Belly sin...

[Phoenix-D]

the word itself contains no negative connotations or beleif connotations whatsoever."

Only if you go by dictionary definitions. Language doesn't work like that.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

yes, well, in this case i think it's a mangling. mabye FCE?

[ September 12, 2003, 02:11: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

It takes no bias to realize that the site is run by Christian Fundamentalists. This is in itself not necessarily a bad thing, but it is indeed the case.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

It must be one of those mincing euphemisms that the fundamentalist types use to discuss things they don't want to openly name.

that was the particular bais i was refering to, since all sorts of Groups use 'mincing euphemisms'.

[dogscoff]

How did you come to be reading this? I had no impression that you were the religious sort...

I'm not, I just find the website hysterically funny. I'm only just coming round to the idea that it's not an eloborate hoax. You should read their review of the South Park film ('Straight from hell'), it's brilliant. I wouldn't be surprised if the makers of the film had a copy of that review framed somewhere.
Another good one is "Mary Poppins" where dear old Mary is criticised for practising the Black Arts.

I was first introduced to capalert by a fantastic website called www.ntk.net, which i read every week. Among other things, ntk reviews all the latest films by simply quoting from other film review sites, including www.imdb.com (internet movie database) www.cndb.com (celebrity nude database) capalert, the bbfc (british board film classification) and various others. The ironic bit is that while capalert may review a film as follows:
"Three seconds of gratuitous cleavage exposure. Disgusting!"
the cndb (for example) would say:
"Three seconds of gratuitous cleavage exposure. Cool!"

The "unmarried pregnancy" explanation sounds convincing. Thanks. I'm kind of disappointed that it turns out to be a sin I couldn't ever commit myself (I have a collection) but at least my curiosity has been satisfied and my vocabulary enhanced.

EDIT: Just been back to check but it looks like both the south park and mary poppins reviews have been toned down.

[ September 12, 2003, 09:17: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[General Woundwort]

I have tried to avoid posting on this thread, but I can't hold back any longer...

I am aware of this website - I first encountered it when the first LOTR film came out. (In their criticism, they actually counted how many times Gandalf cast a spell, so they could properly condemn his sorcery.) I frankly find this sort of extreme nitpicking embarassing. It's also illogical. First, given their standards NOTHING would be watchable - I often wonder, 'what would they consider acceptable'? Second, according to their own standards as applied to movies, the Bible itself would be unacceptable (it's full of murders, rapes, mass combat). Third, this sort of massive fingerpointing at non-Christians misses the point of the Christian faith entirely. I seem to recall Christ saying something about removing a plank in one's own eye before going speck-hunting in others'...

Thus endeth the sermon.

[Erax]

Just my off-topic 0.02 :

- I'll consider PC as more than a joke when Marvel and DC rename their characters to 'X-People', 'Spider-person', 'Superperson' and 'Batperson'.

- The following conversation actually happened (although the original references were different) :
Fundamentalist mother - "I don't want my son to read the Harry Potter books because he might want to become a witch."
Schoolteacher - "By your logic, then, if he reads Hans Christian Andersen, he might want to become a mermaid ?"