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: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:32:46 -0600
- Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Volker Bandke
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 4:03 PM
> To: Gary R. Van Sickle
> Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
> >But why aren't you putting fortune-o's in your siggy as well?
> I am not?
No, you are not. Why is that? In your estimation, these limericks aren't
offensive. Ergo, why would you be taking specific action to exclude them
from your siggy?
> I sent a message to the Cygwin list, and the fortune cookie
> provided by her was
> Sex without love is an empty experience, but, as empty
> experiences go, it's one of the best.
> Is this offensive?
Probably to somebody. But that isn't one of the limericks in question, is
it? Hence it isn't germain to the issue at hand, is it?
> > I mean, apparently the limericks are not offensive to you,
> seeing as you don't even have a definition of "offensive", right?
> Wrong reasoning.
Define "wrong". And once you define it, don't you dare refer to anything I
may say or do as "wrong", regardless of context! What sort of evil
rights-infringer are you?!?!?!
> I don't have a definition of "offensive",
...but you know it when you see it, huh? Like my "offensive" calls to make
Cygwin a little more professional by removing this off-color content?
> Of course, there are people that see everything in Black
> & White: Either you are with me, or against me. Either you
> are good, or you are bad. This always implies: I am good,
> if you don't share my opinions, you are bad. Wow. what a
And then there are people who see everything in Black & White but deny it:
Either you accept foul language carte-blanche or you are an icky Christian
offended by it. Either you accept foul language carte-blanche or you are
infringing on somebody's rights. Either you accept foul language
carte-blanche or you are against me. Either you accept foul language
carte-blanche or you are bad.
Wow. What a surprise.
[snip something about a Reverend]
> Some of the limericks actually _are_ offensive to me (or
> better: pretty strong stuff), but I have been warned,
No you haven't.
> and I
> can even edit the file in question to never see them again.
> My version of the file, that is.
So you're a proponent of the "opt-out" philosophy, huh?
> I would never have the
> cheek to tell what others should be allowed to see or read in
> terms of jokes, limericks etc.
Nor would I. I would also never have the cheek to tell somebody that by not
including off-color material in your product you are in some way telling
others what they should be allowed to see or read in terms of jokes,
> >You don't need any programmer, packager, developer, pastor,
> preacher, email recipient, etc etc etc etc to tell you what
> you can and cannot put in your siggy, do you?
> Correct. When I address someone personally, I always try not
> to hurt him. Having a limerick in which all Germans are
> depicted as kraut eating idiots is fine, telling a German
> that he is a kraut-eating idiot is offensive
Um, didn't you just tell that hypothetical German what he should and should
not be offended by? Such an action is offensive to you, no?
You are in error! You did not discover your mistake, you have made two
errors! You are flawed and imperfect and have not corrected by
sterilization, you have made three errors! You are flawed and imperfect!
Execute your prime function!
> (BTW, I am German)
With a name like "Volker Bandke"?!?! Ah, yeah, mmm-hmmm, right.
> >Yet I don't see filthy limericks in your siggy (for some
> definition of "filthy").
> And you have been dodging my question by counter-questions.
I've dodged nothing. You on the other hand....
> I repeat
> >Define offensive, please. And give a scale and method on
> how offensiveness can be measured.
> Because, if this question cannot be answered, offensive texts
> cannot be banned - because, who decides what is offensive?
> You? By whose authority? Me? Never.
Who's banning what now? I think you may be having a different discussion
than I am. I'm talking about removing some off-color limericks from the
> I have seen your answer in the newsgroup
> q: What is offensive
> a: The limericks in said file
> I nearly fell off my chair laughing: Look at the following
> complete discussion
> A: Those limericks are offensive and must be removed
> B: Define offensive
> A: Those limericks. Q.E.D.
> If I have ever seen a circular argument - this is a perfect example.
Exercise your prime function!
Gary R. Van Sickle
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html