Subject:
|
Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:08:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
686 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Ken Koleda writes:
> > I'm a little confused here. In what way is that picture of a woman in a lego
> > t-shirt a 'sex' picture?
>
> ???
>
> Um, *not* a picture of a woman, but a picture of a woman's *chest*.
I do see the T-shirt, not the chest.
> Think to
> yourself: Would Kevin have censored it if the woman's head were included in the
> picture? Would Kevin have censored it if the picture were focused entirely
> upon the LEGO logo itself? Would Kevin have censored it if it were simply the
> shirt lying on a bed? The answers should be "no". The reason is judgment, and
> the lack thereof when this pic was taken/cropped. This isn't rocket science
> here.
>
> > Yikes, is this what it's coming too? The lunatic fringe?
>
> There is no lunacy here-- simply good judgment and good taste.
Or maybe a fertile immagination?
> Yikes, is this what it's coming to-- a complete disconnect from civility?
Or reality?
Is it possible that you might have found something central in the pic, that
was probably not? I mean, I actually found it funny: what is "seen" in the
thumb is not what is *to be seen* in the actual pic. Kind of reminds me of
the Ice-cream story a couple of months ago...
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....
|
| (...) ??? Um, *not* a picture of a woman, but a picture of a woman's *chest*. Think to yourself: Would Kevin have censored it if the woman's head were included in the picture? Would Kevin have censored it if the picture were focused entirely upon (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
