In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy says...
>
[snip]
>> I had simply asked a question. A completely valid question, with absolutely no
>> indication of how 'seriously' I took the Maozilla graphics. You read that
>> question, assumed I was about to rail on about how offended I was, and proceeded
>> to defend the indefensible, deny the fact that the graphics are "neo-Soviet",
>> aka "commie graphics" with a "commie vibe".
>>
>
>
>Yes, I did assume that you were making a point about finding them
>offensive. The use of the word commie (a derogatory term for a
>communist)
Derogatory? I'd say "diminuitive", or maybe simply "short for". Same way
"Andy" would be short for "Andrew".
> and the word 'dripping' when used in this context strongly
>imply disapproval.
It implies no such thing, strongly or otherwise. Again your bias is showing
through. The graphics are inarguably _dripping_ with a _commie_ vibe. You
yourself refer to them as "Soviet worker style art". To-MAY-to or to-MAH-to, it
amounts to the exact same thing: graphics inarguably styled to 'evoke the
spirit' of the USSR and/or Red China.
> The use of hateful language implied that you were at
>least being serious, not making light in any way.
I used no hateful language Andy. I asked a simple question.
> Indeed, a simple and
>valid question, but one whose language was revealing.
>
One whose language revealed not what I wrote, but what you read:
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - The Talmud*
*Void where prohibited, e.g. Red China and the USSR.
>What I guess I didn't understand was precisely why you disapproved. What
>where you feeling when you asked the question?
>
Why I disapprove: For an enterprise as sickly as Mozilla to associate itself so
plainly with the most tyrannical form of non-representative government of the
modern age is insane, perhaps even moreso than its memory hoggage.
What I was feeling when I asked "why?": "Christ, who was asleep at the wheel on
that one?" Of course I later found out that this was not an oversight, but a
*conscious* decision. Wow.
>As an aside: Your use of deliberate mispellings (Maozilla) is
>unnecessary.
Unnecessarily HI-LARIOUS!
> I personally will give your words more weight if you can
>stick to arguing in English.
No you won't.
> I believe many others will too.
They won't either:
"And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they
said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans
and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have
no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance." - Mark 2:16-17, Bible*
*Also void where prohibited, e.g. Red China and the USSR.
> In using
>these misspellings, you choice of terms causes people to imply things
>about how you feel, just as your original question causes people to
>reasonably imply things. If you prefer these implications not be made,
>use neutral language.
Maybe I'm just trying to "make a statement". To be "hip" and "in-your-face".
Hell, if you can do it with your commie graphics, you *have* to allow me to do
so with my malapropisms!
Oh wait, no, I guess you probably don't, seeing as communism won't allow me to
express my anti-commie sentiments freely.
None of this is getting through, is it Andy?
> Criticising people for making interpretations of
>your views when you send clear signals through your choice of language
>seems disingenuous.
>
Does it seem as disingenuous as, oh, I don't know, say, putting up some
inarguably and admittedly Communist graphics and then bitching when people
complain about it?
Hello?
>I didn't "defend the indefensible".
At first you certainly tried to, claiming that I was 'seeing reds everywhere'.
> I didn't deny it was possible to see
>a "commie vibe" there.
You denied me three times Andy, don't you remember? Two software products and
then Red Star yeast?
> I did assume you disapproved,
You assumed that right.
> because of the
>language you used. Therefore I responded with an attempt to point out
>that many styles of art can have communist implications.
No, you did not. You accused me of 'seeing reds everwhere'.
> We appear to
>disagree on which styles exactly have that association.
So it is in fact *YOU* who are seeing Communist associations in Red Star yeast?
> In the part I
>have removed, you comment more than once that I over-reacted.
Right. You did. Get over it.
> I find it
>hard to understand how an attempt at humour can be an over-reaction. It
>was perhaps ill considered, but I did not attack you or claim you were
>wrong about anything.
>
That is exactly what you did Andy. Again, you accused me of 'seeing reds
everywhere'. Ergo, you were claiming that I was seeing something that wasn't
there in the Maozilla graphics.
>Let me be precisely clear: yes, I can see why the artwork could be
>considered communist.
Alright then. This is 180 degrees or so from where we started. I think we're
making progress.
>I can also see that similar artwork in use elsewhere (Metrowerks, Active
>State) could also be considered communist.
Now who's 'seeing reds everywhere'?
> We aparently disagree about
>what styles of artwork heavily imply association (not support!) with
>communism. You seem to regard the Mozilla graphics as "dripping" with
>it, whereas you see no such association in some of the others. I
>personally see them all as having a degree of said assocation.
>
Take a look at this picture of a Soviet WWII-vintage Yakolev 7-B:
http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/yak-7b-color.jpg
Replace the white "1" on the side with "MOZILLA.ORG", and you have:
http://www.mozilla.org/banners/mozilla2_03.gif
Frankly, Netscape should be afraid of getting sued for copyright infringement by
Russia!
>Given we agree we can both see the how the assocation can be made, I
>will answer you question (also from the removed part) about how I see
>the artwork: I don't find it offensive, neither do I feel its
>particularly "hip and trendy" or "in your face", or that it makes some
>important "anti-establishment" statement.
So we agree. Do we agree that it was clearly *intended* to be "hip" and
"trendy" and make some sort of "anti-establishment" statement?
> If I felt anything about it at
>all, 2 years ago when I first saw it, it was that it was intended as a
>"rallying cry" for people to band together and work hard on the project.
>I'm not going to second guess how you'll react to that statement, I'm
>merely answering your question.
>
And when I first saw it, I wondered aloud "what's with the commie graphics?".
Assuming Mozilla was a successful product, which do you think would be the
majority reaction amongst users?
>I'll also direct you to the post in this thread by Jesus X who points
>out this style of art was used in American propoganda from the same
>period.
You don't need such a lame excuse! Hell, the USSR were our *allies* for a time!
Then again, all the while Stalin was killing off as many of his own people as he
could... but that's beside the point here, isn't it Andy?
> But once again, that depends if we're talking about the red
>stars in isolation (which many people have pointed out have a great many
>non-communist associations in this thread) or the overall effect created
>by all elements of the artwork, which he addresses.
>
I've never been talking about anything *other* than the "overall effect". What
have you been talking about?
>In short: I can see an association with communism. I can see an
>association with many other things (eg, Netscape, because of the
>dinosaur).
No, you can't, not in public anyway. The *green* dinosaur is associated with
Netscape, hence banned by the Maozilla Politburo. The *red* dinosaur is
completely different (unless you're colorblind, but that's also banned), and the
whole motif is inarguably "commie-style", and is therefore approved by the
Maozilla Politburo.
> I personally do not find the overall effect either offensive
>due to an association with communism,
You've probably not been held hostage by Red China for eleven days. Or practice
Falun Gong. Or were "purged".
> nor do I believe it was done
>solely to try to offend "the establishment"
Naivete again. What, do you think that big red star somehow got there
accidentally? It takes up half the friggen banner!
> (who you seem to feel you
>speak for).
I speak for nobody but myself Andy.
> Instead I saw it as a positive call for action; to make a
>better browser.
>
Stalin had a way of "positively motivating" people too. With the muzzle of a
PPD.
>I don't disgregard that some people will see what they bring to the
>table,
The artist is the one who brought the commie vibe to the table my friend. Don't
act all shocked if nobody wants to eat it.
> but I object to being belittled because I can see other
>interpretations than the one you feel is paramount.
>
I object to being belittled because I see what was so ameturishly and obviously
intended, and ask, "why?". But then people in hell want icewater.
>>
>> I called you 'Mr. "Take that establishment!" Overreaction Kiddie.'. Maybe
>> that's mud, maybe it ain't, and it's certainly not one of my best, but I think I
>> hit the nail pretty square on the head regardless.
>
>And in the parts of the post I deleted you called me a great many other
>things,
I called you nothing else. I'm not here to call anybody names.
> claiming that I'm not sufficiently mature to follow what you're
>trying to say,
I said that, and I maintain it, unless something here finally gets through.
That's a statement of fact Andy, your posts make that all too clear, even this
very one.
Now if you're offended by somebody saying you're "immature", well number one it
pretty much proves the point, but two you have to realize that there's no shame
in being immature, only in *staying* immature...
> or that if I am, my only possible "defense" would be to
>claim that I'm immature and couldn't hope to understand.
>
..hence my remarks about your age.
>Its genuinely distressing to me that you feel the need to belittle those
>you speak to (or speak against).
Some people need what you refer to as "belittling". I call it "straight talk".
And might I remind you that it was *you* who chose to do a little "belittling"
yourself and get into this discussion? If you can't take the heat Andy, get off
the can. Better yet, don't get on.
>I look up and down this thread, and there's scant little time spent
>discussing, what's ultimately the style of some art.
You've gotten nothing out of this, have you Andy? You yourself refer to it as
"Soviet worker style art", and yet dismiss the entire issue as an argument over
*stylistic* concerns?!?! And then whine about me calling you immature?!?!
Do you have any idea what Soviet==Communism is all about? *Any* idea? Clearly
not, so let me put it this way: if we were in, say, the now-defunct USSR, or
even present-day China, having this discussion, I'd probably have a
govenment-issued 7.62mm pistol bullet in my forehead by now. Why? Because I
"questioned authority". Because I "asked the wrong questions".
And you think it's OK for Mozilla to be associated with that. Jinkies.
>I'd ask you to consider whether attacking those you speak against, and
>repeatedly associating the project and those people you reply to with
>some of the worst crimes ever commited by humanity is a very mature way
>to behave?
**I'M*** ASSOCIATING MOZILLA WITH COMMUNISM NOW?!?!?! ***I*** DIDN'T MAKE THE
COMMIE GRAPHICS SON!
> Are you simply trying to provoke people?
>
Sometimes people need to be provoked to action, roused from their stupor.
Sometimes it doesn't work.
>You accuse me and others of being immature.
Just you so far, as far as I can recall.
> You accuse me of
>overreacting. Yet you are the one calling people names, and suggesting
>by having some graphics Mozilla is supporting oppresive regimes, and
>even the actions of the Nazis.
>
Read it again Andy. I said if Mozilla wants to associate itself with tyranny,
which you agree it already does, it should go full-bore and do it better, with
the much better "Socialist Worker style art".
>I understand the reasons people use hyperbole to make a point.
That's a start. Now try understanding the point itself.
> In small
>doses it can be effective. As a half dozen or more posts full of attacks
>its just childish. Its precisely the kind of shock tactic you find so
>derisory when you perceive that others are using it. ("I ... am, beside
>myself with laughing my ass off at the kiddies trying to "shock" their
>elders.")
>
>One of us is calm. The other speaks in terms of hate.
>
1. Me.
2. Who? Can't be you, you don't even realize the evils of Communism.
>--
>AndyT (lordpixel)
--
JTK
