Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site iitcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!cord!hudson!bentley!ihnp1!ihnp4!iitcs!draughn
From: draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark Draughn)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Cuteness, Ewoks, and other "abominations"...
Message-ID: <151@iitcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 22:31:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: iitcs.151
Posted: Wed Jul 31 22:31:11 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Aug-85 06:08:19 EDT
References: <2706@topaz.ARPA> <522@edison.UUCP> <3038@nsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark draughn)
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago Il.
Lines: 21

In article <3038@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>In article <522@edison.UUCP> dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes:
>>Ewoks?, be serious.  It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that
>>this was a stupid descent into cutesieism to get the christmas toy
>>market.  They were big overbloated teddy bears that made cute noises
                       . . . skip to . . .
>                                                  . . . I think that they
>were making a point that most people seem to have missed -- that sometimes
>the most dangerous things out there simply don't LOOK dangerous. The Ewok
>was a great example of something that is easy to underestimate -- they look
>like cute little teddy bears, so they can't hurt anyone. This same
>mentality is what gets kids and other people maimed in places like
>Yellowstone every year.

It's still cutesieism.  The point that they ended up making was not that
dangerous things don't look dangerous, but that the cute guys are
always the good guys.  The point would have been made more effectively if the
ewoks had turned out to be blood-thirsty, cunning villains who double-crossed
our intrepid heroes or something like that.

                                     -- Mark T. Draughn