> It's only funny (or a double standard) if you honestly think there's no difference between violence (harming someone against their will) and sex between consenting adults.
It's a double standard because the reason why they censored the books was how they allegedly offended modern-day PC sensibilities (as the editor herself said in the interview). The double standard is that some of their new titles are sexually explicit while others such as those from their Gold Eagle line are pretty violent and yet they won't censor them. I'm not equating sex with violence.
> Personally, I don't think they should have edited the reprints (let the ignorance show for all to see), but my guess is they chose the books for their covers, anyway, and then later someone thought of gee, maybe reading them?
That's exactly what happened according to the editor. Someone liked the covers and thought they would make good reprint material. They clearly didn't know what they were doing judging by the authors they chose and some of the relatively mediocre titles they picked.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 01 Dec 2009 EST