|
| |
|  
half
(score: 0.261)
|
|
 | | Re: A little self examination?
|
| "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message news:G2ovu8.n12@lugnet.com... (...) impossible (...) everyone's (...) Regardless of 'leader' status, I think that the good thing here is that we can get to know each other personally through (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.261)
|
|
| | Re: A little self examination?
|
| (...) Hey don't worry about it - I personally enjoy your posts anyways :) [...] (...) Both of those cases are understandable. Because of the word 'Community' here - there will be ALL types, even types who don't find it useful to devote time here. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.261)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: My point.
|
| (...) Matthew, darlin, get a grip. I'm sorry, but you do realize that it was *obviously* not just what you said to Jude that got everyone here riled up. You said yourself that you made up that whole discussion on your site. That it's not your (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
half
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: defining art (was "Swearing?")
|
| (...) morals are flawed (...) subjective (...) insight to me. (...) that person than (...) Everything isn't art, but those *you deem* to have flawed morals will accept certain works you consider obscenities. See the difference? You make the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: Art! or Not Art!
|
| (...) art is (...) artist (...) everything? (...) Bad art is usually consigned to the Not Art category, but only over time. Unless it's an illustration, in which case it is Not Art immediately. :-) Bruce (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: Art! or Not Art!
|
| (...) who (...) "decent" (...) How about this one - a parent eating his child! Sick! Cannibalism! Disgusting. Certainly Not Art! And certainly on paper, this really seems like a candidate. Goya's "Saturn Devouring one of his Children". (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: Art! or Not Art!
|
| (...) Modified by Goya or some later censor? I presume that he may have thought it went over the line into "that's just plain sick" (and not justified by the myths) or it simply is a delusion by some scholar. It certainly starts to edge over the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
| (...) Some art is intended to create an intellectual response, not emotional, or as an aid to meditation (Mark Rothko's "glowing squares"), or.... (...) Each will assign their own unique value. (...) When Libertarians are the majority party, I'll (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: Art! or Not Art!
|
| (...) Not everyone agrees with you on that, and the proportions that do or don't will change dramatically from culture to culture. (...) else (...) A reasonable desire, but again, "child pornography" means different things to different people. For (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) An amusing answer, but I ain't convinced, so you are outta luck. Nyahh! :-P (...) have (...) I thought it obvious that is what I was refering to, but perhaps I'm being too clever for my own good. Yes, a nude picture of a child is considered (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Art is whatever you can convince people is art. Yeah, I know, a provocative and somewhat cynical statement designed to drive art historians nuts (it helps to be familiar with the French Academie and the Impressionist movement). There isn't a (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) the (...) be (...) What gave you that impression? I most certainly did not. Would you call child (...) That's a crime, no matter how artistically put. Someone from France might have a whole different definition of what constitutes "child (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| (...) Poor Richard. He finally wins the Cool Lego Site of the Week, and it turns into a debate about what constitutes the "millennium". Go to his site and check it out: it is very cool. Heck, it's kewl! Bruce (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.260)
|
|
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
| I decided to go back and see what the actual story here was, that is, what it was I actually said that started this thread. Every one has been making assumptions about it, even me. In a post which I otherwise heavily trimmed, Bruce said the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.259)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.259)
|
|
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| (...) Agreed. I expect Libertopia to be a GREAT place to start a commune, for example. No pesky laws about how many unmarried people can live in the same place to get in the way (although you may have to find a property not already encumbered with (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.259)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.258)
|
|
| |
|
bruce
(score: 0.258)
|
