Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: More brilliant satire from Ray
Message-ID: <31895@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 13:44:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.31895
Posted: Tue Oct 15 13:44:44 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 07:42:35 EDT
References: <11902@rochester.UUCP> <31600150@uiucdcs>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 31

> 
>>> First, what you are accusing Richie is not censorship, but quoting out of
>>> context. Second, it doesn't matter what you were specifically talking about,
>>> it was your reasoning that was being attacked. All Richie was doing was
>>> assuming that you are consistent in your reasoning (disgusting -> ban it).
>>> If what you are trying to tell us is that you are not consistent, I suggest
>>> that you keep your mouth shut until you have some firm idea of what the hell
	     ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^
>>> you're talking about (by the way, just in case you don't know, this isn't
    ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
>>> censorship either. Perhaps you should look up the word "censorship" in a
>>> good dictionary before going on.)
>>
>> Oh come *on*, now.  Is this kid stuff really necessary?  Isn't the
>> signal to noise ratio poor enough without this?
> 
> I don't understand - what are you objecting to?
> 
> 
> 			Scott McEwan
> 			{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan


Do you *really* think this kind of stuff is appropriate to a public forum?
That it is appropriate to private correspondence is arguable.
-- 
All opinions are mine alone...

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa