View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello Christopher,

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


I didn't receive it. 


-JJR
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello grauzone,


>> 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.
> 


So you approve of the material on the website then?


-JJR
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello Jarrett,

>> 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?
> 


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 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 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 have no problems with such a request.


-JJR
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
John Reimer wrote:
> Hello grauzone,
> 
> 
>>> 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.
>>
> 
> 
> So you approve of the material on the website then?

Not necessarily. I don't even know what exactly is on his website.

But I defend free speech, not attacking people because of irrelevant 
issues, and all that.

I guess you're worried that the personal desires of people like him lead 
to the downfall of moral values and society at large or something, which 
is why you feel the need of putting pressure on them in order to stop 
it? Sounds like a plan.

> 
> -JJR
> 
>
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello grauzone,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Hello grauzone,
>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>> So you approve of the material on the website then?
>> 
> Not necessarily. I don't even know what exactly is on his website.
> 
> But I defend free speech, not attacking people because of irrelevant
> issues, and all that.
> 


Hmm... irrelevent, eh?  If you haven't figured out the content yet... how 
are you able to make a decision on whether it is irrelevent or not.


Anyway... you can have no issue with my free speech then.  But it's apparently 
called "attack" when it's from my side of the fence.  I ask you if calling 
a person a a**hole can be considered an attack or free speech?  I don't call 
people names.  I think you fail the consistancy test. 



> I guess you're worried that the personal desires of people like him
> lead to the downfall of moral values and society at large or
> something, which is why you feel the need of putting pressure on them
> in order to stop it? Sounds like a plan.
> 


Yes, good description.


-JJR
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
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.

- 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.

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

- 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).
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
John Reimer wrote:
> Hello grauzone,
> 
>> John Reimer wrote:
>>
>>> Hello grauzone,
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> So you approve of the material on the website then?
>>>
>> Not necessarily. I don't even know what exactly is on his website.
>>
>> But I defend free speech, not attacking people because of irrelevant
>> issues, and all that.
>>
> 
> 
> Hmm... irrelevent, eh?  If you haven't figured out the content yet... 
> how are you able to make a decision on whether it is irrelevent or not.

I suppose it's about "furrys". It might very well be that I'm offended 
by the actual content, but since I'm obviously not forced to look at it, 
I don't really care.

> 
> Anyway... you can have no issue with my free speech then.  But it's 
> apparently called "attack" when it's from my side of the fence.  I ask 

You were the first one to attack. Why do you think you're in the 
position to complain?

> you if calling a person a a**hole can be considered an attack or free 
> speech?  I don't call people names.  I think you fail the consistancy test.

I'd rather call this a "counterattack". Not sure if I want to play the 
pacifist.

Anyway, I don't really have the time to flame around. I guess I'll stop 
posting now. I suggest you do the same.

> 
>> I guess you're worried that the personal desires of people like him
>> lead to the downfall of moral values and society at large or
>> something, which is why you feel the need of putting pressure on them
>> in order to stop it? Sounds like a plan.
>>
> 
> 
> Yes, good description.

Your approach doesn't work.

> 
> -JJR
> 
>
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello Nick,

> "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.
> 


It shows professional courtesy if nothing else.  This is not a small thing, 
Nick.  If you see it as small, then we have nothing to discuss here.  I don't 
know if you actually examined the content, so you may or may not know what 
you are talking about.


> 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.
> 


A lot of religious content sickens me too... however, your analogy assumes 
"offense" is the only issue here.  We are talking about material that would 
be considered extremely pornographic: censor is common etiquette for such 
material.  Bearophile warns near the material but the content remains visible. 
I can spell it out for you in a private email if you wish.


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


Oh please don't be so thick.  Is it so much trouble to clean up a few pictures, 
add a logon system for those that absolutely must see the dirt, or move programming 
material to another blog/website?


-JJR
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
Hello grauzone,


>>> I guess you're worried that the personal desires of people like him
>>> lead to the downfall of moral values and society at large or
>>> something, which is why you feel the need of putting pressure on
>>> them in order to stop it? Sounds like a plan.
>>> 
>> Yes, good description.
>> 
> Your approach doesn't work.
> 


I'm afraid you haven't proved that very well. :)


-JJR
February 15, 2009
Re: OT -- Re: random cover of a range
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.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home