----------
> From: Wilhelm E Kaosse <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Crudities
> Date: Saturday, August 30, 1997 2:09 AM
>
<SNIP>
> because of irresponsible purveyors of smut.
<SNIP>
> added dimension of sexual connotations the knee-jerk defense of
> titillating imagery by the more libertarian of our membership seems to
> have brushed all reason aside.
>
> The material was IRRELEVANT to the list AND offensive on top of it. That
> some folks on the list are intellectual lightweights in thrall to the
> rationalizations of the pornographers of the world is unfortunate but let
> them not speak for the general listmembership.
>
> ...Stuart
> (Stuart Grant,(49degrees N; 123 degrees, 20 min W; elevation 20m; Strait
> of Georgia 2k; rural urban combination  in temperate rainforest setting;
> 5 colonies ---3rd year)
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
 
Well, I'm not sure who to respond to, either Wilhelm, or Stuart.
 
Nevertheless............smut?, crude?, titillating imagery?,sexual
connotation?, pornography?....WHERE????
 
The source of any smut, sexual connotation, or pornographical images came
from **your own interpretation** of the last part of the "fable". There was
nothing in that post that was "naughty".  What is offensive is you writing
into the list  with your "holier that thou"  attitude and insults (example:
"intellectual lightweights) when you are just as "guilty" as the rest of
us.  "Remove the beam in your own eye, so that you can see more clearly to
remove the speck in your brothers eye" Also, in the words of a previous
response:  Lighten Up!Ian Watson
 
[log in to unmask]
real estate agent     gardener    baritone
beekeeper---> 11 colonies