I'm sorry to ask this, but I've eliminated the post where you remarked
on the movie, Man on Fire. What was it that the fundies were objecting
to in that movie? We watched it last night.
--
Tarla
****
"Do moral values say when Jesus fed the poor,drove
the moneychangers from the temple,walked with lepers,
defended the harlot,and healed the sick, that he was
practicing wanton immoral liberalism?"
--John Cory

From:	Graham
Subject:	Re: Karen, question about movie
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:06:24 +1300

Tarla wrote:
>
[crap]

Haven't you heard of email?

From:	Tarla
Subject:	Re: Karen, question about movie
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:50:16 +1300

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:06:24 +1300, Graham wrote:

>Tarla wrote:
>>
>[crap]
>
>Haven't you heard of email?

Have you heard of a lobotomy? Try it, you'll like it.

From:	Redbaiter
Subject:	Re: Karen, question about movie
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:56:48 +1300

Tarla says
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:06:24 +1300, Graham wrote:
>
> >Tarla wrote:
> >>
> >[crap]
> >
> >Haven't you heard of email?
>
> Have you heard of a lobotomy? Try it, you'll like it.
>
He's right. Get your personal shit off here. The collective
garbage you post is bad enough.

--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low

"At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding,
ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a
philosophy of sniveling brats." PJ O'Rourke

From:	Karen Hayward-King
Subject:	Re: Karen, question about movie
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:50:44 -0800

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:48:05 +1300, Tarla
wrote:

>I'm sorry to ask this, but I've eliminated the post where you remarked
>on the movie, Man on Fire. What was it that the fundies were objecting
>to in that movie? We watched it last night.

The scene in which the main character eliminates one of the bad guys
by inserting an explosive device in his rectum. The christian website,
http://www.capalert.com refers to it as an example of the 'brutal,
sadistic violence' in the film. Some fundies have apparently
extropalated that to 'homoual tendancies'.

I had to excuse myself briefly, after hearing that comment from the
woman I was talking to. When I returned, I told her that I'd seen the
film, and while I winced at that scene, I didn't think it showed
homoual overtunes. She said that her bible study group had
discussed it and in their view, the particular bible quotes, mentioned
in capalert's rating of the film, could be interpreted to include
homouality. Fortunately, Taylor's class ended about then....

Reading through some of the reviews on the capalert site, is
....ummmm...illuminating...to say the least. In some cases, such as
'The Princess Diaries' and 'Princess Diaries 2', they approve the
films, but have to really dig to find something negative to say. The
scene where Anna Hathaway's character says 'Shutup' when her
grandmother tells her a princess, is mentioned in the review as
possibly covering up a swearword.

Karen Hayward-King

From:	Tarla
Subject:	Re: Karen, question about movie
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:38:56 +1300

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:50:44 -0800, Karen Hayward-King
wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:48:05 +1300, Tarla
>wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry to ask this, but I've eliminated the post where you remarked
>>on the movie, Man on Fire. What was it that the fundies were objecting
>>to in that movie? We watched it last night.
>
>The scene in which the main character eliminates one of the bad guys
>by inserting an explosive device in his rectum. The christian website,
>http://www.capalert.com refers to it as an example of the 'brutal,
>sadistic violence' in the film. Some fundies have apparently
>extropalated that to 'homoual tendancies'.

Ah, yes. Well since that scene came right upon the heels of
Christopher Walken's character describing Creasy as an artist in the
field of killing who was about to paint his masterpiece, I took it to
be a creative form of disposing of a murderer.

You gotta admit, shoving a bomb up someone's ass, is both creative and
effective.

Good movie, great cast.

From:	Karen Hayward-King
Subject:	Re: Karen, question about movie
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:59:39 -0800

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:48:05 +1300, Tarla
wrote:

>I'm sorry to ask this, but I've eliminated the post where you remarked
>on the movie, Man on Fire. What was it that the fundies were objecting
>to in that movie? We watched it last night.
>--
BTW...their review on the SpongeBob Squarepants movie is at
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/spongebobsquarepants04.htm

I dunno...they saw a lot more in that movie than I did!!!! 'Suggetion
of sadomasochism in transvestism'??????

Karen Hayward-King

From:	Tarla
Subject:	Re: Karen, question about movie
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:42:00 +1300

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:59:39 -0800, Karen Hayward-King
wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:48:05 +1300, Tarla
>wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry to ask this, but I've eliminated the post where you remarked
>>on the movie, Man on Fire. What was it that the fundies were objecting
>>to in that movie? We watched it last night.
>>--
> BTW...their review on the SpongeBob Squarepants movie is at
>http://www.capalert.com/capreports/spongebobsquarepants04.htm
>
>I dunno...they saw a lot more in that movie than I did!!!! 'Suggetion
>of sadomasochism in transvestism'??????

OMG, I almost thought it was a parody site. Hilarious.

From:	Jay
Subject:	Re: Karen, question about movie
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:05:32 +1300

> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:59:39 -0800, Karen Hayward-King
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:48:05 +1300, Tarla
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I'm sorry to ask this, but I've eliminated the post where you remarked
>>>on the movie, Man on Fire. What was it that the fundies were objecting
>>>to in that movie? We watched it last night.
>>>--
>> BTW...their review on the SpongeBob Squarepants movie is at
>>http://www.capalert.com/capreports/spongebobsquarepants04.htm
>>
>>I dunno...they saw a lot more in that movie than I did!!!! 'Suggetion
>>of sadomasochism in transvestism'??????

Ahh Patrick Starfish in fishnets nearing the end of the movie.
Far fetched link to S&M!

Jay

>
> OMG, I almost thought it was a parody site. Hilarious.

From:	Tilly
Subject:	Re: Karen, question about movie
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:39:54 +1300

Tarla wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:59:39 -0800, Karen Hayward-King
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:48:05 +1300, Tarla
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry to ask this, but I've eliminated the post where you
>>> remarked on the movie, Man on Fire. What was it that the fundies
>>> were objecting to in that movie? We watched it last night.
>>> --
>> BTW...their review on the SpongeBob Squarepants movie is at
>> http://www.capalert.com/capreports/spongebobsquarepants04.htm
>>
>> I dunno...they saw a lot more in that movie than I did!!!! 'Suggetion
>> of sadomasochism in transvestism'??????
>
> OMG, I almost thought it was a parody site. Hilarious.

ROTFLMAO....

"SpongeBob and Patrick were the only ones in the show to flash bare
backsides. Two other characters at a quick stop filling station on the road
to Shell City were noted gleefully rubbing their posteriors together but at
least they were clothed".

Another example of "posterior" was Patrick carrying a banner much like the
hand-held "Rah Rah team!" banners with the staff of it pinched like a thong
strap between his nude posterior cheeks. Not my kind of fun, folks. One
more. SpongeBob bares his backside. If you don't believe a round peg will
fit into a square hole, just watch this movie. The filmmakers expect us to
accept that SpongeBob's round posterior is suited for his square pants. Sort
of makes the intent of the filmmakers clear, doesn't it. [**] How do I know
SquarePants has a round bottom? I saw it in the movie. And so will your kids
if they see it".

--
Tilly

striking1583REMOVE@yahoo.co.nz