doesn't understand what the word means. But what you have to see is you claim the permission is enough, wether or not they know what it means. When in many, many cases it isn't. Again, why didn't they let me see RE when my mom bought me my ticket? How much more blatant can it be that I have proof? Naturally as you know by now, I wasn't able to see it if it hadn't have been for my friends cousin who was 18. This happeend again to me when I went to see Once Upon a Time in Mexico, as well as Underworld. You cannot say that we don't know the meaning. THe meaning that has been engraved upon us for however long these ratings/restrictions have been around, if you aren't 17 and are not accompanied by an adult, you cannot see it. I mean, just look at the sentence. Many, many people see when the word accompany as the parent has to be with them. My high school English teacher believed this as well(back in WI) It doesn't matter what the term actually means, it is the way in which it is used here. Which is that a parent has to be with you to see the movie if it is R and you are under 17. Show me otherwise that it doesn't say that. When I flew back down to Georgia after my trip back to WI, my grandma told my friends to accompany me to the plane. They couldn't get by security. Did they accompany me to the plane? No they did not. They accompanied me to the security checkpoint. But yet, why can't they? According to the definitions they are supposed to be able to accompany me to the plane. Each time the word is used, it is used in a [i]certain[/i] way.Show me where it says you can get the permission, and then I will believe you. In the way it is used here, it is a common understanding, just as aight is for alright, or alright is for the true form of all right, that the parent must be wtih you or no movie. Granted there are cases where the persmission is perfectly fine enough, but again, it does not outweigh the number of cases where permission has been granted, yet they child isn't able to see the movie. If it doesn't say that the permission is accepted, it is safe to assume that you have to be accompanied by an adult. It doesn't matter the meaning of the word, for all we know, they had the definition in mind where they were with you the whole way for all we know.

[img]http://www.mpaa.org/images/movieratings/R(small)-01.gif[/img]

Requires, requiers an accompanying parent or adult guardian. Throughout the years it has been engraved on us that you need an adult guardian with you to see the movie. Not because of the vast amount of definitions, but because they chose which one the wanted. The one pretaining to they have to be with you the whole time. Had they payed attention to the others, it would say permission is allowed, yet it doesn't. So techinically, by what is plain out stated, it is not. But if you wish to take into the different definitions of it, they by all means you are right. But that isn't how they were meant to be read.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Siren']Yes, and why, do you two think, that the movie theatres only apply that one definition and that one definition alone?[/quote]??? Haven't we been talking for a long time now about the fact that movie theaters each apply their own interpretation of "accompany?"

[QUOTE]Because they are not aware of the other uses of the word. The complaints here stem not from the supposedly "vague" language used in the Ratings/Restrictions; the complaints here stem from the theatres not being able to sufficiently and comprehensively apply the Restrictions, because they are unaware, like the general public, of the other eight or so uses and meanings of the word, "Accompany." Until this thread, some of you were unaware of those definitions.[/QUOTE]
You can't possibly expect anyone to believe that movie theater restrictions, at least the problematic ones, are the way they are because the theaters didn't think enough to interpret "accompany" in a different way than they did. Clearly they interpreted it a [i]certain[/i] way, but it was a way that fit what they wanted. It's not like they grudgingly accepted these restrictions; they're self-imposed!

[Brasil]

[quote name='Zeta']It doesn't matter what the term actually means, it is the way in which it is used here. Which is that a parent has to be with you to see the movie if it is R and you are under 17. Show me otherwise that it doesn't say that. Show me where it says you can get the permission, and then I will believe you.[/quote]
You asked me to show where it doesn't say the "parent has to be with you to see the movie if it is R and you are under 17," and by that, I'm assuming you mean the whole "be there the entire time."

[url=http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/][u]Movie Ratings on the MPAA Website[/u][/url]

The image, taken from the MPAA Website:

[img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=21183&stc=1[/img]

You will see that they simply use "Accompanied by." That's it. It's a flat usage that encompasses every definition of "Accompany." That's just how it is. And, the Permission request, that is in the MPAA Rating image. Think about it. By having a parent accompany you, that is permission, is it not?

[quote=Sciros]Haven't we been talking for a long time now about the fact that movie theaters each apply their own interpretation of "accompany?"

You can't possibly expect anyone to believe that movie theater restrictions, at least the problematic ones, are the way they are because the theaters didn't think enough to interpret "accompany" in a different way than they did. Clearly they interpreted it a [i]certain[/i] way, but it was a way that fit what they wanted. It's not like they grudgingly accepted these restrictions; they're self-imposed![/quote]
Is it that difficult to believe? Most theatres aren't comprehensive or thorough. This is made clear by the fact that people can sneak in undetected, true? You and others in this thread have mentioned that. If the theatre system is not perfect, isn't it likely, then, that they could stand to further familiarize themselves with the thorough definition of the word, "Accompany?"

[Zeta]

How on Earth do you know it is used as a flat out any defintiion of the term? Had that been their intent, they would allow the permission without a second thought, which they don't. Their intent with the way the word is used, is to have an adult with you. It has been engraved upon us, no matter what the definitions mean. In every sentence a word that has multiple definitions is used in a certain way. And it is clearly obvious that the way accompanied is supposed to be used in this sentence, is for them to be with you. Otherwise anyone could get into the movie with the permission, which is obviously NOT true. How is that so hard to see? Had they intended to encompass all the definitions, one could get in with the permission just as easily if a parent was along for the entire movie, yet it isn't true. Getting familiar with the definition will do a person no good in many cases. Seeing as how even though permission is presented, they are still not allowed to see the movie. As I have said before. Permission has been granted for me many time, and for others I am assuming just as much and they still haven't been allowed to see the movie. Getting familiar with the definition will do nothing.