1996-07-19 - Re: Filtering out Queers is OK

Header Data

From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
To: Cerridwyn Llewyellyn <ceridwyn@wolfenet.com>
Message Hash: 999f407b8d7ff04c43ef774a634b693620dc596c1c5b134488e70790c36c9935
Message ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960719152653.13089A-100000@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
Reply To: <2.2.32.19960719095559.00692920@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-19 19:59:09 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 03:59:09 +0800

Raw message

From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 03:59:09 +0800
To: Cerridwyn Llewyellyn <ceridwyn@wolfenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960719095559.00692920@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960719152653.13089A-100000@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




> >Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage
> >being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific
> >American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the
> >sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and
> >"peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing
> >about.
> 

...  hmmm ...

You seem to be fighting a losing battle; the Wall Street Journal carried 
an article about piercing AND an article about using Kool Aid as hair dye 
this week. Who knows - the Economist may not be far behind (although the 
mag has gotten so thin, there wouldn't seem to be much room).

- r.w.





Thread