Replies

Before everyone starts flaming me, I'm pro-gun.

That said, it seems to me you're looking for a fight where none exists. There is no way that Symantec can do what you're asking them to do. They're giving parents the ability to shut down access to sites in two ways: a one-click approach for commonly held negative sites (of which pro-2nd Ammendment sites, unfortunately, would fall under), but they also offer the second option which is more difficult to use but still available. Parents can customize the sites that their kids are blocked from.

I don't see this as an issue. Your argument stating that the responder is first discussing weapons, then calling them "firearms" is just bantying semantics (no pun intended), in my opinion. I've mixed the two terms myself on occasion.

I think if we attack everything that we can possibly spin to be against something we believe in, we quite possibly do harm to the cause we're trying to support.

Bring it on-- I'm wearing my suit!

"There is no way that Symantec can do what you're asking them to do."

Of course there is, it would be a very simple matter to start each installation with a clean slate in which the company has made no decisions for anyone about anything.

I am sure Symantec could afford to have a little extra code written so that using a "wizard" based setup categories, individual sites, keywords or whatever other criteria works could be selected to be screened. This would truly leave the entire process in the hands of the user.

But whether you view it as a big deal or not Symantec has made choices for its users they evidently do not trust the users to make for themselves.

Its seems the "default" state would be a clean slate.

You've probably noticed there are a few of us here who agree with you. On the other hand, there's quite a lot of emoting going on, too. I guess it's that sort of emoting which feeds and/or justifies the liberals' favorite stereotypes of those of us on (and in) the right.