This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
- From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>
- To: <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:03:47 -0600
- Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Ah jeez deFaria:
> Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:54:16 -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >> My write-in candidate:
> >> [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the
> >> extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble.
> > As a Christian, I agree with Gary. :)
> > I actually think it's an upstream bug. The limerick file meets the
> > "offensive" category and so, according to the notes file, should be
> > limerick-o and be rot-13 encrypted (then we can throw the DMCA at
> > offended people, too). Looks like fortune is due for an
> update to the
> > /usr/share/doc/ FHS standard anyway.
> > There is plenty of 1st Amendment content on the Internet, but let
> > people get it elsewhere.
> As an atheist I always wonder why christians can "turn the
> other cheek"
> but cannot seem to muster how to turn their eyes away!
As a thinking man, I always wonder why atheists:
1. Hate Christianity, yet harbor no such hatred towards all the other
2. Would squeal bloody murder if fortune spit out Bible verses, yet are
*proponents* of having it spit out outrageously profane limericks which are
offensive to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Men, Women, Children,
Mothers, Fathers, Bosses, Frenchmen, and all breeds of dog in between.
> If you
> don't like it then what stops you from simply not looking at
> it! Is something forcing you to use fortune or Cygwin or open
> and look at the contents of that file?!?
Is something telling me that fortune is loaded with material completely
inappropriate for work environments, material which could conceivably even
directly result in "harassment" claims? Answer there is "no" my friend.
> [x] Because of the hub bub raised by the religious folk I had
> to download and check it out whereas if they just ignored it
> so would have I, proofing, once again, that by doing this
> they just draw more attention to it and cause more harm than good.
Ok, so you have actually been harmed by this. While I haven't, I can
certainly agree with you that this profanity needs excision post haste.
> E Pluribus Modem
Ok, that doesn't even make sense.
Gary R. Van Sickle
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html