Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Andrew DeFaria wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: ... Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user. Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus that's his consent. Not quite. Try clicking on the root installer node to specify to install everything. You get no notification about off-color content. (I think) the web pages give not warning about off-color content. The user certainly has not given informed consent. Daniel -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 12:43:40PM -0500, Daniel B. wrote: Andrew DeFaria wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: ... Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user. Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus that's his consent. Not quite. Try clicking on the root installer node to specify to install everything. You get no notification about off-color content. (I think) the web pages give not warning about off-color content. The user certainly has not given informed consent. You've missed the boat here. The problem has been rectified. The discussion has finished. We don't need to discuss this any further. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
[DEAD THREAD] Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Daniel B. wrote: [snip] The thread is dead. Long live the thread! Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
/LURK [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [x] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? LURK -- The content of this e-mail is confidential, may contain privileged material and is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above. If you receive this in error, please notify Software AG immediately and delete this e-mail. Software AG (UK) Limited Registered in England Wales 1310740 Registered Office: Hudson House, Hudson Way, Pride Park, Derby DE24 8HS -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Oh for the love of me, DeFaria: [snip] Please do not try to express a false legal opinion to justify a faulty personal one. I am expressing no legal opinion. I am merely stating the obvious: if there's no potty-mouth there to offend, nobody can be offended by the potty-mouth. Do you disagree with this axiom? We have not established that either. Again it is your assertion. Ok, I'll chalk this one up to you not having completed any mathematics classes requiring you to do proofs yet (I think they start once you get to high school, so consider this a learning experience): An axiom is a basic statement of fact assumed to be true because of its obviousness. It is obviously true that if A does not exist, nobody could be offended by A. For any and all definitions of A. Now, Mr. DeFaria, do you or do you not agree with that axiom? -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Oh for the love of me, DeFaria: Actually I don't love you at all. [snip] You snipped the good stuff. So are you a lawyer or a potty mouthed junior high-school sys admin? We are dying to know! Please do not try to express a false legal opinion to justify a faulty personal one. I am expressing no legal opinion. I am merely stating the obvious: if there's no potty-mouth there to offend, nobody can be offended by the potty-mouth. Do you disagree with this axiom? We have not established that either. Again it is your assertion. Ok, I'll chalk this one up to you not having completed any mathematics classes requiring you to do proofs yet (I think they start once you get to high school, so consider this a learning experience): I've completed more math classes than you'll ever know. An axiom is a basic statement of fact assumed to be true because of its obviousness. It is obviously true that if A does not exist, nobody could be offended by A. For any and all definitions of A. Now, Mr. DeFaria, do you or do you not agree with that axiom? What they hell are you talking about?!? You need to take some basic logic courses! You say that this stuff is potty-mouthed (whatever that's supposed to mean you have not defined). That sir is just your OPINION! It is not fact nor is it obvious nor is it A. And above you say that your OPINION is obvious therefore you are right. You are not right sir, it is just your opinion and you know what they say opinions are like assholes, everybody's got 'em, and yours is particularly stinky. It is not obvious sir as many people here disagree with many of the opinions that you are attempting to hold out as axioms. You sir say they are potty mouthed (an obvious scientific term) while I could say they are simply adult humor. Your characterization is no more true than mind. -- Anytime four New Yorkers get into a cab together without arguing, a bank robbery has just taken place. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 06:20:45PM +0100, Volker Bandke wrote: BTW, my computer randomly selected the tagline below. Is it obscene? Should I burn my Laptop (she wouldn't like that, I am sure) Sex without love is an empty experience, but, as empty experiences go, it's one of the best. -- Woody Allen I'm sure some will be delighted to hear that particular one will be in the offensive sex file in the new version I'm working on. From Amy Lewis's notes on her 1995 rewrite of fortune: An attempt has been made to restructure the fortune database. This has included, of necessity, a concatenation and redivision of the offensive and inoffensive fortunes. In the process, some fortunes may have gotten lost, and others may have moved from one category to another (or from both categories to one or the other, more commonly). The following were the criteria I used to make the division: Anything about sex is offensive. Welcome to America. *sigh* Insults based on religion or ethnicity are offensive. Generally, any criticism of anybody's religion is offensive. He really said that? quotes from politicians are offensive. Political bias is offensive. Limericks are offensive even if they aren't. Tastelessness is offensive (q.v. The Snack). Misogyny and misandry for the sake of themselves are offensive. Vulgarity is offensive. Violence for the sake of humor is offensive. Surprisingly, given this rather broad definition, there are still more inoffensive quotations, quips, and quozzits than offensive ones. A peculiar, back-handed compliment to human nature (it surprised me). I would highly recommend *not* persuing that (q.v. The Snack). -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Andrew DeFaria wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Cygwin already provides the content. Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user. Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus that's his consent. The user does not know he is giving consent to installing fortune when he is doing a full install of Cygwin. There are over 500 hundred packages in a full Cygwin install. -- Francis Litterio franl at world . std . com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene content? This is not the question. Yes, it is. Arbitrary pronouncement, in light of this I see no flaw in my reasoning. The content exists, it has already been provided. Should it be provided is moot. Support your position or yield it. Cygwin already provides the content. Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user. Bugs in software can an should be reported as such, operational failure of software is not uncommon and in no way need of debate. The debate arises from the position you put forward that the content should not be there even in properly operating software. Therefore the question is: should it be removed? The answer to that is yes. Again I ask: why should Cygwin provide this content? Again arbitrary pronouncement, without supporting argument. Not compelling. I still see now flaw in my analysis. You argue that it should, because you asses some of the content as obscene, and are personally offended by it. You're late to the party Josh. As I stated in my second post on the subject, I am in no way personally offended by it. I simply find it purile and unprofessional. I am not late to the debate, I simply had to assume that you were putting forward your own opinion. If you are not putting forward you opinion then there is no debate, because there is no one who is offended. Arguing someone else's potential position is meaningless. Further you imply that removing the package from your own system is inadequate to address this offense. (please correct me if I miss state your argument) You have almost completely misstated my argument. Allow me to restate it in convenient bullet-list form: - The limericks in question could realistically get somebody fired or sued. - I am realistically one of the many parties that could conceivably get sued. So to understand better you are not offended by the limericks your are concerned that you are inviting a lawsuit from someone who is offended? Are you denying people an opportunity to uninstall the software? Do you require people to use fortune to keep their job, and fail to inform them of this when they began? Unless you force an employee to use the software and you didn't not make it clear they would be working with that software from the beginning you can not be held liable, you can be sued but they would not win the suite. In fact you can be sued at any time for any reason, the question of liability is what determines who will win. I, for example, work in the entertainment industry where such potentially offensive material is worked on every day, our employees are not obliged to work on offensive material, and/or have been informed of the content before being employed. So they can not succeed in any law suite against us for having such material online, or in an area where they may happen upon it. If you do not follow the guidelines then fortune/cygwin is the least of your worries. No one is being forced to read dirty limericks, and with out such force dirty limericks are protected by freedom of speech. In all such cases it is the responsibility of the viewer to stop viewing. I recommend getting a laymans book on harassment in the workplace it seems you are not very well informed in this area. I recommend Sexual Harassment Awareness Training: 60 Practical Activities for Trainers, however there are others. - Red Hat is even more realistically one of the many parties that could conceivably get sued. This, while considerably more plausible, is still not a valid argument as Red Hat wave such warranty of responsibility in their license agreement. And again they don't force anyone to use there software or to read dirty limericks. - The limericks in question are installed without the knowledge or consent of the installer. Francis Litterio wrote: The user does not know he is giving consent to installing fortune when he is doing a full install of Cygwin. There are over 500 hundred packages in a full Cygwin install. This, in and of it self, is not a problem. You must first demonstrate that such action can cause damage. As it is, every cygwin package can be selected to be installed our not. Therefore, this is not a meaningfully argument regardless if it where true or not. - The limericks in question are of interest only to junior-highschool-age sysadmins and lawyers. This is also a week argument, as it assumes we agree with your subjective assessment of the limericks, which we don't. This also is not a meaningfully argument regardless if it is true or not. - Redacting the limericks in question from Cygwin will eliminate the risk they cause. You have failed to demonstrate risk, and you have failed to demonstrate that the limericks are the only risk. Who should be responsible for reviewing and judging the risk level
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Francis Litterio wrote: Andrew DeFaria wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Cygwin already provides the content. Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user. Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus that's his consent. The user does not know he is giving consent to installing fortune when he is doing a full install of Cygwin. There are over 500 hundred packages in a full Cygwin install. 1) Ignorance is no defense and 2) even doing a full Cygwin install (whatever that means) fortune is not selected by default (it wasn't for me). -- Windows: Just another pane in the glass. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Andrew DeFaria wrote: Francis Litterio wrote: Andrew DeFaria wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Cygwin already provides the content. Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user. Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus that's his consent. The user does not know he is giving consent to installing fortune when he is doing a full install of Cygwin. There are over 500 hundred packages in a full Cygwin install. 1) Ignorance is no defense That's debatable in this case. 2) even doing a full Cygwin install (whatever that means) fortune is not selected by default (it wasn't for me). It was for me. Perhaps you did not do a full install of Cygwin? -- Francis Litterio franl at world . std . com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-Original Message- From: Daniel Reed Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 12:51 PM To: Gary R. Van Sickle Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file. On 2005-01-08T17:57-0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: ) - The limericks in question are of interest only to junior-highschool-age ) sysadmins and lawyers. I find them humorous. So are you a lawyer, or a junior-high-school-age sysadmin? ) - Redacting the limericks in question from Cygwin will eliminate the risk ) they cause. You are not a lawyer, Says who? and you misused the verb to redact. Mmm, no, I don't think I did, but let's let Merriam J. Webster be the judge: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionaryva=redact; x=22y=21 Main Entry: re.dact Pronunciation: ri-'dakt Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Latin redactus, past participle of redigere 1 : to put in writing : FRAME 2 : to select or adapt for publication : EDIT Choosing of course the second definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionaryva=edit Main Entry: 1ed.it Pronunciation: 'e-dt Function: transitive verb Etymology: back-formation from editor 1 a : to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation b : to assemble (as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging c : to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose carefully edited the speech 2 : to direct the publication of edits the daily newspaper 3 : DELETE -- usually used with out - ed.it.able /'e-d-t-bl/ adjective So to complete the pedagogy, To redact the potty-mouth in question, one would 3 : DELETE the offensive material. Please do not try to express a false legal opinion to justify a faulty personal one. I am expressing no legal opinion. I am merely stating the obvious: if there's no potty-mouth there to offend, nobody can be offended by the potty-mouth. Do you disagree with this axiom? -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: -Original Message- From: Daniel Reed Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 12:51 PM To: Gary R. Van Sickle Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file. On 2005-01-08T17:57-0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: ) - The limericks in question are of interest only to junior-highschool-age ) sysadmins and lawyers. I find them humorous. So are you a lawyer, or a junior-high-school-age sysadmin? Isn't that your still unproven assertion? Stop engaging in strawmen. ) - Redacting the limericks in question from Cygwin will eliminate the risk ) they cause. You are not a lawyer, Says who? Well you could easily clear that up. Are you a lawyer? Obviously not since by your very own assertion you are not interested in these limericks! (See what happens when you use silly arguments - you trip yourself up in them). Please do not try to express a false legal opinion to justify a faulty personal one. I am expressing no legal opinion. I am merely stating the obvious: if there's no potty-mouth there to offend, nobody can be offended by the potty-mouth. Do you disagree with this axiom? We have not established that either. Again it is your assertion. -- Why do people ask Can I ask you a question? Didn't really give me a choice there, did ya sunshine? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On 8 Jan 2005 at 1:37, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: [snip] Why would you suggest that expressing a thought, however you might disagree with it, should be illegal? For the silly reason that I happen to know that a lot of things related to Nazis or Hitler in Deutschland ungültig ist. Ferinstance, check out the German aircraft in MS's Combat Flight Simulator - no swastikas, 'cause if there were, they couldn't fly in German airspace. [snip] I lived in Germany as a small boy and remember how the Germans tried to expunge what had happened. Likely for good reasons but forgetting/suppressing history isn't good in the long run. Fast forward to 1978, I'm at Peace Park in Hiroshima. A young girl stops to ask us (group of off duty marines) why we bomb Hiroshima, we ask her, why you attack Pearl Harbor. She blinks, and asks, what is Pearl Harbor. Incomplete history serves no one. Wes -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: It's simple common sense. In a world where McDonalds loses a bajillion-dollar lawsuit because its coffee is hot, common sense is a thing of the past my naive friend. Actually, McDonald's lost that suit not because the idiot spilled it on her lap, but because the judge decided to do the Department of Health's job for them. At the time, the styrofoam cups McDonald's used was not actually supposed to hold coffee at the temperature that McDonald's serves it at. In theory, the cups would melt semi-regularly if the customers didn't drink their coffee first, although I don't recall that ever actually happening. The inspectors for the Dept. of Health apparently never warned McDonalds that they were (more or less willingly) endangering their customers, so the Judge decided to do it for them. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Jan 7 19:39, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote: == fortunes2-o == Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that cocaine stuff -- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in Nuremberg trial Is something like this even legal in Germany? Why not? Shouldn't it? Is Adolf Hitler a minority worth protecting? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Jan 8 01:37, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Why would you suggest that expressing a thought, however you might disagree with it, should be illegal? For the silly reason that I happen to know that a lot of things related to Nazis or Hitler in Deutschland ung?ltig ist. Ferinstance, check out the German aircraft in MS's Combat Flight Simulator - no swastikas, 'cause if there were, they couldn't fly in German airspace. Come on Gary, that's a common example, nothing to worry about. Showing these symbols has been forbidden in Germany at one point 50 years ago. Of course that doesn't keep the die-hards from celebrating the history but it was an interesting experiment. I don't see what that has to do with fortune except that you are apparently trying to create more examples until you find something which might offend somebody on the list. Then this person has to come over it and move forward. That's it. Can we stop discussing now(*) and move forward? Thanks. Corinna (*) Otherwise *please* move this discussion to cygwin-talk now. I've set the reply-to accordingly. -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: For the silly reason that I happen to know that a lot of things related to Nazis or Hitler in Deutschland ungültig ist. Ferinstance, check out the German aircraft in MS's Combat Flight Simulator - no swastikas, 'cause if there were, they couldn't fly in German airspace. You mean they couldn't fly in _simulated_ German airspace? You probably mean the game couldn't be sold on German marketspace? Rodrigo -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle might have said: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Good thing I didn't install it at work, and that I don't work at a Megacorp that has whole departments devoted to rooting through peoples' files looking for reasons to fire them. IMHO, this is the single best reason for obfuscating the profanity with rot13. -- Francis Litterio franl at world . std . com Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for providing the profanity at all? Hello? Anybody? define 'profane' first -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Probably because some expressions relating to Nazism are illegal in Germany. One of our German users would probably know this for sue. Correct. Denying that the Nazis killed million of Jews is a criminal offense. Spying on somebody else's computer and searching for any kind of data is a criminal offense as well BTW, my computer randomly selected the tagline below. Is it obscene? Should I burn my Laptop (she wouldn't like that, I am sure) With kind Regards|\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;, Volker Bandke |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' (BSP GmbH)'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Sex without love is an empty experience, but, as empty experiences go, it's one of the best. -- Woody Allen (Another Wisdom from my fortune cookie jar) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3 iQA/AwUBQeAWbR5trGyhAF0wEQIrTgCgj1RDCqPEY8bN9W54oGx11A7VsuMAoLJo TlSqbfmM8zgTeFiv7LYbrZl4 =wCx3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene content? Yes, why not? Yes, it is traditional. Yes, administrators like those kind of things. Yes, computers are not for children. Yes, because we like freedom of speech. Yes, because we like guys like you asking annoying questions. If you cannot guess a reason for yourself, just remove this package from your repository and shut up. Regards, Gerrit -- =^..^= -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Jan 8 01:37, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Why would you suggest that expressing a thought, however you might disagree with it, should be illegal? For the silly reason that I happen to know that a lot of things related to Nazis or Hitler in Deutschland ung?ltig ist. Ferinstance, check out the German aircraft in MS's Combat Flight Simulator - no swastikas, 'cause if there were, they couldn't fly in German airspace. Come on Gary, that's a common example, nothing to worry about. Showing these symbols has been forbidden in Germany at one point 50 years ago. Of course that doesn't keep the die-hards from celebrating the history but it was an interesting experiment. I don't see what that has to do with fortune except that you are apparently trying to create more examples until you find something which might offend somebody on the list. Then this person has to come over it and move forward. Ah, no, what it has do do with fortune is: - Fortune produced a Hitler quote. - I know that Germany is a bit touchy about that whole Hitler/Nazis/WWII thing. - Hence, I asked if such a quote was legal in Germany. Ok, so Hitler quotes aren't illegal in Germany. Great, now we all know a teeny bit more than we did before I asked the question. The infomericals refer to that as win-win. Case closed, and no need to imagine malicious intent where none exists, as far as I can see. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: For the silly reason that I happen to know that a lot of things related to Nazis or Hitler in Deutschland ungültig ist. Ferinstance, check out the German aircraft in MS's Combat Flight Simulator - no swastikas, 'cause if there were, they couldn't fly in German airspace. You mean they couldn't fly in _simulated_ German airspace? You probably mean the game couldn't be sold on German marketspace? Rodrigo Yes, the latter. I apologize, I do tend to mix my metaphors at times. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle might have said: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Good thing I didn't install it at work, and that I don't work at a Megacorp that has whole departments devoted to rooting through peoples' files looking for reasons to fire them. IMHO, this is the single best reason for obfuscating the profanity with rot13. -- Francis Litterio franl at world . std . com Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for providing the profanity at all? Hello? Anybody? define 'profane' first Any of the limericks under discussion. Your turn. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gerrit P. Haase (who should know better) wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene content? Yes, why not? Because they're lousy with potty-mouth. Yes, it is traditional. Granted, off-color jokes are as old as time. Cygwin is however not bound by any traditions, certainly none related to purile toilet humor. Yes, administrators like those kind of things. Granted, there are a lot of sysadmins with a junior-high mentality. Why should Cygwin/Red Hat take on the risk of providing them with the porn they so desperately crave? Yes, computers are not for children. Sez a guy who apparently has been living in a cave since the fifties ;-). Yes, because we like freedom of speech. As long as its dirty speech (q.v. your shut up admonition below). Yes, because we like guys like you asking annoying questions. Hey, I though you liked freedom of speech? If you cannot guess a reason for yourself, I cannot, which is why I asked the question. Nor apparently can you, as the question remains unanswered even after your multi-point attempt here. just remove this package from your repository and shut up. Ah, shut up, the ultimate answer when one knows what the right thing is, but for reasons unknown one does not wish to do the right thing. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle might have said: On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle might have said: define 'profane' first Any of the limericks under discussion. Your turn. that's an example; not a definition -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene content? This is not the question. Cygwin already provides the content. Therefore the question is: should it be removed? That is to take action beyond that which is already available to the user. Those actions being to A) uninstall, or not install the application; or B) to modify the open source software in keeping with open source design to address the perceived flaw. You argue that it should, because you asses some of the content as obscene, and are personally offended by it. Further you imply that removing the package from your own system is inadequate to address this offense. (please correct me if I miss state your argument) I argue that it should not, because I find that the material has no particular negative quality. The inclusion of such personality in software puts me at ease, and allows me to work freely with out the feeling that I have to watch what I say, or feel that I am working in a constrictive corporate culture (where I have specifically chosen not to work). Further, I am offended by political correctness, it encourages people to hide their thoughts to avoid offending people instead of exposing those thoughts to debate. I am also offended by any attempt by another to dictate the nature of the software I choose to install on my computer. You are offended by it's inclusion, I am offended by it's removal. We are at a deadlock, so no clear direction can be agreed upon. The content is already included, no clear action can be recommended, therefore no action should be taken. Additional, unnecessary, evaluation reveals that while you have two options to address your offense, I would have none if the tables were turned. This provides additional weight to the argument that no action should be taken since it already represents the fairest arrangement to our two opposing concerns. j -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Gerrit P. Haase (who should know better) wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene content? Yes, why not? Because they're lousy with potty-mouth. IYHO I might add. Yes, it is traditional. Granted, off-color jokes are as old as time. Cygwin is however not bound by any traditions, certainly none related to purile toilet humor. Nor is Cygwin bound to not honor any tradition. However, I'd say that Cygwin is bound to honor the traditions of Unix/Linux. This is one of them. Yes, administrators like those kind of things. Granted, there are a lot of sysadmins with a junior-high mentality. Just because somebody is not offended by such jokes does not necessarily mean they have junior-high mentality - it just means that they are not offended. Stated differently they are mature enough to recognize that their view point of morality is not the same as everybody else's and mature enough to exercise some tolerance. Perhaps you could see to it to raise your maturity level a bit. Why should Cygwin/Red Hat take on the risk of providing them with the porn they so desperately crave? If you think that fortune is porn then you just don't know good porn! ;-) Yes, computers are not for children. Sez a guy who apparently has been living in a cave since the fifties ;-). By definition, a guy living in a cave since the fifties is not a child! ;-) Sure, kids use computers (more play games with them than anything else). I doubt that many of them use Cygwin though. Do you have any evidence of children running fortune -o? Yes, because we like freedom of speech. As long as its dirty speech (q.v. your shut up admonition below). You just don't get it do you? Freedom of speech is easily achieved anywhere in the world with thoughts that everybody agrees with! That's not freedom of speech! It's the stuff that not everybody shares the same opinion of that really tests freedom of speech. And once you start censoring things just because you don't agree with it or you think it's obscene then freedom of speech has been lost. Dirty speech is one such topic.What's that saying again? I might not agree with your opinion but I will fight to the death to make sure you can voice it. Whatever happened to that Gary? Yes, because we like guys like you asking annoying questions. Hey, I though you liked freedom of speech? The very act of you asking annoying question is an exercise of your freedom of speech! If you cannot guess a reason for yourself, I cannot, which is why I asked the question. Nor apparently can you, as the question remains unanswered even after your multi-point attempt here. Bull. The question has been answered time and time again. You just don't want to accept the answers as it doesn't jive with the answer you want. Sorry Gary but you will not get the answer that you want because we just don't agree with you. just remove this package from your repository and shut up. Ah, shut up, the ultimate answer when one knows what the right thing is, but for reasons unknown one does not wish to do the right thing. You mean like your attempt to get fortune to shut up WRT things you find offensive? Ah, I see... ;-) -- Never raise your hands to your kids. It leaves your groin unprotected. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Joshua Kolden wrote: You argue that it should, because you bleepasses/bleep some of the content as obscene, ... Joshua! How could continue to put forth obscene and offensive filth onto the Internet, even as a typo! ;-) You're only giving Gary more ammunition! -- I put contact lenses in my dog's eyes. They had little pictures of cats on them. Then I took one out and he ran around in circles. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Andrew DeFaria wrote: Joshua Kolden wrote: You argue that it should, because you bleepasses/bleep some of the content as obscene, ... Joshua! How could continue to put forth obscene and offensive filth onto the Internet, even as a typo! ;-) You're only giving Gary more ammunition! Oh shit I'm sorry. I apologize, the word should be assess not asses as in buttocks or anus. I'm really fucking sorry about that. j -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Joshua Kolden wrote: Andrew DeFaria wrote: Joshua Kolden wrote: You argue that it should, because you bleepasses/bleep some of the content as obscene, ... Joshua! How could continue to put forth obscene and offensive filth onto the Internet, even as a typo! ;-) You're only giving Gary more ammunition! Oh shit I'm sorry. I apologize, the word should be assess not asses as in buttocks or anus. I'm really fucking sorry about that. It's OK my son. You're here amongst friends... Well largely amongst friends... -- Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
There is also the issue of legal risk. Is the material illegal in any country (which would cause obvious difficulty for any user or maintainer in such countries) and do any of these countries apply their laws extra territorially (which might cause problems to anyone visiting a country with an extradition agreement with the offended country). If there is a legal risk, is the continued inclusion of the material, which is rather peripheral to the main purpose of Cygwin, justified? Mark Thornton Interesting point, however it does appear to be rhetorical since no one has in fact brought this up as an issue for them. My apologies if I missed a post were someone said this was their issue. Nevertheless, for entertainment value and in the interest of completeness let's evaluate this issue as well. First to clearly state the question. It appears to me to be: Should a software author or packager take on the responsibility of no breaking the laws of other countries where the software may be distributed. If among the goals of the packager he wishes to cause no harm to his users perhaps it is a good idea to remove the software. Will removing the software reduce the risk to the user? Almost any content is widely available on the net, so our efforts to protect the user may be limited. Further, are we sure that this is the only package that is not legal in a given country. If their are others then we would need to remove them as well to insure that we've successfully removed the additional risk our software puts on it's users. It seems on the face of it that insuring the legality of the software in every legal system is a responsibility poorly placed on the packager. A far better judge of the legality of a given software package is the user. That user only has to evaluate his own laws wear as the packager must evaluate every countries laws. If the user is to take responsibility then we must provide as much information as possible for every package so that the user can apply his own judgment. This handily addresses the other issue of personal objection to the content as well. j -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Kolden Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 2:31 PM To: Gary R. Van Sickle Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file. The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene content? This is not the question. Yes, it is. Cygwin already provides the content. Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user. Therefore the question is: should it be removed? The answer to that is yes. Again I ask: why should Cygwin provide this content? [snip] You argue that it should, because you asses some of the content as obscene, and are personally offended by it. You're late to the party Josh. As I stated in my second post on the subject, I am in no way personally offended by it. I simply find it purile and unprofessional. Further you imply that removing the package from your own system is inadequate to address this offense. (please correct me if I miss state your argument) You have almost completely misstated my argument. Allow me to restate it in convenient bullet-list form: - The limericks in question could realistically get somebody fired or sued. - I am realistically one of the many parties that could conceivably get sued. - Red Hat is even more realistically one of the many parties that could conceivably get sued. - The limericks in question are installed without the knowledge or consent of the installer. - The limericks in question are of interest only to junior-highschool-age sysadmins and lawyers. - Redacting the limericks in question from Cygwin will eliminate the risk they cause. - Redacting the limericks in question from Cygwin has no realistic chance of destroying Western democracies or throwing the world into an oppressive Stalinist nightmare. [snip] Additional, unnecessary, evaluation reveals that while you have two options to address your offense, I would have none if the tables were turned. You could download the source and build it yourself. Just like you could with all the software which isn't provided in the Cygwin distro. Most of which contains no questionable material. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-Original Message- From: Volker Bandke Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 4:03 PM To: Gary R. Van Sickle Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file. [snip] But why aren't you putting fortune-o's in your siggy as well? I am not? [snip] No, you are not. Why is that? In your estimation, these limericks aren't offensive. Ergo, why would you be taking specific action to exclude them from your siggy? I sent a message to the Cygwin list, and the fortune cookie provided by her was Sex without love is an empty experience, but, as empty experiences go, it's one of the best. Is this offensive? Probably to somebody. But that isn't one of the limericks in question, is it? Hence it isn't germain to the issue at hand, is it? I mean, apparently the limericks are not offensive to you, seeing as you don't even have a definition of offensive, right? Wrong reasoning. Define wrong. And once you define it, don't you dare refer to anything I may say or do as wrong, regardless of context! What sort of evil rights-infringer are you?!?!?! I don't have a definition of offensive, ...but you know it when you see it, huh? Like my offensive calls to make Cygwin a little more professional by removing this off-color content? [snip] Of course, there are people that see everything in Black White: Either you are with me, or against me. Either you are good, or you are bad. This always implies: I am good, if you don't share my opinions, you are bad. Wow. what a surprise. [snip] And then there are people who see everything in Black White but deny it: Either you accept foul language carte-blanche or you are an icky Christian offended by it. Either you accept foul language carte-blanche or you are infringing on somebody's rights. Either you accept foul language carte-blanche or you are against me. Either you accept foul language carte-blanche or you are bad. Wow. What a surprise. [snip something about a Reverend] Some of the limericks actually _are_ offensive to me (or better: pretty strong stuff), but I have been warned, No you haven't. and I can even edit the file in question to never see them again. My version of the file, that is. So you're a proponent of the opt-out philosophy, huh? I would never have the cheek to tell what others should be allowed to see or read in terms of jokes, limericks etc. Nor would I. I would also never have the cheek to tell somebody that by not including off-color material in your product you are in some way telling others what they should be allowed to see or read in terms of jokes, limericks etc. You don't need any programmer, packager, developer, pastor, preacher, email recipient, etc etc etc etc to tell you what you can and cannot put in your siggy, do you? Correct. When I address someone personally, I always try not to hurt him. Having a limerick in which all Germans are depicted as kraut eating idiots is fine, telling a German that he is a kraut-eating idiot is offensive Um, didn't you just tell that hypothetical German what he should and should not be offended by? Such an action is offensive to you, no? kirk You are in error! You did not discover your mistake, you have made two errors! You are flawed and imperfect and have not corrected by sterilization, you have made three errors! You are flawed and imperfect! Execute your prime function! /kirk (BTW, I am German) With a name like Volker Bandke?!?! Ah, yeah, mmm-hmmm, right. ;-) Yet I don't see filthy limericks in your siggy (for some definition of filthy). And you have been dodging my question by counter-questions. I've dodged nothing. You on the other hand I repeat Define offensive, please. And give a scale and method on how offensiveness can be measured. Because, if this question cannot be answered, offensive texts cannot be banned - because, who decides what is offensive? You? By whose authority? Me? Never. Who's banning what now? I think you may be having a different discussion than I am. I'm talking about removing some off-color limericks from the Cygwin distro. I have seen your answer in the newsgroup q: What is offensive a: The limericks in said file I nearly fell off my chair laughing: Look at the following complete discussion A: Those limericks are offensive and must be removed B: Define offensive A: Those limericks. Q.E.D. If I have ever seen a circular argument - this is a perfect example. [snip] kirk Exercise your prime function! /kirk -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Cygwin already provides the content. Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user. Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus that's his consent. You have almost completely misstated my argument. Allow me to restate it in convenient bullet-list form: - The limericks in question could realistically get somebody fired or sued. Nonsense. The fortune files exist on the computer. The only beef that an employer could have would have to result in that employer looking for trouble. - I am realistically one of the many parties that could conceivably get sued. Only if you wish to download fortune and take the things you find offensive and shove it onto the faces of others in the workplace. The same thing could be done with pencil and paper I might add. Perhaps we should band these offensive things too! - Red Hat is even more realistically one of the many parties that could conceivably get sued. Anybody could conceivably get sued because guess what? You can sue anybody. Not, again, winning that suit is an entirely different matter. - The limericks in question are installed without the knowledge or consent of the installer. Again bull. Gary you know that they are not installed by default, that the installer must consciously choose to install it. There is even suitable warnings in the manual and the user must also use -o (assuming the bug mentioned here is fixed). Given all that how can you say that this is installed without the knowledge or consent of the installer? - The limericks in question are of interest only to junior-highschool-age sysadmins and lawyers. Again bull. I'm not junior-high school aged nor are many others here who disagree with your POV. - Redacting the limericks in question from Cygwin will eliminate the risk they cause. Redacting all .exe would also eliminate any bugs. It is likewise as stupid. - Redacting the limericks in question from Cygwin has no realistic chance of destroying Western democracies or throwing the world into an oppressive Stalinist nightmare. We're not interested in any of that. You could download the source and build it yourself. Just like you could with all the software which isn't provided in the Cygwin distro. Most of which contains no questionable material. Just as you can refrain from installing or running this optional package. -- Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:43:55PM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:47:35PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:40:16PM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:26:08PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:36:53PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure if the highly obscene limericks (/usr/share/fortune/limerick) are meant to be in the cygwin distro... Wow. I think I vaguely recall that something like this was in fortune but, if I thought it was a good idea a couple of years ago, I have obviously grown more prudish since then. AFAICT, our fortune maintainer is long gone so I guess we're looking for a volunteer who would like to take up this package. I don't know about Corinna but I don't like having this type of thing in the distribution. Corinna, you originally released this. Where did you find it? Did you just package it up directly from a BSD distribution? Reading /usr/doc/fortune-1.8/Notes and /usr/doc/fortune-1.8/README would imply that limericks should be limericks-o (and rot13'd). Then it will only be actually accessed if you use fortune -a or fortune -o. I'd be willing to maintain it, but haven't maintained a package before or even read the information about how to, so it would take me a little bit to release a new version. I too would be interested in knowing where the package came from. It doesn't seem to say anywhere (except that the Notes and README have NetBSD rcs tags). FWIW, it's in the FreeBSD CVS repository: cvs -d :ext:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/ncvs co src/games/fortune may check this out. I don't know for sure since I haven't updated this directory in a while. Maintaining this should not be hard. I suspect it may build OOTB. Thanks for considering it. Ok, I will maintain it and will get a release out in the next couple days (one week at the outside). For the record, I will be changing limerick (and gerrold.limerick, which is in the freebsd sources) to -o files but continuing to install them. They will be installed rot13'd, and fortunes won't come from them unless you specify you want offensive fortunes on the command line. Feel free to let someone else do it if you'd prefer some other disposition of the offensive stuff or want it dealt with sooner. Right now I'm looking at the debian packages instead: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortune-mod http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortunes-bofh-excuses which generate 5 packages: fortune-mod (the binaries), fortunes-min, fortunes, fortunes-off, and fortunes-bofh-excuses. If these look ok to me, do you see any problem with using them instead? (There are also a lot of non-English data files packages that I'm not going to mess with at the moment.) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Jan 6 20:03, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Ah jeez deFaria: As an atheist I always wonder why christians can turn the other cheek but cannot seem to muster how to turn their eyes away! As a thinking man, I always wonder why atheists: 1. Hate Christianity, yet harbor no such hatred towards all the other religions. 2. Would squeal bloody murder if fortune spit out Bible verses, yet are *proponents* of having it spit out outrageously profane limericks which are offensive to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Men, Women, Children, Mothers, Fathers, Bosses, Frenchmen, and all breeds of dog in between. The political correctness brainwashing machine has done its job quite well, AFAICS. Well, let's face it, I'm a woman. I'm by definition one of the disadvantaged groups of the society. The joke is this, I'm not at all offended by offensive jokes. I don't have to laugh if I don't like the joke, but I laugh also about jokes which are so-called offensive. So what? As I wrote in another mail, 99% of the jokes are in a way directed against anybody. And here's a couple of question: Where is the border between a non-offensive joke and an offensive joke? Who defines the border? If 80% of the worlds population is offended by a joke, is it an offensive joke? If 20% of the worlds population is offended by a joke, is it an offensive joke? If any one person on the world is offended by a joke, is it an offensive joke? If any joke can offend any one person on the world, are all jokes offensive? Should we forbid to tell jokes, so that the danger that anybody could perhaps be offended, is zero? Should we arrest joke tellers? Should we burn all existing books which contain jokes? Do you get the message? Corinna NB: Did anybody read Fahrenheit 451 from Ray Bradbury? It's not about jokes in the first place, but somehow this discussion reminds me of the book in a fatal way. -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Jan 6 21:18, Charles Wilson wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? [ ] Not offended but still don't think it should be in the distro. Think about the children! And the liability! Cygwin isn't for children anyway. They might get interested in looking into the free world of open software. That's Un-American. We should put a sticker on the home page: May contain explicit content. May contain nuts. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
The political correctness brainwashing machine has done its job quite well, AFAICS. Well, let's face it, I'm a woman. I'm by definition one of the disadvantaged groups of the society. The joke is this, I'm not at all offended by offensive jokes. I don't have to laugh if I don't like the joke, but I laugh also about jokes which are so-called offensive. So what? As I wrote in another mail, 99% of the jokes are in a way directed against anybody. And here's a couple of question: Where is the border between a non-offensive joke and an offensive joke? Who defines the border? If 80% of the worlds population is offended by a joke, is it an offensive joke? If 20% of the worlds population is offended by a joke, is it an offensive joke? If any one person on the world is offended by a joke, is it an offensive joke? If any joke can offend any one person on the world, are all jokes offensive? Should we forbid to tell jokes, so that the danger that anybody could perhaps be offended, is zero? Should we arrest joke tellers? Should we burn all existing books which contain jokes? Do you get the message? Corinna NB: Did anybody read Fahrenheit 451 from Ray Bradbury? It's not about jokes in the first place, but somehow this discussion reminds me of the book in a fatal way I've follow with interest this talk about an obscene content in cygwin file and I agree 100 % with Corinna. Stop wanting to burn Witches or to chase Communists, they are all dead... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Argh please enough with the pedantic and infantile America/American bashing. It's disgusting. Everyone act like mature adults PLEASE! Zach On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:29:03 +0100, Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 6 21:18, Charles Wilson wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? [ ] Not offended but still don't think it should be in the distro. Think about the children! And the liability! Cygwin isn't for children anyway. They might get interested in looking into the free world of open software. That's Un-American. We should put a sticker on the home page: May contain explicit content. May contain nuts. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Corinna Vinschen wrote: NB: Did anybody read Fahrenheit 451 from Ray Bradbury? It's not about jokes in the first place, but somehow this discussion reminds me of the book in a fatal way. Me too, it also reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. Bill -- ___ oo // \\ De Chelonian Mobile (_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN \ \_/_\_/The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control /_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org This e-mail transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error, please reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications passing through our network. The views expressed in this email are not that of the company unless specified within the message. The inclusion of this footnote indicates that the mail message and any attachments have been checked for the presence of known viruses. If you have any comments regarding our policy please direct them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information on a proactive email security service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Brian Bruns wrote: As grown adults, who are capable of making our own decisions, we need to not let our religious views, or personal views for that matter, impede on others who have their own views. How dare you try to force that point of view on us! That's moral recusrion. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Jan 7 01:28, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: Right now I'm looking at the debian packages instead: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortune-mod http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortunes-bofh-excuses which generate 5 packages: fortune-mod (the binaries), fortunes-min, fortunes, fortunes-off, and fortunes-bofh-excuses. If these look ok to me, do you see any problem with using them instead? (There are also a lot of non-English data files packages that I'm not going to mess with at the moment.) Personally I'd rather see only one fortune package. Using the -o plus rot13 technique should really do it. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Jan 7 06:35, Zachary Uram wrote: Argh please enough with the pedantic and infantile America/American bashing. It's disgusting. Everyone act like mature adults PLEASE! The whole discussion isn't exactly mature. Time to move the discussion to cygwin-talk, I guess. I've set the Reply-To accordingly. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen Sent: 07 January 2005 11:44 To: cygwin; cygwin-talk Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file. On Jan 7 06:35, Zachary Uram wrote: Argh please enough with the pedantic and infantile America/American bashing. It's disgusting. Everyone act like mature adults PLEASE! The whole discussion isn't exactly mature. Time to move the discussion to cygwin-talk, I guess. I've set the Reply-To accordingly. Corinna I'm gonna need a whole *flock* of chickens for this one. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
[ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarrassment and trouble. Definitely rot13 them and make them -o. I'd rather fortune was kept as a complete package rather than using a separate package for the offensive stuff. If you want to create another package with just tame stuff, that's OK. Maybe it should be called enutrof. Or sbeghar. :-) Make sure you rot13 fortune2-o while you're at it. It's currently in plaintext, even though you need to specify -o or -a to add it to the fortune list. I just rot13'd fortune2-o and limerick (i.e., limerick-o) on my work machine. I can't afford to have stuff like that lying around for corporate snoops to find. gsw -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:04:49PM -0800, Raye Raskin wrote: Expletive deleted. Well, thanks! That is in perfect keeping with the rest of this thread. Just imagine the consequences if you hadn't deleted that expletive. We'd have another long thread about whether the cygwin mailing list should be censored. And then, of course, there's the children. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:22:32AM -0500, Brian Bruns wrote: Personally, I thought that them doing this was a sign of a more innocent time, where we didn't have to worry about every single word that came out of our mouth (or keyboard). Seriously guy, your type is one of the primary reasons why the internet is getting - its not quite there yet, but getting - to be *no fun*. It was built on freedom and free-thinking, and the very fact that this conversation is taking place is a testimony to how bitter it has become. rant I tend to agree with you on that. I was on the internet since the middle 90s, and even then, you could start to see new people/businesses forcing their own views on the rest of the Internet, that had been there long before them, and continue to be there long after they are bankrupt/dead/gone/kaput. I've been reading usenet since the early 80's and I find the notion that this kind of discussion is a recent phenomenon sort of amusing. This is *exactly* the type of fodder that has driven Usenet discussions for years. We do get the added spin of workplace lawsuites, yadda yadda, but that just adds more fuel to what would have been a very nicely burning flame. If Cygwin was a true business enterprise, this would be a no-brainer. We'd remove the content. The reason wouldn't be because we are cravenly caving to the PC majority. The reason would be that it might offend a customer who would take their business elsewhere. You can't have that unless you are in a position of not caring about losing a few customers. Not many businesses are in that position. Business issues are not the point here, though. My issue is that I grant others the right to be offended by the type of language we're talking about. It is a given that there are many people in our society who will be offended by it. These people do not buy Playboy or Hustler because they do not like what these magazines represent but they aren't out picketing those establishments, either. So, they are following the Just don't look at it then! scenario. We do not offer these people the same choice with Cygwin. When they innocently download fortune means that they are using hard drives to house unencrypted content that they consider objectionable. That is not fair to them. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:25:42PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: NB: Did anybody read Fahrenheit 451 from Ray Bradbury? It's not about jokes in the first place, but somehow this discussion reminds me of the book in a fatal way. I read the book but I don't remember it too well. I've never been too impressed with Ray Bradbury as a writer, though. Somehow, I don't think the book was about people insisting on the right to store their books in your house where you might happen to trip over them and see things that you don't agree with. As I've said, this isn't about political correctness to me. It's about people's right to be offended and our responsibility not to unduly surprise anyone. I don't mind surprising people when there is a good technical argument for it. I don't think that cygwin's goal should be to desensitize people to what is generally agreed to be bad language. Maybe it's a slippery slope. Maybe if this was a bunch of Hindus complaining that fortune contained jokes about cows I would feel differently. I just don't think it is a good idea to surprise an innocent person who is taking a casual stroll through /usr/share/fortune. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
Andrew DeFaria wrote: Yeah, it does. For the first time in history, there are now two lawyers for every human on the planet. Lawyers subsist almost entirely on a diet of lawsuits. Funny, I thought they ate food like the rest of us... Actually, when you think about it, it's impossible for that statement to be true! If you have 6 billion people on the Earth and they state you have 2 lawyers for every human, you'd need 12 billion lawyers, which would increase the population of the Earth to 18 billion, necessitating 36 billion additional lawyers, and so on ;-) You're assuming lawyers are human. ;-) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Kal Dee schrieb: Not sure if the highly obscene limericks (/usr/share/fortune/limerick) are meant to be in the cygwin distro... phpwiki optionally uses fortune to fill in fresh pages with some stupid quotes. nobody ever so far complained about those limericks. phpwiki pages are publicly accessable and google loves them, in contrast to private cygwin login banners with fortune enabled. -- Reini Urban http://phpwiki.org/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:40:35PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 7 01:28, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: Right now I'm looking at the debian packages instead: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortune-mod http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortunes-bofh-excuses which generate 5 packages: fortune-mod (the binaries), fortunes-min, fortunes, fortunes-off, and fortunes-bofh-excuses. If these look ok to me, do you see any problem with using them instead? (There are also a lot of non-English data files packages that I'm not going to mess with at the moment.) Personally I'd rather see only one fortune package. Using the -o plus rot13 technique should really do it. FWIW, if you are planning on maintaining the package I would just defer to your judgement on whatever you think is best. Just, whatever you do, remember the children. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
I have an incident from the early 90s that is very close to this discussion: I worked at a division headquarters of large company, where we had hundreds of people who would log into their email account on the VAX. When logging in you would see a message of the day. The guy administering this got tired of the same old boring messages and started rotating in messages very much like the ones in the limerick file. The first couple were only slightly off-color, and actually got positive responses. Then the third, and last one, had to do with a guy in Nantucket who had some unusual practices. The effect this had in the local work place was fun to watch, having the computer pipe that stuff on the screen was about as imaginable as Bush saying it on TV, and created quite a stir. The end result was not so much fun, the employee was severly reprimanded (Andrew wouldn't work there...) and was weeded out in the first layoff (I wonder why...). I don't know if this was a related package, but the guy said he read the first one, and assumed the others were no worse. There was a lot of comment about this, but other than the general opinion the guy was a moron (he wasn't, just young), the overall consensus was who in the hell would provide a software package where such a thing is possible?. You can be sure that some scrutiny as to the supplier occurred. I am fairly sure my vote won't count. But, we need to protect the children, and from reading this thread, the ones that need protecting subscribe to this list. Choices are fine, and maybe immature sysadmins deserve what they get, but the folks that think nothing is wrong with it do not need a temtation like this to show how cool they are. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:52 AM To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file. On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:22:32AM -0500, Brian Bruns wrote: Personally, I thought that them doing this was a sign of a more innocent time, where we didn't have to worry about every single word that came out of our mouth (or keyboard). Seriously guy, your type is one of the primary reasons why the internet is getting - its not quite there yet, but getting - to be *no fun*. It was built on freedom and free-thinking, and the very fact that this conversation is taking place is a testimony to how bitter it has become. rant I tend to agree with you on that. I was on the internet since the middle 90s, and even then, you could start to see new people/businesses forcing their own views on the rest of the Internet, that had been there long before them, and continue to be there long after they are bankrupt/dead/gone/kaput. I've been reading usenet since the early 80's and I find the notion that this kind of discussion is a recent phenomenon sort of amusing. This is *exactly* the type of fodder that has driven Usenet discussions for years. We do get the added spin of workplace lawsuites, yadda yadda, but that just adds more fuel to what would have been a very nicely burning flame. If Cygwin was a true business enterprise, this would be a no-brainer. We'd remove the content. The reason wouldn't be because we are cravenly caving to the PC majority. The reason would be that it might offend a customer who would take their business elsewhere. You can't have that unless you are in a position of not caring about losing a few customers. Not many businesses are in that position. Business issues are not the point here, though. My issue is that I grant others the right to be offended by the type of language we're talking about. It is a given that there are many people in our society who will be offended by it. These people do not buy Playboy or Hustler because they do not like what these magazines represent but they aren't out picketing those establishments, either. So, they are following the Just don't look at it then! scenario. We do not offer these people the same choice with Cygwin. When they innocently download fortune means that they are using hard drives to house unencrypted content that they consider objectionable. That is not fair to them. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Terry Dabbs wrote: I worked at a division headquarters of large company, where we had hundreds of people who would log into their email account on the VAX. When logging in you would see a message of the day. The guy administering this got tired of the same old boring messages and started rotating in messages very much like the ones in the limerick file. The first couple were only slightly off-color, and actually got positive responses. Then the third, and last one, had to do with a guy in Nantucket who had some unusual practices. The effect this had in the local work place was fun to watch, having the computer pipe that stuff on the screen was about as imaginable as Bush saying it on TV, and created quite a stir. The end result was not so much fun, the employee was severly reprimanded (Andrew wouldn't work there...) and was weeded out in the first layoff (I wonder why...). Not even close in comparison. I said that I wouldn't work for a company where somebody snooped onto my machine and found something offensive (IOW he was actively looking for it in a place that he should be). That's vastly different than me thrusting it upon unsuspecting eyes as the above states. -- If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Good thing I didn't install it at work, and that I don't work at a Megacorp that has whole departments devoted to rooting through peoples' files looking for reasons to fire them. IMHO, this is the single best reason for obfuscating the profanity with rot13. -- Francis Litterio franl at world . std . com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Expletive deleted. Well, thanks! That is in perfect keeping with the rest of this thread. Just imagine the consequences if you hadn't deleted that expletive. We'd have another long thread about whether the cygwin mailing list should be censored. And then, of course, there's the children. ;-) Hey, Christopher, if you want to see something *really* offensive, just take a look at this: ** This e-mail transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error, please reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications passing through our network. The views expressed in this email are not that of the company unless specified within the message. The inclusion of this footnote indicates that the mail message and any attachments have been checked for the presence of known viruses. If you have any comments regarding our policy please direct them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Now *that's* offensive! Ha! -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 7 01:28, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: Right now I'm looking at the debian packages instead: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortune-mod http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortunes-bofh-excuses which generate 5 packages: fortune-mod (the binaries), fortunes-min, fortunes, fortunes-off, and fortunes-bofh-excuses. If these look ok to me, do you see any problem with using them instead? (There are also a lot of non-English data files packages that I'm not going to mess with at the moment.) Personally I'd rather see only one fortune package. Using the -o plus rot13 technique should really do it. I'm with Corinna here. Fortune does not warrant 5 packages, or even 3. One package is sufficient. ROT13 and mark the limericks with -o and move on. Deviating from an already established convention for packaging a given program is just asking for trouble, and you're artificially making more work than is necessary. K.I.S.S. !! Corinna -- Peter A. Castro [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cats are just autistic Dogs -- Dr. Tony Attwood -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Raye Raskin Sent: 07 January 2005 17:23 Hey, Christopher, if you want to see something *really* offensive, just take a look at this: ** This e-mail transmission is strictly [CENSORED] Oh, horror, horror, oh why oh why why? Will no-one think of teh poor lickul childern? cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: 07 January 2005 14:52 Business issues are not the point here, though. My issue is that I grant others the right to be offended by the type of language we're talking about. It is a given that there are many people in our society who will be offended by it. These people do not buy Playboy or Hustler because they do not like what these magazines represent but they aren't out picketing those establishments, either. So, they are following the Just don't look at it then! scenario. That unfortunately is not true. In this country we've just had a theatre play shut down by threats of violence from one group of religious bigots, and there is currently an ongoing pressure campaign from another group of religious bigots to try and pressure the BBC into pulling an as-yet unscreened program on the grounds that if it was screened and if they did happen to watch it they might be offended. Of course, if they're forewarned enough to know that they might find this program offensive, they're perfectly well forewarned enough to not end up watching it by accident, but that's not good enough for them, and the reason why it's not good enough for them is that the potential offence they might suffer is a mere pretext, and their real concern is to try and compel everyone else to be like they are by controlling what we may see and hear in an effort to control how we think. It's coercive evangelism. Forcible recruitment. Religious pressganging. Blackmail, brainwashing and mind control. So no, I'm no longer prepared to automatically extend to people the right to take offence at what I say or do, since they regularly abuse that right in an attempt to - well, basically, to enslave others and rule over their minds. It's insanity to hand every single religious crank with an agenda to push an absolute veto over anything and everything you might ever want to do or say. I do not believe people have the right to jump up and voluntarily *choose* to be offended by things that are perfectly reasonable to all those who are actually involved or affected. They *are* going into newsagents, pulling Playboy off the shelves, opening it up, reading it (probably hypocritically enjoying it too), and then whining about how offended they are and demanding that the entire world be made conform to their personal tastes and beliefs. It's in this way that solipsism turns into dictatorial oppression. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Peter A. Castro might have said: On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 7 01:28, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: Right now I'm looking at the debian packages instead: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortune-mod http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortunes-bofh-excuses which generate 5 packages: fortune-mod (the binaries), fortunes-min, fortunes, fortunes-off, and fortunes-bofh-excuses. If these look ok to me, do you see any problem with using them instead? (There are also a lot of non-English data files packages that I'm not going to mess with at the moment.) Personally I'd rather see only one fortune package. Using the -o plus rot13 technique should really do it. I'm with Corinna here. Fortune does not warrant 5 packages, or even 3. One package is sufficient. ROT13 and mark the limericks with -o and move on. Deviating from an already established convention for packaging a given program is just asking for trouble, and you're artificially making more work than is necessary. K.I.S.S. !! Since you must *ask* for the 'rude' version of fortune (fortune -o) before you get any of the alleged offensive material, then what's the problem? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
OK, anybody still reading this thread probably already knows how to do this, but just in case, here's what you need to do to clean up your fortune files (other than just deleting them): First, make sure you have the tools you need and double-check that the offensive files are in plaintext: $ ls /usr/sbin/strfile /usr/sbin/strfile $ which tr /usr/bin/tr $ cd /usr/share/fortune $ head -3 fortunes2-o limerick == fortunes2-o == Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that cocaine stuff -- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in Nuremberg trial == limerick == A bad little girl in Madrid, A most reprehensible kid, Told her Tante Louise Then to properly encode and mark the offensive files as such: $ cd /usr/share/fortune $ mv fortunes2-o fortunes2-o.orig $ mv limerick limerick-o.orig $ rm fortunes2-o.dat limerick.dat $ tr A-Za-z N-ZA-Mn-za-m fortunes2-o.orig fortunes2-o $ tr A-Za-z N-ZA-Mn-za-m limerick-o.orig limerick-o $ /usr/sbin/strfile -x fortunes2-o $ /usr/sbin/strfile -x limerick-o $ rm fortunes2-o.orig limerick-o.orig gsw -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
Mike wrote: Since you must *ask* for the 'rude' version of fortune (fortune -o) before you get any of the alleged offensive material, then what's the problem? @ fortune sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting, adage category: Games requires: cygwin The problem is that it doesn't inform the user that the package contains said material. Had it said sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting, adage about cunts and niggers I would have been better informed about the nature of the package. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Jon A. Lambert might have said: Mike wrote: Since you must *ask* for the 'rude' version of fortune (fortune -o) before you get any of the alleged offensive material, then what's the problem? @ fortune sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting, adage category: Games requires: cygwin The problem is that it doesn't inform the user that the package contains said material. Had it said sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting, adage about cunts and niggers I would have been better informed about the nature of the package. How eloquent. Try 'man fortune'. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
Mike wrote: I would have been better informed about the nature of the package. How eloquent. Try 'man fortune'. man fortune doesn't work until after you've already downloaded and installed the offensive material on your machine. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
Jon A. Lambert wrote: Mike wrote: I would have been better informed about the nature of the package. How eloquent. Try 'man fortune'. man fortune doesn't work until after you've already downloaded and installed the offensive material on your machine. Yes but it *can* work just after you install it but before you ever run it! This part seems like a disclaimer if I've ever saw one: -oChoose only from potentially offensive aphorisms. Please, please, please request a potentially offensive fortune if and only if you believe, deep down in your heart, that you are willing to be offended. (And that if you are, you'll just quit using -o rather than give us grief about it, okay?) And you don't have to install it - you can research it! See http://www.rt.com/man/fortune.6.html -- Is it possible to brush your teeth without wiggling your ass? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
Yes but it *can* work just after you install it but before you ever run it! This part seems like a disclaimer if I've ever saw one: -oChoose only from potentially offensive aphorisms. Please, please, please request a potentially offensive fortune if and only if you believe, deep down in your heart, that you are willing to be offended. (And that if you are, you'll just quit using -o rather than give us grief about it, okay?) And you don't have to install it - you can research it! See http://www.rt.com/man/fortune.6.html Uh-huh. And the problem reported is (at least in part) that even if you don't use -o when calling fortune, you may end up seeing 'potentially offensive aphorisms'. It's a bug. -Samrobb -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:25:42PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: NB: Did anybody read Fahrenheit 451 from Ray Bradbury? It's not about jokes in the first place, but somehow this discussion reminds me of the book in a fatal way. I read the book but I don't remember it too well. I've never been too impressed with Ray Bradbury as a writer, though. He has some good bits. Fahrenheit 451 was more Orwellian than the rest of his novels, FWIW... Somehow, I don't think the book was about people insisting on the right to store their books in your house where you might happen to trip over them and see things that you don't agree with. As I've said, this isn't about political correctness to me. It's about people's right to be offended and our responsibility not to unduly surprise anyone. I don't mind surprising people when there is a good technical argument for it. I don't think that cygwin's goal should be to desensitize people to what is generally agreed to be bad language. Maybe it's a slippery slope. Maybe if this was a bunch of Hindus complaining that fortune contained jokes about cows I would feel differently. I just don't think it is a good idea to surprise an innocent person who is taking a casual stroll through /usr/share/fortune. I agree. One example where it could affect someone's workplace is the fortune X screensaver, which prints random bits produced by invoking 'fortune'. This can make any unencrypted joke visible to pretty much everyone. Most agree that it's a packaging bug in fortune, and that the limericks file should be renamed limericks-o and ROT13'd. End of discussion. Let's just watch the thread die down now? Maybe roast some marshmallows on the sidelines? Anyone got long sticks? ;-) Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Good thing I didn't install it at work, and that I don't work at a Megacorp that has whole departments devoted to rooting through peoples' files looking for reasons to fire them. IMHO, this is the single best reason for obfuscating the profanity with rot13. -- Francis Litterio franl at world . std . com Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for providing the profanity at all? Hello? Anybody? -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
The David Korn who is not the Korn Shell guy wrote: -Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: 07 January 2005 14:52 Business issues are not the point here, though. My issue is that I grant others the right to be offended by the type of language we're talking about. It is a given that there are many people in our society who will be offended by it. These people do not buy Playboy or Hustler because they do not like what these magazines represent but they aren't out picketing those establishments, either. So, they are following the Just don't look at it then! scenario. That unfortunately is not true. Yes, it is. In this country we've just had a theatre play shut down by threats of violence from one group of religious bigots, and there is currently an ongoing pressure campaign from another group of religious bigots to try and pressure the BBC into pulling an as-yet unscreened program on the grounds that if it was screened and if they did happen to watch it they might be offended. Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Of course, if they're forewarned enough to know that they might find this program offensive, they're perfectly well forewarned enough to not end up watching it by accident, but that's not good enough for them, and the reason why it's not good enough for them is that the potential offence they might suffer is a mere pretext, and their real concern is to try and compel everyone else to be like they are by controlling what we may see and hear in an effort to control how we think. It's coercive evangelism. Forcible recruitment. Religious pressganging. Blackmail, brainwashing and mind control. Continues to be irrelevant to the issue at hand. So no, I'm no longer prepared to automatically extend to people the right to take offence at what I say or do, since they regularly abuse that right in an attempt to - well, basically, to enslave others and rule over their minds. It's insanity to hand every single religious crank with an agenda to push an absolute veto over anything and everything you might ever want to do or say. You didn't write fortune, nor do you distribute it. Hence, this is also irrelevant to the issue at hand. You're three for three! I do not believe people have the right to jump up and voluntarily *choose* to be offended by things that are perfectly reasonable to all those who are actually involved or affected. Hmm. I see we made the right decision back in 1776. Here in the good ol' U. S. of A. you get to *choose* to be offended or not offended by whatever you want. Hell, you can even change what offends you from day to day! They *are* going into newsagents, pulling Playboy off the shelves, opening it up, reading it (probably hypocritically enjoying it too), and then whining about how offended they are and demanding that the entire world be made conform to their personal tastes and beliefs. 1. Then they're vandalizing the newsie's property, seeing as Playboy comes in a convenient sealed plastic bag. 2. Nobody's doing that. 3. Now you're four for four. It's in this way that solipsism turns into dictatorial oppression. Ok, so lemme see if'n I got this here right y'all: De-obscenifying fortune will directly lead to a New World Order of Stalinist-era dictatorial oppression. W. O. W. Come on Korny, sing it with me: Crazy, but that's how it goes... -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote: == fortunes2-o == Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that cocaine stuff -- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in Nuremberg trial Is something like this even legal in Germany? -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Most agree that it's a packaging bug in fortune, and that the limericks file should be renamed limericks-o and ROT13'd. End of discussion. Nononono, don't you try to force your end-of-discussion values on ME! I agree that at a minimum, the obfuscation you describe is absolutely required. However, I'd like an answer to a question which I raised with a different poster: What's the reason to provide this profanity at all in the Cygwin distro? To the best of my knowledge, there are no Cygwin X-screensavers loaded with obfuscated pornographic pictures. I can't imagine one being accepted were it to be proposed by somebody. But dirty limericks get the green light? Why? But, in the intrest of the desire of many here to have their porn and limericks too, I offer this new constructive vote category suggestion: [ ] I demand more filth! Add a new Porn category to Setup! Frankly, I'd think just pulling the off-color material is the easiest solution from a legal, moral, technical, and argumentological standpoint. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Jon A. Lambert might have said: Mike wrote: Since you must *ask* for the 'rude' version of fortune (fortune -o) before you get any of the alleged offensive material, then what's the problem? @ fortune sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting, adage category: Games requires: cygwin The problem is that it doesn't inform the user that the package contains said material. Had it said sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting, adage about cunts and niggers I would have been better informed about the nature of the package. How eloquent. How ironic. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for providing the profanity at all? A number of people like them. Best, Rodrigo -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
- Original Message - From: Rodrigo de Salvo Braz To: Gary R. Van Sickle Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 6:04 PM Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file. On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for providing the profanity at all? A number of people like them. Variety is the spice of life, and isn't variety what fortune is all about? Also, I've never met anyone, *anyone* who doesn't like a good (key word) dirty joke. Perhaps the problem is the quality, not the color. I mentioned in an earlier post that maybe fortune is misnamed. I wasn't joking or being sarcastic. How about nonsense or hogwash or duck? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for providing the profanity at all? A number of people like them. Best, Rodrigo A number of people like hard pore cornography too. Cygwin doesn't provide that, at least not in visual form, at least not that I'm aware of. The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene content? -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
- Original Message - From: Gary R. Van Sickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cygwin@cygwin.com Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 6:18 PM Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file. On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for providing the profanity at all? A number of people like them. Best, Rodrigo A number of people like hard pore cornography too. Cygwin doesn't provide that, at least not in visual form, at least not that I'm aware of. The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene content? This is a good question. For reference, this is the warning I got after I selected fortune for installation on SuSE Linux today: Together with a lot of funny sayings fortune also contains some sayings which may not be fully politically correct. These sayings are nevertheless included as SuSE does not want to apply any censorship to fortune. Please note that not all users may appreciate all fortune sayings. Please do not install fortune in this case. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for providing the profanity at all? Hello? Anybody? Apparently some distros have split off the package into parts like fortune - the program with no data fortune-min - the quotes fortune-off - the stuff that'd make a sailor blush fortune-mod-boh fortune-mod-homer fortune-mod-bible-1.0 I'd of course prefer the following packaging: fortune fortune-min fortune-mod-bible-1.0 But not just because it would be amusing to see the half of the unoffended suddenly start squealing about pulling it or encrypting it. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Jon Lambert wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for providing the profanity at all? Hello? Anybody? Apparently some distros have split off the package into parts like fortune - the program with no data fortune-min - the quotes fortune-off - the stuff that'd make a sailor blush fortune-mod-boh fortune-mod-homer fortune-mod-bible-1.0 Really? I'd of course prefer the following packaging: fortune fortune-min fortune-mod-bible-1.0 But not just because it would be amusing to see the half of the unoffended suddenly start squealing about pulling it or encrypting it. Well, I'd prefer a similar packaging: fortune fortune-min (what I thought I installed) fortune-mod-homer fortune-mod-bible-1.0 However, I *would* include mod-bible-1.0 for the sole purpose of triggering the howls of W!!! I'M IN JUNIOR HIGH!!! I WANT DIRTY LIMERICKS (TEEEHEEEH!) NOT BIBLE. Yeah, I know: www.geocities.com/latenitegoddess/hellwhenidie11.12.04.wav ;-) -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: A number of people like them. A number of people like hard pore cornography too. Cygwin doesn't provide that, at least not in visual form, at least not that I'm aware of. The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene content? A number of people feel the dirty limericks are close enough to the purpose of fortune for them to have been included and kept. But nobody thought it would be interesting to include pore cornography in Cygwin (or, for that matter, the full works of Shakespeare). If lots of people wanted that, then it should be done too. It all boils down to cost/benefit, benefits here being how many people find an item good to include and costs being how many don't, and maybe even file size as well. Pore cornography would probably involve lots of negative reaction and large files, and the people who like it wouldn't care since they can easily get it elsewhere. In the limericks case, the -o option seems to have the least cost/benefit ratio. Rodrigo -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Most agree that it's a packaging bug in fortune, and that the limericks file should be renamed limericks-o and ROT13'd. End of discussion. Nononono, don't you try to force your end-of-discussion values on ME! Heh... On most other messages you at least leave a name of the person you're quoting. Here, I actually had to *read* your reply to figure out it was me. What's the world coming to? ;-) I agree that at a minimum, the obfuscation you describe is absolutely required. However, I'd like an answer to a question which I raised with a different poster: What's the reason to provide this profanity at all in the Cygwin distro? To the best of my knowledge, there are no Cygwin X-screensavers loaded with obfuscated pornographic pictures. I can't imagine one being accepted were it to be proposed by somebody. But dirty limericks get the green light? Why? But, in the intrest of the desire of many here to have their porn and limericks too, I offer this new constructive vote category suggestion: [ ] I demand more filth! Add a new Porn category to Setup! Sure. No problem. Go for it. As long as it's in Debian, it's fine... ];- Frankly, I'd think just pulling the off-color material is the easiest solution from a legal, moral, technical, and argumentological standpoint. IMHO (and, since I'm not the maintainer of the fortune package, this is indeed a HO), the right solution is whatever's easiest to the fortune maintainer in terms of time, both current (doing the work) and future (maintaining the package with respect to future upstream changes). This would imply not splitting the package, cutting out pieces of the package, etc, since those just add extra work at later stages. The obscene material was not supposed to be seen without special action on the part of the user (as documented in the man page). It was seen without such action, due to a packaging bug. The bug should be fixed -- period. However, if some package you maintain contained a bug (e.g., buffer overrun) that made it garble, say, its normal help output, and that new output accidentally contained f**k (or some other obscene terminology) -- would you argue for removing the help output, or would you simply go and fix the bug? Granted, the analogy's a bit stretched, but it's the best I can come up with at 1:30am. Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote: == fortunes2-o == Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that cocaine stuff -- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in Nuremberg trial Is something like this even legal in Germany? Why would you suggest that expressing a thought, however you might disagree with it, should be illegal? Are you sure your an American?!? -- If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio out of a coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Most agree that it's a packaging bug in fortune, and that the limericks file should be renamed limericks-o and ROT13'd. End of discussion. Nononono, don't you try to force your end-of-discussion values on ME! [I'm not done forcing my morals on you...] I agree that at a minimum, the obfuscation you describe is absolutely required. However, I'd like an answer to a question which I raised with a different poster: What's the reason to provide this profanity at all in the Cygwin distro? People, people! We're forgetting the real reason why we slave and toil with Cygwin! The answer to your question Gary is simple - Because we're mean! There ya go! End of discussion! To the best of my knowledge, there are no Cygwin X-screensavers loaded with obfuscated pornographic pictures. I can't imagine one being accepted were it to be proposed by somebody. But dirty limericks get the green light? Why? 'Cause their funny! And because we're mean! But, in the intrest of the desire of many here to have their porn and limericks too, I offer this new constructive vote category suggestion: [ ] I demand more filth! Add a new Porn category to Setup! Frankly, I'd think just pulling the off-color material is the easiest solution from a legal, moral, technical, and argumentological standpoint. Translation: I will continue my proslitizing until I get my way! -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:26:26PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote: == fortunes2-o == Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that cocaine stuff -- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in Nuremberg trial Is something like this even legal in Germany? Why would you suggest that expressing a thought, however you might disagree with it, should be illegal? Probably because some expressions relating to Nazism are illegal in Germany. One of our German users would probably know this for sue. Are you sure your an American?!? Why would speculating on another country's laws make someone un-American? cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: A number of people like hard pore cornography too. Cygwin doesn't provide that, at least not in visual form, at least not that I'm aware of. The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene content? Same reason any other piece of functionality does not exit in Cygwin yet! Because we need a volunteer? Are you volunteering Gary? I'm sure you have a good collection yourself! :-) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:41:58AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:26:26PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote: == fortunes2-o == Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that cocaine stuff -- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in Nuremberg trial Is something like this even legal in Germany? Why would you suggest that expressing a thought, however you might disagree with it, should be illegal? Probably because some expressions relating to Nazism are illegal in Germany. One of our German users would probably know this for sue. sure What an oddly appropriate typo on my part. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On 5 Jan 2005 at 23:38, Christopher Faylor wrote: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? [] installed fortune with -a option and I feel left out, haven't seen anything racy. btw, is .bash_profile the right place to call fortune? W -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
More DeFaria: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote: == fortunes2-o == Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that cocaine stuff -- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in Nuremberg trial Is something like this even legal in Germany? Why would you suggest that expressing a thought, however you might disagree with it, should be illegal? For the silly reason that I happen to know that a lot of things related to Nazis or Hitler in Deutschland ungültig ist. Ferinstance, check out the German aircraft in MS's Combat Flight Simulator - no swastikas, 'cause if there were, they couldn't fly in German airspace. Perhaps you should complete your junior high civics class before trying to tell people what should offend them. Are you sure your an American?!? DONT TREAD ON ME baby! Oh beautiful, for heroes proved, In liberating strife, Who more than self, our country loved, And mercy more than life, America, America, may God thy gold refine, Till all success be nobleness And every gain Divine. And you know when I was in school, We used to sing it something like this, listen here: Oh beautiful, for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain, For purple mountain majesties, Above the fruited plain, But now wait a minute, I'm talking about America, sweet America, You know, God done shed his grace on thee, He crowned thy good, yes he did, in a brotherhood, From sea to shining sea. You know, I wish I had somebody to help me sing this... ;-) -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:26:26PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote: == fortunes2-o == Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that cocaine stuff -- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in Nuremberg trial Is something like this even legal in Germany? Why would you suggest that expressing a thought, however you might disagree with it, should be illegal? Probably because some expressions relating to Nazism are illegal in Germany. One of our German users would probably know this for sue. It may be - doesn't make it right... Are you sure your an American?!? Why would speculating on another country's laws make someone un-American? Oh I don't know. Something about the part that goes We hold these truths to be self evident As an American I believe that these truths, like the freedom as speech, are self evident, even when other countries suppress such things. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:32:14PM -0500, Brian Bruns wrote: Remember, alot of these have been in the fortunes package for god knows how long, and Cygwin isn't the only one thats going to have them. I'm betting that any distro that has the Fortunes package has them too. Right. The README of the package says this: The potentially offensive fortunes are installed by default on FreeBSD systems. If you're absolutely, *positively*, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt sure that your user community goes berzerk/sues your pants off/drops dead upon reading one of them, edit the Makefile in the subdirectory datfiles, and do make all install. So, we do undoubtedly have the default version and I am undoubtedly getting more prudish about this type of thing. Maybe we need a vote. I would really like to know how people feel about this. We haven't had a vote in a long time so: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [X] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? Offensive fortunes should probably be accessible only through -o optiona but they definitely _must_ stay there. I would not even bother encoding them with rot13. VH. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 09:57:48AM +0100, Vaclav Haisman wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:32:14PM -0500, Brian Bruns wrote: Remember, alot of these have been in the fortunes package for god knows how long, and Cygwin isn't the only one thats going to have them. I'm betting that any distro that has the Fortunes package has them too. Right. The README of the package says this: The potentially offensive fortunes are installed by default on FreeBSD systems. If you're absolutely, *positively*, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt sure that your user community goes berzerk/sues your pants off/drops dead upon reading one of them, edit the Makefile in the subdirectory datfiles, and do make all install. So, we do undoubtedly have the default version and I am undoubtedly getting more prudish about this type of thing. Maybe we need a vote. I would really like to know how people feel about this. We haven't had a vote in a long time so: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [X] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? Offensive fortunes should probably be accessible only through -o optiona but they definitely _must_ stay there. I would not even bother encoding them with rot13. No choice but to. -o files are expected to be rot13-encoded by the program. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Jan 5 23:26, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:36:53PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure if the highly obscene limericks (/usr/share/fortune/limerick) are meant to be in the cygwin distro... Wow. I think I vaguely recall that something like this was in fortune but, if I thought it was a good idea a couple of years ago, I have obviously grown more prudish since then. AFAICT, our fortune maintainer is long gone so I guess we're looking for a volunteer who would like to take up this package. I don't know about Corinna but I don't like having this type of thing in the distribution. I have no problems at all with having this in the distro. Corinna, you originally released this. Where did you find it? Did you just package it up directly from a BSD distribution? I don't remember but probably from FreeBSD. That's the first point where I'm looking for stuff, usually. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Jan 5 23:43, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: Ok, I will maintain it and will get a release out in the next couple days (one week at the outside). For the record, I will be changing limerick (and gerrold.limerick, which is in the freebsd sources) to -o files but continuing to install them. They will be installed rot13'd, and fortunes won't come from them unless you specify you want offensive fortunes on the command line. That's cool. Thanks for doing this. The way you do it is probably the best alternative. I would find it very annoying if the offensive jokes would just go away. It doesn't matter if one loves or hates these jokes, or if somebody feels offended. It's a matter of free choice. Nobody has to read them, after all. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Kal.Dee Sent: 06 January 2005 03:37 Hi all, Not sure if the highly obscene limericks (/usr/share/fortune/limerick) are meant to be in the cygwin distro... Kalman Dee Canberra, OZ :) ROFLMAO thank you for pointing out this hilarious collection of limericks, I never knew it was there! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:54:16 -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: My write-in candidate: [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. As a Christian, I agree with Gary. :) I actually think it's an upstream bug. The limerick file meets the offensive category and so, according to the notes file, should be limerick-o and be rot-13 encrypted (then we can throw the DMCA at offended people, too). Looks like fortune is due for an update to the /usr/share/doc/ FHS standard anyway. There is plenty of 1st Amendment content on the Internet, but let people get it elsewhere. Me too: [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. I agree it should be rot-13 etc. Bill -- ___ oo // \\ De Chelonian Mobile (_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN \ \_/_\_/The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control /_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org This e-mail transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error, please reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications passing through our network. The views expressed in this email are not that of the company unless specified within the message. The inclusion of this footnote indicates that the mail message and any attachments have been checked for the presence of known viruses. If you have any comments regarding our policy please direct them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information on a proactive email security service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: fortune maintainer wanted and question for Corinna (was Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.)
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:24:17AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jan 5 23:43, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: Ok, I will maintain it and will get a release out in the next couple days (one week at the outside). For the record, I will be changing limerick (and gerrold.limerick, which is in the freebsd sources) to -o files but continuing to install them. They will be installed rot13'd, and fortunes won't come from them unless you specify you want offensive fortunes on the command line. That's cool. Thanks for doing this. The way you do it is probably the best alternative. I would find it very annoying if the offensive jokes would just go away. It doesn't matter if one loves or hates these jokes, or if somebody feels offended. It's a matter of free choice. Nobody has to read them, after all. Ok. I think the consensus is that they should stay and rot13 is a suitable alternative. Thanks again, Yitzchak for doing this. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
-Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: 06 January 2005 04:39 Maybe we need a vote. I would really like to know how people feel about this. We haven't had a vote in a long time so: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? [X] I laughed so hard I shat! Fantastic! Please can we have more? :) cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Christopher Faylor wrote: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [x] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? Gerrit -- =^..^= -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:54:16 -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: My write-in candidate: [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. As a Christian, I agree with Gary. :) I actually think it's an upstream bug. The limerick file meets the offensive category and so, according to the notes file, should be limerick-o and be rot-13 encrypted (then we can throw the DMCA at offended people, too). Looks like fortune is due for an update to the /usr/share/doc/ FHS standard anyway. There is plenty of 1st Amendment content on the Internet, but let people get it elsewhere. As an atheist I always wonder why christians can turn the other cheek but cannot seem to muster how to turn their eyes away! If you don't like it then what stops you from simply not looking at it! Is something forcing you to use fortune or Cygwin or open and look at the contents of that file?!? [x] Because of the hub bub raised by the religious folk I had to download and check it out whereas if they just ignored it so would have I, proofing, once again, that by doing this they just draw more attention to it and cause more harm than good. -- E Pluribus Modem -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Me too: [x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble. I agree it should be rot-13 etc. -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Dear Cygwinistas: Steve Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] offers: Maybe the package maintainer could consider building two packages : a 'clean' fortune and rename the current package to 'fortune-xxx'. I have no idea how easy or difficult this is, but it would satisfy both camps. I second Steve. Debian offers both `fortunes' and `fortunes-off' (offensive), which sounds like the way to go, and should ease the `fortune' maintainer's life, as they're already split out. See below for gory details. Otherwise, my vote is [x] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? If I really want the offensive ones, I can dig them out of Debian for myself. :-) Best wishes, Max Hyre - gory details The Debian packages can be found at http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl\ ?keywords=fortunesearchon=namessubword=1\ version=stablerelease=main Package fortunes * stable (games): Data files containing fortune cookies 9708-25: all There are far over 15000 different 'fortune cookies' in this package. You'll need the fortune-mod package to display the cookies. and Package fortunes-off * stable (games): Data files containing offensive fortune cookies 9708-25: all This package contains 'fortune cookies' which some may consider to be offensive. Please do not install this package if you or your users are easily offended. You'll need the fortune-mod package to display the cookies. The `fortune-mod' package says These are the machine-dependent parts of the fortune package, i.e. the fortune program and the programs used for generating the data files. The fortune package displays epigrams selected randomly from a selection of fortune files. This is an enhanced version of the BSD program. The data files (which can be shared) are contained in the 'fortunes-min', 'fortunes', and 'fortunes-off' packages. Cygwin could offer all three, or fold the appropriate parts of `fortune-mod' into both the other two, but that's more (possibly unnecessary) work. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
