"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:gn8qqd$1k5p$1@digitalmars.com...
> "John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c143578cb5cec61f27c90@news.digitalmars.com...
>>
>> 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.
>

Look, the other thing about superdan is that we were all well aware that he just some troll that didn't know any better. But you've been very level-headed on here for a long time, so we know you're capable of a lot better than this.

BCS wrote:
> 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?

Because Christianity has no insights to provide to the design of a programming language.

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?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you felt so strongly about Esperanto.

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> "Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:gn8qqd$1k5p$1@digitalmars.com...
> > "John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c143578cb5cec61f27c90@news.digitalmars.com...
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> 
> Look, the other thing about superdan is that we were all well aware that he just some troll that didn't know any better. But you've been very level-headed on here for a long time, so we know you're capable of a lot better than this.

hey hey cool it dood. dont get me outta my lurkin'.

ps - when is the new phobos cummin'?

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:10:05 +0000, John Reimer wrote:

> Hello bearophile,
> 
>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>> 
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

I too did not find anything offensive on bearophile's site.

This is the same kind of attitude, John, that brought about the death of Alan Turing.  I find this post is not flamebait, but simply intolerant. Bearophile never brought his personal preferences or fantasies into this forum, you did.  And that is not the way to do something like that.  I can see your point that Walter or Andrei may not want D or phobos to be considered connected to something that is controversial.  But just email them and have a private conversation.  John, the fact that not a *single* person who has responded to your posts shares your opinion should tell you something.

If I posted a picture of Jesus nailed to a cross on my blog, along with my D code, and somebody found it offensive, would you agree that I should be forced to remove this picture because it depicts murder?

Bearophile's art did not hurt anyone or any animal, it is a *drawing*. Let's get back to more constructive programming discussion, and leave the bible study class at home, ok John?  If you feel offended by the link to bearophile's blog, contact Andrei or Walter directly, and petition them. It matters not what we think, but if anything you most certainly have solidified in Walter and Andrei's eyes the case against your wishes.

-Steve

Hello Mike,

> 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.
> 


I was wondering when you'd say something.


> 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.
> 


Sometimes, it's that you just didn't see it.  I guess you missed it then or it is now gone.



> 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.


Hmmm. Nope that wasn't it.


> 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?
>> 


Here for one.


>> (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.
> 


Actually, they aren't.  They are just as open-minded.  They will defend their worldview quite stridently.  Of course, I haven't seen a "Bible-belt" soccer mom in action, so maybe that offers a bit more of a display than I'm familiar with.


>> (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.
> 


Again, you must have missed it... or maybe it was removed.  


>> (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.
> 


Maybe not anymore... that's good to know. 


>> 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?
> 


I suppose there are no associations anymore?  Okay... good to know.


Yes, I've read some of your links.  They would count as rants much worse and much more abusive and hurtful than mine from a liberal stand-point.  Some of them I completely disagree with, but then some of them are justified.


> 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.
> 


I didn't object to furry fandom, mike.  Just one image there that perhaps has been removed since?


-JJR

Hello Nick,

> "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.
> 


Uh... it seems there's some misunderstanding here.  Maybe the material isn't there anymore?  Though, I don't really feel like testing that theory.


I guess that would make me look a little stupid now, wouldn't it?



>> 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.
> 


Yes, that's probably true.  Some of the lashing occurs without knowledge, however.  I'm not satisfied that I approached this very well either.    There, see?  Your intolerance has just made me feel insecure about my approach! You accomplished something without violence.


>> 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.
> 


Okay. Um.  How about I just not save you from it.  I get the feeling you don't want to be saved. :)


-JJR

Hello Steve,

> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:10:05 +0000, John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Hello bearophile,
>> 
>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>> 
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>> 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.
> I too did not find anything offensive on bearophile's site.
> 


Maybe it's gone now?  Hmmm...  I guess it's time for me to shutup?


> This is the same kind of attitude, John, that brought about the death
> of Alan Turing.  


That's a strong accusation, Steve, without knowing me; it's a very hasty reduction for circumstances, personalities, and factors you are quite unfamiliar with.  I didn't see you mention this sort of thing while people were talking about physically harming the internet marketer's in horrible ways in the javascript discussion. :) 



> I find this post is not flamebait, but simply
> intolerant.


Yes, it is a form of intolerance.  Sometimes it must exist.  You have some of it too... it's just at what point it is activated and how you act on it.  You assume violence always follows from intolerance.  It does only from the those worldviews or personalities that believe such action is justified. I abhore such.  But, using the "intolerance" accusation against me is very weak method to discharge such activity, especially considering the same accusation could be used for any government that allows votes on matters.  You are intolerant every day.  You are intolerant of some D designs.  The problem is, when we get to nitty gritty details of morality, this consistancy ends with a bang... and suddenly nobody should argue, discuss, or even consider the dangers of such things.


Please stick to arguing that perhaps I was indiscrete or had poor judgement in my original post and keep the suggestions (as you have) to alternative modes of accomplishing the same task.  But don't give that silly intolerance bit.  I've seen the same from all sides, and there's a world of hypocracy wrapped in that statement.


?  Bearophile never brought his personal preferences or
> fantasies into this forum, you did.  And that is not the way to do
> something like that.  I can see your point that Walter or Andrei may
> not want D or phobos to be considered connected to something that is
> controversial.  But just email them and have a private conversation.
> John, the fact that not a *single* person who has responded to your
> posts shares your opinion should tell you something.
> 


Yes, I believe he did in a way as I listed above.  But perhaps I should have done as you suggested... first.


> If I posted a picture of Jesus nailed to a cross on my blog, along
> with my D code, and somebody found it offensive, would you agree that
> I should be forced to remove this picture because it depicts murder?
> 


False analogy.  However, someone may request you to remove it... and you may do it out of courtesy or you may not.  I guarantee you there would be something that /would/ most certainly make you back away from any association with a site if you really thought about it.  Naturally we all have our limits... you are just refusing to admit it.


> Bearophile's art did not hurt anyone or any animal, it is a *drawing*.
> Let's get back to more constructive programming discussion, and leave
> the bible study class at home, ok John?  If you feel offended by the
> link to bearophile's blog, contact Andrei or Walter directly, and
> petition them.  It matters not what we think, but if anything you most
> certainly have solidified in Walter and Andrei's eyes the case against
> your wishes.
> 


There was no Bible-study done here, Steve.  I believe it was practically minded and argued.  But it is convenient for people to repeatedly make that accusation to religion when they don't have a better argument.   



That may be the case about Andrei and Walter... in which it would prove that my approach was deeply flawed.  But that would only be so if it were my only reason for posting here.  It does matter what you think... perhaps more than you know.



-JJR

"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c143db8cb5d5ff96f4cc0@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Yes, that's probably true.  Some of the lashing occurs without knowledge, however.  I'm not satisfied that I approached this very well either. There, see?  Your intolerance has just made me feel insecure about my approach! You accomplished something without violence.
>

Hee hee, I'd love too see a person attempt to accomplish something over a newsgroup with physical violence ;-) That would be quite an engineering feat.

superdan wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> 
>> "Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:gn8qqd$1k5p$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> "John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c143578cb5cec61f27c90@news.digitalmars.com...
>>>> 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.
>>>
>> Look, the other thing about superdan is that we were all well aware that he just some troll that didn't know any better. But you've been very level-headed on here for a long time, so we know you're capable of a lot better than this.
> 
> hey hey cool it dood. dont get me outta my lurkin'.
> 
> ps - when is the new phobos cummin'?

I'm glad to hear you're still around. I did feel your colourful language often obscured your content (which was frequently of very high quality).
I miss the content. (Not the language so much <g>).