 | | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Not to mention your eloquent gift of good grammar and tongue-in-cheekiness. (...) Well, yeah, that's basically what I meant. (...) And that, my friend, may be one of those "nutshell" differences between a liberal and a conservative. Assuming (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) My generosity and my humility are the two attributes of which I'm most proud. (...) But you can hate the crime without loving the victim, can't you? (...) Ah! But that's the difference between melodrama and drama. The more sophistimacated (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) All you do is give, Dave! (...) Oops! Mea culpa, but a rather funny blooper there, nonetheless:-) I'll bet you are only too happy to invite me into your little den of iniquity, Dave! :-) (...) I agree, and I think that fantasy provides a (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Well, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. (...) Hey, you poser--we're talking about Batman sets here. Keep your escapist fantasy characters sorted out, will you? Of course, if you're looking to talk about the current Spider-man (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) But, they're making a toy. Saying they have a "curious lack of sensitivity" implies that there is some sort of sinister commentary on their part. Just because it reminded one person of something horrible doesn't mean that issue should've been (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) You think? (...) I think that there is a definite line WRT to reality and fantasy. The holocaust sets were offensive because they portrayed reality; these Spiderman sets deal in the realm of fantasy and make-believe, and so they shouldn't be (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote: I sincerely doubt that either post will cause a (...) Sounds like a great them for a time travel movie! (...) Well, I still respect you. And I think we actually feel the same way about the original (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Yes. But my point here is that by responding with a reference to the cartoon you're making it a little bit more likely to be seen by the very people that you think may get upset. I sincerely doubt that either post will cause a calamity but it (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Although it's unlikely that LEGO intended the set as a commentary on Abu Ghraib, their choice to foreground an institutionalized torture chamber speaks of a curious lack of sensitivity on the subject. Given TLG's long-standing policy of (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Which is exactly my original point. Any focus group could stumble upon Richie's original post and get all up in arms over it and start some sort of movement against LEGO. Putting the idea out there, anyone can read it and over-react any number (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
