Dear Pilot Steve,

You make the bold claim that Patrick Smith isn't "accurate in [his] work", but in your overly long treatise provide only one example of this "innaccuracy": a largely irrelevant psi error that even you admit might just be a typo.

But it's the character assassination that follows that is really beyond the pale.

My father flew 18,000 hours in his flying career, a quarter of them as a "bush pilot" in Australia's Northern Territory, and in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea.

Let me assure you, that even with your experience, you would yellow your y-fronts if you had to land on just one of the angled, short, rough, overgrown, livestock-infested, cloud-obscured, mountain-surrounded sorry excuses for airstrips that my dad routinely greased.

My father also hated aerobatics. He just didn't see the point, and felt that aerobatic-capable pilots often overrated their abilites, and put themselves into situations they couldn't get out of. It might be just a coincidence that the two pilot friends he lost in his years flying the "Top End" both had aerobatic ratings.

To him, an aircraft was a tool. A tool he excelled at using, and loved to use, but "tool" all the same, the opposite of "toy".

Sure, he would take me to airshows and we'd applaud the stunt pilots in their Pitts Specials just like everyone else. My old man could appreciate the skill, but just didn't feel any need to do it himself, and even felt, as I've said, that such skill could be tragically misapplied.

Look, I'm sure you're not a bad guy, and probably didn't even mean for your letter to have the arrogant, show-off, dismissive tone that it does.

I urge you to re-read it, and then tender your apology to Mr. Smith for the totally unwarranted personal attacks you made.

Do that "fact" come from research, Andrew, or was it just something you'd "heard"?

I saw Salò in a Sydney cinema in the mid (early?) nineties. I certainly wish I hadn't seen it (bearing out the more substantial point of your article). Anything it "says" is so buried under the (literal) shit that there are surely more effective ways of making the same points, but it isn't "banned".

In fact, no films or video games (despite what you read on the interweb) are "banned" in Australia, but occasionally films and video games are "refused classification", which is certainly not the same thing.

"Refused classification" simply means the work can't be sold or exhibited in Australia. People who wish to see/read/play the work, however, can privately import it and privately watch/read/play it.

It's a fine distinction, sure. But remember, Australia is the country where you can say anything you like on TV and radio......unlike the US where common words used by the majority of the population are actually banned and censored, and fines levied on transgressors.

To the Australian reader: I'm sorry, but if the film can't be sold or exhibited in your country then I think the word "banned" is correct.

No. Invest in a more expensive dictionary. "Banned" means "a formal prohibition". And as it's not prohibited to own or watch the film, then I think you need to find another word. The classification board (which operates on open, transparent guidelines, so the best you can say is that it's not rated which is still a long way from "prohibited".

And this particular film CAN be sold AND exhibited in Australia. As I said, I watched it in Sydney a decade or so ago.

Zero from two. Let's see how the rest of your angry riposte fairs:

I'm glad the cops won't be ripping open packages from offshore Amazon sites in search of imported versions.

Angry, or disappointed that this obviously means you can't say it's "banned"? Strike three. You're out. But let's look at your parting "shot":

And bringing up the FCC's silly, outdated and rapidly fading obscenity rules is really no defense.

No, not a defense. A transparent ratings board that reflects community standards needs no defense. My comment was just a sigh of relief that I live in a country that values freedom of expression. Unlike your own.

Your argument seems to be "because people on one particular side of the censorship debate use the word 'ban' it's an accurate description".

Which is exactly the same as saying "because people on one particular side of the abortion debate use the word 'murder' it's an accurate description".

It literally doesn't matter that, sometimes, in debate, people who disagree with them use the term too. Quite a few supporters of abortion make the argument that even if it's 'murder' in a technical sense it still should be allowed.

"Ban" is an emotive word that simply doesn't capture the nuances of the Australian OFLC and its mandate to reflect community standards in the films it rates. Even if there are newspaper articles using the words "ban" and "banned", it still doesn't change the fact that the OFLC is transparent, regularly reviews its decisions, and has "unbanned" many, many works as community standards have changed.

Are you seriously saying that communities don't have the right to choose what films are shown in said community? I am sure "porn" in any form is "banned" for the minor members of the O'Hehir family community. You dirty censor, you! Democracy, rudely and brusquely, continues to function long after the majority has disagreed (or agreed!) with you on any single issue.

And the website you linked to? Are you actually seriously putting that up as a sober, even-handed, and mature discussion on the issue?!

"Websites that agree with X" can be found for any value of X.

Great article, great photos. A pity Salon's "format" doesn't do this essay-with-photos justice.