 | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) The phrase "adult movies" has become a euphemism for pornography, but I believe Jason meant it in the sense of "movies targeted at adults", which is what most of the films you see in theatres are. Adult characters, themes, situations - not (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Well, I hear about MFs being depicted as gay. How else can one know the sexual orientation of a MF unless one sees that MF engaging in sexual activity. Depictions of sex is the definition of pornography. (...) If it were just one or two (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Your definition of "pornographic" is clearly out of sync with the generally-accepted definitions in society, then. I haven't seen the brickfilm in question, but my understanding is that it is not *about* sex, though it happens to have sex in (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
"William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message news:m23d242o2n.fsf@...rds.net... (...) Well - if according to you its similar to "R" rated films, then they should be treated like "R" rated films. Those films are restricted to people over 18 (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes: <snip> I'm having a hard time reconciling "Jason Rowoldt" and "merely another slimeball" as phrases that belong in the same *post*, frankly. Jason has done a great deal of good for the hobby with his efforts, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Why? Just because the US _tries_ to restrict the showing of "R" rated material -that doesn't mean that the material should be restricted. Go to your local public libary. Ask for a copy of Lolita. I'm fairly sure you can get it on most libary (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:Goq2K4.Irv@lugnet.com... (...) material (...) local (...) on (...) are (...) monitor (...) how (...) I never said it wasn't the parent's responsibility to monitor what material a (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) I get (from Pocket Oxford) 1. A human creative skill or its application (snipped some stuff about beauty). I would say that the films _do_ represent "a human creative skill or its application", therefore are "art". I think they are at least (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:GoqCy3.F37@lugnet.com... (...) many (...) attacked. (...) people (...) an (...) I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough and because of that you misinterpreted my intent. I meant to say - I (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Sure, a computer whiz-kid could probably defeat blocking software, but the real intent of such products, in my mind, is to prevent random hits from search engines when a child is researching breast cancer, for instance. I am more worried about (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) I almost would. (...) The rape and non sex violence is more a problem than the sex. I mean, sex is just sex. (...) Hunh? Why the heck not? Chris (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Because if kids were to know more and understand more about being an adult, they wouldn't _need_ you as much. They could practice at being adults themselves instead of being kept powerless and ignorant by their aged opressors. Man, that's (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) I said why. 3 is in my view too young to get into the anatomical details of how exactly gay love works. Or straight love for that matter. It's frankly, likely to be boring to the 3 year old anyway and not particularly relevant. But the part (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) real (...) Why? Take a look at the 2600 page- or even better : (URL) you put too much faith in a computer to censor? If you do any research, you will find that the blocking engines don't work-and _do_ block some sites they shouldn't on (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) -its just that "family values" are too often used as a codeword to bash gays and lesbians. Having lived in a womans housing coop for 8 years, I was fairly well exposed to most possible combinations of alternate relationships- and I won't (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) I missed that. I'm still missing it, in fact, as I read back through your note. The sum of what you wrote on this specific subthread is: (...) And I agree with every last detail of your note except when you suggest that three year olds (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
