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!