🚀 go-pugleaf

john....@hq.com (John Tracey) writes:

>You aren't really for a plurality of opinions, Jojo, no
>matter how enlightened you imagine your sexual ethos. With you it's: I'm
>right, disagree and you're a moron.

>Just like a child's view of life.

I have been trying to make two points here. You've obviously failed to see
what I mean:

1) I don't think sex ads are bad for children. There are more important
   things to worry about. Why don't these same people complain about the
   violent pictures in CGW? It's illogical to complain about sex and not
   about the violence.
2) I don't want people to decide on what I should read. People who try to
   influence CGW (and many times society as a whole) are indirectly telling
   me what not to read.

Point 1) is something I like to discuss about, although sometimes perhaps 
a bit too enthusiasticly. But I grant anyone his own opinion.

Point 2) is something for which I don't accept other opinion. I don't 
want people to tell me how to live, what to read and what to say. I can 
decide for myself. So, leave the sex ads in the mag, 'cause I might want 
to have a look at them.

And yes, I still think that many people are morons. And people can call 
me names too, I don't care. If I call someone a moron, it doesn't add to 
my arguments, but it also doesn't make my arguments invalid (as you would 
like to wish). It's just something I have to say, as a result of many 
years of frustration.

My arguments still stand. Come up with some interesting contra-arguments, 
or go away.

Jurgen.