Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!mcnc!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.flame
Subject: Re: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate
Message-ID: <64@unc.unc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 11:39:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.64
Posted: Wed Sep 11 11:39:39 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Sep-85 03:27:53 EDT
References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> <417@scirtp.UUCP>
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Distribution: net
Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 8
Xref: watmath net.women:7387 net.politics:10927 net.flame:11900

>> But seriously, I suggest this rule: Anyone who contributes an article
>> concerning pornography must give examples or otherwise specify what
>> they consider to be pornography and what they consider to be erotica.

This statement is redundant.  Erotica is a subset of pornography.
This is why I do not favor a catagorical ban on pornography.

	Frank Silbermann