🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <409s3n$b...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
   mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Harf) wrote:
>waw...@sun23.cs.wisc.edu (Joel Wawrzon) writes:
>
>>In article <4067jr$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.
>
Am I the only one to see a confusion in the above sentence?
Are you saying that you will not hold yourself to the same standard you expect 
of others?




>>>	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.

Not a clear example, but a good one nonetheless. The fact that you are missing 
here is that when you simply stop buying a product, the creator of that 
product has no idea why, over a period of months, hundreds of people stopped 
buying the product. They have no way of knowing what they did wrong, or didn't 
do quite right, and so they simply go on about thier business. You _had_ the 
attention, but didn't do anything with it. A letter, on the other hand, leaves 
no doubt as to why you, the consumer, are unhappy with a particular service or 
product.

And in politics, it is generally accepted that one written letter speaks 
louder than ten lost votes.



>
>>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.

When you change the country by supporting better candidates, you improve the 
country by REPLACEMENT of bad candidates.
Are you suggesting that we try to REPLACE CGW?


>
>>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.

Guess what?


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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert v Luthardt jr*luth...@clark.net*http://www.clark.net/pub/luthardt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
-Adolf Hitler,passing of the German Weapons Act, 1935.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------