Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot
You are making a comparison; I have a point of view which you do not agree with, fair enough. So put your own view point to counter balance things.
You use the word 'banned' and then continue as though I had suggested it, so that you could insert a 'Hitler comparison' to discredit my point of view.
|
Well, I only
suggested the comparison, but in a way that somehow also means
making it, of course. Sorry for that - I actually had pondered on making a joke about the overdue Hitler comparison long before you made the post I replied to - and then I couldn't resist, because you absolutely
did say you want to ban books. If I may requote the quote I quoted [oops, I'm sure that was an unsound sentence; what about outright silliness, btw? Would that be allowed to cross your line in the sand?]:
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshot
But why should badly written books that I would have to pay for be allowed through the net, where as badly build houses should not?
|
So here you are: You don't want badly written books allowed through the net. Now go ahead and explain the difference between
not allowing and
banning.
My own point of view, to answer your question, is that every godawful piece of crappy writing should be "allowed through the net" - I'll manage to pick the good stuff myself, thank you. I don't want my reading chosen by anyone imposing
their standards. Thank you
very much indeed.