Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!rochester!jpayne
From: jpayne@rochester.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: GNU and sex
Message-ID: <26363@rochester.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 25-Mar-87 11:34:19 EST
Article-I.D.: rocheste.26363
Posted: Wed Mar 25 11:34:19 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Mar-87 01:33:05 EST
References: <1028@rpics.RPI.EDU> <1049@h.cs.cmu.edu> <370@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> <1050@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: jpayne@rochester.UUCP (Jonathan Payne)
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY
Lines: 23
Keywords: emacs sex

In article <1050@h.cs.cmu.edu> rfb@h.cs.cmu.edu (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>In article <370@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> lear@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) writes:
>>I, for one, consider "NOT putting sex.1 in the distribution is
>>censorship" an invalid argument.
>
>I quit agree.  Of course, I never made that argument.
>
>I too feel that sex.1 does not belong in the GNU Emacs distribution because
>it is not related to GNU Emacs.  My last message was a direct response to an
>attitude toward censorship which I felt was a dangerous one, i.e. that
>censorship is called for when the subject matter is offensive.
>

How about when the subject matter is just plain stupid?  Somebody's idea
of a good laugh.  With any luck, the author of sex.1 will eventually stop
being so embarrassed about sex that he feels the need to make jokes about
it.  Either FSF should delete it because it's stupid, or else everyone
else should ignore it because it's stupid.  Either way, it's stupid.

Think of it as a piece of litter.  Some people litter, some people ignore
it when they see it, some people put litter in the garbage.  Nobody's
advocating censorship here.  What we have here is people who don't litter
yelling at people who do.