Jeff Post wrote:
I suspect Charles' remark was poorly stated, rather than that he meant what you read into it. Censorship practiced by a totalitarian government may have more far reaching consequences than a single terrorist act.

Kai Klaas wrote:
I guess I understood, what Charles was meaning. And I cannot see any bad intention. But, unfortunately, this is not the right place and the right moment to furtherly discuss this point......

So if not us, who? If not now, when? You let me know when you can explain to me how Mr. Bannister's comment is either reasonable or understandable. What did he mean by "..., censorship is a far greater act than terrorism!" Specifically, what did he mean by "greater?" Did he mean that censorship is "more noble" or "more heinous" than a single act of terrorism? Or did he mean, as Mr. Post suggests, the term as a purely quantitative descriptor, like 2 is greater than 1?