About the CGW sex ads whiners
Jojo
>But it just is *so* low-class. Why not have these ads in magazines like
>"Playboy" where the readers WANT this sort of thing? You don't see these
>ads in "Scientific American" do you?
Tell me, why are advertisements dealing with sex so "low-class"?
I enjoyed sex yesterday, and I enjoy games today. What makes one more
"higher-class" than the other?
If you don't want to see sex ads in a magazine, then just turn the page.
Is that so hard? Just read the things you want to read and don't read the
other stuff. Whooooaah, now that's a biiiig problem for some of you,
isn't it? <include sarcasm here> People who think sex ads are offensive
have enjoyed an unhealthy education and need treatment. They secretly
enjoy the ads, they feel ashamed and they want to get rid of them to
purify themselves. Yuk! The sex ads mean nothing to me, so I just turn
the pages. Yes, I actually found out that you *don't* need to read an
*entire* magazine from cover to cover. You *are* allowed to skip a few pages!
And to those people who complain about their kids reading CGW:
1) The magazine is not written for 10 year olds. I have yet to find the
first 10 year old to praise the intelligent reviews of this magazine.
2) If you want to hide the fact that sex exists in this world, while at
the same you time you happily want your kid to read about wargames,
then *you* are the one with a big education problem, and your kid will
not be grateful to you in the end.
This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.
The sex ads help CGW to raise money. They use this money to make a good
magazine. Take it or leave it.
Bunch of whiners.
Jurgen.
Russell Webb
>This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.
No, I think it's more that much of the suburban US is very prudish.
Look where all the complaints are coming from. (Though CGW is a US magazine,
so maybe that's not a fair comment.)
>The sex ads help CGW to raise money. They use this money to make a good
>magazine. Take it or leave it.
I don't even notice a problem. It's nothing more suggestive than you'd
see on freely displayed magazine covers at a street-side newsstand
or on the Calvin Klein ads on buses and telephone booths. People who
have a problem with CGW ads: do you put blinders on your children when
you go outside? Sexuality is the driving force behind much of
advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
--
Russell Webb
rw...@panix.com
Vishnudeep Som
> I don't even notice a problem. It's nothing more suggestive than you'd
> see on freely displayed magazine covers at a street-side newsstand
> or on the Calvin Klein ads on buses and telephone booths. People who
> have a problem with CGW ads: do you put blinders on your children when
> you go outside? Sexuality is the driving force behind much of
> advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
I just know that I hated PC Gamer's ads for those umm.. X-Rated games,
because when I'm reading a magazine on a bus, and the person sitting
next to me sees how I'm reading an ad for Cybersluts or something,
they look at me funny. Not to mention the time my computer teacher
was flipping through my copy, and the first thing he came upon was,
well, you get the idea.
PS: I got a 60 on the next assignment. Coincidence?
Dave Poythress
Russell Webb <rw...@panix.com> writes:
: In article <402b12$l...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
: >This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.
: No, I think it's more that much of the suburban US is very prudish.
: Look where all the complaints are coming from. (Though CGW is a US magazine,
: so maybe that's not a fair comment.)
Perhaps. Some people don't have the time or the inclination to watch
much tv anymore, which is probably as good a gauge as any about sex in
our daily (advertising) life.
: >The sex ads help CGW to raise money. They use this money to make a good
: >magazine. Take it or leave it.
: I don't even notice a problem. It's nothing more suggestive than you'd
: see on freely displayed magazine covers at a street-side newsstand
: or on the Calvin Klein ads on buses and telephone booths. People who
: have a problem with CGW ads: do you put blinders on your children when
: you go outside? Sexuality is the driving force behind much of
: advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
And you wonder what these publishing companies are thinking about the
typical PC-game-mag buyer. If I were to subscribe it would probably
be PC Gamer, for the obvious reasons. Although they too have this
type of ad.
: --
: Russell Webb
: rw...@panix.com
--
I'll be taking these Huggies.. and whatever cash ya got. --Nicholas Cage
c++tcl/tk> sin...@sky.net <mod2perllisp finger for public key casm
Advice(n.) A stated opinion meant to help determine correct action or conduct.
[Don't marry someone you can live with. Marry someone you can't live without.]
Drew Fudenberg
Sexuality is the driving force behind much of
>advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
>
Many magazines get by w/o sex ads, even some computer mags publisged by
Z-D, e.g. PC Magazine. In fact of the >10 "aimed at adult" mads coming
into our house, only CGW has sex ads. So while the ads aren't awful, and
aren't as graphic as they might be, CGW -has- singled -itself- out as
having different ad content.
What to do about it is a harder question, but lets not pretend that
the ads in question are standard throghout the american mass media.
>--
>
--
Drew Fudenberg
email: fude...@fas.harvard.edu
http://fudenber.fas.harvard.edu
John Tracey
J-> This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.
Yes, I know, there are those of us too simple to understand how healthy
it is to fill young heads with carnal knowledge as early as possible.
Oh, and this notion of sex-as-beautiful -- you're so right! Those porn
movies are so beautiful, so sexually healthy -- those women who seek
penetration after a six-minute introduction, God knows that's
liberating. No, they don't kiss, but that's okay -- it just gets in the
way, and increases the wait for the "climax" -- all over her back. The
sexual epiphany in every healty porn CD-ROM.
You're right. Our attitudes about sex are so antiquated. "A Pussy Called
Wanda" has got it all over us. Thanks for showing us the way.
Robear
This is the point I am trying to raise - what to do about it is the
hard part, given so many other parts of life that are much worse.
We should remember that this is a *part* of a situation that must
be addressed as a whole, not by just boycotting or censoring one
magazine.
If we can't control other parts of the media, then messing with
CGW is useless. Singling them out is like trying to get one
potato chip company to stop frying it's chips, while ignoring
the whole issue of why people don't watch what they eat. Sort of.
In a way. :-)
David Pipes
Joel Wawrzon
Hah! Now that's a retort that I only wish I had come up with. I think
that brilliant little piece of prose pretty much clears up any ambiguity
on the differences between sex and pornography. Jojo is Dutch, so we can
understand and forgive his confusion <G>.
As for censorship: no one is suggesting that anything be censored. It's
simply a matter of the publishers taking responsibility for their content.
The porno ads are pretty low-class and out of place in a magazine with a
reputation like CGW. The publishers should have more taste and common sense
than this. I suppose it's up to us and the companies that advertise in CGW
(like C Systems) to let them know that we dissaprove. If they don't get the
point, then they don't get the money. Simple. No big brother anywhere.
Joel
------------------------------------------
Joel Wawrzon
Univ. of Wisc. Dept. of Computer Science
waw...@cs.wisc.edu
------------------------------------------
Charles Pinady
>This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.
>
>The sex ads help CGW to raise money. They use this money to make a
good
>magazine. Take it or leave it.
>
>Bunch of whiners.
>
>Jurgen.
>
Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
what kids read in their homes? Are parents supposed to keep their copy
of CGW under lock and key? I don't have kids but after reading some of
the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.
Jojo
>Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
>what kids read in their homes? Are parents supposed to keep their copy
>of CGW under lock and key? I don't have kids but after reading some of
>the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
>coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.
I feel pity for those children who's parents think that the CGW world ads
are bad for their mental health. Those are the parents who don't tell
their children anything about sex, as if sex is something immoral or
dirty. And at the same time they let their children play with plastic
guns.
The target audience for CGW is perfect for companies that want to sell
X-rated material. The readers are 29 years old, on average, 97% male, and
very willing to be entertained. It doesn't matter if the ads have
something to do with the games in the magazine or not. The target
audience is perfect.
To the morons who think the sex ads are bad for their children:
CGW has many screen shots from games where you see explosions,
mutilations, corpses and armoury. Did you ever post a message in these
newsgroups complaining about that? No, you didn't. Why not? Because
you're obviously being a louzy parent (IMHO), that's why.
Complain about things that are worth complaining about. There are worse
things in the world than sexual activities, as God/nature (whatever you
want) gave it to us.
There are dozens of wars going on on this planet, and guess what people
worry about: breasts!
Jurgen.
"If everybody just shut up and put a dick in their mouths, there
would be world peace." - Bette Midler
Matthew Chiglinsky
>bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) writes:
>>But it just is *so* low-class. Why not have these ads in magazines like
>>"Playboy" where the readers WANT this sort of thing? You don't see these
>>ads in "Scientific American" do you?
>
>Tell me, why are advertisements dealing with sex so "low-class"?
>I enjoyed sex yesterday, and I enjoy games today. What makes one more
>"higher-class" than the other?
One is inappropriate; one is not. One is low-class; one is
high-class. Isn't it simple enough?
>If you don't want to see sex ads in a magazine, then just turn the page.
>Is that so hard? Just read the things you want to read and don't read the
>other stuff. Whooooaah, now that's a biiiig problem for some of you,
Gee, that's an original idea. How many people have said that in the
past? Do you listen to Howard Stern a lot? Problems don't go away by just
ignoring them.
>isn't it? <include sarcasm here> People who think sex ads are offensive
>have enjoyed an unhealthy education and need treatment. They secretly
>enjoy the ads, they feel ashamed and they want to get rid of them to
>purify themselves. Yuk! The sex ads mean nothing to me, so I just turn
>the pages. Yes, I actually found out that you *don't* need to read an
>*entire* magazine from cover to cover. You *are* allowed to skip a few pages!
If people feel guilty about sex ads. and that motivates them to get
rid of them, then I say good for them. I'd say it's the amoral people like
you who *might* have the problem. ;)
>And to those people who complain about their kids reading CGW:
>1) The magazine is not written for 10 year olds. I have yet to find the
> first 10 year old to praise the intelligent reviews of this magazine.
>2) If you want to hide the fact that sex exists in this world, while at
> the same you time you happily want your kid to read about wargames,
> then *you* are the one with a big education problem, and your kid will
> not be grateful to you in the end.
I agree with you that the violence and aggression should be taken out
of the magazine (along with sex.) Good idea.
>This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.
Sex IS NOT filthy. Only satan would have people believe that. God
made sex, therefore sex is good. What's wrong is abusing anything good.
Since sex is good, you shouldn't abuse it. It's simple enough.
>Bunch of whiners.
Whiners' cries are heard by others whiners and eventually some good
change comes from it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Put down that weapon, or we'll all be gone.
I must know something to know it's so wrong...
...Put down that weapon, or we'll all be gone.
You must be crazy if you think you're strong." --Midnight Oil
Matthew Chiglinsky
rw...@panix.com (Russell Webb) wrote:
>I don't even notice a problem. It's nothing more suggestive than you'd
>see on freely displayed magazine covers at a street-side newsstand
>or on the Calvin Klein ads on buses and telephone booths. People who
>have a problem with CGW ads: do you put blinders on your children when
>you go outside? Sexuality is the driving force behind much of
>advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
Protest starts out small and specific.
Matthew Chiglinsky
>I don't even notice a problem. It's nothing more suggestive than you'd
>see on freely displayed magazine covers at a street-side newsstand
>or on the Calvin Klein ads on buses and telephone booths. People who
>have a problem with CGW ads: do you put blinders on your children when
>you go outside? Sexuality is the driving force behind much of
>advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
BTW, I just wondered why so many people choose to use the word
"crucify" when defending themselves as if everyone of them is receiving the
same treatment Jesus of Nazareth did a couple thousand years ago.
Matthew Chiglinsky
>I feel pity for those children who's parents think that the CGW world ads
>are bad for their mental health. Those are the parents who don't tell
>their children anything about sex, as if sex is something immoral or
Are you saying that CGW offers the children proper and pure sexual
education? I say you're just replacing one wrong with another.
>CGW has many screen shots from games where you see explosions,
>mutilations, corpses and armoury. Did you ever post a message in these
>newsgroups complaining about that? No, you didn't. Why not? Because
>you're obviously being a louzy parent (IMHO), that's why.
I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that. I say
that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from
anyone under the age of 18. Any in agreement?
>Complain about things that are worth complaining about. There are worse
>things in the world than sexual activities, as God/nature (whatever you
>want) gave it to us.
>
>There are dozens of wars going on on this planet, and guess what people
>worry about: breasts!
You have to make an effort in whatever area you can. Who says that
the same people who complain about pornography aren't also active pacifists?
Jonathan Badger
>The target audience for CGW is perfect for companies that want to sell
>X-rated material. The readers are 29 years old, on average, 97% male, and
>very willing to be entertained. It doesn't matter if the ads have
>something to do with the games in the magazine or not. The target
>audience is perfect.
So you are saying that the target audience of CGW are losers who are
mentally trapped in puberty and are so afraid of women that that
they'd rather buy CD-ROMs of nude pictures of them than go out and
meet an actual woman and deal with her as a human being? The notion of
"adult material" is pretty silly -- one of my favorite Sid Harris
cartoons shows a person walking by an "Adult Book Store" that has
books labled "Quantum Physics" and "Molecular Biology" -- genuine
adult material.
John Tracey
Scott Childress, M.D.
>Subject: About the CGW sex ads whiners
>From: Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl>
>Date: 6 Aug 1995 12:02:42 GMT
>bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Jonathan Badger) writes:
>>But it just is *so* low-class. Why not have these ads in magazines like
>Tell me, why are advertisements dealing with sex so "low-class"?
This is obvious. The ads lately have been cheap looking.
>If you don't want to see sex ads in a magazine, then just turn the page.
>Is that so hard? Just read the things you want to read and don't read the
It isn't the net. We're >buying< the magazine. Not only do the ads reflect
negatively on the magazine, but by buying the magazine, they reflect
negatively on the owner. I don't want someone looking over my shoulder to
think I'm reading some skin mag at work (although, it's ok to read computer
game mags =)
>And to those people who complain about their kids reading CGW:
>1) The magazine is not written for 10 year olds. I have yet to find the
> first 10 year old to praise the intelligent reviews of this magazine.
EVERY electronic games store in Indianapolis carries this mag, as well as most
of the others. These stores are crawling with 'yard apes'
>2) If you want to hide the fact that sex exists in this world, while at
> the same you time you happily want your kid to read about wargames,
> then *you* are the one with a big education problem, and your kid will
> not be grateful to you in the end.
Garbage. I can't believe I'm even replying to this one. There are
responsible times and places for this sort of education. Games magazines
aren't one of them.
>The sex ads help CGW to raise money. They use this money to make a good
>magazine. Take it or leave it.
I'd rather pay more and leave it, than prostitute myself...
>Bunch of whiners.
Sticks and stones, goob. =)
Scott
--------------------------------------
Scott A. Childress, M.D.
Indiana University Medical Center
Department of Radiology
email: chil...@xray.indyrad.iupui.edu
Trey Marshall
> I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that. I
say
>that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned
from
>anyone under the age of 18. Any in agreement?
You certainly don't have my agreement. I grew up playing wargames
and other games that had violence and by means did they change my adult
life. It would be an awful mistake to concentrate on the by-products and
not the cause of the problems. That's the problem in American society
today. We want to cut out pornography, violence, and drugs, but we don't
deal without dealing to the causes of these problems. I believe it all
goes back to basic parenting. If one has had proper parenting then those
people usually grow up to make mature decisions and judgements and now
what is reality and is a game. It is those people who are sorry parents
who worry about their kids being effected by watching too much Beavis and
Butthead (I like them too) and don't spend enough time with their kids.
If parents taught their kids proper values and right from wrong, we
wouldn't have probably half the problems we have in the US.
Trey Marshall
Jojo
>>Tell me, why are advertisements dealing with sex so "low-class"?
>>I enjoyed sex yesterday, and I enjoy games today. What makes one more
>>"higher-class" than the other?
> One is inappropriate; one is not. One is low-class; one is
>high-class. Isn't it simple enough?
What makes sex "low-class" and what makes games "high-class"? On what
*facts* do you base your opinion? Or is it just some vague moral
background that you think justifies your opinion?
My opinion is just a logical conclusion. Sex and games are both
enjoyable, can both be exploited for good and for bad, can be done on
your own or with others, etc, etc. So, explain to us what's so
"high-class" about games. To me they are just empty words you're uttering.
There's no moral difference.
> Gee, that's an original idea. How many people have said that in the
>past? Do you listen to Howard Stern a lot? Problems don't go away by just
>ignoring them.
There is no problem. People see problems where there aren't any. If I
stick my poster of Doom to the front window, no one will care about
it. If I stick a nude picture to my front window, there will be people
complaining about it. Why? Why is that a problem? Those people are the
problem, not the picture. It's just a picture of a beautiful body as God or
nature created it. It should be admired. (You know what, I think I'll
stick one to my window right away.)
> If people feel guilty about sex ads. and that motivates them to get
>rid of them, then I say good for them. I'd say it's the amoral people like
>you who *might* have the problem. ;)
If people feel guilty about sex ads, then that's *their* problem, not mine.
I don't care if they feel it's wrong. I *do* care when they try to get
those ads out of the magazine. Because then they are telling *me* what to
read and what not to read. And I hate it when narrow-minded people want
to influence things I might enjoy. (Which in this case I am not, but
that's not the point here.) If they don't want to see the ads, then
*they* should flip the pages. Let me decide for myself what to look at.
(Some readers might have noticed by now that I easily get very, very
angry when I notice that other people are trying to tell me how I should
live. I think it's fine that people have different opinions. But it's bad
when they try to impose them on others. History tells us that his is a
very common cause for many of its black pages.)
> Sex IS NOT filthy. Only satan would have people believe that. God
>made sex, therefore sex is good. What's wrong is abusing anything good.
>Since sex is good, you shouldn't abuse it. It's simple enough.
Exactly. And putting an ad in a magazine is not abusing anyone in any way.
So...?
Jurgen,
who obviously thinks he's always right. ;)
Harf
I agree... we spend all our time trying to change things that
don't really matter, like removing adult ads from CGW, and we don't spend
nearly enough time trying to correct the real problems in our society, like
broken families, racism, poverty, and our government's constant wasting of
money.
--
------Matt Bandy-------------<mba...@sponsornet.permalink.com>-------
S p o n s o r N e t http://sponsornet.permalink.com/sponsornet/
"Building a Better Web Through Advertising"
Jung Ho Han
: J-> This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.
----------
Wow. You seem to know a lot about this porno stuff... aren't you ashamed
that some kid might see your language in otherwise a healthy newsgroup?
Actually, if you can only describe sex as you have so graphically done,
yeah, I guess you can make an argument that sex can be, ah, "carnal".
But look at it this way. Abovementioned description is not usually
how sex should be thought of. Instead, it's the one of the greatest
physical gifts that God has bestowed upon us. If you only see it as
filthy and ugly, then, too, are you. After all, buddy, how did YOU
come to being, hm? And may I be so bold as to suggest you cut down
on your porno watching activities? Too much of that stuff seems to
warp one's mind, as demonstrated... 'course, little porno now and
then can't hurt much either...
Centarius Software Co.
>Exactly. And putting an ad in a magazine is not abusing anyone in any
way.
>So...?
>
So ok. Lets assume your right. CGW is the proper place to place an
XXX CDrom ad. And an ad is ok. Lets place the ad in Seseme Street
magazine. Or Boys Life. Or Highlights. Are the ads currently in CGW
ok to place in those other magazines?
I have a 4 yr. old son. I also enjoy adult oriented materials.
However, he does not have access to them thru me, and is not allowed to
access those areas of the net containing such. I as a parent do not
find this type of material appropriate for him. Maybe when he's in hid
mid-late teens, but definately not now. I don't want to have to
explain the questions like "why has that lady got a black box across
her chest?" or " Why is her face like that? Is she sick?" etc etc etc.
The fact is, I do not believe that CGW is the proper forum for such
ads, and they detract from an otherwise excellent publication.
I am not trying to censor CGW's right to earn a profit. My personal
subscription will continue to be renewed (with the issues offending ads
painted over). My company however will not place our family-oriented
ads next to the porn-ads in CGW (or any magazine). Several of our
designers have agreed with this, and my partners agree to.
I realize that the European nations have a much more open and healty
attitude towards sexuality, and that maybe Americans should lighten up
a bit, but that's not the issue.
The issue is "Does an ad for "Dirty Debutantes" belong in a magazine
that also reviews child-targeted software (sim town, carmen sandeago,
etc).
Place the adult ads in the adult magazines. They detract from the
image of CGW. I buy CGW for game info. I buy Penthouse for adult
info. I do not buy CGW for the xxx-cd-rom ads, and do not buy
penthouse for it's "Klik N Play" ad.
Enough Said.
(and to the person who suggested a non healty attitude towards sex, sex
is fine. Between properly informed, mature people. Not in the pages
of a gaming magazine.)
Bob Hubbard,
President, Centarius Software
[ The opinions presented here are my own, and unless specifically
listed as such, do not reflect the opinions/viewpoints/or ideals of
anyone associated with Centarius Software, or the official policies of
Centarius Software. ]
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Centarius Software |
| For information on product submissions, release dates or a copy |
| of our FAQ, Please send e-mail to cent...@ix.netcom.com |
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Jojo
>> You certainly don't have my agreement. I grew up playing wargames
[...]
>>If parents taught their kids proper values and right from wrong, we
>>wouldn't have probably half the problems we have in the US.
> I agree... we spend all our time trying to change things that
>don't really matter, like removing adult ads from CGW, and we don't spend
>nearly enough time trying to correct the real problems in our society, like
>broken families, racism, poverty, and our government's constant wasting of
>money.
Ah, I was starting to think I was the only intelligent being here. But
there appear to be more. Hurray!
If I ever have a kid, I will let him watch violence *and* sex, and give
him a healthy mental education at the same time. Computer games, sexual
games, whatever a kid wishes to learn about, a parent should be there to
teach and support. Not being neurotic and secretive, 'cause that attitude
will be passed on to the kid.
Jurgen.
Jojo
>Hah! Now that's a retort that I only wish I had come up with. I think
>that brilliant little piece of prose pretty much clears up any ambiguity
>on the differences between sex and pornography.
On the contrary, it was a stupid answer. Pornography is not different
from sex. Pornography is part of sex as we know it. Some don't like the
pornography side, some do.
> Jojo is Dutch, so we can understand and forgive his confusion <G>.
I'm proud of *not* being an American like you Joel. You "decide" on
what's good and bad for other people. I am not much interested in porn,
but if other people are (and some of my friends really are) then I think
that's ok. They don't harm anyone, so if they are enjoying themselves,
who are *you* to decide that they are doing something wrong, huh?
Is your second name Jezus, perhaps? If you happen to be a Christian:
It's in the bible that God forbids people to decide on good or bad, while
saying that it's "God's wish". But of course, as an average American you
ignore logic and you just copy the public opinion, and keep telling how
other people should behave. (And keep thinking that the US does so much
better than people from other countries. Well, you're wrong.) Be proud of it.
>As for censorship: no one is suggesting that anything be censored. It's
>simply a matter of the publishers taking responsibility for their content.
>The porno ads are pretty low-class and out of place in a magazine with a
>reputation like CGW. The publishers should have more taste and common sense
>than this.
There is no "low-class" tag. The problem is in *your* mind. At least
*try* to find a bit of logic in your reasoning. You're way off.
>I suppose it's up to us and the companies that advertise in CGW
>(like C Systems) to let them know that we dissaprove. If they don't get the
>point, then they don't get the money. Simple. No big brother anywhere.
Well, you just lost me as a potential customer with such an attitude.
Let's hope more people will follow.
BTW, from the pornography that I've seen in my life, I think 98% came
from the US, 1% from France and 1% from Germany. I've never seen Dutch
pornography. Makes you wonder why.
Jurgen.
John Tracey
RW-> I don't even notice a problem. It's nothing more suggestive than you'd
-> see on freely displayed magazine covers at a street-side newsstand
-> or on the Calvin Klein ads on buses and telephone booths. People who
-> have a problem with CGW ads: do you put blinders on your children when
-> you go outside? Sexuality is the driving force behind much of
-> advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
You really don't differentiate between a jeans ad and a list of XXX
porno CDs like "Pussy Called Wanda" ?
John Tracey
J-> To the morons who think the sex ads are bad for their children:
This is a great debating technique -- you must be fun at dinner.
J-> There are dozens of wars going on on this planet, and guess what people
-> worry about: breasts!
A moment, please: you can make the same point about anything; why be
worried about -- your teeth? your education? your job? your marriage?
your car? why buy books? computer games? magazines? -- why do any of
this, since there are people suffering in _____________ (fill-in). An
utterly empty argument; as if a conflict in Bosnia is reason to abandon
one's higher ideals about living and learning.
You're much too angry -- shrill, really -- to be an effective
participant in this "discussion."
And, really, you need to understand that a critic of the porn ads is not
ipso facto prude, asexual, "moronic" -- everybody has different ideas
about living. You aren't really for a plurality of opinions, Jojo, no
matter how enlightened you imagine your sexual ethos. With you it's: I'm
right, disagree and you're a moron.
Just like a child's view of life.
Hal Black
>I just know that I hated PC Gamer's ads for those umm.. X-Rated games,
>because when I'm reading a magazine on a bus, and the person sitting
>next to me sees how I'm reading an ad for Cybersluts or something,
>they look at me funny. Not to mention the time my computer teacher
>was flipping through my copy, and the first thing he came upon was,
>well, you get the idea.
>PS: I got a 60 on the next assignment. Coincidence?
If you don't like a magazine's advertising, don't buy it. CGW is an awful
mag anyway, PC gamer is much better. 8') (I am not sure if there is sex
advertisements in it, since I don't really notice such things)
--
sy...@mik.uky.edu | Entitlements kill | (tastefully short signature)
Hal Black
Disclaimer: There are a lot of "you" in this message, stated and implied,
note that they are general and plural form. I am not directing this to you
personally. 8')
In <4032mh$5...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> c.pi...@ix.netcom.com (Charles Pinady ) writes:
>Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
>what kids read in their homes? Are parents supposed to keep their copy
>of CGW under lock and key? I don't have kids but after reading some of
Yes, or don't buy it.
>the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
>coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.
It is really simple, if you don't like what is in a magazine, don't buy it!
You probably don't want pictures of nude women around in your house for
kids to read, so you don't buy playboy and leave it laying around. Tell me
why this does not apply to CGW? This is a *FREE* solution! You are not
missing much by not buying CGW anyway.
Anyone who buys a magazine and complains about the content really makes
me laugh, because they themselves are respsonsible not only for HAVING the
magazine, but also for the content because they condone it by purchasing!!
If you don't mind wasting $0.40 or so for stamp, envelope and paper, you
can send snail mail to the company telling them the reason you aren't buying
it anymore. Also, if it a real computer magazine, you can send them email.
(costs vary, but it can be done for free) If speculated whiner profit > sex
ad profit, they might even stop the sex ads. If not, why not start your
own magazine that is suitable for families? I bet you could do a better
job than CGW, anyway.
For me, I don't care what sex ads are in a magazine. I don't even
notice them. Maybe they are more explicit in CGW than PC Gamer, I don't
know. But if I DIDN'T like some content that I didn't want my children to
see (such as pathetic CGW reviews and editorials 8') I just wouldn't buy it.
How can we live in a society where all the media is sanitzed so that
some random irresponsible people think it would be appropriate for their
children to see it? We live in at least a partial market economy, which
means you can pick and choose what you want to see or eat or buy or whatever,
for the most part.
Joel Wawrzon
[snip]
>On the contrary, it was a stupid answer. Pornography is not different
>from sex. Pornography is part of sex as we know it. Some don't like the
>pornography side, some do.
I suppose you're right when you say pornography is part of "sex as we
know it", but then again so is sado-masochism, bondage, fisting,
and pedophilia. This doesn't mean that I want to see it advertised
between the pages of my copy of CGW. There are plenty of other magazines
and catalogs that cover this field pretty thoroughly.
>> Jojo is Dutch, so we can understand and forgive his confusion <G>.
[No one ever accused the Dutch of being overly conservative ;-).]
>I'm proud of *not* being an American like you Joel. You "decide" on
>what's good and bad for other people. I am not much interested in porn,
>but if other people are (and some of my friends really are) then I think
>that's ok. They don't harm anyone, so if they are enjoying themselves,
>who are *you* to decide that they are doing something wrong, huh?
>Is your second name Jezus, perhaps? If you happen to be a Christian:
>It's in the bible that God forbids people to decide on good or bad, while
>saying that it's "God's wish". But of course, as an average American you
>ignore logic and you just copy the public opinion, and keep telling how
>other people should behave. (And keep thinking that the US does so much
>better than people from other countries. Well, you're wrong.) Be proud of it.
We had a good laugh over this paragraph <g>. Let's just forget the fact that
I never once passed judgement on anyone or even alluded to telling
people what they should or should not do. BTW, my second name is Christopher,
I suppose that's close enough ;-).
You're characterization of Americans was entertaining, Jurgen, and not
completely without merit, but you forget that you never know who you're
talking to on Usenet. I've only spent part of the last four years in
the U.S. because I'm going to University here. I was born and live on
the other side of the Atlantic.
>>As for censorship: no one is suggesting that anything be censored. It's
>>simply a matter of the publishers taking responsibility for their content.
>>The porno ads are pretty low-class and out of place in a magazine with a
>>reputation like CGW. The publishers should have more taste and common sense
>>than this.
>
[pedantic retort as to the meaning of "low-class" snipped]
>
>BTW, from the pornography that I've seen in my life, I think 98% came
>from the US, 1% from France and 1% from Germany. I've never seen Dutch
>pornography. Makes you wonder why.
Ridiculous. Granted the Americans do produce a lot of porn, but 1% from
Germany?! You've *never* seen Dutch pornography?! Give me a break.
I suppose this leaves no room for the Italians, either.
You're point about the Americans glamorizing and normalizing violence
while making sex seem dirty is valid, but this debate isn't about
Jurgen vs. the United States. It's your view of sex (and pornography
by association) as beautiful that's being questioned here. Sure sex can
be very beautiful, but pornography...oh, yeah! That spoo
dripping off her face 10 minutes after stud-boy met her is the very essence
of eroticism and passion!
Definition of sex aside, the porn advertising in CGW is simply unnecessary.
They have plenty of sources of advertising revenue. It's sad to hear about
fathers who can't even share their CGW with their kids because they feel
the advertising has just gotten too raunchy. Granted the target audience
is an adult one, but many adults don't want to see that kind of advertising
in their mainstream magazines either.
Personally, it doesn't really bother me _that_ much, but I don't see the
point in CGW putting it in there. It clearly bothers a lot of their readers.
>Jurgen.
Joel
Hal Black
>In <403ncg$h...@news.xs4all.nl> Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> writes:
>So ok. Lets assume your right. CGW is the proper place to place an
>XXX CDrom ad. And an ad is ok. Lets place the ad in Seseme Street
>magazine. Or Boys Life. Or Highlights. Are the ads currently in CGW
>ok to place in those other magazines?
No, let's not. Do you think parents would buy these magazines if there
were such ads? I don't think so. Therefore, these magazinees would cease
to exist, because they wouldn't make any profit whatsoever.
>I have a 4 yr. old son. I also enjoy adult oriented materials.
>However, he does not have access to them thru me, and is not allowed to
>access those areas of the net containing such. I as a parent do not
>find this type of material appropriate for him. Maybe when he's in hid
>mid-late teens, but definately not now. I don't want to have to
>explain the questions like "why has that lady got a black box across
>her chest?" or " Why is her face like that? Is she sick?" etc etc etc.
[...]
>(with the issues offending ads painted over)
If this is acceptable to you, then you are doing the right thing.
However. . .
>The fact is, I do not believe that CGW is the proper forum for such
>ads, and they detract from an otherwise excellent publication.
>I am not trying to censor CGW's right to earn a profit. My personal
>subscription will continue to be renewed (with the issues offending ads
If the undesirable content of a magazine outwieghs the desirable content,
don't buy it! And if so, tell them why.
>painted over). My company however will not place our family-oriented
>ads next to the porn-ads in CGW (or any magazine). Several of our
>designers have agreed with this, and my partners agree to.
Cheers for this. Stand up for what you believe in.
[also see previous posting]
Regards,
Hal
(who still doesn't understand why people buy magazines they don't like!)
Tim L.
: Russell Webb (rw...@panix.com) wrote:
: > I don't even notice a problem. It's nothing more suggestive than you'd
: > see on freely displayed magazine covers at a street-side newsstand
: > or on the Calvin Klein ads on buses and telephone booths. People who
: > have a problem with CGW ads: do you put blinders on your children when
: > you go outside? Sexuality is the driving force behind much of
: > advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
: I just know that I hated PC Gamer's ads for those umm.. X-Rated games,
: because when I'm reading a magazine on a bus, and the person sitting
: next to me sees how I'm reading an ad for Cybersluts or something,
: they look at me funny. Not to mention the time my computer teacher
: was flipping through my copy, and the first thing he came upon was,
: well, you get the idea.
: PS: I got a 60 on the next assignment. Coincidence?
paranoid?
-Tim
Stephane Evoy
> I don't even notice a problem. It's nothing more suggestive than you'd
> see on freely displayed magazine covers at a street-side newsstand
> or on the Calvin Klein ads on buses and telephone booths. People who
> have a problem with CGW ads: do you put blinders on your children when
> you go outside? Sexuality is the driving force behind much of
> advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
>
A question...
If these adult CD ads have their place in CGW, how come we do not see ANY
reviews of adult CD's in this magazine?
Isn't this a typical case of double standards?
--
Stephane Evoy
Cornell University
Russell Webb
>
>You really don't differentiate between a jeans ad and a list of XXX
>porno CDs like "Pussy Called Wanda" ?
Visually, no.
--
Russell Webb
rw...@panix.com
Bob Rogers
>you go outside? Sexuality is the driving force behind much of
>advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
Because CGW has an increasing number of ads for pornography. Because the
presence of those ads detracts from what used to be a good magazine. Because
I think that there is such a thing as good taste. Because the ads degrade
both the magazine's editorial staff and its readers.
We're not talking about censorship or naivete here, we're talking about simple
bad taste. The publishers and editorial staff should be ashamed of the way
they've let the advertisers pollute the magazine.
--
Bob Rogers (rog...@instrumental.com)
Gary Hladik
>In article <403a1c$des...@wilmington03.voicenet.com>, >
>>I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that. I say that
>>all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from
>>anyone under the age of 18. Any in agreement?
> You certainly don't have my agreement. I grew up playing wargames
>and other games that had violence and by means did they change my adult
>life.
Me too. I've played paper and computer wargames for years, and I'm
perfectly normal. And if anyone says different, I'll stick an AK-47 up
his @#&%$ and pull the &@%#$'ing trigger!!! I'll cut his heart out with
a rusty spoon!! I'll -- er, sorry, got carried away. :-)
>I believe it all
>goes back to basic parenting. If one has had proper parenting then those
>people usually grow up to make mature decisions and judgements and now
>what is reality and is a game.
Right. Reality is ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. A game is ethnic cleansing
in Doom. Or is it the other way around? :-)
>It is those people who are sorry parents
>who worry about their kids being effected by watching too much Beavis and
>Butthead (I like them too)
There is no such thing as too much Beavis and Butthead. :-)
>If parents taught their kids proper values and right from wrong, we
>wouldn't have probably half the problems we have in the US.
And if they actually *listened*, we might not have the other half. :-)
Gary
John Tracey
J-> Pornography is not different from sex.
Do you realize how stupid this is? Read it again; do you really mean to
stand by it?
John Tracey
SB-> If you don't like a magazine's advertising, don't buy it. CGW is an awful
-> mag anyway, PC gamer is much better. 8') (I am not sure if there is
Say, is there a mag-only subscription to PC Gamer (without the CD)?
John Tracey
MC-> BTW, I just wondered why so many people choose to use the word
-> "crucify" when defending themselves as if everyone of them is receiving th
-> same treatment Jesus of Nazareth did a couple thousand years ago.
Amen!
;)
John Tracey
M-> I agree... we spend all our time trying to change things that
-> don't really matter, like removing adult ads from CGW, and we don't spend
-> nearly enough time trying to correct the real problems in our society, like
-> broken families, racism, poverty, and our government's constant wasting of
-> money.
Well, some of us are trying to change all those things ...
... and I, for one, don't spend "all my time" trying to remove adult ads
from CGW. I haven't even written them a letter. :)
The solution, of course, is an adult games-only edition of CGW. Anyone
think that would attract the same talent as the current incarnation? God
knows they're lining up to review the latest manly man CD-ROM magazine.
:)
John Tracey
-> Wow. You seem to know a lot about this porno stuff... aren't you ashamed
-> that some kid might see your language in otherwise a healthy newsgroup?
I do?!? The extent of my "knowledge" is the half-hour of a vampire movie
I saw in my freshman year at college -- I assume they all have the basic
format, right? Or has there been an innovation?
(And by the way -- you admit the title alone is offensive -- Game
Over. You Lose.)
-> Actually, if you can only describe sex as you have so graphically
-> yeah, I guess you can make an argument that sex can be, ah, "carnal".
The point is, that's the way sex =is= in these products -- and that it
does NOT reflect the real world -- and, therefore, is NOT what some of
the proponents pretend it is, i.e., a healthy view of bodies, the wonder
of sex and true love, etc.
But you missed the irony. Not surprising, considering your next
paragraph:
-> But look at it this way. Abovementioned description is not
-> how sex should be thought of. Instead, it's the one of the greatest
-> physical gifts that God has bestowed upon us. If you only see it as
-> filthy and ugly, then, too, are you. After all, buddy, how did YOU
-> come to being, hm? And may I be so bold as to suggest you cut down
-> on your porno watching activities? Too much of that stuff seems to
-> warp one's mind, as demonstrated... 'course, little porno now and
-> then can't hurt much either...
<ad hominem>
<stupid, too>
Harf
>In article <404jsd$3...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>I suppose you're right when you say pornography is part of "sex as we
>know it", but then again so is sado-masochism, bondage, fisting,
>and pedophilia. This doesn't mean that I want to see it advertised
>between the pages of my copy of CGW. There are plenty of other magazines
>and catalogs that cover this field pretty thoroughly.
It's simple: if you don't like the adult ads in CGW, _don't buy CGW_,
and then you won't have to see them, will you?
>We had a good laugh over this paragraph <g>. Let's just forget the fact that
>I never once passed judgement on anyone or even alluded to telling
>people what they should or should not do. BTW, my second name is Christopher,
No, you only expressed the opinion that CGW should be kept from
running the ads they want to. Obviously, that's completely unrelated to
"telling people what they should or should not do".
>[pedantic retort as to the meaning of "low-class" snipped]
I'll say it again. If you feel that the content in CGW is
"low-class", no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read it.
Gary Hladik
>waw...@sun23.cs.wisc.edu (Joel Wawrzon) writes:
>>Hah! Now that's a retort that I only wish I had come up with. I think
>>that brilliant little piece of prose pretty much clears up any ambiguity
>>on the differences between sex and pornography.
>On the contrary, it was a stupid answer. Pornography is not different
>from sex. Pornography is part of sex as we know it.
Er, speak for yourself. I've seen a few "porno" films in my time, and my
real-life sexual experiences bear only the slightest resemblance to them. :-)
Of course, I've seen quite a few "mainstream" movies, too, and real life
doesn't look much like them, either. :-) :-) As for computer games ...
>I'm proud of *not* being an American like you Joel.
Good for you. Myself, I'm proud of *not* being a Martian. Not that I had
any say in the matter, but I'm still proud of it. :-)
>BTW, from the pornography that I've seen in my life, I think 98% came
>from the US, 1% from France and 1% from Germany. I've never seen Dutch
>pornography. Makes you wonder why.
It certainly does. According to American TV ("60 Minutes"?), the Netherlands
has a thriving sex industry. I guess you prefer that exotic "foreign"
stuff? :-)
Gary
Jojo
>You aren't really for a plurality of opinions, Jojo, no
>matter how enlightened you imagine your sexual ethos. With you it's: I'm
>right, disagree and you're a moron.
>Just like a child's view of life.
I have been trying to make two points here. You've obviously failed to see
what I mean:
1) I don't think sex ads are bad for children. There are more important
things to worry about. Why don't these same people complain about the
violent pictures in CGW? It's illogical to complain about sex and not
about the violence.
2) I don't want people to decide on what I should read. People who try to
influence CGW (and many times society as a whole) are indirectly telling
me what not to read.
Point 1) is something I like to discuss about, although sometimes perhaps
a bit too enthusiasticly. But I grant anyone his own opinion.
Point 2) is something for which I don't accept other opinion. I don't
want people to tell me how to live, what to read and what to say. I can
decide for myself. So, leave the sex ads in the mag, 'cause I might want
to have a look at them.
And yes, I still think that many people are morons. And people can call
me names too, I don't care. If I call someone a moron, it doesn't add to
my arguments, but it also doesn't make my arguments invalid (as you would
like to wish). It's just something I have to say, as a result of many
years of frustration.
My arguments still stand. Come up with some interesting contra-arguments,
or go away.
Jurgen.
Jojo
>This doesn't mean that I want to see it advertised
>between the pages of my copy of CGW. There are plenty of other magazines
>and catalogs that cover this field pretty thoroughly.
You don't want to see it, but I might. And the advertisers want *me* to see
it, not you (I think). Why do you want to cut on the info that I receive?
>>> Jojo is Dutch, so we can understand and forgive his confusion <G>.
>[No one ever accused the Dutch of being overly conservative ;-).]
I still fail to see the humour of your first remark.
>I never once passed judgement on anyone or even alluded to telling
>people what they should or should not do.
You are indirectly doing so when you're trying to pursuade CGW to
withhold information that other people very much like to see.
>You're characterization of Americans was entertaining, Jurgen, and not
>completely without merit, but you forget that you never know who you're
>talking to on Usenet. I've only spent part of the last four years in
>the U.S. because I'm going to University here. I was born and live on
>the other side of the Atlantic.
Lucky you! :)
>Ridiculous. Granted the Americans do produce a lot of porn, but 1% from
>Germany?! You've *never* seen Dutch pornography?! Give me a break.
That's right. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist of course. But it's
obviously less common.
>be very beautiful, but pornography...oh, yeah! That spoo
>dripping off her face 10 minutes after stud-boy met her...
Sounds like quite a boring porn movie that you've just seen.
>They have plenty of sources of advertising revenue. It's sad to hear about
>fathers who can't even share their CGW with their kids because they feel
>the advertising has just gotten too raunchy.
Yes, I think it's sad. Not for the parents, but for the children. I think
they're not getting the proper education. But I let them be, as long as
these parents find another way of hiding sex from their children. Don't
let them mess with 'my mag'.
>Granted the target audience
>is an adult one, but many adults don't want to see that kind of advertising
>in their mainstream magazines either.
I do. And the publisher does too.
What I think CGW should do is to poll their readers and find out about
their opinion. My guess is that more than 50% of the readers don't care
about the ads, or actually *want* them to be in it. The other part of the
readers, even if it's still a significant number, will just have to shut
up. And if it turns out to be the other way around, then I will shut up.
Jurgen.
(Quite strange to fight a verbal battle about this. I can't even remember
seeing these porn ads. It shows how uninteresting they must be to me. But
it's the thought that counts now.)
Nathan Engle
>>As for censorship: no one is suggesting that anything be censored. It's
>>simply a matter of the publishers taking responsibility for their content.
>>The porno ads are pretty low-class and out of place in a magazine with a
>>reputation like CGW. The publishers should have more taste and common sense
>>than this.
>There is no "low-class" tag. The problem is in *your* mind. At least
>*try* to find a bit of logic in your reasoning. You're way off.
Hey, Jurgen, you're welcome to your opinion but I suspect that Joel's
reactions (similar to mine, I might add) might be of interest to the
marketing directors of CGW. The US market may strike you (and maybe them
too) as prudish, but I doubt that CGW's accountants will be as concerned
about North American collective sexual neuroses as they have to be about
their bottom line.
IMO the ultimate deciding factor behind CGW's decision to carry those
ads should be whether they help sell more magazines. I'm not a subscriber
nor do I purchase CGW off the shelf, but if I *was* ever in the mood to
buy a gaming mag I doubt I'd be impressed by or even interested in their
broad-minded liberal advertising policies.
I had an interview one time in which I knew the interviewers were
all clean shaven. I had a mustache at the time and considered shaving
it off. A friend noted that he had never heard of computer programmers
being hired because of their beautiful facial hair. When combined with
the thought that my interviewers' clean-shavenness was an indirect clue
about what they thought was appropriate for themselves, and bearing in
mind that I had nothing to lose and everything to gain, I went ahead and
buzzed it off (and got the job).
There are probably a bunch of young long-hairs reading this who're
thinking to themselves, "Man, what a sellout! Where are your principles?"
I can't deny that I did what I did as a trade-off for something I wanted
more, but on the flip side of that coin I would also note that I got the
job AND within a year I had another mustache just like the one I had
before. "Nothing to lose, but everything to gain" ought to be a no-brainer.
It may be that CGW's sex ads are sort of like my mustache - easily
dispensed with in a case where they might pose a conflict. If the ads had
anything at all to do with gaming then I'd say leave them in, but as it
stands they're nothing but fluff. If I was a CGW executive I'd be keeping
a close eye on Congress's efforts to clean up the Internet and the
computer game business in general - voluntary self-regulation is usually
a lot more pleasant than *any* regulation that comes out of our government.
--
Nathan Engle Electron Juggler
Indiana University Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu http://nickel.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle/home.html
"Carpe Diem"
Nathan Engle
Or, if you prefer to be constructive rather than passive-aggressive you
might choose to do what people here have been doing - voice your complaints
through a channel by which you believe the magazine management will get your
message before you just throw up your hands and leave in disgust. Every
customer who gets driven away that way is a customer you will NEVER see again
except maybe on Usenet where they mercilessly flame every move you make...
I've heard all the arguments about why this sort of well-intentioned
feedback is supposedly an infringement of the freedom of expression -
craven censorship of much treasured ideas. IMO these arguments are flawed.
People like myself who think that sex ads are out-of-place in gaming magazines
have as much right to try to influence the advertisement policies of the
magazine as any Madison Avenue market research firm pushing the reasoning
MoreSex -> HigherProfits -> SocietalBenefits.
John Tracey
-> >You really don't differentiate between a jeans ad and a list of XXX
-> >porno CDs like "Pussy Called Wanda" ?
R-> Visually, no.
Fascinating! So, when you think jeans, you think -- oh, never mind.
Jonathan Badger
>2) I don't want people to decide on what I should read. People who try to
> influence CGW (and many times society as a whole) are indirectly telling
> me what not to read.
No. Can you mention anyone on this thread that said that pornography
should be illegal? If people want pornography, I think they know
precisely which magazines carry it. Not carrying it in CGW isn't going
to prevent anyone from getting it if they want it. CGW has only been
carrying the ads for a few months, and I believe the pornographic
industry has been around longer than that, correct?
I believe that anyone who wants pornography should be free to buy it
--- however, I'd think that they'd be a lot happier in the long run if
they instead grew up and learned to deal with women as actual human
beings.
Sean Kaye
edition of CGW and noticed the number of XXX CD ads myself...
My position is this...
I am a 21 year old, university student... I know that these CD's are
not for me, so I don't pay attention to the ads... Just like, when I
see ads for new DOOM levels or whatever, I skip those ads also...
This brings up the points as to why do I buy CGW... I buy it for the
news and reviews... Lately however, I have noticed the size of the
magazine increasing almost exponentially... It seems as though every
issue gets larger and larger... And after noticing the rather large
increase in XXX ads, I went back and looked... As the magazine got
larger, so too did the number of XXX ads...
Which brings us to the present... This pasts months issue had an
absurd amount of XXX ads... I don't believe in censorship, and I feel
companies should be able to advertise if they can afford the ad
space... I'm not the morality police, so I am not going to say its
immoral or "low-class" to have these ads in CGW, I don't feel that's
my place... I do however feel that the sheer quantity of these ads has
grown to unacceptable levels...
Quite simply, I find it a pain in the butt to get to the end of the
magazine and have to flip past pages of these ads... I think the
editorial staff should step in and limit the number of XXX ads per
issue... I feel the same way about any one type of ad in a magazine...
If MicroProse were to take up 15 full pages and print ads I would feel
the same way... Its not a matter or quality or morality, its a matter
of manageable quantity...
Mind you, I don't necessarily feel that I would want my child (if I
had one) reading a review of a children's game and have it surrounded
by CyberSluts ads or Virtual Girlfriend... I just find that somewhat
distasteful... My personal opinion...
In summary, I really just wish that these ads would go away to the
pages of "Big Boobies" or "Beaver Trail" or whatever... I don't think
this is going to happen anytime soon, so I just hope that CGW has the
good sense to limit the ad space of this genre of entertainment
(that's exactly what it is, a genre, just like action, sports or
strategy)... If the numbers of these ads continue to grow, I'll simply
write CGW a letter thanking them for their fine work in the past, but
informing them that I will no longer be purchasing their magazine...
I'll also forward email copies of this letter to all my favourite game
producers, just so that they'll notice that the full page ad for Wing
Commander 4 is directly across the page from School Room Sluts (An
interactive learning experience)...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kaye
2nd Year Arts
Carleton University
Email address: sk...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin J. Lee
In article <4067cv$6...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>I have been trying to make two points here. You've obviously failed to see
>what I mean:
>
>1) I don't think sex ads are bad for children. There are more important
> things to worry about. Why don't these same people complain about the
> violent pictures in CGW? It's illogical to complain about sex and not
> about the violence.
Whether or not you believe sex ads *in themselves* are bad for children is a
matter of personal opinion, and I can accept that. But if the logic
supporting that opinion is merely that "there are more important things
to worry about" than these ads, then I'd suggest you pause a moment and
rethink this. What you're suggesting is that anything is acceptable and
"not worth worrying about" so long as you can think up something even
less acceptable. A single murder is not bad at all, since there are all
these double-murderers to worry about. Double-murderers are not bad,
since there are multiple-victim serial killers. Multiple-victim killers
are not bad, since there are crazed dictators who kill thousands...and so
on, ad infinitum. You can easily define "bad" out of existence this
way, as other posters have pointed out.
Nobody's saying that sex ads are the *only* unhealthy influence on
children, just that it may be *one* unhealthy influence. Whether or not
you agree with this or not is up to you, but your aforementioned "proof"
is irrelevant. This is a value judgment, plain and simple.
>2) I don't want people to decide on what I should read.
Does this include the editors of CGW, who edit out the grammatical errors
and shorten the articles to fit the format? How about obviously
biased reviews written by people who haven't even played the game? And,
while we're at it, how about all the people who *fail to write* articles
for CGW -- they're standing in the way of your reading their potential
articles, aren't they? You're mistaking your right to information for
everybody else's "duty" to provide all manner of information to you.
(Isn't charging for a magazine a financial barrier to information,
incidentally?)
> People who try to
> influence CGW (and many times society as a whole) are indirectly telling
> me what not to read.
No, people who influence CGW are telling CGW what they would like in the
magazine. They could care less about what you read. Any reader of the
magazine has a perfect right to express what he would like or not like in
it, and to deny that right to everybody but yourself -- and in the name of
freedom, no less! -- is a bit small-minded, if you ask me.
>Point 2) is something for which I don't accept other opinion. I don't
>want people to tell me how to live, what to read and what to say. I can
>decide for myself. So, leave the sex ads in the mag, 'cause I might want
>to have a look at them.
Nobody is stopping you from deciding for yourself what to read, how to
live, what to say (and so on and so forth -- really what's at issue here
is what goes in a print magazine that we all pay for, so let's not go
spinning off into outer space here.) You can wallpaper your room with
sex ads for all anybody cares, put it up in your windows, stick one in
your .sig, have a sex ad tattooed on your forehead -- it's all well and
good. I might have questions about your mental stability after you do
all that, but I will always concede your right to do so.
But at the same time, I have a right to decide the same thing, and
if I feel that a magazine contains material I don't want to see, I won't
buy it. Surely you will accept that I have a right not to buy
something with money that is mine. In the process, I am aware that the
loss of my business will hurt CGW in some miniscule way, so I feel
responsible to inform them of the reasons I am no longer buying their
product. If they feel that my business is valuable enough, they will
change and I will become a customer of theirs again. If not, they won't,
and neither will I. It's all very civil, with no hard feelings.
Note that nowhere did I say anything about YOUR right to buy whatever you
like. You can decide to keep subscribing if you like. My actions do not
affect yours in any way, except if CGW suddenly goes bankrupt as a
result of my $27 a year going away and you have no more magazine to
read. But I can't be responsible for that. I have no more duty to
subsidize your preferences than you do to subsidize mine.
>And yes, I still think that many people are morons. And people can call
>me names too, I don't care. If I call someone a moron, it doesn't add to
>my arguments, but it also doesn't make my arguments invalid (as you would
>like to wish). It's just something I have to say, as a result of many
>years of frustration.
This has nothing to do with anything.
In another post you said something about taking a poll of readers, and
going with the majority. This is no different than what anybody is
suggesting -- in fact, it goes farther than anybody else has, since
nobody to my knowledge has suggested a boycott of any sort. In the end,
if this issue becomes significant enough, that's inevitably what's going
to happen.
Finishing his turn,
Robin.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Robin J. Lee amr...@netcom.com
Vulture's Row Worldwide Web Page URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/
uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu
> In article <4036pr$8...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that. I say
> that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from
> anyone under the age of 18. Any in agreement?
Hell no! (you didn't say anything about language. haha) What would that solve.
Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I grew up
playing Atari and Nintendo. I played plenty of "violent" games, and I turned
out OK. I have never had the compulsion to go out and kill/eat/mutilate/rape
people, so why should violent games be banned/censored?
-Tony
RDClark
> things to worry about. Why don't these same people complain about the
> violent pictures in CGW? It's illogical to complain about sex and not
> about the violence.
You have a right to think that. I very seriously suspect your opinion will
change when you actually become responsible for the upbringing of a child;
if they don't, you are very unusual.
But this isn't the place to ask that question; it may require strategy to
raise kids, but it's no game. There are Newsgroups that focus on child
development, and it would be *very* interesting to see how you fare among
*that* crowd!
The question is whether the changes in CGW are acceptable to its readers.
I suspect that, to most, they are. I know very few young men who don't
enjoy a little erotic titillation every now and then, even if it comes
from an unexpected source like a gaming magazine.
Another question, though, is how the new advertising policy will affect
the magazine in the future. Once they begin accepting such ads, they have
to accept as many as are bought. PC Magazine's "adult" ads were getting
out of control when they stopped running them; the same thing could happen
on an even larger scale in CGW, because the computer/porn industry is
growing rapidly. This *will* have an effect on the constitution of the
magazine's readership; they will likely start to lose their older, more
family oriented readers... without gaining any new ones.
People aren't buying CGW for the porn ads. But some will *stop* buying CGW
because of the porn ads. This, ultimately, will be the factor that decides
the issue.
------------------------------------------------------------
|---RichC----------------------------Interfacing is easy---|
|---rd...@aol.com-------Compatibility takes a lifetime---|
------------------------------------------------------------
RDClark
> influence CGW (and many times society as a whole) are indirectly
telling
> me what not to read.
This argument belongs in the compost pile.
At the very most, they are trying to influence where you read it. And they
have just as much a right to tell CGW "I don't want to see this stuff in
your magazine" as you do to say "I love it; gimme more!"
>Point 2) is something for which I don't accept other opinion. I don't
>want people to tell me how to live, what to read and what to say. I can
>decide for myself. So, leave the sex ads in the mag, 'cause I might want
>to have a look at them.
And what Jojo wants determines what everybody else should do. Sorry, son,
that's not an argument. It's a baby whining, and for essentially the same
reason.
Bill Seurer
Hmmm. You grew up believing that "sex and violence is a part of everyday
life" and don't think you were affected by all the violence when you were
young? Guess again!
--
- Bill Seurer Language and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com Home: BillS...@aol.com
Bill Seurer
|> >I never once passed judgement on anyone or even alluded to telling
|> >people what they should or should not do.
|>
|> You are indirectly doing so when you're trying to pursuade CGW to
|> withhold information that other people very much like to see.
And YOU are just as guilty for trying to persuade CGW to "provide
information" that they
1) previously did not "provide"
2) is objectionable to many readers
3) has nothing to do with the magazine's stated subject
Why can YOU tell people what to do but god forbid someone else do the same?
There are many other sources of the same material that are just as readily
available to any readers of CGW that want to seek them out. Why does CGW
*have* to carry them?
Frankly, I am finding ALL the non-computer ads that have been creaping in
annoying too. If I want to read ads about RPG materials I will go read
one of the RPG magazines I get. If I want to read ads about the latest
porn CDs I'll go read any one of the plethora of magazines devoted to
that. If I want to find out about cars I'll go read one of the auto
magazines.
I read COMPUTER GAMING WORLD to find out about COMPUTER GAMES.
John Tracey
J-> >You aren't really for a plurality of opinions, Jojo, no
-> >matter how enlightened you imagine your sexual ethos. With you it's: I'm
-> >right, disagree and you're a moron.
J-> >Just like a child's view of life.
J-> I have been trying to make two points here. You've obviously failed to see
-> what I mean:
I haven't failed to see anything other than the obvious; that is,
they're silly, sophomoric points based on your immature notions of
censorship and the assumed right to do/say/have anything. Your first
point is, you don't think sex ads are bad for children, for the
astounding reason that "there are more important things to worry about."
This is on the order of saying we ought not to catch our friend before
he falls out the window, because there are a DOZEN people falling out
the window down the street. Such clarity is unlikely to breed such
confidence as it does in you, but -- what the heck. I countered this
"point" effectively, I think.
And I said so, in my last post, which you ignored (wisely, I suppose),
but then asked (unwisely) for more "contra-arguments," which made you
look silly.
Your second point -- namely, you don't want people to pick for you your
reading material -- is so childish as to defy description. Your ultimate
justification for this theory -- from which you admit you will never be
swayed -- is this gem:
"So, leave the sex ads in the mag, 'cause I might want
to have a look at them."
Pardon me for =not= falling out of my chair, Jojo. This is the
Beavus & Butthead School of Debating. This is (barely) high school
stuff. You do not consider that there are plenty of places to get these
"sex ads" -- and you do not -- of course -- consider that there are
people who do =not= want the sex ads in a PC gaming magazine. You do not
consider that other people may want to read pc game reviews without sex
ads -- and since you can get sex ads elsewhere, and they can hardly get
(good) pc game reviews elsewhere, it isn't you who's losing.
There's a huge magazine stand around the corner, Jojo, with lots of the
sex ads you might want to have a look at. Go to them.
Your arguments don't stand; they're hardly "arguments." Undoubtedly
you'll ignore this post and renew your request for "contra-arguments"
tomorrow.
Brian Troxell
Charles Pinady <c.pi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
>what kids read in their homes?
They should have thought of that before they became parents then.
>Are parents supposed to keep their copy of CGW under lock and key?
If it's more important for them to not have their kids see it, then yes.
Or just don't buy the magazine at all. It's a trade-off to what's more
important to them: keeping their children "safe" or reading CGW. Just
because you're a parent doesn't mean you get everything you want out
of life.
>I don't have kids but after reading some of
>the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
>coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.
Then don't buy the magazines. Simple.
--
BRIAN TROXELL |
br...@audiofax.com | "Click! Click! Click!"
Me != FaxLink Plus | -Zorak
(404) 933-7600 |
Hal Black
Hmm, this is a good question. I just flipped through my copy of the August
PC Gamer, looking for it (And sex ads, while I was at it)
I always remove all of those annoying cards in the course of reading the
magazine, so maybe I missed the subscription for "just the magazine"...
Drop them a note at peec...@aol.com maybe they know?
And as for sex ads, I didn't see any, really. On the chips and bits
page, there were some very discreet ads that didn't say anything about sex,
for some games which I guess might be sex games? It is really hard to
tell, judging from the ads alone. They are not "glaring" at the least,
maybe 1.5inch square? Maybe people who are concerned about this will look
at this at the newstand and tell us.
I don't speak for PC gamer, I just read it. Therefore I don't know if it
is "policy" or what. This would be a good letter to the editor if someone
wants to write it.
A side note: several net people have complained about horror stories
subscribing to PC gamer (taking 4 months to get their first issue, mainly),
I don't know if there is still a problem or if they have fixed it. I just
buy mine at the grocery when I go. It's a pretty good magazine.
Later,
Hal
--
sy...@mik.uky.edu | Entitlements kill | (tastefully short signature)
Hal Black
Hey AMRAAM, are you named after a missile?
In <amraamDC...@netcom.com> amr...@netcom.com (Robin J. Lee) writes:
>spinning off into outer space here.) You can wallpaper your room with
>sex ads for all anybody cares, put it up in your windows, stick one in
>your .sig, have a sex ad tattooed on your forehead -- it's all well and
No, can't have it tattooed on your forehead. It's pretty much illegal to
have tattooing done above the neck or above the wrist. You could probably
get away with it if it were a religious rite, though.
>good. I might have questions about your mental stability after you do
>all that, but I will always concede your right to do so.
>But at the same time, I have a right to decide the same thing, and
>if I feel that a magazine contains material I don't want to see, I won't
>buy it. Surely you will accept that I have a right not to buy
>something with money that is mine. In the process, I am aware that the
>loss of my business will hurt CGW in some miniscule way, so I feel
>responsible to inform them of the reasons I am no longer buying their
>product. If they feel that my business is valuable enough, they will
>change and I will become a customer of theirs again. If not, they won't,
>and neither will I. It's all very civil, with no hard feelings.
Hey, good for you! *cheer*
>Note that nowhere did I say anything about YOUR right to buy whatever you
>like. You can decide to keep subscribing if you like. My actions do not
>affect yours in any way, except if CGW suddenly goes bankrupt as a
>result of my $27 a year going away and you have no more magazine to
>read. But I can't be responsible for that. I have no more duty to
>subsidize your preferences than you do to subsidize mine.
I think a lot of us (me, anway) hear communications decency act being
expanded when I hear these things like "these ads shouldn't be in
{magazines,tv,internet}, my kids might see it!" and the natural response
comes, "yeah, you're right, let's make a law" instead of using "dollar votes"
as you propose (which is by FAR the best idea).
Rainbow Warrior
> It's simple: if you don't like the adult ads in CGW, _don't buy CGW_,
>and then you won't have to see them, will you?
This is what the whole discussion is about, an advertiser who
declared that he chose to no longer advertise in CGW. You and your ilk
cried "censorship" and "coersion." You declared he had no right to
withdraw his advertising funds without your permission.
Now you say exactly what he said. And, you say he is wrong and
you are right. Are you a hypocrite, or just stupid?
Rainbow Warrior of the White Knights
msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu
Harf
>mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu (Harf) writes:
>> It's simple: if you don't like the adult ads in CGW, _don't buy CGW_,
>>and then you won't have to see them, will you?
> This is what the whole discussion is about, an advertiser who
>declared that he chose to no longer advertise in CGW. You and your ilk
>cried "censorship" and "coersion." You declared he had no right to
>withdraw his advertising funds without your permission.
Where the fuck do you get off telling me what I said? I said nothing
of the sort. Go back and read my posts, dumbass. I never called censorship
or coercion; as you can see from the text you just quoted, I said that if
others were offended by the ads, they should stop buying the magazine; if
enough of them do, then CGW will stop the ads. I personally will not do so,
because I don't care about them. READ MY POSTS BEFORE YOU RESPOND.
> Now you say exactly what he said. And, you say he is wrong and
>you are right. Are you a hypocrite, or just stupid?
I am not a hypocrite, or stupid. You obviously can't be bothered
to read posts before you whip out your flamethrower.
DLA...@news.delphi.com
ad space will go to who ever pays - if XXX has more $$$ ...
Note: we have NO SMOKING sections why not NO XXX ones???
What i would like to see is a tear out section for the XXX ads
You don't want them - they gone!
The ''best'' bet might be to let the mags and game publishers know
that we will NOT read thoes pages. If ''nice game''has its review
in the XXX section we will NOT buy ''nice game'' because we NEVER
saw it reviewed and we will NOT buy before a game is reviewed!
((we did not read the XXX section!))
Charles Pinady
writes:
>In summary, I really just wish that these ads would go away to the
>pages of "Big Boobies" or "Beaver Trail" or whatever... I don't think
>this is going to happen anytime soon, so I just hope that CGW has the
>good sense to limit the ad space of this genre of entertainment
>(that's exactly what it is, a genre, just like action, sports or
>strategy)... If the numbers of these ads continue to grow, I'll simply
>write CGW a letter thanking them for their fine work in the past, but
>informing them that I will no longer be purchasing their magazine...
>I'll also forward email copies of this letter to all my favourite game
>producers, just so that they'll notice that the full page ad for Wing
>Commander 4 is directly across the page from School Room Sluts (An
>interactive learning experience)...
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sean Kaye
>2nd Year Arts
>Carleton University
>
>Email address: sk...@chat.carleton.ca
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put! I shall be doing the same if the porn ads continue to
increase.
Robin J. Lee
>
>Hey AMRAAM, are you named after a missile?
Well, yes, the login name is a holdover from my old BBS days. :)
>No, can't have it tattooed on your forehead. It's pretty much illegal to
>have tattooing done above the neck or above the wrist. You could probably
>get away with it if it were a religious rite, though.
Certainly I made it clear that the tattoo would be applied in conformity
to the Sacred Rites of the Church of the Space Sirens(tm)?
>I think a lot of us (me, anway) hear communications decency act being
>expanded when I hear these things like "these ads shouldn't be in
>{magazines,tv,internet}, my kids might see it!" and the natural response
>comes, "yeah, you're right, let's make a law" instead of using "dollar votes"
>as you propose (which is by FAR the best idea).
I suppose that's the problem with proposing things like this, since one
always runs the risk of having one's idea being stuffed into a thirty
second soundbite and horribly mangled in the process. On the other hand,
I've heard this argument advanced in an attempt to restrict scientific
research, on the grounds that "people won't understand it and could
mistakenly use the conclusions to further their own prejudices."
(Although here, I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that most of us would
be horrified at passing any laws banning sex ads from CGW, and would
regard it as an unwarranted intrusion of...etc, etc.)
Bronis Vidugiris
)>2) I don't want people to decide on what I should read. People who try to
)> influence CGW (and many times society as a whole) are indirectly
)telling
)> me what not to read.
)
)This argument belongs in the compost pile.
)
)At the very most, they are trying to influence where you read it. And they
)have just as much a right to tell CGW "I don't want to see this stuff in
)your magazine" as you do to say "I love it; gimme more!"
)
)>Point 2) is something for which I don't accept other opinion. I don't
)>want people to tell me how to live, what to read and what to say. I can
)>decide for myself. So, leave the sex ads in the mag, 'cause I might want
)>to have a look at them.
)
)And what Jojo wants determines what everybody else should do. Sorry, son,
)that's not an argument. It's a baby whining, and for essentially the same
)reason.
Jojo is doing the same thing you are - letting his opinion be known
on matters of principle, and expressing very strong opinions.
It's interesting that when he does this, he's "whining", and when you
do this, it's just "free speech".
uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu
> Hmmm. You grew up believing that "sex and violence is a part of everyday
> life" and don't think you were affected by all the violence when you were
> young? Guess again!
Maybe I wasn't all that clear in my statement. Watch the news sometime, and
tell me how many stories you saw about violence such as wars/murders/rape. That
is everyday life isn't it? That is reality.
As far as sex goes, do you know where you came from? That too is everyday life
right?
How can you not say that sex and violence are a part of everyday life? I'm not
saying that the world should be that way, but it is. Hell, in an ideal world,
we wouldn't have to worry about violence in real life.
So, you want to tell me how all the violent games I have played, and still
play, have affected me, or my views?
And another thing (I don't think this applies to you Bill), I have been reading
about people complaining that the porn ads don't belong in a mag that is about
computer games. Has anyone actually looked at some of the ads. There are plenty
of games being advertised that happen to have pron in them. Does that mean that
they are anyless of a game? Nope, some of the ads are appropriate I guess.
-Tony
Gary E. Bloom
> Say, is there a mag-only subscription to PC Gamer (without the CD)?
Yes.
Joel Wawrzon
<uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu> wrote:
>In article <403a1c$des...@wilmington03.voicenet.com>, ma...@omni.voicenet.com (Matthew Chiglinsky) writes:
>> In article <4036pr$8...@news.xs4all.nl>, Jojo <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that. I say
>> that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from
>> anyone under the age of 18. Any in agreement?
>
>Hell no! (you didn't say anything about language. haha) What would that solve.
>Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
>anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I grew up
>playing Atari and Nintendo. I played plenty of "violent" games, and I turned
>out OK. I have never had the compulsion to go out and kill/eat/mutilate/rape
>people, so why should violent games be banned/censored?
>
In defense of Jurgen, he was making a counterpoint. He is not really
suggesting censorship. You should really follow the thread for a
while or at least read the posts more closely before jumping in in the middle
of the debate with something so irrelevant (and potentially inflammatory).
BTW, between you and me, I don't consider porn and violence as a normal
part of everyday life ;-). At least not mine.
Just letting you know.
Joel
------------------------------------------
Joel Wawrzon
Univ. of Wisc. Dept. of Computer Science
waw...@cs.wisc.edu
------------------------------------------
Harf
>In article <4067jr$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Harf <mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> It's simple: if you don't like the adult ads in CGW, _don't buy CGW_,
>>and then you won't have to see them, will you?
>I suppose you've never written a letter to the editor of a newspaper or
>magazine (or even heard of such an arcane practice). It's done so that
>one can give that publication input into how you feel about what they
>publish -- maybe you disagree with an article or wish to make a correction or
>would like to give them your two cents or maybe you agree or...I hope
>you're catching on ;-). It's a very old and accepted way of doing things.
I have written a letter to the editor of a newspaper, thank you.
However, actions (like not buying the magazine if it offends you) speak
louder than words.
>> No, you only expressed the opinion that CGW should be kept from
>>running the ads they want to. Obviously, that's completely unrelated to
>>"telling people what they should or should not do".
>How would CGW "be kept from running the ads they want to"? I'm not telling or
>forcing, I'm simply expressing my opinion. CGW probably doesn't care (obviously)
>about what ads they do or do not run, they're just in it for the money. I'd
>like them to know that this reader likes their magazinee, but wishes that
>the porn ads would go. I don't understand how I in *any way* "said" or implied
>any part of that first (or second) sentence of yours. No such opinion was
>expressed.
Your stated viewpoint is that people opposed to adult ads in CGW
should send letters to the editors. Presumably, this means that you are
hoping to keep them from running future adult ads, and not that you were
just bored and felt an urge to write a letter.
>>
>> I'll say it again. If you feel that the content in CGW is
>>"low-class", no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read it.
>>
>I don't understand why everything has to be done in extremes. It's not a
>matter of simply buy or don't buy; I want to read the magazine, but I just don't
>like the new porn trend in their ads. Why does everything have to be
Letters to the editor do not actually influence the content of a
magazine to nearly the extent that non-buying of the magazine does. Let's
look at a parallel example: you disagree with what the President is doing.
Is what you do send him a letter nicely asking that he try to make more
reasonable policies in the future? No, probably not. When it's time for
the next election, you back the candidate who you feel is most likely
to fix the problem, instead of hoping that the incumbent read your letter
and repented his evil ways.
>confrontational? Is everything agree-or-get-the-hell-out with people like
>yourself. There are a few political ideas I disagree with too, but I suppose
>no one is forcing me to stay in this country... I think I'd rather stay and
>exercise my right to have an opinion as well as vote. Publications are very
>much the same way.
True, but the way that you can change the course of the country is
by not supporting candidates that you feel are leading it in the wrong
direction. Likewise, CGW could care less what the readers think of their
ads as long as they still buy the magazine.
>Finally, I find it extremely irritating when somebody perversely twists my words
>around and claims that I've made statements that I've clearly never made or
>even alluded to. No where did I say the _content_ of CGW is low-class, just the
>placing of those ads all over the magazine.
Sorry, I meant to include "adult" before content. If you feel that
placing the adult ads in a sealed section would be a better alternative,
that's your perogative; but, CGW won't change without a real monetary threat.
There's no incentive to.
-- Matt Bandy <m-b...@uiuc.edu>
Sean Kaye
> >If these adult CD ads have their place in CGW, how come we do not see ANY
> >reviews of adult CD's in this magazine?
> >
> >Isn't this a typical case of double standards?
> >
> Uhmm...should a computer magazine really review adult CDs on their
> 'titillation' value? No...I don't think so, but as adult CDs are intended for
> ehh computer users...I think they belong in a computer magazine. Sex phone
> lines or car ads don't belong in a computer mag. Adult CDs do. Now as long as
> they don't show any, eh..'crucial' parts...what's wrong with those ads?
That's the flaw in your logic though... You, on one hand, say that
these ads belong in a computer magazine because they are aimed at
computer users, but then on the other hand you do not feel that it is
right to review these "pieces of entertainment"... So if they are
unworthy of being reviewed because this may outrage some of the
readership, why not follow it up with the assumption that these games
therefore must not appeal to the readership... Because in essence what
you are saying is, is that the presence of these ads does not alienate
a majority of the readership, a review of their content however may
just very well... So doesn't that make these "games" unworthy to be at
all in the magazine???
Sean Kaye
> Your argument sounds good, but it has one BIG flaw. I am not
> complaining about the contents of CGW. I am not calling them or emailing
> them to tell them what's good or bad. If CGW has sex ads, then that's
> fine, if CGW does not have sex ads, then that's fine with me too. I want
> *them* to decide what to show me. And if I like it I'll buy it. They want
> me to see sex ads, and I think that's ok.
That's you position and I am entirely comfortable with that... I just
have a problem with your attitude of sitting there and waiting for
them to show you something... Isn't that one of the problems with TV,
its not interactive??? Now, I totally understand your arguement that
is you don't like it, don't buy it, but by the same token, if writing
a letter and voicing an opinion can bring about positive change in
YOUR opinion (subjective issue), then you should write that letter...
> That's *completely* different from those whiners who *do* want to
> influence the contents of this mag. And I don't want them to do that. I
> want them to take it as it is, whether it's with or without the ads. They
> don't want to look at the ads. Fine. But they want to get them out of the
> magazine, for illogical reasons, which may not be what other people want.
Ads are NOT considered content... Ads are just that ads... I do not
buy the magazine for the ads, I buy them for the articles... So to
appease people ads should be neutral and non-offensive... I mean
really, think what you will of the magazine's journalistic quality,
but when a raging debate begins over certain types of ads, that is not
good... Let's face it, Ads are put in the magazine to increase
revenue... Readers pay for their copy of the magazine, this too is
revenue... I'm quite sure CGW has no difficulty filling ad space, so
to put ads in that some people find objectionable is just plain
stupid... If those people who were offended stop buying the magazine,
readership goes down, therefore, CGW cannot charge as much for ad
space (lower readership does that) and so they are hurting their
overall revenue... If however, CGW decides to DROP the XXX ads, they
lose a few advertisers that could probably be replaced rather quickly
and I don't think any of the readers would stop purchasing the
magazine because those ads vanished... Really, dropping those ads is a
no-lose situation...
Mind you, I am not morally offended by them... I just think its stupid
and detracts from the magazine because they simply have no place in
there... The stated objective of the magazine is to provide readers
with information into what's going on in the realm of Computer
Gaming... If these ads were relevant to the objective of the magazine,
then you would see reviews of that genre and much more mention of it
would be made... The entire GENRE gets no mention by the magazine, so
therefore I must assume that in the editorial board's opinion it has
no place in the magazine, yet the ads are still there... I think this
is what offends me...
So call me a whiner if you will, but I have as much right to complain
as you have... But really if those ads were no longer in CGW do you
think it would bother you??? I think in a round about way you said
"no" to that earlier... Something to the effect of (I'm paraphrasing),
"I'll take what they give me, if the sex ads are in there or not, I'll
buy it if I like it..."
> Bill: The commercial breaks.
> Oprah: So?
> Bill: They had no child molesters in them.
> Oprah: Excuse me?
> Bill: The commercials had nothing to do with your program.
> There was one about a car, about a dish-washer, about a magazine,
> but no commercials for child molesters.
> Oprah: Are you kidding me?
> Bill: No, I want you to get rid of those commercials.
> Oprah: Go play with yourself, idiot.
Oprah doesn't pick her commercials... She picks her sponsors though,
and I don't think we'll be seeing a sponsorship by the Klan anytime
soon... She knows better than to offend some members of the viewing
audience by wrecklessly picking sponsors...
Tempest
>>mutilations, corpses and armoury. Did you ever post a message in these
>>newsgroups complaining about that? No, you didn't. Why not? Because
>>you're obviously being a louzy parent (IMHO), that's why.
>
> I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that. I say
>that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned
from
>anyone under the age of 18. Any in agreement?
in the real world and what is real and what is fantasy, what is bad and what
is good. Censoring, banning doesn't help one bit but keep kids ignorant and
naive.
Tempest
Tempest
>Have you ever considered that parents are not always around to watch
>of CGW under lock and key? I don't have kids but after reading some of
>the postings by other people with kids, I can understand where they are
>coming from about sex ads in computer gaming magazines.
>
out by themself! Check under their mattresses to see what I mean!
Tempest
Jojo
>And YOU are just as guilty for trying to persuade CGW to "provide
>information" that they
>1) previously did not "provide"
>2) is objectionable to many readers
>3) has nothing to do with the magazine's stated subject
>Why can YOU tell people what to do but god forbid someone else do the same?
Your argument sounds good, but it has one BIG flaw. I am not
complaining about the contents of CGW. I am not calling them or emailing
them to tell them what's good or bad. If CGW has sex ads, then that's
fine, if CGW does not have sex ads, then that's fine with me too. I want
*them* to decide what to show me. And if I like it I'll buy it. They want
me to see sex ads, and I think that's ok.
That's *completely* different from those whiners who *do* want to
influence the contents of this mag. And I don't want them to do that. I
want them to take it as it is, whether it's with or without the ads. They
don't want to look at the ads. Fine. But they want to get them out of the
magazine, for illogical reasons, which may not be what other people want.
>Frankly, I am finding ALL the non-computer ads that have been creaping in
>annoying too. If I want to read ads about RPG materials I will go read
>one of the RPG magazines I get. If I want to read ads about the latest
>porn CDs I'll go read any one of the plethora of magazines devoted to
>that. If I want to find out about cars I'll go read one of the auto
>magazines.
Bill: Hi Oprah, it's me, Bill Seurer.
Oprah: Hi Bill, what's up?
Bill: Well, yesterday you had this episode about child molesters?
Oprah: Yes, did you like it?
Bill: Yeah, it was great. But there's one thing though.
Oprah: What's that?
Bill: The commercial breaks.
Oprah: So?
Bill: They had no child molesters in them.
Oprah: Excuse me?
Bill: The commercials had nothing to do with your program.
There was one about a car, about a dish-washer, about a magazine,
but no commercials for child molesters.
Oprah: Are you kidding me?
Bill: No, I want you to get rid of those commercials.
Oprah: Go play with yourself, idiot.
<beep> <beep> <beep>
Tempest
>> I don't even notice a problem. It's nothing more suggestive than you'd
>> see on freely displayed magazine covers at a street-side newsstand
>> or on the Calvin Klein ads on buses and telephone booths. People who
>> have a problem with CGW ads: do you put blinders on your children when
>> you go outside? Sexuality is the driving force behind much of
>> advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
>>
> A question...
>
>If these adult CD ads have their place in CGW, how come we do not see ANY
>reviews of adult CD's in this magazine?
>
>Isn't this a typical case of double standards?
>
Uhmm...should a computer magazine really review adult CDs on their
'titillation' value? No...I don't think so, but as adult CDs are intended for
ehh computer users...I think they belong in a computer magazine. Sex phone
lines or car ads don't belong in a computer mag. Adult CDs do. Now as long as
they don't show any, eh..'crucial' parts...what's wrong with those ads?
Tempest
Fernando Pulido
>
> I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that. I say
>that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from
>anyone under the age of 18. Any in agreement?
>
Ban games with violence but let them watch Road Runner cartoons that show
blatant disregard for life, yeah, right.
You have about as much of a chance of having that happen as having the
lost continent of Atlantis rising up and flying to the moon!!
The self imposed ratings listed on game boxes are more than good enough.
Fernando Pulido
>>Tell me, why are advertisements dealing with sex so "low-class"?
>>I enjoyed sex yesterday, and I enjoy games today. What makes one more
>>"higher-class" than the other?
>
> One is inappropriate; one is not. One is low-class; one is
>high-class. Isn't it simple enough?
>
No it's not. My wife considers Doom and Heretic low class, but she seemed
to enjoy our little tryst last night. Sex inappropriate?!?!?! You
wouldn't be here if your parents didn't have "inappropriate sex".
Simple enough.
>
>>This world has a BIG attitude problem. War is fun, but sex is filthy.
>
> Sex IS NOT filthy. Only satan would have people believe that. God
>made sex, therefore sex is good. What's wrong is abusing anything good.
>Since sex is good, you shouldn't abuse it. It's simple enough.
>
While I agree that sex is not filthy, I can't help but point out how bad
your logic is. Reminds me of a little kid's rhyme, "God made dirt, and
dirt don't hurt." I won't go on about all the holes that your logic
leaves, I think that it is simple enough.
Jojo
>censorship and the assumed right to do/say/have anything. Your first
>point is, you don't think sex ads are bad for children, for the
>astounding reason that "there are more important things to worry about."
>This is on the order of saying we ought not to catch our friend before
>he falls out the window, because there are a DOZEN people falling out
>the window down the street. Such clarity is unlikely to breed such
>confidence as it does in you, but -- what the heck. I countered this
>"point" effectively, I think.
No, you did not. I am saying that CGW not only has sex ads, but it has
always had pictures of graphical violence. People don't seem to care
about that, and I wonder why. So yes, my point IS valid. I'm not dragging
the war in Bosnia in the discussion. I am saying that there's a different
type of troublesome graphics in these computer game magazines that people
should worry about first. Because war is far worse than sex. Yes, there
are other things that are more important to worry about, and I never
talked about people falling from the window, I am talking about graphical
violence in magazines (and games) as apposed to graphical sex.
This argument is not about unrelated things.
It is as valid as it can be. You can't tackle me here. <15-0>
>And I said so, in my last post, which you ignored (wisely, I suppose),
I can't follow-up to all the posts. I would be typing all day. Excuse me
for having the opinion that you are not *that* important. <30-0>
>Pardon me for =not= falling out of my chair, Jojo. This is the
>Beavus & Butthead School of Debating. This is (barely) high school
>stuff. You do not consider that there are plenty of places to get these
>"sex ads" -- and you do not -- of course -- consider that there are
>people who do =not= want the sex ads in a PC gaming magazine. You do not
>consider that other people may want to read pc game reviews without sex
>ads -- and since you can get sex ads elsewhere, and they can hardly get
>(good) pc game reviews elsewhere, it isn't you who's losing.
High school stuff. Hehe. You're obviously very familiar with that mental
level. Ok, here we go again:
It is not important that we can see the sex ads elsewhere. That's not the
issue. These companies want me to read them in CGW too, that's what we're
talking about here. It's stupid to say "they don't belong here, you can
see them elsewhere". You can see *everything* in CGW elsewhere, in one
form or another. And yes, I *do* consider that there are people who don't
want to see them. I tell them to stop whining. Don't buy it if you don't
like it. <40-0>
>There's a huge magazine stand around the corner, Jojo, with lots of the
>sex ads you might want to have a look at. Go to them.
No, I don't need to read sex ads. They are actually quite uninteresting.
There's a huge magazine stand around the corner, John, with lots of
magazines without sex ads. You might want to have a look at them. <game>
>Your arguments don't stand; they're hardly "arguments." Undoubtedly
>you'll ignore this post and renew your request for "contra-arguments"
>tomorrow.
On the contrary, I think I have proven with this message once again that
my arguments still hold, despite of your pityful and unintelligent
attempts to break them down.
It makes you look quite silly though: there are dozens of messages in these
newsgroups, and if I don't have the time or urge to follow up on all of
them, you claim to win the debate. And *you* were talking about invalid
arguments??? Give me a break.
You've got one thing right though. I *will* ignore you from now on.
You're not worth it. It's no use repeating again and again how things
really are.
Jurgen.
In fact, I'll ignore it all from now on. The thread is starting to bore
me. We'll never get it sorted out. Let the CGW guys do a poll.
Joel Wawrzon
Harf <mba...@superdec.uni.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>waw...@sun23.cs.wisc.edu (Joel Wawrzon) writes:
>
>
>>I suppose you're right when you say pornography is part of "sex as we
>>know it", but then again so is sado-masochism, bondage, fisting,
>>and pedophilia. This doesn't mean that I want to see it advertised
>>between the pages of my copy of CGW. There are plenty of other magazines
>>and catalogs that cover this field pretty thoroughly.
>
> It's simple: if you don't like the adult ads in CGW, _don't buy CGW_,
>and then you won't have to see them, will you?
I suppose you've never written a letter to the editor of a newspaper or
magazine (or even heard of such an arcane practice). It's done so that
one can give that publication input into how you feel about what they
publish -- maybe you disagree with an article or wish to make a correction or
would like to give them your two cents or maybe you agree or...I hope
you're catching on ;-). It's a very old and accepted way of doing things.
>>We had a good laugh over this paragraph <g>. Let's just forget the fact that
>>I never once passed judgement on anyone or even alluded to telling
>>people what they should or should not do. BTW, my second name is Christopher,
>
> No, you only expressed the opinion that CGW should be kept from
>running the ads they want to. Obviously, that's completely unrelated to
>"telling people what they should or should not do".
How would CGW "be kept from running the ads they want to"? I'm not telling or
forcing, I'm simply expressing my opinion. CGW probably doesn't care (obviously)
about what ads they do or do not run, they're just in it for the money. I'd
like them to know that this reader likes their magazinee, but wishes that
the porn ads would go. I don't understand how I in *any way* "said" or implied
any part of that first (or second) sentence of yours. No such opinion was
expressed.
>>[pedantic retort as to the meaning of "low-class" snipped]
>
> I'll say it again. If you feel that the content in CGW is
>"low-class", no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read it.
>
I don't understand why everything has to be done in extremes. It's not a
matter of simply buy or don't buy; I want to read the magazine, but I just don't
like the new porn trend in their ads. Why does everything have to be
confrontational? Is everything agree-or-get-the-hell-out with people like
yourself. There are a few political ideas I disagree with too, but I suppose
no one is forcing me to stay in this country... I think I'd rather stay and
exercise my right to have an opinion as well as vote. Publications are very
much the same way.
Finally, I find it extremely irritating when somebody perversely twists my words
around and claims that I've made statements that I've clearly never made or
even alluded to. No where did I say the _content_ of CGW is low-class, just the
placing of those ads all over the magazine.
Joel
John Tracey
J-> On the contrary, I think I have proven with this message once again that
-> my arguments still hold, despite of your pityful and unintelligent
-> attempts to break them down.
Ummmm .... yes, this graph proves =that=, fer sure. Indeed, I am
"pityful," "despite of" your debating mastery.
J-> It makes you look quite silly though: there are dozens of messages in these
-> newsgroups, and if I don't have the time or urge to follow up on all of
-> them, you claim to win the debate. And *you* were talking about invalid
-> arguments??? Give me a break.
<sigh> I wrote one message to you. You responded to the message --
without answering any of its arguments. This is what I was talking
about. You then say I expected you to follow up on 30 messages. This is
another red herring -- your favorite debating tactic, and that of most
children.
Game, set, and match? You're a legend in your own mind.
RDClark
>However, actions (like not buying the magazine if it offends you) speak
>louder than words.
This point, made several times by Matt Bandy, is incorrect IMO -- at
least, in the sense that it's posted.
Writing a letter to a magazine is a very potent action, one that speaks
more loudly than most other actions. Withdrawal of advertiser dollars, or
a *successful* public boycott, are the only legal actions I can think of
that are more powerful.
Most companies use a rule-of-thumb that one letter reflects the opinion of
x customers, and x is usually a fairly large number. When many letters
begin arriving, all protesting the same thing, change usually follows.
That's exactly what happened with PC Magazine's porn ads.
An individual not buying a magazine will have little impact -- much less
than that same individual writing a letter.
Note that the same tactics work, whatever your opinion. If you like porn
ads in CGW, and want them to stay, you should write a letter too. It's
usually the people who are "against" something that get mobilised,
organized, and vocal on issues like this.
------------------------------------------------------------
|---RichC----------------------------Interfacing is easy---|
|---rd...@aol.com-------Compatibility takes a lifetime---|
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Hammer
es:
>
> "The fact is, I do not believe that CGW is the proper forum for such
>ads, and they detract from an otherwise excellent publication. I am not
>trying to censor CGW's right to earn a profit. My personal subscription
>will continue to be renewed (with the issues offending ads painted over).
>My company however will not place our family-oriented ads next to the
>porn-ads in CGW (or any magazine). Several of our designers have agreed
>with this, and my partners agree to."
> "They detract from the image of CGW. I buy CGW for game info. I buy
>Penthouse for adult info. I do not buy CGW for the xxx-cd-rom ads, and do
>not buy penthouse for it's "Klik N Play" ad."
> -- Bob Hubbard, President, Centarius Software
>
> Bob, I agree with you. Allow me to spell out the official poop on porn
>in CGW.
> First, the bad news. The September issue will be "just as filthy" as
>the August issue. Consider that fair warning. However, in the 4th quarter
>(Oct - Dec), there will be a tempering of these adverts and, by January of
>February, things should be "cleaned up" considerably.
Well, I think I'll take my magazine nickle to another spot then. If you bow
to the pressure on something like this, I can well imagine what happens when
a large advertiser wants a better review than reality would support.
Jojo
>Ads are NOT considered content... Ads are just that ads... I do not
>buy the magazine for the ads, I buy them for the articles...
That's right. And like commercials on radio and tv it is not necessary
for ads in CGW to have anything to do with the editorial content. In
fact, magazines like CGW are quite lucky to be able to live off ads that
contribute to their editorials. But it's not common. In most types of
media the ads have little or nothing to do with the information that they
are placed in.
>So to
>appease people ads should be neutral and non-offensive... I mean
>really, think what you will of the magazine's journalistic quality,
>but when a raging debate begins over certain types of ads, that is not
>good...
Is it "wise" to avoid gay love scenes on television, because the
advertisers might walk away? Was it good to avoid black people in leading
movie roles because the public might be offended? Is it good to avoid
harmless sex ads because some readers and advertisers might find them
uncomfortable?
You may find it "good" for a magazine to do what people with big mouths want
them to do. If find it good if a mag is a little more progressive than
that, if it challenges people's intellect and if it doesn't care much
about illogical ancient Victorian moral values. If they can get away with
it financially, then by all means, please let them continue.
>would be made... The entire GENRE gets no mention by the magazine, so
>therefore I must assume that in the editorial board's opinion it has
>no place in the magazine, yet the ads are still there... I think this
>is what offends me...
Like you and I already agree: ads don't belong to the contents of the
mag. They are there for the money. If they happen to contribute to the
very meaning of the magazine itself, then hurray, we have a quite unique
product here. If they don't, no problem.
>Oprah doesn't pick her commercials... She picks her sponsors though,
>and I don't think we'll be seeing a sponsorship by the Klan anytime
>soon... She knows better than to offend some members of the viewing
>audience by wrecklessly picking sponsors...
This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. You don't
call tv shows or radio shows to complain about the commercials not having
any relative 'content'. Or do you? Then why do people do so with a
magazine?
Jurgen.
CGW Alan
ads, and they detract from an otherwise excellent publication. I am not
trying to censor CGW's right to earn a profit. My personal subscription
will continue to be renewed (with the issues offending ads painted over).
My company however will not place our family-oriented ads next to the
porn-ads in CGW (or any magazine). Several of our designers have agreed
with this, and my partners agree to."
"They detract from the image of CGW. I buy CGW for game info. I buy
Penthouse for adult info. I do not buy CGW for the xxx-cd-rom ads, and do
not buy penthouse for it's "Klik N Play" ad."
-- Bob Hubbard, President, Centarius Software
Bob, I agree with you. Allow me to spell out the official poop on porn
in CGW.
First, the bad news. The September issue will be "just as filthy" as
the August issue. Consider that fair warning. However, in the 4th quarter
(Oct - Dec), there will be a tempering of these adverts and, by January of
February, things should be "cleaned up" considerably.
Second, none of these ads are really new. Their old advertisers who
have gotten more brazen, particularly with the images used in their ads.
The reason? CGW's new publisher, Jon Lane, made a rookie mistake. He gave
these guys an inch, and they took a mile. Now he's working to undo the
mess, and it will take considerably longer to fix this mess (advertisers
need several months lead time, it seems) than to create it.
Third, the policy has been put in place that no new Adult Advertisers
will be accepted in CGW. Those currently advertising will either have to
tone it way down, or be dropped once their contracts run out.
Finally, the editorial staff of CGW is not comfortable with these ads,
either. But they're not the ones who sell the ads in the magazine. They've
had a meeting of the minds with the sales department, refereed by the
publisher, and the preceeding is the shakedown.
Personally, I look forward to the elimination of these ads, or at the
very least their graphic elements. Like you, I don't feel they belong in
CGW. It's a magazine I work for, and one I want my 10-year old son to
read.
Alan Emrich
"Never mind what Clausewitz thought; what do YOU think?"
--Erwin Rommel
John M. Vogel
: Bob, I agree with you. Allow me to spell out the official poop on porn
: in CGW.
<stuff deleted>
Thank you!!! :)
John
jvo...@crl.com
Larry Doering
>
>Hey AMRAAM, are you named after a missile?
>
>
>
>>spinning off into outer space here.) You can wallpaper your room with
>>sex ads for all anybody cares, put it up in your windows, stick one in
>>your .sig, have a sex ad tattooed on your forehead -- it's all well and
>No, can't have it tattooed on your forehead. It's pretty much illegal to
>have tattooing done above the neck or above the wrist. You could probably
>get away with it if it were a religious rite, though.
Nope. Not in the US, anyway. It's illegal for a commercial tattoo artist
to tattoo people below a certain age (generally 18) in most states, and some
states (like Massachussetts) ban commercial tattooing entirely, but there are
no laws restricting tattoos to certain parts of your body.
My brother has a tat on the back of his hand, and I know several people
with tattoos in various locations on their heads.
On the other hand, many tattoo artists will refuse to do tattoos on your
hands and head/face. This isn't because it's illegal, it's because a lot
of professionals think tattoos on your hands or face are a bad idea and
just prefer not to do them.
Of course, you can always do whatever you want wherever you want with a
needle and some thread and india ink - DIY tattooing isn't that hard.
ljd (two tats so far)
uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu
> In article <1995Aug8.0...@msuvx1.memphis.edu>,
> <uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu> wrote:
>>In article <403a1c$des...@wilmington03.voicenet.com>, ma...@omni.voicenet.com (Matthew Chiglinsky) writes:
>>>
>>> I'm not a parent, but right now I will speak out about that. I say
>>> that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and banned from
>>> anyone under the age of 18. Any in agreement?
>>
>>Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
>>anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I grew up
>>playing Atari and Nintendo. I played plenty of "violent" games, and I turned
>>out OK. I have never had the compulsion to go out and kill/eat/mutilate/rape
>>people, so why should violent games be banned/censored?
>>
>> -Tony
>
> In defense of Jurgen, he was making a counterpoint. He is not really
Umm, why are you defending Jurgen. From what I read, I never attacked him in
anyway. Hell, what you have quoted doesn't even involve Jurgen. I have agreed
with everything Jurgen has written with some exceptions (the American
comments).
> suggesting censorship. You should really follow the thread for a
> while or at least read the posts more closely before jumping in in the middle
Thats funny, seeing that I'm not the one in error here Joel. I think that I
followed this thread close enough. Do you think that YOU have followed it close
enough?
> of the debate with something so irrelevant (and potentially inflammatory).
>
> BTW, between you and me, I don't consider porn and violence as a normal
> part of everyday life ;-). At least not mine.
Where do you live that its not a part of life? When you go out at night, you
don't worry about what may be around the next corner? As far as porn goes, did
I mention that? I believe I said sex and violence. Porn is such a grey area
anyway.
Well, it looks like maybe you should read the posts more closely.
-Tony
Mark Rose
> |> Hell no! (you didn't say anything about language. haha) What would that solve.
> |> Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
> |> anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I grew up
[Lines edited...]
> Hmmm. You grew up believing that "sex and violence is a part of everyday
> life" and don't think you were affected by all the violence when you were
> young? Guess again!
> --
>
> - Bill Seurer Language and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
> Business: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com Home: BillS...@aol.com
>
>
Though I was not the original poster here, I'm confused. Do you NOT
believe that "sex and violence is a part of everyday life"? And of
course, we are ALL affected by what we see and experience as we grow up,
just as much as we are affected by what we DON'T see and experience as we
grow up. I think all this hoohah over explicit sex and violence games is
just ridiculous. If you don't like it, don't buy it, tell your kids not
to buy it, tell your kids to shun everyone who does, fine with me.
Tempest
>|> > that all games with aggression and violence should be censored and
banned from
>|> > anyone under the age of 18. Any in agreement?
>|>
solve.
>|> Like it or not, sex and violence is a part of everyday life. I don't see
>|> anything wrong with playing a game that depicts violence or even sex. I
grew up
turned
>|> out OK. I have never had the compulsion to go out and
kill/eat/mutilate/rape
>|> people, so why should violent games be banned/censored?
>
>life" and don't think you were affected by all the violence when you were
>young? Guess again!
Gosh....you learn something on Usenet every day.
Tempest
Tempest
sk...@chat.carleton.ca (Sean Kaye) wrote:
>Tempest (cw...@wi.leidenuniv.nl) wrote:
>> >If these adult CD ads have their place in CGW, how come we do not see ANY
>> >reviews of adult CD's in this magazine?
>> >
>> >Isn't this a typical case of double standards?
>> >
>> Uhmm...should a computer magazine really review adult CDs on their
>> 'titillation' value? No...I don't think so, but as adult CDs are intended
for
>> ehh computer users...I think they belong in a computer magazine. Sex phone
>> lines or car ads don't belong in a computer mag. Adult CDs do. Now as long
as
>> they don't show any, eh..'crucial' parts...what's wrong with those ads?
>
>these ads belong in a computer magazine because they are aimed at
>computer users, but then on the other hand you do not feel that it is
>right to review these "pieces of entertainment"... So if they are
>unworthy of being reviewed because this may outrage some of the
>readership, why not follow it up with the assumption that these games
>therefore must not appeal to the readership... Because in essence what
>you are saying is, is that the presence of these ads does not alienate
>a majority of the readership, a review of their content however may
>just very well... So doesn't that make these "games" unworthy to be at
>all in the magazine???
magazine could actually review these CDs. But everyone knows already that
these will get horrible reviews, so why bother. But these ads don't offend me
because I know about sex, and sex is not bad or evil (I skip these ads because
I'm not interested in buying adult cds, I can get pornographic material from
usenet for free anyway). These ads serve a purpose...the mag gets more money
so that they can hire more writers etc. and increase the number of articles.
Of course the number of ads will increase too. Now, if the quality of the
reviews and articles stay the same I wouldn't be too worried. It would be
a shame (IMHO) if you would null your subscription just because of some ads
for adult CDs. There are several options concerning sex and kids. You could
discuss the subject with them...or you could see to it they do not know
ANYTHING about sex until they're 18! Boy, will they be shocked! Or you could
let your son's friends do all the talking for you.
Tempest
Jojo
><sigh> I wrote one message to you. You responded to the message --
>without answering any of its arguments. This is what I was talking
>about. You then say I expected you to follow up on 30 messages. This is
>another red herring -- your favorite debating tactic, and that of most
>children.
I answered to your "arguments" in my latest message, quite elaborately.
It's quite childish to keep whining about me not having answered them in
the message before.
My last message had several very strong points that you are unable to
break. It shows, because you don't even try and you just keep on whining
about the previous message.
You had said that I hadn't answered your arguments. I thought you meant
that I overlooked one of your *many* posts to this newsgroup. It appears
you meant something else. That's all. Red herrings? Deliberate childish
debating tactics? Funny synonyms for a slight misunderstanding.
Childish, ha! The pot calls the ketel black.
You're such a looser. You don't know how to break my arguments so you
just start offending in a moronic way. We're not impressed. Add to the
debate or shut up. I have several arguments still holding strong. Pretend
that your IQ is above 90 or go away.
To the other readers: Several people have mailed me to say that they
share my point of view in this sex ad debate. But they told me not to
offend people so easily while I'm making my arguments. Well people,
that's simply impossible with imbeciles like John around.
Jurgen.
p.s. I'm enjoying this thread again.
Centarius Software Co.
writes:
>
[ Bunch of stuff deleted to save bandwith ]
> Personally, I look forward to the elimination of these ads, or at
the
>very least their graphic elements. Like you, I don't feel they belong
in
>CGW. It's a magazine I work for, and one I want my 10-year old son to
>read.
>
> Alan Emrich
>"Never mind what Clausewitz thought; what do YOU think?"
>--Erwin Rommel
Mr. Emrich,
Thank you for clarifying what happened at CGW. I look forward to
it's return to it's previously excellent quality. We here at Centarius
will be watching with interest over the next few months to see how
things progress. (Don't worry, we didn't expect an overnite change.
We understand the time delays involved with advertizing. We just wish
the ad closing dates weren't 2-4 months in advance. :) )
Bob Hubbard,
President, Centarius Software
PS: Ok, that's what happened, and what their gonna do, so lets wrap
this discussion up, ok folks? Thank you.
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Centarius Software |
| For information on product submissions, release dates or a copy |
| of our FAQ, Please send e-mail to : cent...@ix.netcom.com |
| or send an SASE to : Centarius Software PO Box 1083 Buffalo NY 14220 |
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
CGW Alan
you bow
to the pressure on something like this, I can well imagine what happens
when
a large advertiser wants a better review than reality would support."
They're your nickles, spend them where you want.
As I indicated, however, it was an internal SNAFU to let the "porno"
advertisers run rampant in the first place. We didn't like it in house,
and so are correcting it. The public pressure only adds impetus to cause
that we totally agree with!
As for "a large advertiser [that] wants a better review than reality
would support," let me tell you a little first hand story. . .
I worked at the CGW office for years, just a few paces away from the
publisher's telephone. When his conversations got loud, I wasn't the only
one who could overhear them!!
Suprisingly often, IMHO, some irate company president or marketing flak
would call us and demand a retraction for the things we said in a review
of their product or a newspiece on their company. Oh, boy, the feathers
would fly then! Every time (and I mean EVERY time), the publisher (Russell
Sipe, at that time) would tell them what they could do with their threats
and phones on both ends of the conversation would end up being slammed
down. CGW would keep its editorial integrity, but at what price?
Well, usually one of two things would happen after this. Either the
irate company person would chill, apologize, and things would go on as
before. The rest of the time, ads got pulled from CGW and nasty little
back-biting campaigns might get started at trade shows and such like. I
won't name names here, but if you have enough back issues of CGW, you can
see several instances where some big company didn't advertise for some
stretch of publications. You can bet they were pissed off about something
in the magazine prior to that.
So, for as many bad things one might say about their former boss, one
good thing that I was always proud of was Mr. Sipe's (occasionally
expensive) penchant for maintaining CGW's editorial integrity. He prided
himself in it, and rightly so. I was involved in some of those squabbles,
and they weren't pretty.
Alan Emrich
"I am no longer young. You might have suspected that. The house we hope to
build is one that is not for my generation, but for yours. It is your
future that matters. And I hope that when you're my age, you'll be able to
say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom, we lived lives that
were a statement, not an apology."
--Ronald Reagan, March 28, 1985
CGW Alan
>buy the magazine for the ads, I buy them for the articles..."
Interestingly, past studies of CGW readers have shown, consistantly,
that the #2 or #3 thing they most look forward to reading each month in
CGW is the ads! Personally, I like them to see how companies are
"positioning" various products, as well as what they're promising people
those games will contain.
John M. Vogel
: I answered to your "arguments" in my latest message, quite elaborately.
: It's quite childish to keep whining about me not having answered them in
: the message before.
: My last message had several very strong points that you are unable to
: break. It shows, because you don't even try and you just keep on whining
: about the previous message.
Another country heard from...
Jojo, your arguments *are* incredibly weak. They are unimaginative,
inarticulate and pointless. Just because you typed something doesn't
mean you've successfully addressed an argument. Grow up!
John
jvo...@crl.com
Marv Conn
>Well, I think I'll take my magazine nickle to another spot then. If you >bow to the pressure on something like this, I can well im=
agine what >happens when a large advertiser wants a better review than reality would >support.
This is what happens when a great magazine is purchased by a huge company
like Ziff-Davis who loves to make money. You had to know that the old
CGW standards would start falling one by one. I love CGW because of its
hard hitting reviews. Sometimes the reviews are completely wrong, but at
least they give their view point. I'd guess that soon we will be seeing
Ziff-Davis's view point on a lot of games instead of some gamer's views.
John Tracey
-> Personally, I look forward to the elimination of these ads, or at the
-> very least their graphic elements. Like you, I don't feel they belong in
-> CGW. It's a magazine I work for, and one I want my 10-year old son to
-> read.
Hear, hear!
<mails renewal>
John Tracey
CSC-> PS: Ok, that's what happened, and what their gonna do, so lets wrap
-> this discussion up, ok folks? Thank you.
Agreed. Everyone's touchy about off-topic posts anyway. :)
John Tracey
J-> Childish, ha! The pot calls the ketel black.
J-> You're such a looser. You don't know how to break my arguments so you
...
-> debate or shut up. I have several arguments still holding strong.
-> Pretend that your IQ is above 90 or go away.
-> that's simply impossible with imbeciles like John around.
Jojo: one last post (sorry folks).
Practice your spelling before competing in (ad hominem) public IQ tests.
Now, behave yourself. You've lost the argument =and= the issue, as you
can see from Alan Emrich's post. Off to bed for you, junior!
Sean Kaye
> Oh I do believe these ads offend people. Actually, the majority of them! A
> magazine could actually review these CDs. But everyone knows already that
> these will get horrible reviews, so why bother. But these ads don't offend me
> because I know about sex, and sex is not bad or evil (I skip these ads because
> I'm not interested in buying adult cds, I can get pornographic material from
> usenet for free anyway). These ads serve a purpose...the mag gets more money
> so that they can hire more writers etc. and increase the number of articles.
> Of course the number of ads will increase too. Now, if the quality of the
> reviews and articles stay the same I wouldn't be too worried. It would be
> a shame (IMHO) if you would null your subscription just because of some ads
> for adult CDs. There are several options concerning sex and kids. You could
> discuss the subject with them...or you could see to it they do not know
> ANYTHING about sex until they're 18! Boy, will they be shocked! Or you could
> let your son's friends do all the talking for you.
That arguement does not make sense... You are trying to impose an
ideal setting in an uneralistic way... Some parents are not
comfortable talking to their children about sex... Whether or not you
agree with it, that is completely irrelevant... That is a simple
fact... So your idea that it wouldn't be a problem if parents talked
to their kids, may work well on Oprah and Phil, but in the real world,
it often doesn't happen this way...
Now getting back to the issue... I don't have children, I am 21 Years
old and am not married... I don't like those XXX ads simple because I
find them in bad taste for this particular magazine... If I want to
buy smut, I'll pick up Playboy or Penthouse... I don't want or need
smut, so I spend my money on CGW... There's a place for everything,
and everything has its place, and those ads DO NOT BELONG IN CGW...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kaye
2nd Year Arts
Carleton University
Email address: sk...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------