🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4c42804c.0207242116.1a46caf0@posting.google.com>,
Anthony Larme <larme@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hello,
...
>* The #1 criterion was "broad involvement in the community".
>....he said it meant that the applicants should show that
>they meet lots of people in a wide variety of situations -
>people that have a variety of opinions.  Thus, narrowly
>defined interests, eg: people only into computers and/or
>the Internet, was not acceptable.
>
>* His favourite word over the 15 minutes was "broad".
>eg:
>- those 45 people ranged in ages from 20s to 70s!
>- those 45 people were from both rural and city areas
>and all states.
>- those 45 people were roughly 50-50 male-female.
>.....he suspects the end result will broadly reflect the
>composition of the Australian community!  But, mind you,

It's difficult to find 10 people to truly represent all
Australia. Here's my suggested alternative which would ensure
that all future censorship decisions reflect the full breadth
of Australian society -

Appoint every adult citizen a censor and allow them, after
viewing the questionable material, to decide whether they
should be allowed access to it.

Simple really.

cheers,
sd

-- 
                                                          |  _________,^-.
                                                        ( | )           ,>
                                                         \|/           {
                                                        `-^-'           ?     )