Secondly editing out bits of messages that were not intended for public eyes is not censorship. If you wanted to send a copy of an e-mail to somebody and take out (say) your credit card details, or something private, then you would be editing it. Not censoring it. If the guy removed his friend's e-mail address from the message (I can't remember if he did or not?) then again, that's editing, not censorship. He was thinking of removing parts of the message because HE thought it would be offensive (sounds like censorship to me) (NOT removing unnecessary parts of the message: editing) In case you hadn't guessed I'm a TV editor who has taken objection to your implications that a) TV jobs require creativity but no skill or experience or talent and b) that anything edited because it isn't appropriate to the finished piece is censorship. Stuart: you are one of the few people I have seen on many mailing lists with intelligent things to say, don't bend what I was saying about a certain few individuals and occupations just to take offense by it..There are many things that I CAN'T do, and won't say that I can..(like editing film and making it look continuous when there has been parts removed..no matter how I try, it just turns to shit..)It's when people over-inflate themselves, and they are doing something simple, but making it LOOK difficult that I wonder about them.. All jobs (barring floor mopper at a porn show) require talent, and skill, but when people forget that others CAN aquire those very skills, and begin inflating themselves to new levels, it's then that they start forgetting about the under-achievers.. Bill and Jimmy never went to conservatory to study music, and they still got the skills to make music that a larger part of the population wouldn't have the skill to duplicate....
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/