23 Mar 05
For some odd reason, I was just now thinking of things that people wanted to ban for some stupid reason or other:
1) The Smurfs - they are evil because they are blue and dead people are blue, so they must be undead!!
2) Batman and Robin - Batman has a young boy as a side kick, wo he must be a gay paedophile??
Any one else have some choice ones?
23 Mar 05
Originally posted by AlcraWhat are you guys thinking in here? 😕
For some odd reason, I was just now thinking of things that people wanted to ban for some stupid reason or other:
1) The Smurfs - they are evil because they are blue and dead people are blue, so they must be undead!!
2) Batman and Robin - Batman has a young boy as a side kick, wo he must be a gay paedophile??
Any one else have some choice ones?
Chess has gone to far now - We need to play more games ok!
23 Mar 05
2 edits
Originally posted by AlcraI agree with you on the smurfs but I have to take umbrage with you in regards to you know who....check my avatar.
For some odd reason, I was just now thinking of things that people wanted to ban for some stupid reason or other:
1) The Smurfs - they are evil because they are blue and dead people are blue, so they must be undead!!
2) Batman and Robin - ...[text shortened]... must be a gay paedophile??
Any one else have some choice ones?
Do you want me to bore you with the story of how Bruce Wayne took in Dick Grayson? Probably not. Do I think Robin was gay? Yes and I was grateful when he left Batman. I was even more happy when one of the Robins (not the original) was killed. There was a poll in the newspaper asking what should happen. The Joker beat him severely with a crowbar and strapped a bomb to him....who says there are no such things as happy endings, eh?
Incidently I believe there have been about 4 different Robins and one of them was a girl. I will now go back into the world of "dorkdom" 😕
2nd Edit - Sorry Alcra, I didn't realize you were being facetious by calling the dynamic duo "gay". I didn't read the title of this thread...oops
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by AlcraIf the Vatican is scared of the Da Vinci Code, they got serious problems which banning books won't help sort out. Besides, everyone knows that anything Dan Brown puts his name to doesn't actually fall under the classification of 'book', but rather 'unsubstantiated tripe, masquerading as truth and camoflagued to look like literature when in fact it is just an extended version of the ilk of Smash Hits magazine'.
Can you say "Da Vinci Code" and "Vatican" in the same sentence?
I strongly urge people to read Dan Brown, so they might understand the true nature of how to sell stuff without relying on the quality of your product, but rather the shock value of it's pertinence. Mr Brown, may I offer you a virtual slap.
11 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AlcraYes: the vatican advised folks not to bother reading the Da vinci code. That does not constitute a ban.
Can you say "Da Vinci Code" and "Vatican" in the same sentence?
http://www.detnews.com/2005/religion/0504/01/A05-122034.htm
Perhaps we should ban the overuse of the word "ban"? 😉
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by StarrmanA german maths phd student i know couldn't find any of the books we wanted in the library. his comment to one of my friends was (add a heavy German accent to it) "i hate this library! it should burn. we know a lot about book burning in Germany..."
books? why books? why would anyone ban books?
11 Apr 05
Originally posted by ToeQuite correct. The vatican has not banned the book, but advised all Catholics to not read it as it is "rotten".
Yes: the vatican advised folks not to bother reading the Da vinci code. That does not constitute a ban.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/religion/0504/01/A05-122034.htm
Perhaps we should ban the overuse of the word "ban"? 😉