--- Either Gutenberg9443@aol.com or rvijay07@myway.com wrote:
PROTOCOL OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, which is an extremely inflammatory and vicious collection of lies and hatespeak, also is available online, but I would strongly object to PG posting it. My position is this, I think: Banning books is wrong. However, I am not required to publish them myself if I find them distasteful. Let somebody who DOESN'T consider them distasteful publish them.
I could have sworn the Protocols went through DP last fall, but I can't find evidence thereof. The DP consensus I inferred from the discussions at the time was that we're trying to preserve all literature, especially the important and influential, into which category the Protocols certainly fall. Rather than print disclaimers at the beginning or otherwise pass judgement on the text, it was suggested that we find as much PD material debunking the Protocols as possible, and process it through. 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. But by no means do I, nor anyone else of whom I'm aware, believe that any particular volunteer should be forced to work on any particular text. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail