Re: Christian CypherPunks / Re: The BIG Lie (Jesus Confesses)

[Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>]

What we have below is crude but effective.  It is a rhetorical
crystallization of a point of argument that is persuasively, but
somewhat offensively, put. The offensiveness increases the 
persuasive force, in this particular case, by its attention-
getting "shock" value. 

So here's the thing that occurs to me:  This passage would
be "censored" by the devices against which it argues. Do you want
your nine-year-old to read this passage after returning home from
vacation bible school?  Probably not.  Do you really mind if you
fifteen-year-old reads it after asking you what is this debate
all about anyway?  Maybe not.

Consider it then as not only a rant against over-inclusive 
filter/blockers but as an illustration of the very problem it
tries to address.

MacN


On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, TruthMailer wrote:

>   What we have in common is that you don't want to have Little Johnny
> do a search for "Jesus" and get 5,000 sites with pictures of Jesus
> shoving a crowbar up his ass, and I don't want to try to find a site
> to buy a crowbar to work on my house and get 5,000 sites with pictures
> of Jesus shoving a crowbar up his ass.
>   My point is that I don't object to you supporting InterNet tools
> which allow you to screen out pictures of Jesus with a crowbar up
> his ass, but I object to a "quick and easy" solution which blocks
> out all sites with a reference to "crowbars," because one guy in
> Toledo "used to have" a site with a single picture of Jesus with
> a crowbar up his ass.