Hello Jarrett,

> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 10:13 PM, John Reimer
> <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Oh... BTW, the implication here is that I assassinate a lot of
>> characters. I would question this conclusion.  I am in no such habit,
>> although I do often assassinate my own privately.
>> 
> I was just referring to within this thread.
> 
>> I have stepped in to try to STOP altercations in here on many
>> occasions and have sometimes been direct even with those I consider
>> my friends.  I've also admitted where I have been wrong or
>> indiscrete.
>> 
>> But I must say that this is actually a little strange coming from
>> you, Jarrett, though you have improved a lot over the years.
>> 
> I'll let that one slide.
> 
>> I invite anyone here who feels so to freely state that I should
>> remove myself from the list if they so desire that such
>> confrontations not occur in the future.  No, not martyr syndrome...
>> Complete practicality in the matter. It's not worth it for me to
>> pursue it here any longer if no-one can see what I am warning
>> against.
>> 
> I don't think you should.  I think that you're usually a pretty
> level-headed guy and it frankly shocks me to see what you're doing
> here.  Why?  I don't claim to speak for anyone else, but here at least
> are my reasons.
> 


It was a gamble for what I considered an extreme situation.   I work hard to regulate my personality and manner here (and elsewhere), but, like I said, I believe somethings must be addressed... sometimes they come across completely lacking in elegance and discretion.  Believe me, please, when I say I care very much for people.  Sometimes there seems no easy way to speak what I believe is the truth.  I think you might understand that even more than I do.


> - Content on the Internet is, at least in the US and probably
> many/most other countries, protected by free speech.  Both the CDA and
> COPA were struck down based on first amendment rights violations.
> What bearophile has on his site is far, far tamer than just about
> anything else on the Internet, and while I don't know if that argument
> will wash with you, what he has on his site is his decision, not yours
> or anyone else's.


No, it will not wash completely.  I speak frankly to help him understand that this material is very closely accessible to the grand majority of people that come to D (of all ages).  Andrei links to his site in the Phobos2 reference. If you don't see that most places are very careful to show courtesy in protecting others' freedom to NOT see this kind of material, I don't know what to say. We'll see where D goes with this sort of leniency.  Furthermore, just because the internet is falling apart in some of these manners, does that mean we follow the general example of some of the worst aspects of it?  Where is D's attempt to rise above this?  Does the D design process follow such a poor example to guide it's own design progress?  Should it always say it's mistakes are far "tamer" than C++'s, therefore it's ok?  Ouch.


Secondly, the funny thing about free speech on the interent is that it serves more as a vehicle for the push marketers and revelers than those that use it responsibly.  It's not so free after all... It just gives us a very fuzzy feeling of "niceness".  I don't claim to know the solution to that, but I do /know/ the internet is getting worse and not so well in the general public's favour.  If you don't think laws that protect this free speech also somehow can aid the compromise of privacy of individuals, you are not seeing the whole picture of it.



> - If you want to draw comparison to the superdan/tytower incidents,
> this is far different.  They brought their foul language and racist
> attitudes to the newsgroups.  bearophile has not done or said anything
> here about anything other than D.  What you've done is dragged out his
> personal life into the public view, laughed, pointed, spoke of fire
> and brimstone, and expected others to do the same.  


Wait a minute there... you defend his free speech for public display of his own material and then you say my actions publicize his private affairs?! Come on, Jarrett.  This is inconsistant.  Furthermore, you assume that such an address hurts him.  What if he doesn't see any wrong in it?  Why should it hurt him?  Does his conscience have something to say about it?  I hope at least a little, but not to hurt him... just so he understands that his are not the only feelings out there that are important.  There is a whole world out there greater than ourselves.


Nope... I merely brought the significance of it to light.  It was already there... somehow, indiscretely ummentioned around here as if nobody cares. There's nothing to be laughed at if he is completely proud of displaying it publicly on the internet.   If it's laughed at, I'm sorry to hear that. It's not funny.  But frankly, he displays it publicly, is confident enough to allow links to made in the Phobos2 reference manual etc...  so I don't know how you think anything I accomplish will achieve something I don't intend. I do hope to put on some pressure so that it will AT LEAST be removed from the general public and D's radar.  That is my goal.


>Forgive me for not
> being so cruel as that.
> 


No, you've been cruel in the situations that have befitted you.  I would carefully consider the rebuke if it came from a person that was consistant in that manner. (sorry... had to be direct on this one).



> - I have heard and read the same tired story a million times about how
> moral values are decaying and the whole world is going to hell in a
> handbasket.  I read it today.  I read it in a Japanese novel written a
> millenium ago.  I read it in the Bible written longer ago than that.
> I read it in Greek writings from longer ago than even that.  And you
> know what?  It just doesn't seem to be coming true.  If anything the
> world has become far kinder and more moral as time has gone on.
> Besides, what do you care how people live when you're gone?  What say
> do you have in how people of the future will live their lives?  I am
> obviously much more socially liberal than you are.  But does that
> somehow make me a friend of the Devil?  I'd say _you_ are the one
> forcing _your_ philosophy on others in this case.
> I know that you will go to bed tonight praying for my soul.  Please
> don't.  I don't need your, God's, or anyone else's pity.  I've chosen
> my path in life just as you have yours.  God will judge me as he will,
> and I am prepared to accept any consequences (if any of that is
> actually true).
> 



Well, you got me there, Jarrett.  I seriously tried to keep this fairly practically leveled without steering into a purely worldview-based discussion, but you've stymied me. :)


Of course, I've said most of this all before.  Yes, the world is spiraling downward.  If you can't see the evidence in the repeated fall of past civilizations with all the same signs of moral decay, then there isn't much more that can be said to convince you of this or the process that produces that decay. History tells the story very well.  Nothing is really new.  The spiral is definitely not upward. :)


Concerning forcing of philosophy, there is no passive side in the issue. If there were, you wouldn't be able to argue with me on these points.  You argued free speech at the beginning of the post and then are annoyed at my "forcing" issues down here.  If anything, I just want people to be honest with themselves.  A lot of people don't want to see that they have a "side" or that they are forcing some kind of quasi-ethical system on anyone... but in fact they do just be living their lives, supporting causes, voting, speaking encouragement or discouragement to a friend(aquaintance,stranger), starting a relationship, demanding a refund, being hurt when lied to by a loved one, or annoyed when someone cheats you... basically living their life as they see fit.  You have a worldview, Jarrett.  It shouldn't be any more unfair if I show the inconsistancies of it when you promote it in a post then for this community to question Walter's or Andrei's decision for D language decisions.


I'm sorry that I come across so abrasive sometimes.  I actually appreciate your frankness and honesty.  If you were to meet me in person, I think you'd find me not so "religious" in the style that you might expect... I've long since left the religious culture of this day... I'm just very stubborn in living a clear conscience before the God I believe in and in accordance with the Bible's explanation of it.


Incidentally, you hit on a funny note there when you talked about me praying for you.  I don't like condescenion of that kind, so rest assured if I do so or not, I won't level that at you in such a sanctimonious manner.


Anyway,  thanks for your analysis and thoughts on the matter.


-JJR

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:51 AM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>> Reject and refute all you want, but these newsgroups are not the forum
>> for doing it.
>> A blog post of your own or an offline message to the person in
>> question would be a more appropriate response, I think.
>> --bb
>
> Yes, this effectively moderates me, but does not moderate the other individual for his contribution.  This is typical response, Bill.

Did I miss some post here from the other party trying to force his views on you?

> If I publicly denounce something, it may be rejected, refuted, ignored or even detested.  But I believe there is sometimes very good reason to confront things publicly, just as there is equal right for you to reject what I'm saying publicly.

I'm not rejecting or refuting your opinions -- I didn't actually read them. You have a right to your opinions like everyone.  I just don't care to see this NG become a dumping ground for debates about personal lifestyle choices, because such things get emotional and typically have no resolution, like debating religion or abortion or homosexuality.   Such debates leave no one satisfied and everyone agitated.  So let's focus on what we have in common here, which is a believe that D is a really useful programming language.

--bb

Hello Derek,

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 03:01:24 +0000 (UTC), John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> So you approve of the material on the website then?
>> 
> Hell no! I suspect that the Elvis image has definitely been digitally
> re-touched.
> 


Heh, thanks for that, Derek.  His hair is definitely too long, isn't it?  ;P


Nice to see a serious side now and again. :P


-JJR

Hello Bill,

> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:51 AM, John Reimer
> <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Bill,
>> 
>>> Reject and refute all you want, but these newsgroups are not the
>>> forum
>>> for doing it.
>>> A blog post of your own or an offline message to the person in
>>> question would be a more appropriate response, I think.
>>> --bb
>> Yes, this effectively moderates me, but does not moderate the other
>> individual for his contribution.  This is typical response, Bill.
>> 
> Did I miss some post here from the other party trying to force his
> views on you?
> 


*sigh* views are not always expressed or forced by a post, Bill.  That's a very one-dimensional view of things.  Maybe if you had read some of my posts you might have discovered that.


>> If I publicly denounce something, it may be rejected, refuted,
>> ignored or even detested.  But I believe there is sometimes very good
>> reason to confront things publicly, just as there is equal right for
>> you to reject what I'm saying publicly.
>> 
> I'm not rejecting or refuting your opinions -- I didn't actually read
> them. You have a right to your opinions like everyone.  I just don't
> care to see this NG become a dumping ground for debates about personal
> lifestyle choices, because such things get emotional and typically
> have no resolution, like debating religion or abortion or
> homosexuality.   Such debates leave no one satisfied and everyone
> agitated.  So let's focus on what we have in common here, which is a
> believe that D is a really useful programming language.
> 
> --bb
> 


That's fair.  The debates don't necessarily have the results of changing minds, Bill, as you say.  That isn't always the intent even if some of us would desire that.  What they do actually do is still significant, however. By expressing them, they can make changes happen that can actually save others from being subjected to something that is hurtful or dangerous.  We see this all the time, to mention once more, in the D design process.


The emotional response are a side-effect, not an object of such a discussion (which happens even in non-ethically oriented issues of D design, go figure). You argument claims that such discussions are always useless which is fatalism at its finest.   There is sometimes resolution, Bill, and to say otherwise forces your opinion on others ever so much as mine does.


That said, focus can continue on with D whenever anywone wants.


-JJR

Hello Yigal,

> What content are you refering to? I don't know Italian, but I didn't
> see anything like what you imply in English.
> 

pick a url of his and start knocking the end bits off.

Hello John,

> Hello bearophile,
> 
>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>> 
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
> 

While I also consider the choices you are questioning to be "less than ideal", the fact that, aside from his user name, there is nothing in this NG its self to object to suggests to me that /this/ is not the correct forum to raise the issue in. It is (or should be) well understood that links posted in one site linking to another imply a bit of "buyer beware".

John-

I think you have a good point (not the original, that I will ignore for the moment)

Why should people not of the Judeo-Christian world view be allowed to publicly state their view that people of the Judeo-Christian world view should not be allowed to publicly state their views?

People should be consistent, either quit stating their view or let everyone state their view.

Hello BCS,

> Hello John,
> 
>> Hello bearophile,
>> 
>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>> 
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>> 
> While I also consider the choices you are questioning to be "less than
> ideal", the fact that, aside from his user name, there is nothing in
> this NG its self to object to suggests to me that /this/ is not the
> correct forum to raise the issue in. It is (or should be) well
> understood that links posted in one site linking to another imply a
> bit of "buyer beware".
> 


"less than ideal" is wimpy way of putting it.  You might as well give your support for it by such a statement.  (Oh no... here I'm forcing my opinion on another Judeo-Christian! ;) )  Incidentally, it doesn't appear that there is any correct forum in which to raise the question.  Please suggest a correct procedure in approaching this.


Here are my reasons for posting here.


(1) This is the D language discussion group.  Promotion of D happens here. It is the center of D life.


(2) His blog links are connected to his site consistantly in his posts here


(3) His blog links are carried consistantly through the "Planet D" feed, which consistantly promote NOT only his D blog material but also his furry critters blogs. (yes, I can stop signing up to D planet feed altogether and lose all connection to other feeds :P)... but that won't improve D's reputation any, now will it?


(4) His *root* link is referenced in Andrei's Phobos2 documentation on ranges. An email address would have sufficed there.


(5) "bearophile" now mixed with the content, which sooner or later, many people of all ages will see from the D world has bizarre implications... and I suppose I must stop all imagination from running wild on this one after seeing what kinds of things he publicly displays at his site.  I'm sorry: there is just no good connotation for that alias given the history of modern words ending in "phile".  Innocently... "lover of bears" is cute until you see a picture of human-like figure in a explicit "tangle" with a furry critter from his site.  Excuse the extreme frankness here. 


(6) His public connection of his website here indicates that he appears to have no shame concerning this part of his life.  I therefore feel no shame in showing the dangers of such an association publicly also.  If this is a poor mode of reasoning, then I'm still waiting to have this carefully explained to me /minus/ the typical lame "religion" accusations.


(7) You'll have to suggest to me any other situation where D has had to worry about external links being this bad.


If you think this is "less than ideal"... how much does it take before someone sees how bad this is?  Are people completely oblivious these days to the nature of where all this leads?  If this were same person that posted /drawings/ of pedophilia related material, or perhaps even rape drawings, would that be acceptable association for the D community too?  You will be identified by what you associate with.  It's not a matter of passive "leave and let a guy have his space."  He chose to connect himself with the D language this way!  Come on guys!  Wake up!  Has TV and movies lulled everyone into some sort numbness here so that they can no longer see a problem with this stuff? Does it take some secular psychologist to suggest the problems with this to you?


A question: why should a link be "buyer beware" here?  Is D having too much difficulty managing itself.  Shall we paste such a thing all over D?  Is this design team so careless as to not understand the effects of websites it links to or the image it projects? Even most advertisement services and marketing companies probably know this! You want to leave the worldview out of this?  Then please just consider the practical reasons as to why such an association stinks.


Of course, we're need to always be careful on the internet, but we're talking about the promotion of a system language that we want to gain widespread interest across the world, no?  It's not just about each one of us as individuals... it's about D and a whole slew of people that are affected by it.


If I have responded too severely in my initial post (or this one, for that matter), I'm afraid it's because I am frustrated with so much apathy here and absolutely astonished at how oblivious people are to the fallout that these sort of things create.  You don't /have to/ ascribe to religous system to see evidence of this.


In his favour:


bearophile is polite and consistant in his approach to posting here.  I appreciate that.  Now I *request* that he'll just take the step further and somehow help us not have any association of this material with D!


Bearophile... you appear to have some supporters here, so you apparently have nothing to be ashamed of, although I disagree.   But I think you are hurting D by allowing your lifestyle choices to be associated with the language design.  I ask you to please change this.


-JJR

You know, John, the way you've been going on here I expected to see pics
of Shepherds doing their sheep, barnyard orgies, and such. But Furries?
Come on.

You're taking a very big leap, going from Furries to pornography. It's
like the uproar over D & D back in the '70s, with TSR and their
customers being accused of devil worshipping. This is pure fantasy. I
didn't even see anything remotely resembling bestiality or pornography,
something you alluded to in other posts in this thread.

Frankly, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You're
entitled to find pictures of fantastical creatures offensive. The
solution to soothe sensibilities is to stop looking at them. There's no
need to mount a crusade to save the D community from the evils of feline
 humanoids showing breasts.

John Reimer wrote:
> 
> Here are my reasons for posting here.
> 
> 
> (1) This is the D language discussion group.  Promotion of D happens here. It is the center of D life.

And at what point did bearophile start pushing Furries on you or any
other member of this D newsgroup? His posts are generally all about D.

> 
> 
> (2) His blog links are connected to his site consistantly in his posts here
> 
> 
> (3) His blog links are carried consistantly through the "Planet D" feed, which consistantly promote NOT only his D blog material but also his furry critters blogs. (yes, I can stop signing up to D planet feed altogether and lose all connection to other feeds :P)... but that won't improve D's reputation any, now will it?
> 
> (4) His *root* link is referenced in Andrei's Phobos2 documentation on ranges. An email address would have sufficed there.
> 

You need not follow the links. Besides, I fail to see how Furries can
have any impact on D's reputation. I'm fairly certain the majority of
programmers are a bit more open-minded than your average Bible-belt
soccer mom.


> 
> (5) "bearophile" now mixed with the content, which sooner or later, many people of all ages will see from the D world has bizarre implications... and I suppose I must stop all imagination from running wild on this one after seeing what kinds of things he publicly displays at his site.  I'm sorry: there is just no good connotation for that alias given the history of modern words ending in "phile".  Innocently... "lover of bears" is cute until you see a picture of human-like figure in a explicit "tangle" with a furry critter from his site.  Excuse the extreme frankness here.
> 

Most handles have a meaning behind them. I alwasys wondered what the
meaning behind bearophile might be. Now that we know, it's still cute.

Furry art is all over the net. You can find plenty of it by typing
"Furry" into Google. If you are so easily offended, I suggest you
install a content filter.


> (6) His public connection of his website here indicates that he appears to have no shame concerning this part of his life.  I therefore feel no shame in showing the dangers of such an association publicly also.  If this is a poor mode of reasoning, then I'm still waiting to have this carefully explained to me /minus/ the typical lame "religion" accusations.
> 

Shame is usually in the eyes of the beholder. I see nothing at all
shameful about Furry art. I could understand your reaction if it were
beastiality, bondage, or some other collection of alternative sexual
lifestyle photos. I still would completely disagree with you, but I
would understand it since negative reactions to anything  other than the
missionary position are common in a prudish society like that of
America. But what is on bearophile's site isn't even sexual (unless
there's a page I missed, but it still wouldn't make a difference). It's
fantasy art. Your reaction is extreme and quite unwarranted, in my book.


> 
> (7) You'll have to suggest to me any other situation where D has had to worry about external links being this bad.
> 

This is all on you, John. From what I've seen, the majority of the
respondents to your post are on the on the other side of the debate.
There's nothing 'bad' going on here.


> 
> 
> In his favour:
> 
> 
> bearophile is polite and consistant in his approach to posting here.  I appreciate that.  Now I *request* that he'll just take the step further and somehow help us not have any association of this material with D!
> 
>

You are making associations where there are none. Everyone has their own
personal interests and pursuits. Some people mix their interests on
their blogs and web sites, others separate them. My signature on the
DSource forums prominently displays a link to three of my blogs,
including my personal blog where I frequently rant against religion and
conservatives. I also occasionally post music videos from Korean girl
bands. Are you going to claim that has a negative impact on the D
community as well?

Ultimately, you are entitled to express your opinion (though, it is
certainly subject to moderation in a privately operated forum such as
this). But, taking under consideration point number 1 on your list
above, I think you'd be better served posting your objections to Furry
fandom on your own blog.

"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c143578cb5cec61f27c90@news.digitalmars.com...
>
> I'll admit I'm not always right or even discrete in my approach.  But I am very serious about standing against what I consider very dangerous material.

Yea, a few *drawings* of beings that are clearly inteded as sentient anyway are "dangerous".  I guess people are going to see that and get killed by it, or turn into serial rapists, or it will cause earthquakes to destroy us all. Shit, I guarantee there's more explicit stuff than that in an ordinary vetrinary medicine textbook. Don't try to tell us you're not blowing it completely out of proportion.

> And from the vantage point of the "rock I'm under" apparently things are pretty bad now even though I've seen and heard a lot over the years.
>
>
> Here's another thing:
>
> Remember "SuperDan"?  This is a good example of a guy who you all exercised "pressure" on to conform to your etiquette (I especially remember Jarrett doing so, interestingly).  Why?  By what standard?  Was he not playing according to the rules of "niceness"?  Apparently even this community has limits.  Walter didn't even step in when it was at its worst.  I couldn't stand SuperDan's language or sick analogies.... but his antics were completely fair game in a community like this... and those of you who resisted him for it were practically hypocrites, if you will pardon my directness.  I wonder what kind of character assassinations went on then?
>

When a person, either superdan, or this time, you, comes around here and starts directly attacking other people out of the blue, yea, you can expect the rest of us are going to lash back.

>
> If I publicly denounce something, it may be rejected, refuted, ignored or even detested.  But I believe there is sometimes very good reason to confront things publicly, just as there is equal right for you to reject what I'm saying publicly.I
>

Yes, John, please save us from bearophile's drawings.