On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 07:49:39PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: > If you mean immediate harm, I would agree, but since the "direct" > relationship between the individuals will suffer in the long term, I > would still disagree with your statement.
I don't think it is worthwhile to speculate on all the indirect, delayed possibilities that could conceivably occur. If you did, you would never have sex at all since that is always a possibility, family member or totally un-related person. Safer just to be friends if you think about it too much... > A statement such as that cannot help but be misleading since it > involves such a loaded subject. No, that is incorrect. If you replace "misleading" with "misinterpreted by some people [due to emotional lack of rationality]" then I would agree. Dan is obviously not very objective on this subject. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
