protect yourself is your responsibility essentially. It seems to me that by
following another prescription for a ban leads to a diminution of that.
Better to make your own choices than have others make them for you.
larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:49 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Newspaper article
>
>
> There's always a choice in reading a book or not. Just look
> at some of the spam you get and ask yourself if it was your
> choice to get it. I still get ICQ requests from hot South
> American chicks every now and again. I still hear stories of
> kids chatting on the net and then meeting up with their
> 'friend'. Yes, an internet ban is reactionary, but it's not
> without reason.
>
> As an aside, your reaction is one that I cover in my article.
> A simple ban to try and protect both children and adults not
> only can but does lead to a negative opinion of those writing
> the ban. Doesn't matter how right they are or that they had
> the best of intentions, it still leads to scorn.
>
>
> > Really? I'm surprised that they did not ban books as well then.
> >
> > larry
> >
> > >
> > > Porn, people leaving their spouses for others, children
> being preyed
> > > upon, you name it. Basically, there are some who feel that the
> > > negatives of the internet outweigh the positives. This is
> not just
> > > an orthodox Jewish thing but cuts across all religions. I'm just
> > > trying to temper the negatives with some positives.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Cool. BTW pardon my ignorance but what was the reason for
> > > the ban in
> > > > the first place.
> > > >
> > > > larry
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If the newspaper doesn't put it up online then I'll
> post it to
> > > > > Jewslikenews.com. The original is a ruling against the use of
> > > > > the internet and I'm not sure there's a copy of it online at
> > > all. I'll
> > > > > look around. The whole thing is to examine the effects of
> > > the ruling
> > > > > and how to temper it with greater knowledge of the net.
> > > Banning chat
> > > > > is ok. Banning file sharing as well. Saying that you
> > > can't use email
> > > > > without a spam filter to prevent improper images is also
> > > > > covered. Things like that. It's an op-ed, but I'm doing it to
> > > > > try and change the ruling, not just to vent.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Michael Dinowitz
> > > > > House of Fusion
> > > > > http://www.houseoffusion.com
> > > > > Finding technical solutions to the problems you
> didn't know you
> > > > > had yet
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mike will there be a link to your article and the original
> > > > > > ones you commented on?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > larry
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm going to have an article in a newspaper next week. I
> > > > > did a small
> > > > > > > piece on an internet ban written up by some orthodox
> > > > > Rabbis and the
> > > > > > > paper liked it. I may actually be doing two articles.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm hoping to change the minds of people for the
> better. :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
