JTK wrote:
>
> Aren't Hindu "swastikas" the reverse of the Nazi ones?
>
not really, but in rendition the nazi one is rotated 45deg around
the third axis (poking out towards you).
>>
>> or was that a trick question?
>>
> Not at all, but methinks yours was a trick answer.
>
>> ps: in optimistic hope, i leave the point of my message to
>> remain subtle.
>
> Now you're stealing my bit.
>
the subtle point i was trying to make was that there are more ways
than one to interpret anything you see (such as graphics) and your
interpretation is cultural (dare i say, idealogical w.r.t your
culture). the swastika is seen only as a nazi symbol in the west,
ignoring its much more ancient use in the east and its use by
close to 1 billion people today as a sacred symbol. you or others
who wish to use the "soviet" interpretation and back it up with
capitalist idealogy, similarly, seem to be working within a
restrictive framework of interpretation. there is great value in
your critique, however, insofar as it is aimed at highlighting
your interpretation as a plausible one that might offend certain
groups. imho, your critique is mischevous and counterproductive
when it tends to name-calling, idealogy and politics.
of course there has been mention of the history of this
disagreement and the claim (which i must take at face value) that
such input (as i recommend) has been ignored. i would still reply
that the option remains open for pro-american pro-capitalist
mozilla-philes (if indeed they perceive the differences in such a
context) to come up with graphics that will tempt the rest of us
to adopt them!
--ravi
