|
|
Welcome to the Database Correction page. This page is for letting me or the other editors know of corrections that need to be made. Please read the posting instructions carefully.
|
|
| Friday January 17 00:03:43 2003 Re: Biff's Post- Burqa? |
|
> I favor a "big tent" policy, but which "second cousins" > are granted admittance is a subjective determination. > I'm all for solo handgags and chloros, I don't feel > blindfolds by themselves merit inclusion, and *some* faux > gags pass muster with me, while others don't. I think as a minimum there should be an attempt at restraint. Ergo clothing that looks like gags, food, pencils between the teeth, etc. should not be in the database. |
| Brian R |
| Friday January 17 00:16:11 2003 Re: Biff's Post- Burqa? |
| >
> I think as a minimum there should be an attempt at > restraint. Ergo clothing that looks like gags, food, > pencils between the teeth, etc. should not be in the > database. > So something like Calista Flockhart's No. 2 chewfest in ALLY McBEAL should be shown the gate? |
| Biff |
| Friday January 17 02:26:01 2003 Re: Biff's Post- Burqa? |
| > > problem being most appeared "News- Real Life", or
> > involved fellas. > ... obviously if we're talking males, No. The news type shows mentioned featured scenes with ladies. Agree appeared OTM gag. Was looking to TV shows mentioned, didn't see any with ladies, yet. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Friday January 17 02:30:20 2003 Re: Biff's Post- Burqa? |
| > clothing that looks like gags,
> should not be in the database. Okay, got it. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Friday January 17 20:29:47 2003 Re: Biff's Post- Burqa? |
|
> So something like Calista Flockhart's No. 2 chewfest in > ALLY McBEAL should be shown the gate? I don't know, what do you guys think? Understanding that we have to draw the line somewhere. |
| Brian R |
| Friday January 17 21:02:38 2003 Re: Biff's Post- Burqa? |
|
> > > So something like Calista Flockhart's No. 2 chewfest in > > > ALLY McBEAL should be shown the gate? > > I don't know, what do you guys think? Understanding > that we have to draw the line somewhere. > Well, we could "grandfather" entries like these, but adopt your "restraint-connected" guideline for any future material. By "restraint", do you mean other than simply by another person ... having her arms held fast wouldn't qualify, or an animated captive grasped arms pinned inside a giant hand? Would solo handgags be an exception to the rule? Also, I'm assuming that non-restrained items are fine to include as long as there is restraint mentioned elsewhere in the entry. For example, if Flockhart had been cuffed for some reason in that ep, the pencil-stuffing would make the cut. |
| Biff |
|
|