 | | 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"
|
|
Hi John, Since you have personally attacked me, I feel I need to respond. However, I'm (going to try to) not personally attack you in response. I don't think that's going to do anything. From the nature of the comments you have left, I can tell (...) (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"
|
|
(...) 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"
|
|
(...) Ug. I was trying to read through all the posts on this thread, but I started getting a bad taste in my mouth. I want to go back and get the good feeling that Brad's posts have given me in the Lego Direct newsgroup... As far as the legality of (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
