 | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Brickbay, (...) enjoying (...) *Anybody* (...) require (...) your (...) (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 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"
|
|
(...) Wow. (...) I hadn't either, but I went investigating and watched several brickfilms and all of them included either violence or sex. I'd get revved up about the violence long before the sex. After all, violence is bad and sex is good. (...) (...) (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"
|
|
"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"
|
|
(...) 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: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"
|
|
(...) 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"
|
|
"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"
|
|
(...) think (...) Yahoo (...) Why not? if it is _legal_ for them to do it, then why not legal to view it? Are you afraid that they might see what sex is? I think there is enough warning that what they are going to see is adult that it should clue (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Eduardo is out of line? (was: Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms")
|
|
(...) I think the language used in the Danish statement is a lot more, uh, blunt than you'd see in any US statement. I think the objection is to dealing *at all* with issues of overt sexuality--muddy, I know-- because of the minifig's largely (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Eduardo is out of line? (was: Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms")
|
|
(...) Hmmm... in my dictionary it doesn't say that fear has anything at all to do with bigotry, but rather narrow-mindedness. More specifically, anyone who refuses to see "the big picture" is a bigot. Maybe your dictionary says something different? (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Eduardo is out of line? (was: Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms")
|
|
(...) It's called "homophobia" because bigotry is fear-based. Hating homosexuals is just as wrong as hating black people or Jews. XFUT: lugnet.off-topic.debate --Bill. (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Based on what criterion, exactly? Is it still evil to do the same in a different medium? If I, say, posted something similar using crayola crayons, is it still evil? How about if I use a purposely falic novelty pen? IE, is it the connection (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) I agree with you that past standards or changes in standards is no reason to permit something now, but I disagree with your idea of evil. Just why is LEGO intercourse evil? Now if you meant people forwarding thier own ideas about the mores of (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) No matter what the standards of reavealing parts of one's body, depictions of LEGO minifigs being gay and doing you-know-what-else is evil and immoral. (...) A member of The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. In other words, a (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) (Church of Jesus Christ of) Latter Day Saints; commonly refered to as Mormons. (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Well, 1st off, I have to defend free speech. I mean, after all, back in the 50's (or so) bikinis were indecent. Way back in the 20's, showing your calves (or was it knees?) in public was a disgrace. Supposedly there's blue laws in Boston about (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
