In a message dated 5/21/2005 9:27:47 AM Mountain Daylight Time, jon_niehof@yahoo.com writes:
I could have sworn the Protocols went through DP last fall, but I can't find evidence thereof. I haven't looked for it, and don't plan on it.
We would be doing a disservice to posterity if we picked and chose what went through. It would also be a disservice to label some texts as "generally approved" and some as "generally bunk," imposing our turn-of-the-millenium viewpoint on the collection. So as I see it, it's best to preserve as much as possible, from as wide a range of viewpoints as possible, knowing that this is *inherently dangerous* and that these texts will almost certainly be used to support actions and viewpoints that we deem contemptible. That's why all this work matters in the first place: because books are dangerous, and they are powerful. That is, of course, a very strong argument. It happens that right now PROTOCOLS is running around a lot of the world exacerbating some already bad situations.
Like Vijay, I'll leave it to majority vote. I've already read it, several years ago when my husband needed it for something he was writing, and it is so silly that it is incredible to me that anybody could ever have believed it. Anne Do you like to breathe? Then save the trees! Begin a personal relationship with an ebook TODAY!