 | | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | (...) Certainly advertising is by nature propagandist. There seems like a critical difference between a piece of fiction that is written solely to entertain and one that is written with underlying political/religious/...l/whatever messages that are (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) These two paragraphs are the crux of the issue, for me. We might add a third permutation and ask: if the author creates a work intended to stir social change, but it doesn't, is it still propaganda? That seems like a suitable opposite of your (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: debates (was: John Leo's opinion of "The West Wing") —Ed Jones
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: (Deleting a whole lot of things I agree with.) The contradiction with the dictionary (...) Please note that I am only using the names Beavis and Butthead in the next paragraph to differentiate (...) (22 years ago, 7-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
