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

No cross, no crown, no green star. If you're disgusted by someone's username and it isn't actively evil, pretend you don't know what it means. Don't write a post abusing his desired lifestyle.

Hello Christopher,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Hello bearophile,
>> 
>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>> 
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>> 
> No cross, no crown, no green star. If you're disgusted by someone's
> username and it isn't actively evil, pretend you don't know what it
> means. Don't write a post abusing his desired lifestyle.
> 


Hmm... very interesting.


And where does this "rule" of yours come from?  I'd say your forcing your philosophy on me. That's not very nice. :)


I do wonder how far you take this way of thinking.  I'm sure this solution has caused more problems then it's solved since you alone must hold the key to the definition of "actively evil".  Or maybe you don't, and there is no such thing?  Then I suppose it's good to turn a blind eye to everything?


Anyway, my point is that I had no cause to presume anything about his name without content from his site.   If he is able to publicly and actively promote his desired lifestyle, then I most surely am able to reject or refute it, correct?   What perhaps you should have suggested is that he keep his private lifestyle private if he didn't want to be confronted about it, right?


Apparently, it's nobody's right to question anything.  Does that make sense? Then while someone has the right to actively promote his/her amberrant lifestyle, another has to keep tight-lipped about it so as to not interfere... meaning they are not allowed to promote their own views.   Kind of once-sided.  I'm sure marketing people love people like you. :)


Interestingly, D design would never succeed under such a system, would it?


-JJR

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:24 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Christopher,
>
>> John Reimer wrote:
>>
>>> Hello bearophile,
>>>
>>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>>>
>>>> Bye,
>>>> bearophile
>>>
>>> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>>>
>> No cross, no crown, no green star. If you're disgusted by someone's username and it isn't actively evil, pretend you don't know what it means. Don't write a post abusing his desired lifestyle.
>>
>
>
> Hmm... very interesting.
>
>
> And where does this "rule" of yours come from?  I'd say your forcing your philosophy on me. That's not very nice. :)
>

Just how many peoples' characters are you going to assassinate before you feel vindicated, anyway?

John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Christopher,
> 
>> John Reimer wrote:
>>
>>> Hello bearophile,
>>>
>>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>>>
>>>> Bye,
>>>> bearophile
>>> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>>>
>> No cross, no crown, no green star. If you're disgusted by someone's
>> username and it isn't actively evil, pretend you don't know what it
>> means. Don't write a post abusing his desired lifestyle.
>>
> Hmm... very interesting.
> 
> And where does this "rule" of yours come from? 

The Constructed Languages mailing list. (The green star refers to Esperanto. The Constructed Languages list does not allow advertising for languages intended as international auxiliary languages.)

> I'd say your forcing your philosophy on me. That's not very nice. :)

I would like to. It would make everyone be nice, or pretend to be nice, or stay on topic. And since relatively few people want to be mean, and one mean person can upset many others, this should increase the amount of happiness in the world.

I wrote a further reply to you offlist so as not to clutter this forum.

"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c142608cb5cabec91a980@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello bearophile,
>
>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
>
> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>
>
> At first, I thought this alias was innocent enough, but after visiting your much promoted site (promoted in the D community), I'm not so sure what to think.  I almost blanched at some of the content and greatly regretted having visited it.
>
>
> If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I ask you consider carefully the implications of some of your the creature fantasies that you blog about. I'm surprised nobody else has complained.  Or maybe I should not be so surprised considering how politically incorrect it is to challenge any ideology (or fantasy, for that matter) even if it be so morally bankrupt so as to be considered extreme indeceny and deviance by any number of different cultural standards. The implications there as graphically displayed, while not quite clear, are in the direction of bestiality... and if not, are confused enough as to be presumptiously indifferent to any ethical question about the horrible nature of it.
>
>
> You are not doubt quite bright, as your other interests and participation in D design have made clearly evident.  But I just can't believe such content is so closely linked to this group and the D design process.  I should think you would be embarrassed.  I know I am to have been subjected to it.
>
>
> If you're shocked that I'm confronting you openly on this, the reason lies squarely in the fact that you are boldly and unashamedly displaying the material in a site that is linked here multiple times; and I believe such boldness warrants the same measure of confrontation in return.  I hope you will change your mind about the material.  I'd wish both your mind on the matter and the material would completely change, but I don't have the right to request much more than that you disassociate it completely with your dealings with D, so that those it concerns  don't have to be involved in the particulars of your fantasies whenever you link your site here.
>
>
> Of course, it is equally people's right here to support you in your freedom to display such things (while providing the links here).  If they do, however, it speaks volumes about peoples general apathy to the downward spiral of society where increasingly indecent content is seen as normal and harmless. This is a great shame, and I'd be sorry to see that people don't care anymore.
>
>
> For those that see this as flamebait, I request that you do not respond. I just felt somebody had to say something about this.  If this is perceived to be libelous, I ask that you consider carefully how damaging your content is to others, and the feelings it might engender in its viewers. Thus, you should recognize that this post merely elucidates on what's already evident.
>
>
> -JJR
>
>

??...You can't seriously expect someone to censor their website just because someone else on the web might have a problem with some of the content.

I have a problem with religous content (some of it even sickens me), but I'm not going to give anyone on the net a big lecture just because they stuck "Jesus" in their username or put drawings of churches and bible quotes on their website.

Would you have all potentially offendable content removed from the net? There wouldn't be any net left.

Hello Jarrett,

> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:24 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Christopher,
>> 
>>> John Reimer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello bearophile,
>>>> 
>>>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bye,
>>>>> bearophile
>>>> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>>>> 
>>> No cross, no crown, no green star. If you're disgusted by someone's
>>> username and it isn't actively evil, pretend you don't know what it
>>> means. Don't write a post abusing his desired lifestyle.
>>> 
>> Hmm... very interesting.
>> 
>> And where does this "rule" of yours come from?  I'd say your forcing
>> your philosophy on me. That's not very nice. :)
>> 
> Just how many peoples' characters are you going to assassinate before
> you feel vindicated, anyway?
> 


I needn't assassinate any characters, Jarrett.  If you claim that this is some sort of character assassination, then you admit that what he is doing is wrong.   If what he is doing is not wrong, then there is nothing to even come close to character assination.  Your own perception is what is judging his character.


Certainly, from my worldview, I can believe it is very wrong.  That's why I say something about it.  But it appears to be the manner these days to defend all manner of "alternative" lifestyles... or to turn a blind eye to the evidencial results which shows broken lives when such things are pursued.  I do think it is showing care to point these things out.  You continually fail to see that promotion of this kind of material is not representative of any form of passivity.


-JJR

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:24 AM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Christopher,
> Anyway, my point is that I had no cause to presume anything about his name
> without content from his site.   If he is able to publicly and actively
> promote his desired lifestyle, then I most surely am able to reject or
> refute it, correct?   What perhaps you should have suggested is that he keep
> his private lifestyle private if he didn't want to be confronted about it,
> right?

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

Hello Christopher,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Hello Christopher,
>> 
>>> John Reimer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello bearophile,
>>>> 
>>>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bye,
>>>>> bearophile
>>>> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>>>> 
>>> No cross, no crown, no green star. If you're disgusted by someone's
>>> username and it isn't actively evil, pretend you don't know what it
>>> means. Don't write a post abusing his desired lifestyle.
>>> 
>> Hmm... very interesting.
>> 
>> And where does this "rule" of yours come from?
>> 
> The Constructed Languages mailing list. (The green star refers to
> Esperanto. The Constructed Languages list does not allow advertising
> for languages intended as international auxiliary languages.)
> 


Oh boy!  Come on now... you guys, this is so apparent an issue.  I am actually a little surprised a few of you are so defensive of this situation.  I'm not sure how far you would go to defend something "evil"... but I become more astounded all the time.  How far does this go before you finally decide it's time to step in?   I hear some of you gripe so strongly (verbally violent) over the internet marketing and web scripts... and yet you will defend such things as this so ruthlessly?



>> I'd say your forcing your philosophy on me. That's not very nice. :)
>> 
> I would like to. It would make everyone be nice, or pretend to be
> nice, or stay on topic. And since relatively few people want to be
> mean, and one mean person can upset many others, this should increase
> the amount of happiness in the world.
> 


And will you please define "nice" then?  You have chosen your side.  I'd rather you just be honest and say that you don't like my side of the discussion. But you are refusing to recognize that "nice", in your case, is letting whichever side you prefer have their say, no matter how diabolical, without a balance from the opposite side.   I'm amazed you pursue this argument so relentlessly too.


> I wrote a further reply to you offlist so as not to clutter this
> forum.
> 



Ok, as you wish. :)


-JJR

John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Christopher,
> 
>> John Reimer wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Christopher,
>>>
>>>> John Reimer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello bearophile,
>>>>>
>>>>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bye,
>>>>>> bearophile
>>>>> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>>>>>
>>>> No cross, no crown, no green star. If you're disgusted by someone's
>>>> username and it isn't actively evil, pretend you don't know what it
>>>> means. Don't write a post abusing his desired lifestyle.
>>>>
>>> Hmm... very interesting.
>>>
>>> And where does this "rule" of yours come from?
>>>
>> The Constructed Languages mailing list. (The green star refers to
>> Esperanto. The Constructed Languages list does not allow advertising
>> for languages intended as international auxiliary languages.)
>>
> 
> 
> Oh boy!  Come on now... you guys, this is so apparent an issue.  I am actually a little surprised a few of you are so defensive of this situation.  I'm not sure how far you would go to defend something "evil"... but I become more astounded all the time.  How far does this go before you finally decide it's time to step in?   I hear some of you gripe so strongly (verbally violent) over the internet marketing and web scripts... and yet you will defend such things as this so ruthlessly?

Yes. That's exactly because we're not assholes.

> 
> 
>>> I'd say your forcing your philosophy on me. That's not very nice. :)
>>>
>> I would like to. It would make everyone be nice, or pretend to be
>> nice, or stay on topic. And since relatively few people want to be
>> mean, and one mean person can upset many others, this should increase
>> the amount of happiness in the world.
>>
> 
> 
> And will you please define "nice" then?  You have chosen your side.  I'd rather you just be honest and say that you don't like my side of the discussion. But you are refusing to recognize that "nice", in your case, is letting whichever side you prefer have their say, no matter how diabolical, without a balance from the opposite side.   I'm amazed you pursue this argument so relentlessly too.
> 
> 
>> I wrote a further reply to you offlist so as not to clutter this
>> forum.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, as you wish. :)
> 
> 
> -JJR
> 
> 

Hello Bill,

> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:24 AM, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Christopher,
>> Anyway, my point is that I had no cause to presume anything about his
>> name
>> without content from his site.   If he is able to publicly and
>> actively
>> promote his desired lifestyle, then I most surely am able to reject
>> or
>> refute it, correct?   What perhaps you should have suggested is that
>> he keep
>> his private lifestyle private if he didn't want to be confronted
>> about it,
>> right?
> 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.


Walter has set no bounds to this forum.  There is no definiton of "appropriate" here.  Walter has long since indicated that fact by inaction.  I'm merely proving this.  And the content of past posts and the example here just shows to what extent these bounds extend ... practically unlimited!  Somebody here once made a death threat without anybody batting an eye!  That's pathetic.


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. 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?


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 


-JJR