🚀 go-pugleaf

   -> Wow.  You seem to know a lot about this porno stuff... aren't you ashamed
   -> that some kid might see your language in otherwise a healthy newsgroup?

I do?!? The extent of my "knowledge" is the half-hour of a vampire movie
I saw in my freshman year at college -- I assume they all have the basic
format, right? Or has there been an innovation?

(And by the way -- you admit the title alone is offensive -- Game
Over. You Lose.)

   -> Actually, if you can only describe sex as you have so graphically
   -> yeah, I guess you can make an argument that sex can be, ah, "carnal".

The point is, that's the way sex =is= in these products -- and that it
does NOT reflect the real world -- and, therefore, is NOT what some of
the proponents pretend it is, i.e., a healthy view of bodies, the wonder
of sex and true love, etc.

But you missed the irony. Not surprising, considering your next
paragraph:

   -> But look at it this way.  Abovementioned description is not
   -> how sex should be thought of.  Instead, it's the one of the greatest
   -> physical gifts that God has bestowed upon us.  If you only see it as
   -> filthy and ugly, then, too, are you.  After all, buddy, how did YOU
   -> come to being, hm?  And may I be so bold as to suggest you cut down
   -> on your porno watching activities?  Too much of that stuff seems to
   -> warp one's mind, as demonstrated...  'course, little porno now and
   -> then can't hurt much either...

<ad hominem>

<stupid, too>

J-> Pornography is not different from sex.

Do you realize how stupid this is? Read it again; do you really mean to
stand by it?

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

This is a great debating technique -- you must be fun at dinner.

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

A moment, please: you can make the same point about anything; why be
worried about -- your teeth? your education? your job? your marriage?
your car? why buy books? computer games? magazines? -- why do any of
this, since there are people suffering in _____________ (fill-in). An
utterly empty argument; as if a conflict in Bosnia is reason to abandon
one's higher ideals about living and learning.

You're much too angry -- shrill, really -- to be an effective
participant in this "discussion."

And, really, you need to understand that a critic of the porn ads is not
ipso facto prude, asexual, "moronic" -- everybody has different ideas
about living. You aren't really for a plurality of opinions, Jojo, no
matter how enlightened you imagine your sexual ethos. With you it's: I'm
right, disagree and you're a moron.

Just like a child's view of life.

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

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

>Just like a child's view of life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jurgen.

In article <95080716...@hq.com>, john....@hq.com (John Tracey) wrote:

> Say, is there a mag-only subscription to PC Gamer (without the CD)?

Yes.

                    
      

In <95080716...@hq.com> john....@hq.com (John Tracey) writes:


>SB-> If you don't like a magazine's advertising, don't buy it.  CGW is an awful
>  -> mag anyway, PC gamer is much better. 8') (I am not sure if there is

>Say, is there a mag-only subscription to PC Gamer (without the CD)?

Hmm, this is a good question.  I just flipped through my copy of the August
PC Gamer, looking for it (And sex ads, while I was at it)
  I always remove all of those annoying cards in the course of reading the
magazine, so maybe I missed the subscription for "just the magazine"...
Drop them a note at peec...@aol.com maybe they know?
  And as for sex ads, I didn't see any, really.  On the chips and bits
page, there were some very discreet ads that didn't say anything about sex,
for some games which I guess might be sex games?  It is really hard to
tell, judging from the ads alone.  They are not "glaring" at the least,
maybe 1.5inch square?  Maybe people who are concerned about this will look
at this at the newstand and tell us.
  I don't speak for PC gamer, I just read it.  Therefore I don't know if it
is "policy" or what.  This would be a good letter to the editor if someone
wants to write it.
  A side note: several net people have complained about horror stories
subscribing to PC gamer (taking 4 months to get their first issue, mainly),
I don't know if there is still a problem or if they have fixed it.  I just
buy mine at the grocery when I go.  It's a pretty good magazine.

   Later,
      Hal
--
 sy...@mik.uky.edu | Entitlements kill | (tastefully short signature)

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

>2) I don't want people to decide on what I should read. People who try to
>   influence CGW (and many times society as a whole) are indirectly telling
>   me what not to read.

No. Can you mention anyone on this thread that said that pornography
should be illegal? If people want pornography, I think they know
precisely which magazines carry it. Not carrying it in CGW isn't going
to prevent anyone from getting it if they want it. CGW has only been
carrying the ads for a few months, and I believe the pornographic
industry has been around longer than that, correct?

I believe that anyone who wants pornography should be free to buy it
--- however, I'd think that they'd be a lot happier in the long run if
they instead grew up and learned to deal with women as actual human
beings. 

In article <badger.807847884@phylo>,
   bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) wrote:
>Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>>2) I don't want people to decide on what I should read. People who try to
>>   influence CGW (and many times society as a whole) are indirectly telling
>>   me what not to read.
>
>No. Can you mention anyone on this thread that said that pornography
>should be illegal? If people want pornography, I think they know
>precisely which magazines carry it. Not carrying it in CGW isn't going
>to prevent anyone from getting it if they want it. CGW has only been
>carrying the ads for a few months, and I believe the pornographic
>industry has been around longer than that, correct?
>
>I believe that anyone who wants pornography should be free to buy it
>--- however, I'd think that they'd be a lot happier in the long run if
>they instead grew up and learned to deal with women as actual human
>beings. 
>

And they wouldn't need to sneak peeks at them in the backs of computer 
magazines.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <4067cv$6...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>john....@hq.com (John Tracey) writes:
>
>>You aren't really for a plurality of opinions, Jojo, no
>>matter how enlightened you imagine your sexual ethos. With you it's: I'm
>>right, disagree and you're a moron.
>
>>Just like a child's view of life.
>
>I have been trying to make two points here. You've obviously failed to see
>what I mean:
>
>1) I don't think sex ads are bad for children. There are more important
>   things to worry about. Why don't these same people complain about the
>   violent pictures in CGW? It's illogical to complain about sex and not
>   about the violence.

At what age will you allow your children to watch porn films?



>2) I don't want people to decide on what I should read. People who try to
>   influence CGW (and many times society as a whole) are indirectly telling
>   me what not to read.
>
>Point 1) is something I like to discuss about, although sometimes perhaps 
>a bit too enthusiasticly. But I grant anyone his own opinion.
>
>Point 2) is something for which I don't accept other opinion. I don't 
>want people to tell me how to live, what to read and what to say. I can 
>decide for myself. So, leave the sex ads in the mag, 'cause I might want 
>to have a look at them.

Then buy a Hustler!



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


I thought you said that if CGW disagreed with you, you would shut up?



>
>Jurgen.
>
>

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

J-> p.s. Thank you for complimenting me on defeating John, with my splen
 ->      retorts. I can do the same to you. :)

Even here, you twist and turn.

He liked =one= sentence of yours, out of a collection of ... thousands
... (it seems like millions).

And his is but one opinion -- like yours -- and so he cannot claim
authority as the final arbiter of any contest. (Even one as vile as this
one).

Frankly, I don't know of anyone -- even those who disagree with us on
this issue -- who think you've fared well in this thread.

Anyone, that is, except you.

P.S. Perhaps if you publish your Top 40/Top 100 lists only every =third=
week or so, you'd have time to study rhetoric?
---
 � OLXWin 1.00a � Internet: jag...@hq.com

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


>Frankly, I don't know of anyone -- even those who disagree with us on
>this issue -- who think you've fared well in this thread.
>Anyone, that is, except you.

How disappointing it must be for you to hear that I actually got supporting
email. I'm not the only one who doesn't care about the feelings of 
narrow-minded people.

>P.S. Perhaps if you publish your Top 40/Top 100 lists only every =third=
>week or so, you'd have time to study rhetoric?

With such unimaginative and irrational arguments as you have been giving, 
I really don't need to.  Or better, with such a lack of any arguments at 
all (in your last few posts).

I am so thrilled to have found what must be the least talented writer of 
this newsgroup. There were at least four arguments of mine (ABOUT THE 
REAL DEBATE) that were still holding very strong. The only thing you did 
since then is attacking me on my grammar/spelling, my adulthood (I'm 26) 
and my debating skills.  You remind me of Bush in the latest presidential 
campaign. Just throw mud to hide the fact that you've actually got 
nothing to say. The real debate has died with ME as the last contributor.

You are a looser of gigantic proportions. Even someone from 'your side' of 
this flamewar has laughed you in the face for it. You are noise in the 
real debate. You wouldn't even know how to respond to a good argument if you 
had the answer in a script.

Do you understand why I waste so much time on your non-existant debating 
skills? Because they make mine look superior so easy. I don't even 
consider myself as being good at flamewars. But you're the easiest target 
I have ever encountered. And I've loved every moment of it.

Come back in two years or so...

Jurgen.