🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>censorship and the assumed right to do/say/have anything. Your first
>point is, you don't think sex ads are bad for children, for the
>astounding reason that "there are more important things to worry about."
>This is on the order of saying we ought not to catch our friend before
>he falls out the window, because there are a DOZEN people falling out
>the window down the street. Such clarity is unlikely to breed such
>confidence as it does in you, but -- what the heck. I countered this
>"point" effectively, I think.

No, you did not. I am saying that CGW not only has sex ads, but it has 
always had pictures of graphical violence. People don't seem to care 
about that, and I wonder why. So yes, my point IS valid. I'm not dragging 
the war in Bosnia in the discussion. I am saying that there's a different 
type of troublesome graphics in these computer game magazines that people 
should worry about first. Because war is far worse than sex. Yes, there 
are other things that are more important to worry about, and I never 
talked about people falling from the window, I am talking about graphical 
violence in magazines (and games) as apposed to graphical sex.

This argument is not about unrelated things.
It is as valid as it can be. You can't tackle me here.  <15-0>

>And I said so, in my last post, which you ignored (wisely, I suppose),

I can't follow-up to all the posts. I would be typing all day. Excuse me 
for having the opinion that you are not *that* important.  <30-0>

>Pardon me for =not= falling out of my chair, Jojo. This is the
>Beavus & Butthead School of Debating. This is (barely) high school
>stuff. You do not consider that there are plenty of places to get these
>"sex ads" -- and you do not -- of course -- consider that there are
>people who do =not= want the sex ads in a PC gaming magazine. You do not
>consider that other people may want to read pc game reviews without sex
>ads -- and since you can get sex ads elsewhere, and they can hardly get
>(good) pc game reviews elsewhere, it isn't you who's losing.

High school stuff. Hehe. You're obviously very familiar with that mental 
level. Ok, here we go again:

It is not important that we can see the sex ads elsewhere. That's not the 
issue. These companies want me to read them in CGW too, that's what we're 
talking about here. It's stupid to say "they don't belong here, you can 
see them elsewhere". You can see *everything* in CGW elsewhere, in one 
form or another. And yes, I *do* consider that there are people who don't 
want to see them. I tell them to stop whining. Don't buy it if you don't 
like it.  <40-0>

>There's a huge magazine stand around the corner, Jojo, with lots of the
>sex ads you might want to have a look at. Go to them.

No, I don't need to read sex ads. They are actually quite uninteresting.
There's a huge magazine stand around the corner, John, with lots of 
magazines without sex ads. You might want to have a look at them.  <game>

>Your arguments don't stand; they're hardly "arguments." Undoubtedly
>you'll ignore this post and renew your request for "contra-arguments"
>tomorrow.

On the contrary, I think I have proven with this message once again that 
my arguments still hold, despite of your pityful and unintelligent 
attempts to break them down.

It makes you look quite silly though: there are dozens of messages in these 
newsgroups, and if I don't have the time or urge to follow up on all of 
them, you claim to win the debate. And *you* were talking about invalid 
arguments??? Give me a break.

You've got one thing right though. I *will* ignore you from now on. 
You're not worth it. It's no use repeating again and again how things 
really are.

Jurgen.

In fact, I'll ignore it all from now on. The thread is starting to bore 
me. We'll never get it sorted out. Let the CGW guys do a poll.