my post:I posted questions and comments to the filmtalk site run by the guardian newspaper.
This post was cut
'http://www.weaselwerks.com/peebits.htm has 'a sexual excitation associated with
urine or urination' Although I think the BBFC have a more specific meaning.
Urination (person(s) peeing) is okay(R18 barely legal #1/2) but if the peeing is
sex related, if someone touches the urine then it is defined as 'Urolagnia'.
Why does 'Salo' by Pasolini have urolagnia in then?'
Their rules say
1. We discourage obscenity and mindless abuse. Personal attacks on other users
have no place in an intelligent discussion.
Possibly they thought I was obscene or abusive? How do you talk about 'obscene' things then?
Joe King warned by guardian
-
jj
Re: Joe King warned by guardian
So much for the soi-disant 'liberality' of the Grauniad......for an organ that quite happily prints 'fuck' without those hypocritical asterisks, possibly regardable by some as obscene, aren't they on dodgy ground here?
I expect your comments were 'legalled' as usual by their team. The PCC would love an excuse to have another go at them, and they've bottled out.
It would have helped for you to be taken seriously had you been a 33-year-old single woman with four Sociology degrees and a Diploma in Re-birthing, currently working as a Stress Counsellor for redundant anti-motorway protestors.
Next time, try the Times. The Crossword's better too.
I expect your comments were 'legalled' as usual by their team. The PCC would love an excuse to have another go at them, and they've bottled out.
It would have helped for you to be taken seriously had you been a 33-year-old single woman with four Sociology degrees and a Diploma in Re-birthing, currently working as a Stress Counsellor for redundant anti-motorway protestors.
Next time, try the Times. The Crossword's better too.
-
Crimpo
Re: Joe King warned by guardian
they probably thought you were taking the piss (boom boom!)
-
Mr Angry
Re: Joe King warned by guardian
I agree with J.J. The Guardian is a paper for detestable politically correct, lower middleclass, public sector wankers. Those twats would get a right fuckin' shock if they were thrown out of their salaried local government jobs into the world of commerce and had to actually MAKE money to pay their fucking way like normal, unpretentious, folks do. They'd soon alter their poncy views. We (working class folks and folks in business) are paying their fuckin' wages, but they attack us and snipe at us at every fuckin' opportunity.
Oh, and The Guardian is most certainly not a 'Liberal' paper. Indeed it occasionally advocates using the power of the state to stop people doing what they like doing, and to take chunks of their hard earned (where they agree like it or not) to spend on causes which it considers relevant. Which usually means pissing the money away in the third world on incompetent regimes.
The Guardian?s philosophy on sex seems to be that it was invented by men, to oppress 'wimmin.' Hence they turn their earnest, poncy, middleclass noses up at almost every mention of the subject. Fun never comes into it. It even suggested that Richard Desmond should not be allowed to buy 'The Express' because he was also a publisher of soft porn mags! Freedom of speech, or what? Yeah, you can say what you want - as long as 'The Guardian' agrees with it! Can you believe it?
And yes, I would agree the 'The Times' is probably the best of a bad bunch. It does assume it's readers have at least half a brain and and presents stories in as objective a fashion as the 'Thoughts of Chairman Murdoch' will allow. Forget the patronising ' Currant Bun' and News of The World' they're laughing up their sleeves at their readers who they view as a rabble to be roused when ?The Chairman? wants to gain commercial or political advantage.
Mr Angry.
Oh, and The Guardian is most certainly not a 'Liberal' paper. Indeed it occasionally advocates using the power of the state to stop people doing what they like doing, and to take chunks of their hard earned (where they agree like it or not) to spend on causes which it considers relevant. Which usually means pissing the money away in the third world on incompetent regimes.
The Guardian?s philosophy on sex seems to be that it was invented by men, to oppress 'wimmin.' Hence they turn their earnest, poncy, middleclass noses up at almost every mention of the subject. Fun never comes into it. It even suggested that Richard Desmond should not be allowed to buy 'The Express' because he was also a publisher of soft porn mags! Freedom of speech, or what? Yeah, you can say what you want - as long as 'The Guardian' agrees with it! Can you believe it?
And yes, I would agree the 'The Times' is probably the best of a bad bunch. It does assume it's readers have at least half a brain and and presents stories in as objective a fashion as the 'Thoughts of Chairman Murdoch' will allow. Forget the patronising ' Currant Bun' and News of The World' they're laughing up their sleeves at their readers who they view as a rabble to be roused when ?The Chairman? wants to gain commercial or political advantage.
Mr Angry.
-
Rimbaud
Re: Joe King warned by guardian
They're definitely using obscenity as an entirely inappropriate and transparent cover for worries that thye BBFC will try and injunct them. The Guardian is utter shit, anyway.