🚀 go-pugleaf

waw...@sun23.cs.wisc.edu (Joel Wawrzon) writes:

>In article <4067jr$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Harf <mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>	It's simple: if you don't like the adult ads in CGW, _don't buy CGW_,
>>and then you won't have to see them, will you?

>I suppose you've never written a letter to the editor of a newspaper or
>magazine (or even heard of such an arcane practice).  It's done so that
>one can give that publication input into how you feel about what they 
>publish -- maybe you disagree with an article or wish to make a correction or
>would like to give them your two cents or maybe you agree or...I hope
>you're catching on ;-).  It's a very old and accepted way of doing things.

	I have written a letter to the editor of a newspaper, thank you.
However, actions (like not buying the magazine if it offends you) speak
louder than words.

>>	No, you only expressed the opinion that CGW should be kept from
>>running the ads they want to.  Obviously, that's completely unrelated to
>>"telling people what they should or should not do".

>How would CGW "be kept from running the ads they want to"?  I'm not telling or
>forcing, I'm simply expressing my opinion. CGW probably doesn't care (obviously)
>about what ads they do or do not run, they're just in it for the money.  I'd
>like them to know that this reader likes their magazinee, but wishes that
>the porn ads would go.  I don't understand how I in *any way* "said" or implied
>any part of that first (or second) sentence of yours.  No such opinion was
>expressed.

	Your stated viewpoint is that people opposed to adult ads in CGW
should send letters to the editors.  Presumably, this means that you are
hoping to keep them from running future adult ads, and not that you were
just bored and felt an urge to write a letter.

>>
>>	I'll say it again.  If you feel that the content in CGW is
>>"low-class", no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read it.
>>

>I don't understand why everything has to be done in extremes.  It's not a 
>matter of simply buy or don't buy; I want to read the magazine, but I just don't
>like the new porn trend in their ads.  Why does everything have to be 

	Letters to the editor do not actually influence the content of a
magazine to nearly the extent that non-buying of the magazine does.  Let's
look at a parallel example:  you disagree with what the President is doing.
Is what you do send him a letter nicely asking that he try to make more
reasonable policies in the future?  No, probably not.  When it's time for
the next election, you back the candidate who you feel is most likely
to fix the problem, instead of hoping that the incumbent read your letter
and repented his evil ways.

>confrontational?  Is everything agree-or-get-the-hell-out with people like 
>yourself.  There are a few political ideas I disagree with too, but I suppose
>no one is forcing me to stay in this country...  I think I'd rather stay and
>exercise my right to have an opinion as well as vote.  Publications are very
>much the same way.

	True, but the way that you can change the course of the country is
by not supporting candidates that you feel are leading it in the wrong
direction.  Likewise, CGW could care less what the readers think of their
ads as long as they still buy the magazine.

>Finally, I find it extremely irritating when somebody perversely twists my words
>around and claims that I've made statements that I've clearly never made or
>even alluded to.  No where did I say the _content_ of CGW is low-class, just the
>placing of those ads all over the magazine.

	Sorry, I meant to include "adult" before content.  If you feel that
placing the adult ads in a sealed section would be a better alternative,
that's your perogative; but, CGW won't change without a real monetary threat.
There's no incentive to.

	-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>