🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DuoA8I.Cn8@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca says...
>
>In article <4shep8$jpr@news.inforamp.net>, Xanlithe <jay@inforamp.net> wrote:
>>In article <4sgddb$ifi@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com says...
>
>>       While the above (in its entirety) may be valuable in deciding what is 
>>legal and illegal, I still maintain that the deletion of the 35 groups was 
>>politically/morally motivated. 
>
>Well, after all, the laws in this area are at least partially morally
>motivated, so one shouldn't be surprised.

	I'm not surprised at all. I just was making the point that these 
deletions appear to be NOT legally motivated as they have stated and as they 
have taken pains to advertise. I am merely stating that they are being 
hypocritical, seeing as there are at least hundreds of groups that they still 
carry that contain demonstrably illegal material.

>Your comment suggests that the only laws you should respect are the ones
>you disagree with.  That seems a rather peculiar belief.

	I'm not sure how you derive that opinion from what I've posted. I've 
actually stated that I disagree with Istar's position, insofar as they have not 
taken steps to eliminate ALL illegal material. If Istar wishes to avoid all 
legal ramifications, then they should drop their usenet feed completely. I never 
had a problem with ANY newsgroup. If you don't like it, don't access it. Quite 
simple for me. How you translate that into what laws I would or would not 
respect is beyond me. It appears that YOU, not me, have some peculiar beliefs.


>-- 
>Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_