🚀 go-pugleaf

bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) writes:
>But it just is *so* low-class. Why not have these ads in magazines like
>"Playboy" where the readers WANT this sort of thing? You don't see these
>ads in "Scientific American" do you? 

Tell me, why are advertisements dealing with sex so "low-class"?
I enjoyed sex yesterday, and I enjoy games today. What makes one more 
"higher-class" than the other?

If you don't want to see sex ads in a magazine, then just turn the page. 
Is that so hard? Just read the things you want to read and don't read the 
other stuff. Whooooaah, now that's a biiiig problem for some of you, 
isn't it? <include sarcasm here>  People who think sex ads are offensive 
have enjoyed an unhealthy education and need treatment. They secretly 
enjoy the ads, they feel ashamed and they want to get rid of them to 
purify themselves. Yuk!  The sex ads mean nothing to me, so I just turn 
the pages. Yes, I actually found out that you *don't* need to read an 
*entire* magazine from cover to cover. You *are* allowed to skip a few pages!

And to those people who complain about their kids reading CGW:
1) The magazine is not written for 10 year olds. I have yet to find the 
   first 10 year old to praise the intelligent reviews of this magazine.
2) If you want to hide the fact that sex exists in this world, while at 
   the same you time you happily want your kid to read about wargames, 
   then *you* are the one with a big education problem, and your kid will
   not be grateful to you in the end.

This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.

The sex ads help CGW to raise money. They use this money to make a good 
magazine. Take it or leave it.

Bunch of whiners.

Jurgen.