From: Ralph Lewis (rlewis@csulb.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 11 2000 - 15:23:33 MDT
In reality being a minor is a real pain in the butt unless you are into
malls and your parents credit cards and consumer gratification!
My mother used to go through me mail and even when I was an adult when she
was visiting my house used to go through my office and bedroom. And, she did
not miss much -- even asked what the hooks in the bedroom ceiling were for
--as if she could not guess. I finally just gave up and left everything out.
Best Ralph
At 11:22 AM 10/11/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Samantha Atkins wrote:
>>
>> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
>> >
>> > NC-17 text in the message bodies, sure - be it far from me to deny any
legal
>> > minor the right to surreptitiously read racy subject matter online -
but let's
>> > not shock Mom whenever she happens to lean over the computer.
>>
>> Barf. "Gay" and "Sex" are not ok? Don't you think that is going just a
>> little too far? Johnny can read about the SI that might just eat the
>> world but not read that some people are gay or bisexual? Interesting.
>
>Johnny can read playboy.com for all I care. In fact, my guess is that the
>reading of online pornography by minors is a positive force in society.
>Certainly, minors reading Extropians are a positive force in society.
>Therefore, I'm saying we should help Johnny keep his secrets.
>
>Olga Bourlin wrote:
>>
>> The problem is being sex-negative. The solution is to drag oneself out of
>> the mawkish Victorian era. This is, after all, an "extropians" list,
>> n'est-ce pas?
>
>Yes, that's *why* online pornography is a positive social force.
>
>QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Oh OK, well, there's Christians in my family, and I am reading the list, is
>> it reasonable to ask dont put athiest in subject line??
>
>No.
>
>I remember being a bit nervous about that, since my family was Orthodox Jewish
>(and I wasn't, AND they didn't know) - but that's the sort of thing that can
>probably be explained. You can probably get away with saying: "I'm not
>reading that part," or "I disagree with them about that part," even if it's an
>outright lie. I haven't seen any newspaper articles warning parents about
>their children coming into contact with online atheism.
>
>You're a bit out of touch with Mom Logic, aren't you?
>
>But that's not the real reason - keeping "atheism" out of the subject lines
>would be a major and unusual inconvenience and it really would border on
>Family Correctness, like trying to keep message bodies clean. Keeping the
>subject lines PG-13 is just ordinary netiquette, if you ask me.
>
>> And also: a MAJor faux pas HERE: there's nothing pornographic about Gayness.
>> Or having sex to stay young.
>
>Of course there isn't.
>
>> If we put something like "Teen Fuck Blowjobs" - sure, OK, I'd agree -
>> otherwise, if you are grown up enough to handle the topics here you can also
>> be a grown up
>> and deal with it in the subject line
>
>Of course you can...
>
>> - and be honest with your parents if
>> they are looking over your shoulder
>
>...but *this* idea - Nadia, what planet did you grow up on?
>
>-- -- -- -- --
>Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
>Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
>
Ralph Lewis, Professor of Management and Human Resources
College of Business
California State University, Long Beach
Long Beach, California
rlewis@csulb.edu http://www.csulb.edu/~rlewis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:34 MST