🚀 go-pugleaf

In <402b12$l...@news.xs4all.nl> Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> writes: 
>
>bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) writes:
>>But it just is *so* low-class. Why not have these ads in magazines like
>>"Playboy" where the readers WANT this sort of thing? You don't see these
>>ads in "Scientific American" do you? 
>
>Tell me, why are advertisements dealing with sex so "low-class"?
>I enjoyed sex yesterday, and I enjoy games today. What makes one more 
>"higher-class" than the other?
>
>If you don't want to see sex ads in a magazine, then just turn the page. 
>Is that so hard? Just read the things you want to read and don't read the 
>other stuff. Whooooaah, now that's a biiiig problem for some of you, 
>isn't it? <include sarcasm here>  People who think sex ads are
offensive 
>have enjoyed an unhealthy education and need treatment. They secretly 
>enjoy the ads, they feel ashamed and they want to get rid of them to 
>purify themselves. Yuk!  The sex ads mean nothing to me, so I just
turn 
>the pages. Yes, I actually found out that you *don't* need to read an 
>*entire* magazine from cover to cover. You *are* allowed to skip a few
pages!
>
>And to those people who complain about their kids reading CGW:
>1) The magazine is not written for 10 year olds. I have yet to find
the 
>   first 10 year old to praise the intelligent reviews of this
magazine.
>2) If you want to hide the fact that sex exists in this world, while
at 
>   the same you time you happily want your kid to read about wargames,

>   then *you* are the one with a big education problem, and your kid
will
>   not be grateful to you in the end.
>
>This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.
>
>The sex ads help CGW to raise money. They use this money to make a
good 
>magazine. Take it or leave it.
>
>Bunch of whiners.
>
>Jurgen.
>

Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
what kids read in their homes? Are parents supposed to keep their copy
of CGW under lock and key? I don't have kids but after reading some of
the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.
 

c.pi...@ix.netcom.com (Charles Pinady ) writes:

>Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
>what kids read in their homes? Are parents supposed to keep their copy
>of CGW under lock and key? I don't have kids but after reading some of
>the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
>coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.

I feel pity for those children who's parents think that the CGW world ads 
are bad for their mental health. Those are the parents who don't tell 
their children anything about sex, as if sex is something immoral or 
dirty. And at the same time they let their children play with plastic 
guns. 

The target audience for CGW is perfect for companies that want to sell 
X-rated material. The readers are 29 years old, on average, 97% male, and 
very willing to be entertained. It doesn't matter if the ads have 
something to do with the games in the magazine or not. The target 
audience is perfect.

To the morons who think the sex ads are bad for their children:

CGW has many screen shots from games where you see explosions, 
mutilations, corpses and armoury. Did you ever post a message in these 
newsgroups complaining about that?  No, you didn't.  Why not?  Because 
you're obviously being a louzy parent (IMHO), that's why.

Complain about things that are worth complaining about. There are worse
things in the world than sexual activities, as God/nature (whatever you 
want) gave it to us.

There are dozens of wars going on on this planet, and guess what people 
worry about: breasts!

Jurgen.

"If everybody just shut up and put a dick in their mouths, there
 would be world peace." - Bette Midler

In article <4036pr$8...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>I feel pity for those children who's parents think that the CGW world ads 
>are bad for their mental health. Those are the parents who don't tell 
>their children anything about sex, as if sex is something immoral or 

	Are you saying that CGW offers the children proper and pure sexual 
education?  I say you're just replacing one wrong with another.

>CGW has many screen shots from games where you see explosions, 
>mutilations, corpses and armoury. Did you ever post a message in these 
>newsgroups complaining about that?  No, you didn't.  Why not?  Because 
>you're obviously being a louzy parent (IMHO), that's why.

	I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from 
anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?

>Complain about things that are worth complaining about. There are worse
>things in the world than sexual activities, as God/nature (whatever you 
>want) gave it to us.
>
>There are dozens of wars going on on this planet, and guess what people 
>worry about: breasts!

	You have to make an effort in whatever area you can.  Who says that 
the same people who complain about pornography aren't also active pacifists?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           "Put down that weapon, or we'll all be gone.
            I must know something to know it's so wrong...

            ...Put down that weapon, or we'll all be gone.
            You must be crazy if you think you're strong."   --Midnight Oil

Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> writes:

>The target audience for CGW is perfect for companies that want to sell 
>X-rated material. The readers are 29 years old, on average, 97% male, and 
>very willing to be entertained. It doesn't matter if the ads have 
>something to do with the games in the magazine or not. The target 
>audience is perfect.

So you are saying that the target audience of CGW are losers who are
mentally trapped in puberty and are so afraid of women that that
they'd rather buy CD-ROMs of nude pictures of them than go out and
meet an actual woman and deal with her as a human being? The notion of
"adult material" is pretty silly -- one of my favorite Sid Harris
cartoons shows a person walking by an "Adult Book Store" that has
books labled "Quantum Physics" and "Molecular Biology" -- genuine
adult material.

J-> This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.

Yes, I know, there are those of us too simple to understand how healthy
it is to fill young heads with carnal knowledge as early as possible.

Oh, and this notion of sex-as-beautiful -- you're so right! Those porn
movies are so beautiful, so sexually healthy -- those women who seek
penetration after a six-minute introduction, God knows that's
liberating. No, they don't kiss, but that's okay -- it just gets in the
way, and increases the wait for the "climax" -- all over her back. The
sexual epiphany in every healty porn CD-ROM.

You're right. Our attitudes about sex are so antiquated. "A Pussy Called
Wanda" has got it all over us. Thanks for showing us the way.

J-> This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.

Yes, I know, there are those of us too simple to understand how healthy
it is to fill young heads with carnal knowledge as early as possible.

Oh, and this notion of sex-as-beautiful -- you're so right! Those porn
movies are so beautiful, so sexually healthy -- those women who seek
penetration after a six-minute introduction, God knows that's
liberating. No, they don't kiss, but that's okay -- it just gets in the
way, and increases the wait for the "climax" -- all over her back. The
sexual epiphany in every healty porn CD-ROM.

You're right. Our attitudes about sex are so antiquated. "A Pussy Called
Wanda" has got it all over us. Thanks for showing us the way.

In article <95080611...@hq.com>, John Tracey <john....@hq.com> wrote:
>
>J-> This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.
>
>Yes, I know, there are those of us too simple to understand how healthy
>it is to fill young heads with carnal knowledge as early as possible.
>
>Oh, and this notion of sex-as-beautiful -- you're so right! Those porn
>movies are so beautiful, so sexually healthy -- those women who seek
>penetration after a six-minute introduction, God knows that's
>liberating. No, they don't kiss, but that's okay -- it just gets in the
>way, and increases the wait for the "climax" -- all over her back. The
>sexual epiphany in every healty porn CD-ROM.
>
>You're right. Our attitudes about sex are so antiquated. "A Pussy Called
>Wanda" has got it all over us. Thanks for showing us the way.
>

Hah!  Now that's a retort that I only wish I had come up with.  I think
that brilliant little piece of prose pretty much clears up any ambiguity
on the differences between sex and pornography.  Jojo is Dutch, so we can
understand and forgive his confusion <G>.

As for censorship:  no one is suggesting that anything be censored.  It's
simply a matter of the publishers taking responsibility for their content.
The porno ads are pretty low-class and out of place in a magazine with a
reputation like CGW.  The publishers should have more taste and common sense
than this.  I suppose it's up to us and the companies that advertise in CGW
(like C Systems) to let them know that we dissaprove.  If they don't get the
point, then they don't get the money.  Simple.  No big brother anywhere.

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

In article <403a1c$des...@wilmington03.voicenet.com>, >
>        I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I 
say 
>that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned 
from 
>anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?

	You certainly don't have my agreement.  I grew up playing wargames 
and other games that had violence and by means did they change my adult 
life.  It would be an awful mistake to concentrate on the by-products and 
not the cause of the problems.  That's the problem in American society 
today.  We want to cut out pornography, violence, and drugs, but we don't 
deal without dealing to the causes of these problems.  I believe it all 
goes back to basic parenting.  If one has had proper parenting then those 
people usually grow up to make mature decisions and judgements and now 
what is reality and is a game.  It is those people who are sorry parents 
who worry about their kids being effected by watching too much Beavis and 
Butthead (I like them too) and don't spend enough time with their kids.  
If parents taught their kids proper values and right from wrong, we 
wouldn't have probably half the problems we have in the US.

	Trey Marshall  

tama...@ionet.net (Trey Marshall) writes:

>In article <403a1c$des...@wilmington03.voicenet.com>, >
>>        I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I 
>say 
>>that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned 
>from 
>>anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?

>	You certainly don't have my agreement.  I grew up playing wargames 
>and other games that had violence and by means did they change my adult 
>life.  It would be an awful mistake to concentrate on the by-products and 
>not the cause of the problems.  That's the problem in American society 
>today.  We want to cut out pornography, violence, and drugs, but we don't 
>deal without dealing to the causes of these problems.  I believe it all 
>goes back to basic parenting.  If one has had proper parenting then those 
>people usually grow up to make mature decisions and judgements and now 
>what is reality and is a game.  It is those people who are sorry parents 
>who worry about their kids being effected by watching too much Beavis and 
>Butthead (I like them too) and don't spend enough time with their kids.  
>If parents taught their kids proper values and right from wrong, we 
>wouldn't have probably half the problems we have in the US.

	 I agree... we spend all our time trying to change things that
don't really matter, like removing adult ads from CGW, and we don't spend
nearly enough time trying to correct the real problems in our society, like
broken families, racism, poverty, and our government's constant wasting of
money.
--
------Matt Bandy-------------<mba...@sponsornet.permalink.com>-------
  S p o n s o r N e t     http://sponsornet.permalink.com/sponsornet/
            "Building a Better Web Through Advertising"

mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Harf) writes:

>>	You certainly don't have my agreement.  I grew up playing wargames 
[...]
>>If parents taught their kids proper values and right from wrong, we 
>>wouldn't have probably half the problems we have in the US.

>	 I agree... we spend all our time trying to change things that
>don't really matter, like removing adult ads from CGW, and we don't spend
>nearly enough time trying to correct the real problems in our society, like
>broken families, racism, poverty, and our government's constant wasting of
>money.

Ah, I was starting to think I was the only intelligent being here. But 
there appear to be more. Hurray!

If I ever have a kid, I will let him watch violence *and* sex, and give 
him a healthy mental education at the same time. Computer games, sexual 
games, whatever a kid wishes to learn about, a parent should be there to 
teach and support. Not being neurotic and secretive, 'cause that attitude 
will be passed on to the kid.

Jurgen.

tama...@ionet.net (Trey Marshall) writes:

>In article <403a1c$des...@wilmington03.voicenet.com>, >
>>I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say that 
>>all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from 
>>anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?

>	You certainly don't have my agreement.  I grew up playing wargames 
>and other games that had violence and by means did they change my adult 
>life.

Me too.  I've played paper and computer wargames for years, and I'm
perfectly normal.  And if anyone says different, I'll stick an AK-47 up
his @#&%$ and pull the &@%#$'ing trigger!!!  I'll cut his heart out with
a rusty spoon!!  I'll -- er, sorry, got carried away.  :-)

>I believe it all 
>goes back to basic parenting.  If one has had proper parenting then those 
>people usually grow up to make mature decisions and judgements and now 
>what is reality and is a game.

Right.  Reality is ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.  A game is ethnic cleansing
in Doom.  Or is it the other way around?  :-)
  
>It is those people who are sorry parents 
>who worry about their kids being effected by watching too much Beavis and 
>Butthead (I like them too)

There is no such thing as too much Beavis and Butthead.  :-)

>If parents taught their kids proper values and right from wrong, we 
>wouldn't have probably half the problems we have in the US.

And if they actually *listened*, we might not have the other half.  :-)

Gary

Disclaimer: There are a lot of "you" in this message, stated and implied,
note that they are general and plural form.  I am not directing this to you
personally. 8')

In <4032mh$5...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> c.pi...@ix.netcom.com (Charles Pinady ) writes:

>Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
>what kids read in their homes? Are parents supposed to keep their copy
>of CGW under lock and key? I don't have kids but after reading some of

Yes, or don't buy it. 

>the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
>coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.

It is really simple, if you don't like what is in a magazine, don't buy it!
You probably don't want pictures of nude women around in your house for
kids to read, so you don't buy playboy and leave it laying around.  Tell me
why this does not apply to CGW? This is a *FREE* solution!  You are not
missing much by not buying CGW anyway.

  Anyone who buys a magazine and complains about the content really makes
me laugh, because they themselves are respsonsible not only for HAVING the
magazine, but also for the content because they condone it by purchasing!!

  If you don't mind wasting $0.40 or so for stamp, envelope and paper, you
can send snail mail to the company telling them the reason you aren't buying
it anymore.  Also, if it a real computer magazine, you can send them email.
(costs vary, but it can be done for free)  If speculated whiner profit > sex
ad profit, they might even stop the sex ads.  If not, why not start your
own magazine that is suitable for families?  I bet you could do a better
job than CGW, anyway.

  For me, I don't care what sex ads are in a magazine.  I don't even
notice them.  Maybe they are more explicit in CGW than PC Gamer, I don't
know.  But if I DIDN'T like some content that I didn't want my children to
see (such as pathetic CGW reviews and editorials 8') I just wouldn't buy it.

  How can we live in a society where all the media is sanitzed so that
some random irresponsible people think it would be appropriate for their
children to see it?  We live in at least a partial market economy, which
means you can pick and choose what you want to see or eat or buy or whatever,
for the most part.
--
 sy...@mik.uky.edu | Entitlements kill | (tastefully short signature)

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

>Hah!  Now that's a retort that I only wish I had come up with.  I think
>that brilliant little piece of prose pretty much clears up any ambiguity
>on the differences between sex and pornography.

On the contrary, it was a stupid answer. Pornography is not different 
from sex. Pornography is part of sex as we know it. Some don't like the 
pornography side, some do.

> Jojo is Dutch, so we can understand and forgive his confusion <G>.

I'm proud of *not* being an American like you Joel. You "decide" on 
what's good and bad for other people.  I am not much interested in porn,
but if other people are (and some of my friends really are) then I think 
that's ok. They don't harm anyone, so if they are enjoying themselves, 
who are *you* to decide that they are doing something wrong, huh?
Is your second name Jezus, perhaps?  If you happen to be a Christian: 
It's in the bible that God forbids people to decide on good or bad, while 
saying that it's "God's wish".  But of course, as an average American you 
ignore logic and you just copy the public opinion, and keep telling how 
other people should behave. (And keep thinking that the US does so much 
better than people from other countries. Well, you're wrong.) Be proud of it.

>As for censorship:  no one is suggesting that anything be censored.  It's
>simply a matter of the publishers taking responsibility for their content.
>The porno ads are pretty low-class and out of place in a magazine with a
>reputation like CGW.  The publishers should have more taste and common sense
>than this.

There is no "low-class" tag. The problem is in *your* mind. At least 
*try* to find a bit of logic in your reasoning. You're way off.

>I suppose it's up to us and the companies that advertise in CGW
>(like C Systems) to let them know that we dissaprove.  If they don't get the
>point, then they don't get the money.  Simple.  No big brother anywhere.

Well, you just lost me as a potential customer with such an attitude. 
Let's hope more people will follow.

BTW, from the pornography that I've seen in my life, I think 98% came 
from the US, 1% from France and 1% from Germany. I've never seen Dutch 
pornography. Makes you wonder why.

Jurgen.

Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>waw...@sun23.cs.wisc.edu (Joel Wawrzon) writes:
[...]
>>As for censorship:  no one is suggesting that anything be censored.  It's
>>simply a matter of the publishers taking responsibility for their content.
>>The porno ads are pretty low-class and out of place in a magazine with a
>>reputation like CGW.  The publishers should have more taste and common sense
>>than this.

>There is no "low-class" tag. The problem is in *your* mind. At least 
>*try* to find a bit of logic in your reasoning. You're way off.

    Hey, Jurgen, you're welcome to your opinion but I suspect that Joel's 
reactions (similar to mine, I might add) might be of interest to the 
marketing directors of CGW. The US market may strike you (and maybe them 
too) as prudish, but I doubt that CGW's accountants will be as concerned 
about North American collective sexual neuroses as they have to be about 
their bottom line. 

    IMO the ultimate deciding factor behind CGW's decision to carry those 
ads should be whether they help sell more magazines. I'm not a subscriber 
nor do I purchase CGW off the shelf, but if I *was* ever in the mood to 
buy a gaming mag I doubt I'd be impressed by or even interested in their 
broad-minded liberal advertising policies.   

    I had an interview one time in which I knew the interviewers were 
all clean shaven. I had a mustache at the time and considered shaving 
it off. A friend noted that he had never heard of computer programmers  
being hired because of their beautiful facial hair. When combined with 
the thought that my interviewers' clean-shavenness was an indirect clue 
about what they thought was appropriate for themselves, and bearing in 
mind that I had nothing to lose and everything to gain, I went ahead and 
buzzed it off (and got the job). 

    There are probably a bunch of young long-hairs reading this who're 
thinking to themselves, "Man, what a sellout! Where are your principles?"
I can't deny that I did what I did as a trade-off for something I wanted 
more, but on the flip side of that coin I would also note that I got the 
job AND within a year I had another mustache just like the one I had 
before. "Nothing to lose, but everything to gain" ought to be a no-brainer.

    It may be that CGW's sex ads are sort of like my mustache - easily 
dispensed with in a case where they might pose a conflict. If the ads had 
anything at all to do with gaming then I'd say leave them in, but as it 
stands they're nothing but fluff. If I was a CGW executive I'd be keeping 
a close eye on Congress's efforts to clean up the Internet and the 
computer game business in general - voluntary self-regulation is usually 
a lot more pleasant than *any* regulation that comes out of our government.

--
Nathan Engle             Electron Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu       http://nickel.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle/home.html
"Carpe Diem"

Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> writes:

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

>>Hah!  Now that's a retort that I only wish I had come up with.  I think
>>that brilliant little piece of prose pretty much clears up any ambiguity
>>on the differences between sex and pornography.

>On the contrary, it was a stupid answer. Pornography is not different 
>from sex. Pornography is part of sex as we know it.

Er, speak for yourself.  I've seen a few "porno" films in my time, and my
real-life sexual experiences bear only the slightest resemblance to them. :-)
Of course, I've seen quite a few "mainstream" movies, too, and real life
doesn't look much like them, either.  :-) :-)  As for computer games ...

>I'm proud of *not* being an American like you Joel.

Good for you.  Myself, I'm proud of *not* being a Martian.  Not that I had
any say in the matter, but I'm still proud of it.  :-)

>BTW, from the pornography that I've seen in my life, I think 98% came 
>from the US, 1% from France and 1% from Germany. I've never seen Dutch 
>pornography. Makes you wonder why.

It certainly does.  According to American TV ("60 Minutes"?), the Netherlands
has a thriving sex industry.  I guess you prefer that exotic "foreign"
stuff?  :-)

Gary

In article <404jsd$3...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo  <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
[snip]

>On the contrary, it was a stupid answer. Pornography is not different 
>from sex. Pornography is part of sex as we know it. Some don't like the 
>pornography side, some do.

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.

>> Jojo is Dutch, so we can understand and forgive his confusion <G>.

[No one ever accused the Dutch of being overly conservative ;-).]

>I'm proud of *not* being an American like you Joel. You "decide" on 
>what's good and bad for other people.  I am not much interested in porn,
>but if other people are (and some of my friends really are) then I think 
>that's ok. They don't harm anyone, so if they are enjoying themselves, 
>who are *you* to decide that they are doing something wrong, huh?
>Is your second name Jezus, perhaps?  If you happen to be a Christian: 
>It's in the bible that God forbids people to decide on good or bad, while 
>saying that it's "God's wish".  But of course, as an average American you 
>ignore logic and you just copy the public opinion, and keep telling how 
>other people should behave. (And keep thinking that the US does so much 
>better than people from other countries. Well, you're wrong.) Be proud of it.

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,
I suppose that's close enough ;-).
You're characterization of Americans was entertaining, Jurgen, and not
completely without merit, but you forget that you never know who you're
talking to on Usenet.  I've only spent part of the last four years in
the U.S. because I'm going to University here.  I was born and live on
the other side of the Atlantic.

>>As for censorship:  no one is suggesting that anything be censored.  It's
>>simply a matter of the publishers taking responsibility for their content.
>>The porno ads are pretty low-class and out of place in a magazine with a
>>reputation like CGW.  The publishers should have more taste and common sense
>>than this.
>
[pedantic retort as to the meaning of "low-class" snipped]
>
>BTW, from the pornography that I've seen in my life, I think 98% came 
>from the US, 1% from France and 1% from Germany. I've never seen Dutch 
>pornography. Makes you wonder why.

Ridiculous.  Granted the Americans do produce a lot of porn, but 1% from
Germany?!  You've *never* seen Dutch pornography?!  Give me a break.  
I suppose this leaves no room for the Italians, either.

You're point about the Americans glamorizing and normalizing violence
while making sex seem dirty is valid, but this debate isn't about
Jurgen vs. the United States.  It's your view of sex (and pornography
by association) as beautiful that's being questioned here.  Sure sex can
be very beautiful, but pornography...oh, yeah!  That spoo
dripping off her face 10 minutes after stud-boy met her is the very essence
of eroticism and passion!

Definition of sex aside, the porn advertising in CGW is simply unnecessary.
They have plenty of sources of advertising revenue.  It's sad to hear about
fathers who can't even share their CGW with their kids because they feel
the advertising has just gotten too raunchy.  Granted the target audience
is an adult one, but many adults don't want to see that kind of advertising
in their mainstream magazines either.

Personally, it doesn't really bother me _that_ much, but I don't see the
point in CGW putting it in there.  It clearly bothers a lot of their readers.

>Jurgen.

Joel

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

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?

>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".

>[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.

--
------Matt Bandy-------------<mba...@sponsornet.permalink.com>-------
  S p o n s o r N e t     http://sponsornet.permalink.com/sponsornet/
            "Building a Better Web Through Advertising"

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

>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.

You don't want to see it, but I might. And the advertisers want *me* to see 
it, not you (I think). Why do you want to cut on the info that I receive?

>>> Jojo is Dutch, so we can understand and forgive his confusion <G>.
>[No one ever accused the Dutch of being overly conservative ;-).]

I still fail to see the humour of your first remark.

>I never once passed judgement on anyone or even alluded to telling
>people what they should or should not do.

You are indirectly doing so when you're trying to pursuade CGW to 
withhold information that other people very much like to see.

>You're characterization of Americans was entertaining, Jurgen, and not
>completely without merit, but you forget that you never know who you're
>talking to on Usenet.  I've only spent part of the last four years in
>the U.S. because I'm going to University here.  I was born and live on
>the other side of the Atlantic.

Lucky you! :)

>Ridiculous.  Granted the Americans do produce a lot of porn, but 1% from
>Germany?!  You've *never* seen Dutch pornography?!  Give me a break.  

That's right. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist of course. But it's 
obviously less common.

>be very beautiful, but pornography...oh, yeah!  That spoo
>dripping off her face 10 minutes after stud-boy met her...

Sounds like quite a boring porn movie that you've just seen.

>They have plenty of sources of advertising revenue.  It's sad to hear about
>fathers who can't even share their CGW with their kids because they feel
>the advertising has just gotten too raunchy.

Yes, I think it's sad. Not for the parents, but for the children. I think 
they're not getting the proper education. But I let them be, as long as 
these parents find another way of hiding sex from their children. Don't 
let them mess with 'my mag'.

>Granted the target audience
>is an adult one, but many adults don't want to see that kind of advertising
>in their mainstream magazines either.

I do. And the publisher does too.

What I think CGW should do is to poll their readers and find out about 
their opinion. My guess is that more than 50% of the readers don't care 
about the ads, or actually *want* them to be in it. The other part of the 
readers, even if it's still a significant number, will just have to shut 
up. And if it turns out to be the other way around, then I will shut up.

Jurgen.

(Quite strange to fight a verbal battle about this. I can't even remember 
seeing these porn ads. It shows how uninteresting they must be to me. But 
it's the thought that counts now.)

In article <403a1c$des...@wilmington03.voicenet.com>, ma...@omni.voicenet.com (Matthew Chiglinsky) writes:
> In article <4036pr$8...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>  
> 	I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
> that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from 
> anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?

Hell no! (you didn't say anything about language. haha) What would that solve.
Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I grew up
playing Atari and Nintendo. I played plenty of "violent" games, and I turned
out OK. I have never had the compulsion to go out and kill/eat/mutilate/rape
people, so why should violent games be banned/censored?

                                                     -Tony

In article <1995Aug8.0...@msuvx1.memphis.edu>, uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu writes:
|> In article <403a1c$des...@wilmington03.voicenet.com>, ma...@omni.voicenet.com (Matthew Chiglinsky) writes:
|> > In article <4036pr$8...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
|> >  
|> > 	I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
|> > that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from 
|> > anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?
|> 
|> Hell no! (you didn't say anything about language. haha) What would that solve.
|> Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
|> anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I grew up
|> playing Atari and Nintendo. I played plenty of "violent" games, and I turned
|> out OK. I have never had the compulsion to go out and kill/eat/mutilate/rape
|> people, so why should violent games be banned/censored?

Hmmm.  You grew up believing that "sex and violence is a part of everyday
life" and don't think you were affected by all the violence when you were
young?  Guess again!
-- 

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com               Home: BillS...@aol.com

In article <407kg6$14...@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>, seu...@nordruth.rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) writes: 
> Hmmm.  You grew up believing that "sex and violence is a part of everyday
> life" and don't think you were affected by all the violence when you were
> young?  Guess again!

Maybe I wasn't all that clear in my statement.  Watch the news sometime, and
tell me how many stories you saw about violence such as wars/murders/rape. That
is everyday life isn't it? That is reality.

As far as sex goes, do you know where you came from? That too is everyday life
right?

How can you not say that sex and violence are a part of everyday life? I'm not
saying that the world should be that way, but it is. Hell, in an ideal world,
we wouldn't have to worry about violence in real life.

So, you want to tell me how all the violent games I have played, and still
play, have affected me, or my views?

And another thing (I don't think this applies to you Bill), I have been reading
about people complaining that the porn ads don't belong in a mag that is about
computer games. Has anyone actually looked at some of the ads. There are plenty
of games being advertised that happen to have pron in them. Does that mean that
they are anyless of a game? Nope, some of the ads are appropriate I guess.

                                                      -Tony

In article <4032mh$5...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Charles Pinady  <c.pi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
>what kids read in their homes? 

They should have thought of that before they became parents then.

>Are parents supposed to keep their copy of CGW under lock and key? 

If it's more important for them to not have their kids see it, then yes.
Or just don't buy the magazine at all. It's a trade-off to what's more
important to them: keeping their children "safe" or reading CGW. Just
because you're a parent doesn't mean you get everything you want out
of life.

>I don't have kids but after reading some of
>the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
>coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.

Then don't buy the magazines. Simple.

-- 
BRIAN TROXELL      |  
br...@audiofax.com |             "Click! Click! Click!"
Me != FaxLink Plus |                           -Zorak
(404) 933-7600     |   

mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Harf) writes:

>	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?

     This is what the whole discussion is about, an advertiser who
declared that he chose to no longer advertise in CGW. You and your ilk
cried "censorship" and "coersion." You declared he had no right to 
withdraw his advertising funds without your permission.

     Now you say exactly what he said. And, you say he is wrong and 
you are right. Are you a hypocrite, or just stupid?


Rainbow Warrior of the White Knights
msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu

msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu (Rainbow Warrior) writes:

>mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Harf) writes:

>>	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?

>     This is what the whole discussion is about, an advertiser who
>declared that he chose to no longer advertise in CGW. You and your ilk
>cried "censorship" and "coersion." You declared he had no right to 
>withdraw his advertising funds without your permission.

	Where the fuck do you get off telling me what I said?  I said nothing
of the sort.  Go back and read my posts, dumbass.  I never called censorship
or coercion; as you can see from the text you just quoted, I said that if
others were offended by the ads, they should stop buying the magazine; if
enough of them do, then CGW will stop the ads.  I personally will not do so,
because I don't care about them.  READ MY POSTS BEFORE YOU RESPOND.

>     Now you say exactly what he said. And, you say he is wrong and 
>you are right. Are you a hypocrite, or just stupid?

	I am not a hypocrite, or stupid.  You obviously can't be bothered
to read posts before you whip out your flamethrower.

In article <4068lo$7...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> writes:
|> >I never once passed judgement on anyone or even alluded to telling
|> >people what they should or should not do.
|> 
|> You are indirectly doing so when you're trying to pursuade CGW to 
|> withhold information that other people very much like to see.

And YOU are just as guilty for trying to persuade CGW to "provide
information" that they
1) previously did not "provide"
2) is objectionable to many readers
3) has nothing to do with the magazine's stated subject
Why can YOU tell people what to do but god forbid someone else do the same?

There are many other sources of the same material that are just as readily
available to any readers of CGW that want to seek them out.  Why does CGW
*have* to carry them?

Frankly, I am finding ALL the non-computer ads that have been creaping in
annoying too.  If I want to read ads about RPG materials I will go read
one of the RPG magazines I get.  If I want to read ads about the latest
porn CDs I'll go read any one of the plethora of magazines devoted to
that.  If I want to find out about cars I'll go read one of the auto
magazines.

I read COMPUTER GAMING WORLD to find out about COMPUTER GAMES.
-- 

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com               Home: BillS...@aol.com

On 8 Aug 1995, Bill Seurer wrote:

> |> Hell no! (you didn't say anything about language. haha) What would that solve.
> |> Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
> |> anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I grew up

[Lines edited...]

> Hmmm.  You grew up believing that "sex and violence is a part of everyday
> life" and don't think you were affected by all the violence when you were
> young?  Guess again!
> -- 
> 
> - Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
>   Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com               Home: BillS...@aol.com
> 
> 
Though I was not the original poster here, I'm confused. Do you NOT 
believe that "sex and violence is a part of everyday life"? And of 
course, we are ALL affected by what we see and experience as we grow up, 
just as much as we are affected by what we DON'T see and experience as we 
grow up. I think all this hoohah over explicit sex and violence games is 
just ridiculous. If you don't like it, don't buy it, tell your kids not 
to buy it, tell your kids to shun everyone who does, fine with me.

In article <1995Aug8.0...@msuvx1.memphis.edu>,
 <uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu> wrote:
>In article <403a1c$des...@wilmington03.voicenet.com>, ma...@omni.voicenet.com (Matthew Chiglinsky) writes:
>> In article <4036pr$8...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>  
>> 	I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
>> that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from 
>> anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?
>
>Hell no! (you didn't say anything about language. haha) What would that solve.
>Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
>anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I grew up
>playing Atari and Nintendo. I played plenty of "violent" games, and I turned
>out OK. I have never had the compulsion to go out and kill/eat/mutilate/rape
>people, so why should violent games be banned/censored?
>
>                                                     -Tony

In defense of Jurgen, he was making a counterpoint.  He is not really
suggesting censorship.  You should really follow the thread for a
while or at least read the posts more closely before jumping in in the middle
of the debate with something so irrelevant (and potentially inflammatory).

BTW, between you and me, I don't consider porn and violence as a normal
part of everyday life ;-).  At least not mine.

Just letting you know.

Joel

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

In article <409quh$e...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, waw...@sun23.cs.wisc.edu (Joel Wawrzon) writes:
> In article <1995Aug8.0...@msuvx1.memphis.edu>,
>  <uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu> wrote:
>>In article <403a1c$des...@wilmington03.voicenet.com>, ma...@omni.voicenet.com (Matthew Chiglinsky) writes:
>>> In article <4036pr$8...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>  
>>> 	I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
>>> that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from 
>>> anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?
>>
>>Hell no! (you didn't say anything about language. haha) What would that solve.
>>Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
>>anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I grew up
>>playing Atari and Nintendo. I played plenty of "violent" games, and I turned
>>out OK. I have never had the compulsion to go out and kill/eat/mutilate/rape
>>people, so why should violent games be banned/censored?
>>
>>                                                     -Tony
> 
> In defense of Jurgen, he was making a counterpoint.  He is not really

Umm, why are you defending Jurgen. From what I read, I never attacked him in
anyway. Hell, what you have quoted doesn't even involve Jurgen. I have agreed
with everything Jurgen has written with some exceptions (the American
comments).

> suggesting censorship.  You should really follow the thread for a
> while or at least read the posts more closely before jumping in in the middle

Thats funny, seeing that I'm not the one in error here Joel. I think that I
followed this thread close enough. Do you think that YOU have followed it close
enough?

> of the debate with something so irrelevant (and potentially inflammatory).
> 
> BTW, between you and me, I don't consider porn and violence as a normal
> part of everyday life ;-).  At least not mine.

Where do you live that its not a part of life? When you go out at night, you
don't worry about what may be around the next corner? As far as porn goes, did
I mention that? I believe I said sex and violence. Porn is such a grey area
anyway. 

Well, it looks like maybe you should read the posts more closely.

                                                 -Tony

>
>        I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
>that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from 
>anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?
>
You have got to be kidding!!!

Ban games with violence but let them watch Road Runner cartoons that show
blatant disregard for life, yeah, right.

You have about as much of a chance of having that happen as having the
lost continent of Atlantis rising up and flying to the moon!!

The self imposed ratings listed on game boxes are more than good enough.

>>CGW has many screen shots from games where you see explosions, 
>>mutilations, corpses and armoury. Did you ever post a message in these 
>>newsgroups complaining about that?  No, you didn't.  Why not?  Because 
>>you're obviously being a louzy parent (IMHO), that's why.
>
>	I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
>that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned 
from 
>anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?
No. It's the same thing as thing 'sex ad' issue. Talk to kids about violence 
in the real world and what is real and what is fantasy, what is bad and what 
is good. Censoring, banning doesn't help one bit but keep kids ignorant and 
naive. 


Tempest

>
>Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
>what kids read in their homes? Are parents supposed to keep their copy
>of CGW under lock and key? I don't have kids but after reading some of
>the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
>coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.
> 
No, parents are supposed to teach kids about these things. Don't let them find 
out by themself! Check under their mattresses to see what I mean!

Tempest

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
------------------------------------------

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>

seu...@nordruth.rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) writes:

>And YOU are just as guilty for trying to persuade CGW to "provide
>information" that they
>1) previously did not "provide"
>2) is objectionable to many readers
>3) has nothing to do with the magazine's stated subject
>Why can YOU tell people what to do but god forbid someone else do the same?

Your argument sounds good, but it has one BIG flaw. I am not 
complaining about the contents of CGW. I am not calling them or emailing 
them to tell them what's good or bad. If CGW has sex ads, then that's 
fine, if CGW does not have sex ads, then that's fine with me too. I want 
*them* to decide what to show me. And if I like it I'll buy it. They want 
me to see sex ads, and I think that's ok.

That's *completely* different from those whiners who *do* want to 
influence the contents of this mag. And I don't want them to do that. I 
want them to take it as it is, whether it's with or without the ads. They 
don't want to look at the ads. Fine. But they want to get them out of the 
magazine, for illogical reasons, which may not be what other people want.

>Frankly, I am finding ALL the non-computer ads that have been creaping in
>annoying too.  If I want to read ads about RPG materials I will go read
>one of the RPG magazines I get.  If I want to read ads about the latest
>porn CDs I'll go read any one of the plethora of magazines devoted to
>that.  If I want to find out about cars I'll go read one of the auto
>magazines.

Bill:   Hi Oprah, it's me, Bill Seurer.
Oprah:  Hi Bill, what's up?
Bill:   Well, yesterday you had this episode about child molesters?
Oprah:  Yes, did you like it?
Bill:   Yeah, it was great. But there's one thing though.
Oprah:  What's that?
Bill:   The commercial breaks.
Oprah:  So?
Bill:   They had no child molesters in them.
Oprah:  Excuse me?
Bill:   The commercials had nothing to do with your program.
        There was one about a car, about a dish-washer, about a magazine,
        but no commercials for child molesters.
Oprah:  Are you kidding me?
Bill:   No, I want you to get rid of those commercials.
Oprah:  Go play with yourself, idiot.
        <beep> <beep> <beep>

Jojo (jo...@xs4all.nl) wrote:

> Your argument sounds good, but it has one BIG flaw. I am not 
> complaining about the contents of CGW. I am not calling them or emailing 
> them to tell them what's good or bad. If CGW has sex ads, then that's 
> fine, if CGW does not have sex ads, then that's fine with me too. I want 
> *them* to decide what to show me. And if I like it I'll buy it. They want 
> me to see sex ads, and I think that's ok.

That's you position and I am entirely comfortable with that... I just
have a problem with your attitude of sitting there and waiting for
them to show you something... Isn't that one of the problems with TV,
its not interactive??? Now, I totally understand your arguement that
is you don't like it, don't buy it, but by the same token, if writing
a letter and voicing an opinion can bring about positive change in
YOUR opinion (subjective issue), then you should write that letter...

> That's *completely* different from those whiners who *do* want to 
> influence the contents of this mag. And I don't want them to do that. I 
> want them to take it as it is, whether it's with or without the ads. They 
> don't want to look at the ads. Fine. But they want to get them out of the 
> magazine, for illogical reasons, which may not be what other people want.

Ads are NOT considered content... Ads are just that ads... I do not
buy the magazine for the ads, I buy them for the articles... So to
appease people ads should be neutral and non-offensive... I mean
really, think what you will of the magazine's journalistic quality,
but when a raging debate begins over certain types of ads, that is not
good... Let's face it, Ads are put in the magazine to increase
revenue... Readers pay for their copy of the magazine, this too is
revenue... I'm quite sure CGW has no difficulty filling ad space, so
to put ads in that some people find objectionable is just plain
stupid... If those people who were offended stop buying the magazine,
readership goes down, therefore, CGW cannot charge as much for ad
space (lower readership does that) and so they are hurting their
overall revenue... If however, CGW decides to DROP the XXX ads, they
lose a few advertisers that could probably be replaced rather quickly
and I don't think any of the readers would stop purchasing the
magazine because those ads vanished... Really, dropping those ads is a
no-lose situation...

Mind you, I am not morally offended by them... I just think its stupid
and detracts from the magazine because they simply have no place in
there... The stated objective of the magazine is to provide readers
with information into what's going on in the realm of Computer
Gaming... If these ads were relevant to the objective of the magazine,
then you would see reviews of that genre and much more mention of it
would be made... The entire GENRE gets no mention by the magazine, so
therefore I must assume that in the editorial board's opinion it has
no place in the magazine, yet the ads are still there... I think this
is what offends me...

So call me a whiner if you will, but I have as much right to complain
as you have... But really if those ads were no longer in CGW do you
think it would bother you??? I think in a round about way you said
"no" to that earlier... Something to the effect of (I'm paraphrasing),
"I'll take what they give me, if the sex ads are in there or not, I'll
buy it if I like it..." 

> Bill:   The commercial breaks.
> Oprah:  So?
> Bill:   They had no child molesters in them.
> Oprah:  Excuse me?
> Bill:   The commercials had nothing to do with your program.
>         There was one about a car, about a dish-washer, about a magazine,
>         but no commercials for child molesters.
> Oprah:  Are you kidding me?
> Bill:   No, I want you to get rid of those commercials.
> Oprah:  Go play with yourself, idiot.

Oprah doesn't pick her commercials... She picks her sponsors though,
and I don't think we'll be seeing a sponsorship by the Klan anytime
soon... She knows better than to offend some members of the viewing
audience by wrecklessly picking sponsors...


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kaye
2nd Year Arts
Carleton University

Email address: sk...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------

sk...@chat.carleton.ca (Sean Kaye) writes:

>Ads are NOT considered content... Ads are just that ads... I do not
>buy the magazine for the ads, I buy them for the articles...

That's right. And like commercials on radio and tv it is not necessary 
for ads in CGW to have anything to do with the editorial content. In 
fact, magazines like CGW are quite lucky to be able to live off ads that 
contribute to their editorials. But it's not common. In most types of 
media the ads have little or nothing to do with the information that they 
are placed in.

>So to
>appease people ads should be neutral and non-offensive... I mean
>really, think what you will of the magazine's journalistic quality,
>but when a raging debate begins over certain types of ads, that is not
>good...

Is it "wise" to avoid gay love scenes on television, because the 
advertisers might walk away? Was it good to avoid black people in leading 
movie roles because the public might be offended? Is it good to avoid 
harmless sex ads because some readers and advertisers might find them 
uncomfortable?

You may find it "good" for a magazine to do what people with big mouths want 
them to do. If find it good if a mag is a little more progressive than 
that, if it challenges people's intellect and if it doesn't care much 
about illogical ancient Victorian moral values. If they can get away with 
it financially, then by all means, please let them continue.

>would be made... The entire GENRE gets no mention by the magazine, so
>therefore I must assume that in the editorial board's opinion it has
>no place in the magazine, yet the ads are still there... I think this
>is what offends me...

Like you and I already agree: ads don't belong to the contents of the 
mag. They are there for the money. If they happen to contribute to the 
very meaning of the magazine itself, then hurray, we have a quite unique 
product here. If they don't, no problem.

>Oprah doesn't pick her commercials... She picks her sponsors though,
>and I don't think we'll be seeing a sponsorship by the Klan anytime
>soon... She knows better than to offend some members of the viewing
>audience by wrecklessly picking sponsors...

This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. You don't 
call tv shows or radio shows to complain about the commercials not having 
any relative 'content'. Or do you?  Then why do people do so with a 
magazine?

Jurgen.

>|> > 	I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
>|> > that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and 
banned from 
>|> > anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?
>|> 
>|> Hell no! (you didn't say anything about language. haha) What would that 
solve.
>|> Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
>|> anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I 
grew up
>|> playing Atari and Nintendo. I played plenty of "violent" games, and I 
turned
>|> out OK. I have never had the compulsion to go out and 
kill/eat/mutilate/rape
>|> people, so why should violent games be banned/censored?
>
>Hmmm.  You grew up believing that "sex and violence is a part of everyday
>life" and don't think you were affected by all the violence when you were
>young?  Guess again!
Wait, you mean to tell that sex and violence ISN'T part of everyday life? 
Gosh....you learn something on Usenet every day.

Tempest

Fernando Pulido (fern...@loop.com) tried to convince us that:

> >        I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
> >that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from 
> >anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?
> >
> You have got to be kidding!!!

> Ban games with violence but let them watch Road Runner cartoons that show
> blatant disregard for life, yeah, right.

The classic Road Runner cartoons have been censored beyond the point of help.
I would no longer consider them violent in any way.  There is more violence on
the Brady Bunch.  Oh, my nose.

> You have about as much of a chance of having that happen as having the
> lost continent of Atlantis rising up and flying to the moon!!

Atlantis, described by Plato, was really the Minoean civilization (please pardon
my spelling) - sorry, no continent (despite what LucasArts wants you to believe)

> The self imposed ratings listed on game boxes are more than good enough.

They have the same effect as movie ratings - if a film is rated PG I'm scared to
go see it as it'll most likely be akin to Smurt and CareBear cartoons.




Robert J. Greanias      grea...@ptp.hp.com      HP-CNS-Sunnyvale, CA

Jojo (jo...@xs4all.nl) wrote:

> >Ads are NOT considered content... Ads are just that ads... I do not
> >buy the magazine for the ads, I buy them for the articles...

> That's right. And like commercials on radio and tv it is not necessary 
> for ads in CGW to have anything to do with the editorial content. In 
> fact, magazines like CGW are quite lucky to be able to live off ads that 
> contribute to their editorials. But it's not common. In most types of 
> media the ads have little or nothing to do with the information that they 
> are placed in.

Actually CGW is a specialty magazine by its own mandate... And so they
are able to as you say, "live off ads that contribute to their
editorials"... I mean really, where do you draw the line??? How about
ads for feminine products like douche??? Or how about 1-976 numbers???
I mean really neither of those products belong in CGW... And neither
do XXX ads...

> You may find it "good" for a magazine to do what people with big mouths want 
> them to do. If find it good if a mag is a little more progressive than 
> that, if it challenges people's intellect and if it doesn't care much 
> about illogical ancient Victorian moral values. If they can get away with 
> it financially, then by all means, please let them continue.

Oh come now... These ads do not stimulate me intellectually or any
other way for that matter... They are simple trash... They belong in a
garbage can... By putting these ads in CGW, they aren't being
progressive, they are selling out... 

Selling out is not a term I like to use... It brings up ideas of
cliques and groups... But in this case its very fitting... In my
opinion, someone sells out when they disregard their own standards for
material gain... I had always felt that CGW provided a wholesome and
quality product, but now they have sold out for quick short term
profit... I find this unacceptable...

You've made some interesting points along the way, but say that these
ads are intellectually challenging is just plain dumb... I'm going to
forget that you even said that... And if you want to read something
that challenges the status quo, go and get a copy of the Advocate... I
want my nice safe CGW...

> Like you and I already agree: ads don't belong to the contents of the 
> mag. They are there for the money. If they happen to contribute to the 
> very meaning of the magazine itself, then hurray, we have a quite unique 
> product here. If they don't, no problem.

Well, I'm as capitalistic as the next guy, but there is something to
be said for quality too... I mean, in my opinion, CGW is jeopardizing
quality for increased profit... And really, these ads in question
don't offend me, per se, I just don't see the place for them in CGW...
I find they detract from the magazine to the point where it hurts the
quality...



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kaye
2nd Year Arts
Carleton University

Email address: sk...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <1995Aug8.0...@msuvx1.memphis.edu>,
   uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
>In article <403a1c$des...@wilmington03.voicenet.com>, 
ma...@omni.voicenet.com (Matthew Chiglinsky) writes:
>> In article <4036pr$8...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>  
>> 	I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
>> that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned 
from 
>> anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?
>
>Hell no! (you didn't say anything about language. haha) What would that 
solve.
>Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
>anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I grew 
up
>playing Atari and Nintendo. I played plenty of "violent" games, and I turned
>out OK. I have never had the compulsion to go out and kill/eat/mutilate/rape
>people, so why should violent games be banned/censored?
>
>                                                     -Tony

Sex and violence might be a part of _your_ everyday life, but the majority of 
parents would like to see little to NONE in the everyday life of thier 
children.

And understandably so, violence takes a back seat to sex.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <40hs8m$g...@clarknet.clark.net>, luth...@clark.net (Robert v Luthardt jr) writes:
> In article <1995Aug8.0...@msuvx1.memphis.edu>,
>    uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
>>Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
>>anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I grew 
>>up playing Atari and Nintendo. I played plenty of "violent" games, and I 
>>turned out OK. I have never had the compulsion to go out and 
>>kill/eat/mutilate/rape people, so why should violent games be banned/censored?
>>
>>                                                     -Tony
> 
> Sex and violence might be a part of _your_ everyday life, but the majority of 

Where the hell do all these people live that keeps them free from sex and
violence? Please tell me, so that I can move there. Tell me of a place where I
can watch the evening news, and not see a report of a murder, rape, or act of
war.

> parents would like to see little to NONE in the everyday life of thier 
> children.

And I would like to see little to NONE in *MY* everyday life, with the
exception of make believe (movies,games,etc).

> And understandably so, violence takes a back seat to sex.

I thought sex takes the back seat. :)

                                                      -Tony

In article <4081vq$f...@audiofax.com>,
   br...@audiofax.com (Brian Troxell) wrote:
>In article <4032mh$5...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Charles Pinady  <c.pi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
>>what kids read in their homes? 
>
>They should have thought of that before they became parents then.
>
>>Are parents supposed to keep their copy of CGW under lock and key? 
>
>If it's more important for them to not have their kids see it, then yes.
>Or just don't buy the magazine at all. It's a trade-off to what's more
>important to them: keeping their children "safe" or reading CGW. Just
>because you're a parent doesn't mean you get everything you want out
>of life.
>
>>I don't have kids but after reading some of
>>the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
>>coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.
>
>Then don't buy the magazines. Simple.
>

It's the return of Jojo.

I'm out of this discussion, folks.
We've just entered the start of another temporal loop here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <408kni$2...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
   mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Harf) wrote:
>msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu (Rainbow Warrior) writes:
>
>>mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Harf) writes:
>
>>>	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?
>
>>     This is what the whole discussion is about, an advertiser who
>>declared that he chose to no longer advertise in CGW. You and your ilk
>>cried "censorship" and "coersion." You declared he had no right to 
>>withdraw his advertising funds without your permission.
>
>	Where the fuck do you get off telling me what I said?  I said nothing
>of the sort.  Go back and read my posts, dumbass.  I never called censorship
>or coercion; as you can see from the text you just quoted, I said that if
>others were offended by the ads, they should stop buying the magazine; if
>enough of them do, then CGW will stop the ads.  I personally will not do so,
>because I don't care about them.  READ MY POSTS BEFORE YOU RESPOND.

If the above paragraph is an indication of the quality and merit of your 
posts, then thank you but no, I'll not be reading them.
Obscenity is the first bastion of the defeated. From your apparant disregard 
for public decency above, it is clear why you "don't care about" the ads in 
question.



>
>>     Now you say exactly what he said. And, you say he is wrong and 
>>you are right. Are you a hypocrite, or just stupid?
>
>	I am not a hypocrite, or stupid.  You obviously can't be bothered
>to read posts before you whip out your flamethrower.
>

Are you suggesting that the language you used above was something less than a 
"flamethrower"?
If his post was indeed a flamethrower, then your paragraph above is a guy in 
the window of the Texas Book Depository with a bolt action, high powered 
rifle.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <40hpgh$g...@clarknet.clark.net>, luth...@clark.net (Robert v Luthardt jr) writes:
> In article <408kni$2...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>    mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Harf) wrote:

>>	Where the fuck do you get off telling me what I said?  I said nothing
>>of the sort.  Go back and read my posts, dumbass.  I never called censorship
>>or coercion; as you can see from the text you just quoted, I said that if
>>others were offended by the ads, they should stop buying the magazine; if
>>enough of them do, then CGW will stop the ads.  I personally will not do so,
>>because I don't care about them.  READ MY POSTS BEFORE YOU RESPOND.
> 
> If the above paragraph is an indication of the quality and merit of your 
> posts, then thank you but no, I'll not be reading them.
> Obscenity is the first bastion of the defeated. From your apparant disregard 
> for public decency above, it is clear why you "don't care about" the ads in 
> question.

Hmm, now you've entered another grey area. What is obsene to you, may not be
obsene to others. Are you saying that you are a better person than whoever
wrote the above, just because of his choice of words? The purpose of language
is to get one's point across. Those "obsene" words are part of the English
language (don't believe me, check out a good dictionary). If the original
poster felt that he/she needed those words to get his/her point across, then 
who are you to tell him/her that he/she should be ignored because of it?

                                                     -Tony

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>
>>And to those people who complain about their kids reading CGW:
>>1) The magazine is not written for 10 year olds. I have yet to find
>the 
>>   first 10 year old to praise the intelligent reviews of this
>magazine.
>>2) If you want to hide the fact that sex exists in this world, while
>at 
>>   the same you time you happily want your kid to read about wargames,
>
>>   then *you* are the one with a big education problem, and your kid
>will
>>   not be grateful to you in the end.
>>
>>This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.
>>
>>The sex ads help CGW to raise money. They use this money to make a
>good 
>>magazine. Take it or leave it.
>>
>>Bunch of whiners.
>>
>>Jurgen.

	I have to say sir,  I am very happy to hear that there are people 
in this world that has some common sense.  I personally would be up for a 
balance of both (sex and war).  



>>
>
>Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
>what kids read in their homes? Are parents supposed to keep their copy
>of CGW under lock and key? I don't have kids but after reading some of
>the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
>coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.
> 
	
	Have you ever considered this:

1) By the time I was ten I already knew some things about sex, and I was 
always looking for Penthouse or Playboys, or any other such material? It 
seems some ads in computer magazines are pretty tame compared to that?

2) How about the 1-976 advertisements on the television which go a lot 
further than the ads in one magazine.

3) How about all the News papers in North America advertising 
singles-services, 1-976 #'s, massage parlours, escort services, and 
video's, magazines, AND compu-porn?

4) How about the fact that there was a recent study done (Either in 
Canada or USA (both would be beleivable)) that showed that between 45-50 % 
of kids entering grade 9 have had sex with at least one person? Sounds to 
me like a bunch of ads are nothing compared to this. 

5) How about another study showing that in the US 85% of black babies 
being born, are to single, teen-age mothers?

6) How about the fact in local schools sex-ed is being taught as early as 
Grade 4?

	It sounds to me like people are trying to avoid the central issue 
by attacking the little ones surrounding it. These ads are like the 
symptoms (if you consider the above a disease, I think of it more as 
human nature).  If you want to control the disease, get more control of 
your kids, and teach them, and talk to them and understand them, and 
treat them like human beings.  Not a socially inept, retard bunch of 
midgets. Cause it will surprise you, how smart they are, and how ignorant 
they may be.

	Remember,  ignorance can be fixed, stupidity cant.

Zippy

In article <1995Aug12.0...@msuvx2.memphis.edu>,
uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
 
> Where the hell do all these people live that keeps them free from sex and
> violence? Please tell me, so that I can move there. Tell me of a place where I
> can watch the evening news, and not see a report of a murder, rape, or act of
> war.

Try Sweden, but then of course, we get reports from the US ;-)

Mikael

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikael Bergman
Student, Engineering Physics           Email: t91...@student.tdb.uu.se
Uppsala University, Sweden      @ @                 ato...@ato.abb.se
-----------------------------ooO-U-Ooo--------------------------------

ma...@omni.voicenet.com (Matthew Chiglinsky) wrote:
>>CGW has many screen shots from games where you see explosions, 
>>mutilations, corpses and armoury. Did you ever post a message in these 
>>newsgroups complaining about that?  No, you didn't.  Why not?  Because 
>>you're obviously being a louzy parent (IMHO), that's why.

>	I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
>that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from 
>anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?

How about disagreement?  :-).  I'm not so sure about "banning",
putting a rating on violent games (just like you would put a rating on
violent movies) would be a better idea, and leave it to the parents to
decide what their kids can see.   

In article <40ocbq$e...@scratchy.mi.net>, ndu...@mi.net (Neal Dutta) says:
>ma...@omni.voicenet.com (Matthew Chiglinsky) wrote:
>>       I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that.  I say 
>>that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from 
>>anyone under the age of 18.  Any in agreement?
>
>How about disagreement?  :-).  I'm not so sure about "banning",
>putting a rating on violent games (just like you would put a rating on
>violent movies) would be a better idea, and leave it to the parents to
>decide what their kids can see.   

I'd like to see an end to vending machine sales of violent
gaming material.

In addition, there should be no advertising of these games
within 1,000 feet of a school. All ads inside kid-oriented
magazines like "Seventeen" and "Golf Digest" should be limited
to text-only, no pictures.

I still wonder why legislative bodies are still concerned with
this issue. The merits of an industry supported system of self
regulation and rating are overwhelming. It gives parents the
ability to choose games for their children without having to
learn a lot about computers. It allows small game manufacturers
to compete without spending money they don't have. And any
company that lies about its games would lose credibility and
sales on its next release, so the system would work. This solution
is a no-brainer.

I've been surprised about the increase in sex-oriented advertising
in CGW. A lot seems to be coming from the mail-order houses - and
I really wonder why they would choose to use the same magazines for
the sex stuff and the gaming stuff. After all, kids make up a good
portion of the market - and they are likely to hand their parents
circled lists out of CGW ads for gift ideas. Parents are less likely
to think of these games as legitimate forms of kid entertainment if
they know the company that sells them also has a huge collection of
sexually explicit material. People who enjoy that material are more
likely to connect with the seller in another type of magazine since
CGW doesn't review that stuff.

-Jim

This subject's been around for so long I'm probably the only person who hasn't 
written something, so here I go. 

I don't thing those adds should be banned to protect children. Either they're young (or innocent) enough and will not be troubled by it, or they're older and can easily get all the stuff they want in a dozen different forms.

But do the magazines forget that there are women out there ? And that some 
magazines are a quite upsetting read.

The articles are written with young men in mind, so the humor is sometimes
 sexist, but this is harmless and doesn't offend me in any way (I'm used to
 it- being a physics engineer)
But sex adds on every other page are annoying after a time...Do the magazines want to keep the growing female readership ? They should put a quota on these sex ads... Too much just gets humiliating. 

There's hardly a women in the magazines editorial team, or in the industry (there are notable exceptions of course) I really get the impression sometimes that the only place for women in the pc world is naked on cd rom...
 
 I remember a  PC magazine that gave as a subscription gift a cd program to 
 keep track of female conquests, rate their performance....(yes, of course it was humourous) Obviously they didn't think they had female readers ( I tried
 to get them to give me girl's game, such as Descent or ROTT but it didn't 
 work)
 
 There has been a lot of posting about the subject, but nobody mentionned that
 those ads can be frustrating for the female pc-gamer. And I know a lot 
 of these !  I've been one since age....  12? (can't remember)
 
 
 
 				joelle