🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4067jr$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Harf <mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>waw...@sun23.cs.wisc.edu (Joel Wawrzon) writes:
>
>>In article <404jsd$3...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo  <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>I suppose you're right when you say pornography is part of "sex as we
>>know it", but then again so is sado-masochism, bondage, fisting, 
>>and pedophilia.  This doesn't mean that I want to see it advertised 
>>between the pages of my copy of CGW.  There are plenty of other magazines
>>and catalogs that cover this field pretty thoroughly.
>
>	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.

>>We had a good laugh over this paragraph <g>.  Let's just forget the fact that
>>I never once passed judgement on anyone or even alluded to telling
>>people what they should or should not do.  BTW, my second name is Christopher,
>
>	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.

>>[pedantic retort as to the meaning of "low-class" snipped]
>
>	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 
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.

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.

Joel

------------------------------------------
Joel Wawrzon
Univ. of Wisc. Dept. of Computer Science
waw...@cs.wisc.edu
------------------------------------------