RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.

["Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>]

The David Korn who is not the Korn Shell guy wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> > Sent: 07 January 2005 14:52
> 
> > Business issues are not the point here, though.  My issue is that I 
> > grant others the right to be offended by the type of language we're 
> > talking about.  It is a given that there are many people in our 
> > society who will be offended by it.  These people do not 
> buy Playboy 
> > or Hustler because they do not like what these magazines 
> represent but 
> > they aren't out picketing those establishments, either.  
> So, they are 
> > following the "Just don't look at it then!" scenario.
> 
>   That unfortunately is not true.

Yes, it is.

>  In this country we've just 
> had a theatre play shut down by threats of violence from one 
> group of religious bigots, and there is currently an ongoing 
> pressure campaign from another group of religious bigots to 
> try and pressure the BBC into pulling an as-yet unscreened 
> program on the grounds that if it was screened and if they 
> did happen to watch it they might be offended.
> 

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

>   Of course, if they're forewarned enough to know that they 
> might find this program offensive, they're perfectly well 
> forewarned enough to not end up watching it by accident, but 
> that's not good enough for them, and the reason why it's not 
> good enough for them is that the potential offence they might 
> suffer is a mere pretext, and their real concern is to try 
> and compel everyone else to be like they are by controlling 
> what we may see and hear in an effort to control how we 
> think.  It's coercive evangelism.  Forcible recruitment.  
> Religious pressganging.  Blackmail, brainwashing and mind control.
> 

Continues to be irrelevant to the issue at hand.

>   So no, I'm no longer prepared to automatically extend to 
> people the right to take offence at what I say or do, since 
> they regularly abuse that right in an attempt to - well, 
> basically, to enslave others and rule over their minds.  It's 
> insanity to hand every single religious crank with an agenda 
> to push an absolute veto over anything and everything you 
> might ever want to do or say.
> 

You didn't write "fortune", nor do you distribute it.  Hence, this is also
irrelevant to the issue at hand.  You're three for three!

>   I do not believe people have the right to jump up and 
> voluntarily *choose* to be offended by things that are 
> perfectly reasonable to all those who are actually involved 
> or affected.

Hmm.  I see we made the right decision back in 1776.  Here in the good ol'
U. S. of A. you get to *choose* to be offended or not offended by whatever
you want.  Hell, you can even change what offends you from day to day!

>  They *are* going into newsagents, pulling 
> Playboy off the shelves, opening it up, reading it (probably 
> hypocritically enjoying it too), and then whining about how 
> offended they are and demanding that the entire world be made 
> conform to their personal tastes and beliefs.

1.  Then they're vandalizing the newsie's property, seeing as Playboy comes
in a convenient sealed plastic bag.
2.  Nobody's doing that.
3.  Now you're four for four.

> It's in this way that solipsism turns into dictatorial oppression.
> 

Ok, so lemme see if'n I got this here right y'all:

De-obscenifying "fortune" will directly lead to a New World Order of
Stalinist-era dictatorial oppression.

W.  O.  W.

Come on Korny, sing it with me: "Crazy, but that's how it goes..."

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/