|
|
 | | Re: Shrek 2
|
| (...) If I have to explain, you probably wouldn't understand anyway. The premature sexualization of our youth is one of the biggest evils of our society. (...) Why did anyone have to change? Kind of a mixed-racial message, no? I was thinking about (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Shrek 2
|
| (...) No it wasn't wrong. or inappropriate. They didn't refer to anything sexual. It's a feminin underwear. No mentions as to what it could mean, i.e. being a transvestite or being sexy. It was simply an underwaer. A Thong! What's wrong about that? (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Shrek 2
|
| Spoilers... + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + How on earth was the Pinocchio scene "wrong"? And why should the man get to obey the woman's desire more than the opposite? Fiona loved Shrek as an Ogre and Shref loved himself as an (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Is BrikWars Dead?
|
| (...) It's not dead, it's resting. Tired and shagged out after a long squawk. Jason Spears | (URL) BrickCentral> (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | | | Re: What is it?...
|
| (...) (Success! :-) (...) I don't know. I mean, I like chewing gum, but hate to have in my shoe :-/ (...) That was the stated goal, yes. Apparently the results were good. (...) That's what is called a rhetorical question, isn't it? ;-) Pedro (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
|
