On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 17:13:02 -0400, Tarkus@here.com wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:35:56 -0400, Clive <Clive@Outdoors.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 19:56:50 GMT, mjello <non.compos@ment.is> wrote:
>>
>>>Tarkus@here.com wrote in news:83fls9968qbk3dft5t2emkntn81ofmoibd@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> alt.porn vs. alt.notporn debate.
>>>
>>>It sure would be nice to hear some other voices....
>>>
>>>It's not exactly what you're talking about, but "sleazy" was part of my
>>>vocabulary decades ago and it meant cheap, disreputable, sordid, shabby,
>>>etc., i.e., it had nothing to do with salacity or eroticism. Hotels could
>>>be sleazy. Some characters were sleazy. Movies were not sleazy, but they
>>>might be about sleazy characters in sleazy hotels.
>>>
>>>It sure would be nice to hear some other voices....
>>
>>I agree that more voices on the topic would be nice and thanks to you
>>both for you input. I don't think I'll ever have anything that meets
>>the 60-70 grindhouse, unless of course I've gotten it here. I'm fine
>>with not posting here, so long as those who do post know that I
>>appreciate all they do and would post if I could...
>
>I don't think there needs to be lock out of anything post 1979 but at
>the same time simply because there is a lesbian scene or a boob shot
>hardly makes it sleaze these days.. ;)
>
>Ie: TFE seems pretty sleazy to me.
ok, I think I get it, but I may ask your opinion on stuff in the
future. I'll post TFE shortly.
|
|