Michael:

>Unfortunately I did not hear the talk, nor have I read the paper, as will
>be the case of most recipients of Brian Randell's message on this channel.
>I recently discussed these concerns with Harold. They seemed to be: (1)
>that pornography is in all its shades is accessible without restriction on
>the WWW; (2) that this information is widely and frequently accessed, and
>is a major reason for "non technical" accesses; (3) that there is too
>little information that is widely accessible, "non technical" and
>essentially wholesome. I think these claims can be substantiated, sound
>reasonable and should be endorsed.

I agree. But what is needed is a well-reasoned, well-balanced,
non-sensational exposition of these points.

Cheers

Brian