BCS wrote:
> Hello John,
> 
>>> 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.
>>
> 
> Nor have I seen a "Bible-belt" soccer mom in action but, yah /everyone/ has there issue:
> 
> <G> VI/emacs, tabs/spaces, 4-space/8-space tabs, NNTP/PHPBB, static/dynamic typing, airplains on a treadmill, need I go on? </G>

Let me add one too: there/their.

Andrei

Hello Andrei,

> Let me add one too: there/their.
> 
> Andrei
> 

Oops :( 

I don't /think/ I'm dyslexic :b

Hello Nick,

> "John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:28b70f8c143d88cb5d632bf3cd10@news.digitalmars.com...
> 
>> 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. :)
>> 
> It was clear that the violent things said in that discussion were not
> intended literally. The images on bearophile's site are *also* clearly
> fictional. Thus we don't mind either. But your comments against it
> were more serious.
> 


Yes, they were serious.  The fact that they are fictional is not an argument for "right" as I expressed in other posts that brought other analogies into the spectrum to show that everyone will enforce their limits at some point, fictional or otherwise.


> If instead you had said something like "Argh! This whole furry
> movement makes me want to burn out my eyes and take a lawn-mower to
> every art institute in the tri-county area!" then we'd be clearly back
> in the realm of fiction again, and we'd all acknolegde your viewpoint
> on it, chuckle at the amusingly overstated comment, and silently agree
> to disagree. And if bearophile decided that he wanted to, he could
> think "Hmm, some people that are into the D content really don't like
> this other stuff, so I guess I could add some clearer separtion of
> topics". (Personally, it doesn't bother me the way it is, though.)
> 
> Or, as you've come to realize now, you could have said something like
> "Bearophile, I like your D content, but I find some of those images
> disturbing, and others might too. Maybe it would be a better site
> design to have a stronger separation of content." As I'm sure you
> realize, that would have achieved the same result I described in the
> paragraph above - but sadly without the "people chuckling at the
> amusingly overstated comment" part. I like having amusingly overstated
> comments to chuckle at ;-)
> 


Uh uh uh... don't gloat to quickly now. :)


You, Nick, are chuckling now perhaps because I have conceded some points here?  I don't think this or the content is a chuckling matter... but as you like.


Yes, I should have approached it the way you so adroitly expressed.  No, I don't think my comment was overstated concerning the seriousness of the material.  That's just your opinion based on your experience, Nick.  Some feel that because they have been exposed to much more serious material, that it lessons the "evil" of the so-called "lesser" forms of it ... this is what I would call the numbing factor.  You can appeal to this form of reasoning, but I wouldn't use it as an argument to define such limits for others.  I've seen a lot of dead people (maimed and otherwise) before, and thus have less of reaction than others to seeing death even if I greatly understand the significance of it.  This does not mean that I presume to think that all people share my desensitization to it.  In terms of things that are moral issues (even if fictional in form), I believe that you vastly underestimating the potential for damage and influence by public promotion of the material -- I would say your chuckling is careless.  I do ascribe my reasoning to the standards found in my worldview.  You appear to have nothing but personal experience to appeal to as a standard.  If this is the case, be prepared to see no possible way to define what is trully evil because everyone's level of experience will render some consensus almost impossible or temporary at best.


-JJR

Hello BCS,

> Hello Andrei,
> 
>> Let me add one too: there/their.
>> 
>> Andrei
>> 
> Oops :(
> 
> I don't /think/ I'm dyslexic :b
> 


I do it all the time... and only see my errors after the fact. :(


-JJR

Hello BCS,

> Hello Nick,
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> DARN YOU!!! Now I'm going to find my self trying to figure out how
> that could be done. OTOH it would make a good story.
> 


Heh... ask SuperDan... i think he might have come closest to demonstrating it.


-JJR

"BCS" <none@anon.com> wrote in message news:a6268ff2a258cb5d85e3cc3572@news.digitalmars.com...
>> 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!
>
> I think that asking him to adjust the root page and stuff relating to D might be reasonable, but a direct e-mail or a comment on his blog would be a better choice than a post 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!
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I will agree with you on this.
>

If I created a website that sometimes discussed Joe's Pizza Parlor and at other times posted drawings of cigarettes and even included my site's homepage link in my signature at Joe's Pizza Parlor Internet Message Board, then anyone who took that as an indication that Joe's Pizza Parlor endorses either smoking, non-smoking, or the act of making cigarette-related drawings, would clearly be a complete nut (Not that Joe's Pizza Parlor necessarily endorses, condemns, or is ambivalent towards nuts of either the human or tree-grown variety, or any other variety that may have ever existed, does exit, will exist or doesn't, didn't and/or never will exist). I see no reason for the same principle not to apply here.

This is the same pulling-imaginary-connections-out-of-thin-air kind of thinking that, in the early days of the web, led National Public Radio to pull that ridiculous stunt of trying to prohibit anyone from linking to their site.

Hello Don,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Hello bearophile,
>> 
>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>> 
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> John, I think you make a valid point that the D community should check
> that any site which is officially linked to, provides reasonable
> indication when you are leaving the technical section, particularly
> when there's potential for offense. (For example, linking to a
> terrorist website might be damaging for D).
> 


Yes.  Meanwhile I admit my failure to approach this in a more graceful manner.


> But in other respects, if you're arguing from a Christian perspective,
> I don't see how bearophile's apparent acknowledgement of the truth of
> Romans 1 is anything but beneficial. He's no different from any of us.
> Rom 3:23.
> 
> -Don.
> 


Well, I don't know if he would agree with you that he is acknowledging it. :)


From the Christian perspective, as you point out,  you are correct that he is no different from any of us, except that you leave out some important details that are contextually completed by the words in and surrounding Romans 3:23.  :)


There's an irony here in the word "beneficial" which would cause me to react. However, I will leave your statement here, which contains the most fundamental description of the situation that could ever be said.  


-JJR

"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c144158cb5d8c0c1ac480@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> "John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c143d88cb5d632bf3cd10@news.digitalmars.com...
>>
>>> 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. :)
>>>
>> It was clear that the violent things said in that discussion were not intended literally. The images on bearophile's site are *also* clearly fictional. Thus we don't mind either. But your comments against it were more serious.
>>
>
> Yes, they were serious.  The fact that they are fictional is not an argument for "right" as I expressed in other posts that brought other analogies into the spectrum to show that everyone will enforce their limits at some point, fictional or otherwise.
>

I was merely explaining the discrepancy between how most of us reacted to the content in the javascript discussion and how we reacted to your original post against bearophile.

>
>> If instead you had said something like "Argh! This whole furry movement makes me want to burn out my eyes and take a lawn-mower to every art institute in the tri-county area!" then we'd be clearly back in the realm of fiction again, and we'd all acknolegde your viewpoint on it, chuckle at the amusingly overstated comment, and silently agree to disagree. And if bearophile decided that he wanted to, he could think "Hmm, some people that are into the D content really don't like this other stuff, so I guess I could add some clearer separtion of topics". (Personally, it doesn't bother me the way it is, though.)
>>
>> Or, as you've come to realize now, you could have said something like "Bearophile, I like your D content, but I find some of those images disturbing, and others might too. Maybe it would be a better site design to have a stronger separation of content." As I'm sure you realize, that would have achieved the same result I described in the paragraph above - but sadly without the "people chuckling at the amusingly overstated comment" part. I like having amusingly overstated comments to chuckle at ;-)
>>
>
>
> Uh uh uh... don't gloat to quickly now. :)
>
>
> You, Nick, are chuckling now perhaps because I have conceded some points here?  I don't think this or the content is a chuckling matter... but as you like.
>

Please re-read. I wasn't chuckling in this case, I was merely pointing out that many of us find deliberately colorful overstatements, such as the ones in the javascript discussion, to be amusing (and thus, chuckle at *those* statements while being well aware that they are just that - overstatements).

>
> In terms of things that are moral issues (even if fictional in form), I believe that you vastly underestimating the potential for damage and influence by public promotion of the material

If this is so, then please enlighten us with examples rather than repeatedly flying the "It's dangerous!" flag. Something more substantial than the speculative slippery slope argument.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:gna51a$r4n$1@digitalmars.com...
> "John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c144158cb5d8c0c1ac480@news.digitalmars.com...
>> Hello Nick,
>>
>>> "John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c143d88cb5d632bf3cd10@news.digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>>> 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. :)
>>>>
>>> It was clear that the violent things said in that discussion were not intended literally. The images on bearophile's site are *also* clearly fictional. Thus we don't mind either. But your comments against it were more serious.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, they were serious.  The fact that they are fictional is not an argument for "right" as I expressed in other posts that brought other analogies into the spectrum to show that everyone will enforce their limits at some point, fictional or otherwise.
>>
>
> I was merely explaining the discrepancy between how most of us reacted to the content in the javascript discussion and how we reacted to your original post against bearophile.
>

In other words, while you may not consider "real" vs "not-real" to be a useful variable to include in the "acceptability" equation, many of us do, and that is why we reacted differently in the different situations. In that particular portion of my message above, I wasn't attempting to make any point beyond that.

"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28b70f8c144248cb5d8caf3e9e10@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello BCS,
>
>> Hello Nick,
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> DARN YOU!!! Now I'm going to find my self trying to figure out how that could be done. OTOH it would make a good story.
>>
>
> Heh... ask SuperDan... i think he might have come closest to demonstrating it.
>

Yea, but I bet I could surpass it with robotics ;-)