(no subject)

[chess]

Ahh, my highest comments total - 30, which is entirely my fault for being really controversial about Section 28 (something that was a massive issue and has been totally buried and forgotten...)

Comments

[naath.livejournal.com]

what _are_ you wibbling about Chess?

[chess]

An entry I can't find again now, about Section 28 which provoked 30 comments, posted just before this year's General Election, way back when.

The one where ...

[passage.livejournal.com]

Chess declared that Section 28 was a really bad thing and shoudl be done away with and we got to find out the political views of most of her friendslist.

Seem to be a lot of strong views on the subject.

Neil, whoes just discovered that the actor who plays Gandalf is gay ... which sorta spoils it a bit ...

Re: The one where ...

[pling.livejournal.com]

... which sorta spoils it a bit ...

What difference does that make???

Re: The one where ...

[passage.livejournal.com]

Why does it spoil it?

I guess it spoils it a bit for me because Gandalf was so not gay. Actually I'm not sure one could go as far as to assign a sexulaity to Gandalf (he gives the impression of rarely thinking of such things) but homosexual is certainly something I've never imagined in Gandalf.

So knowing that seperates the actor on the screen from my perception of the real gandalf hence I will probably find the film sorta slightly poilt a bit.

Please note the sorta, slightly and bit. This isn't a strong statement by any means.

Neil, who wishes he hadn't looked back at this post, you've sudden;y reserected images of a camp Gandalf, I mean *no*[1]

[1] Please note, I'm not trying to say gay=camp, I'm not claiming a logic in those images, those are just some of the images that occur to me.

Why do I think I'm going to get flamed here ... good thing it's an old post and hardly anyone will notice.

Re: The one where ...

[chess]

I did *not* say it should be done away with.

I said 28b should be done away with, and 28a was a sensible statement... and pointed out the dangers of prohibiting anything like this which has gray-area moral grounds because stuff we want to do might be banned if we let stuff we don't want to which has about the same basis from a secular pov be banned.

Although I'm sure my original argument was more eloquant than that, if obviously unclear to some ppl.

Re:

[naath.livejournal.com]

ah right, I remember that one...