 | | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) Doh! Was that my snipping error? If so, I apologize for getting in your face about it. (...) I'll have to watch more carefully in the future--who knows what I'm missing? Dave! (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) What you are responding to is some creative snipping. I'm pretty sure that footnote regarding Chicago Hope is from one of my posts a while ago. The person who said that the F bomb has arrived many times already *wasn't* me. (...) Yeah, I was (...) (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) You don't watch TV, but you hear these words on the Simpsons "all the time"? That's a neat trick! On which episode has the F word been used? I'm pretty sure I've seen them all, and I've never heard that. Dave! (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
<snip> (...) The "F bomb" has arrived many times already... I hear F*ck and D*mn and B*tch and B*stard on the Simpsons all the time.... Jameson Robert Gagnepain (URL) 17714608 (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) First, to answer Christopher-- No, it's not ok-- get into therapy NOW;-) (...) Well, give guys a break, sproat. There are mitigating factors involved, such as the fact that we are genetically programmed to respond in a sexual way to breasts (...) (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) What cracks me up is that a woman's nipple is the single most useful item on the breast. It's like, showing a water fountain, but blacking out the nozzle. How did breasts get to be so obscene? IMO, a thong bikini is more obscene (and painful (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
|
(...) Good points, and bravo to you for bringing this debate out of the realm of the pointlessly theorical and putting it back into Lugnet! (...) Agreed. Some people might not like this seeming Monarchy of Lugnet, but it *is* Todd's sandbox (as (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
|
(...) Ok- got me there. (...) Yes! Both, I think. I just chose objectionable because I was trying to make a definition that wasn't circular. (Obsenity is obscene, fearful things make you feel afraid) Perhaps "extremely objectionable" is a better (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
|
(...) Well, how about another AFOL acronym- CRAPP- obviously NOT "polite usage." I think that it is a convention thing- defined by the community- in this case, however, since LUGNET is worldwide, I guess the standards are Todd's. So I would tender a (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
|
(...) state; (...) Let me start by saying I think we agree on the meat of the issue. However, I think some people are succumbing to the falacy that in order to exist, something must be identifiable in words, which is surely not the case. I can't (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
|
(...) Obscene is one of a number of slippery words that are contextually defined. In most english speaking countries, for example, bodily waste is refered to by multiple terms, some "obscene", some not. It generally depends on the context for most (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) here's a fun one I thought of a while back- Given- showing a man shirtless on TV with nipples exposed is ok. Given- showing a shirtless woman on TV is ok as long as we black out the nipples. Question- If I were to take the area of the woman's (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
|
(...) Then tell me what "obscenity" is, since it exists. (...) That's my point about how subjective it is. One zealot who says any word/image/sound/obj...ought/farm animal is obscene is a crazy man- if we get enough of those zealots together, (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Panaka is yellow?
|
|
(...) If LEGO wants to do that, fine. I hope there will be a classic smiley face head (in at least yellow head) accessory pack. I really have a hard time equipping Classic Spacemen with the awful new heads they have been coming out with. None of (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Language slipping?
|
|
(...) I don't think anyone would argue that obscenity is anything other than a social and/or personal convention, rather than some inherent quality or state; it's largely a matter of consensus. That's not to say obscenity doesn't "exist"--it exists (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Panaka is yellow?
|
|
(...) Perhaps Lego could just say they were all Danish before. ;-) At any rate, whatever political condemnation TLC might get, not only would it be minor and virtually unheard by the REAL target market (i.e. the kiddies' parents, which may be more (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Panaka is yellow?
|
|
(...) Well spoken, Scott. This whole skin-tone thing must've started back in the 60's..what'd they have for part color back then? Red, Yellow, Blue, Black and White? Given those choices, I guess it was easy enough to just crank out the yellow heads, (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Panaka is yellow?
|
|
(...) I just built it before coming to work this morning, and saw the pictures as well. it looks like they repeated the series of pictures twice. maybe they screwed up? If it is Panaka (We call him Captain Pancake at the office - Long story, along (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Adventurer Maps
|
|
(...) I saw a website that had theorized they used water - essentially making an artifical lake, and building a pyramid in it (very simplified), which seemed more feasable than many theories I've heard. <plays the URL hunt game>.. Here: (URL) stuff. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Adventurer Maps
|
|
(...) I don't believe it. Sandstone doesn't form naturally that easily, it needs a lot of pressure. Besides, that would mean that they were poured _nearly into place, and then they removed the pouring case from under it - if they had poured it, (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
