Re: How can any grown adult use the term "potty-mouth" without cringing in embarassment?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 12:26:45PM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 03:07:09PM -0500, Robb, Sam wrote:
>>Use of the term was intended, I think, to convey the idea that leaving
>>the (purportedly) obscene material in the fortune data files as plain
>>text didn't really serve any useful purpose, unless that purpose was to
>>intentionally offend.
>
>No, the term was introduced in an argument that cygwin shouldn't
>provide the material in question at all.
>
>I found it really amusing that so much time and effort was spent making
>this argument, but when I asked if the offensive material should be
>provided in a separate package, AFAIR no one argued for that.
>
>That convinced me that those concerned are more interested in universal
>censorship than protecting anybody, children or otherwise.

It was a typical cygwin discussion, however, in that the decision about
what to do was made fairly early in the thread and people still argued
on as if there was more to discuss.  It was atypical in the extent of
coasting that was required for the thread to finally halt but that's not
too surprising given the subject matter.

Your asking about separate packages was probably confusing to those
people who 1) didn't really understand what a package was, 2) didn't
realize that someone had already stepped up to fix things in an agreed
upon fashion, or 3) (as you mentioned) wanted to enforce their own views
about propriety on the cygwin distribution.

I'm just glad I can finally let my children (aged 22 and 18) back into
my office.

cgf