»

[Wilse]

@Jim:

Great movie, BTW. I'm certainly no Tom Hanks fan, but he was great in this movie.

I totally agree.

Far from stopping people from seeing it, this film should be compulsory viewing for anyone expressing an opinion on war.

Also, I may have heard wrong but wasn't one of the resons given 'profanity'? If so, the decisions are absurd.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Tigger wrote:

Of course if the TV cameramen acted as if they were over 5, before they decided to do that, it wouldnt have been necessary, but you already know that dont you Kenny??

What is this for a stupid argument :-?

[redrumloa]

Yes, yes, but that's not the same is it? I mean, the ultraconservatives might like to pile "immoral media" in a big bonfire and march around the flames waving flags. We know that the Constitution of the US is rather an thorn in the side to those types, so they act in more insidious manner.

Next time someone complains about my posts, I'll slap 'em and link to this.

Come on Kenny, tone down the rhetoric. Do you like to be seen as a frothing at the mouth extremist?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Well, this government Kenny writes about, isn't really known for their embracement of the constitution (wich was the essence of his post)

[T_Bone]

Tigger wrote:

See you decided not to go with your first choice in Adolf and instead go with the Klan Kenny, glad to see you mixing those up there. Throw Stalin in every once in awhile maybe, oh wait, he was a socialist, you probably wont do that.
-Tig

Being socialist didn't stop him from using Adolf. ;-)

[Tigger]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
What is this for a stupid argument :-?

?????

Could you express your question in English??

?????
-Tig

[Karlos]

I believe it was meant to be rhetorical, as in "what kind of stupid argument is this?".

Then again, I think your question was likely rhetorical also :-)

Unless, of course, you can express yourself in Dutch as well as Speel can in English ;-)

[odin]

<OT>
Band of Brothers is better anyway....(then again that could be seen as a continuation of the SPR project).
</OT>

[Tigger]

Karlos wrote:
I believe it was meant to be rhetorical, as in "what kind of stupid argument is this?".

Then again, I think your question was likely rhetorical also :-)

Well since its not a stupid arguement, I guess my answer is its not a stupid arguement, but thanks for playing, be sure to get your gift from Red. And I wasnt being Rhetorical, I had no idea what he meant.
-Tig

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Tigger wrote:
Well since its not a stupid arguement,

It did not apply to the essence of KennyR's post, wich was about the prudish censoring of such an innocent act.

[Tigger]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

It did not apply to the essence of KennyR's post, wich was about the prudish censoring of such an innocent act.

He was talking about Ashcroft and the statue, I was correcting him with what really happened there, you have some mystical innocent act that didnt happen that you think this is about. Could you tell us what this innocent act is about, it should be fun??
-Tig