To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *15246 (-20)
  Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
 
John, first of all, I owe you a thanks. I was kind of excited by your tone in some notes and I wrote more hotly than was wise. You either didn't take it that way or only calmly replied. Thanks. (...) But I'm saying that it might not _be_ filth in my (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
 
(...) My opinion. (...) And I don't want filth in the eye of my or anyone else's child. (...) Please cite examples, or are you speaking hypothetically? (...) Come again? Porn has *everything* to do with money and nothing to do with creativity. There (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Man, you lot are sad
 
(...) It's a conspiracy-- we're all doing it just to bug you. -John (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
 
(...) It can be. S & M, which combines sex and violence is evil; rape is evil. (...) What I am talking about is presenting adult material *before* a child is mature enough to handle it. In this example, a child wouldn't be seeking out this (...) (23 years ago, 22-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")
 
(...) You're refering to the world according to Christianity, are you not? If so, I don't think your opinion above is quite true. According to Christianity, every child is born into sin. So, to live as a Jew without being baptized as a Christian (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Man, you lot are sad
 
(...) What. Chris (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Man, you lot are sad
 
Haven't hung around lugnet much of late. Thought I would have a browse through off-topic to see what was happening since the Scott and Larry show. Why must every thread here end up ending up as a debate on religion or sexuality? You lot don't get (...) (23 years ago, 22-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!? (...) LOL Ah what the heck I reply anyway. My point, which I guess I failed to get across, is that Homosexuality does not affect innocent lives. (Unlike rape,adultry, and murder.) It is therefore an act of evil that is between the (...) (23 years ago, 22-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")
 
(...) What are you *saying*? You glibly quote the word of God and then immediately admit you go against it!? God has clearly commanded us all to kill homosexuals. To go against that command is far worse in my mind than the men who lie around with (...) (23 years ago, 22-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")
 
(...) Except that being black or Jewish is not a sin. Homosexuality is. Any one that is Christian, Jewish, or Muslium must realize that. Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 13: If a man lies with a man as he lies with a women, they have committed an (...) (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)
 
  Re: for the eyes of Suz (Was Re: For the Eyes of Alfred Speredelozzi
 
Hmmm...mmm, Well I can't say I agree totally with everything being said here; I know I haven't been here as long as most of you, but I'll reply nonetheless. I still view LUGNET as the center of the lego universe, I come here everyday, read lot's, (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general, 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"
 
That is my right, my privalidge. (...) I'm sorry if I insulted you, really I was trying to make a point with a message that embodied what I feared. I actually looked at a number of messages, saw a pattern and had to speak my truth. First, I don't (...) (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"
 
(...) 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"
 
(...) A man and a woman who come with two kids isn't an expressly heterosexual couple? What would they have to do be so? Chris (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
 
(...) it (...) That's because sex is neither good nor evil. (...) What you think of as normal and healthy is not. It is a stunted charicature of humanity. People seek out experiences when they are ready for them. This information isn't being forced (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
 
(...) "Adult content" is a ludicrous phantom. It is a code word for anything that biggotted right-wing Bible thumpers want to excise from society in order to "protect" the ignorance of children. (...) No. Sex is a topic. It is an appropriate topic (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
 
(...) So? (...) John, good point! At least Jason is promoting creativity. (...) Filth is in the eye of the beholder. (...) Sorry to break it to you, but 'porn' and 'quality' are not mutually exclusive. It is an economic happenstance that porn is (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR