Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: ... neither of the two above, who are pretty obviously losers (even though they're certainly on very different sides; surprise, sometimes there's more than two of 'em). There's more than one actual difference between the two statements, though, and I claim those are much more relevant. For example, the one is a short list of specific persons, whereas the other is an enormous and ill- defined list (the number of people where it's not obviously clear if they count as Jews or non-Jews is pretty large). Also, I'm pretty sure that one of these groups consists only of deceased persons. Nobody can make them suffer. The actual point of hate speech, at least as I understand it (our terms for these things are not quite the same), is that it is (designed|likely) to cause such suffering. If pressed, I'd be likely to count stuff like admit it, you're just practising hate speech als hate speech, though, even though it is actually only targeted at a specific person (each time). Though it is probably entirely sufficient to characterize it as a blatant ad-hominem. Y'all are going to bust a vein on this one. So far, on *.debian.org, I've found a great many people who actively hate Jesus, this german who apparently has familiar views on Jews (as does frighteningly much of Europe), and a whole bunch of college professors who actively hate America. And everybody has communistic views on the business world. And, for third parties reading this in future, just look at what they're getting ready to do to *me*. Just for those keeping a scorecard. (I just want to be able to link to this post in future to completely destroy your credibility).
Re: Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:25:31PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Adamant about the seperation of state and non-christian churches[0]. But, of course us weirdos[1] in california decided the pledge was unconstitutional... of course I'm sure that was overturned[2]. No, not overturned. Waiting on appeal to the Supreme Court, which takes its Own Sweet Time to do anything. Well, I was the one who said it first but in fairness I'll admit you're right: there's about 5 more things like that: congress starts each day with a prayer, god is named during the president's swearing in, c. The atheists win that point.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:39:51AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:49:06 -0800, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:38:45AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:53:18AM -0800, Nunya wrote: | I don't believe in magical beings. I *do* believe some humans | intentionally set out to hurt other humans. Branden's beliefs and | sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear. ... and in some cases justified. Who are you to pass judgement on others? judgment? I see an expression of an opinion. And he is a living, thinking being, and thus has opinions. Are you saying you have none? I guess someone from a culture with a caste system would believe that: It is justified to sneer and think inferior certain people. We don't buy that shit here.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:53:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:07:44PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? Oh, is *that* who Tom Ballard is? I'd heard about this guy. Stuff is starting to fall into place now. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html You guys usually argue circles around me. The fact that you're arguing so weakly out to tell you something.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:40:06PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: I guess someone from a culture with a caste system would believe that: It is justified to sneer and think inferior certain people. We don't buy that shit here. plonk I've noticed that and the Godwin (with no mention of nazisim anywhere *near* being invoked, unless the phrase hate speech implies nazism, in which case I have quite a few people I'd like to plonk) have been invoked then the other side is making absolutely unjustifiable statements. Real good arguing there.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:44:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:19:28PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:19:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I believe that if you cared to do the research on Usenet and mailing list debates of this kind, my statement above is defensible as fact on rigorous statistical grounds. But I don't care enough to do the work to prove that to you. :) That is not much of a proof, it's just a reassertion of your statement, simply asserting it to be true. Until you research it, you don't know it. You only believe it. You've rejected both inductive and deductive arguments, so I think it's clear that you will accept no path to the stated conclusion. You're welcome to your dogmatism, but don't be surprised if no one else cares to share it. Please prove to me the statement: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01536.html: Because Christians are the people who primarily take offense at this sort of thing in the context that we were discussing in this portion of the thread. Just show me real research that backs up the claim. All I see so far is an assertion that its true, without a single effort being made to prove it. (Hint: ask a muslim.)
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: The Christian concept of a demon is a corruption (as it were) of the Greek concept of daemon Basically, no arguments with what you said, except I find inconsistent the fact that the original guys said it's a daemon, explicitly not a Christian demon and here's you're saying yes it is. :-) FWIW I hate religious fundamentalists too. I try to be a libertarian and knock everybody with strong beliefs of any kind because I believe the fundamental problem to be psychologoical and related to power, *not* the specific content of the beliefs. Last post from me on this.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:26:10AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... Nah, bullshit. I've heard enough racists use that kind of reasoning. It's no big deal. Face it, you have to respect people. OTOH, I myself am going to lighten up. :-)
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:04:03PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: the fact that the original guys said it's a daemon, explicitly not a Christian demon and here's you're saying yes it is. :-) Er, no. I'm not. I'm saying that Christian demons are derived from Greek daemons; that isn't the same statement as them being the same thing. It's a subtle point, granted. [Picking nits here] Picking demon names to describe daemons only seems to be a good choice if they are closely related. Either it's a poorly descriptive name or you *do* believe they are the same. (Note: this now has nothing to with BSD. I'm just saying it's either a bad choice for a name or they are, for the purposes by which you think the name descriptive, the same).
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:00:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:21:40PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then There are very important distinctions between the following statements: Christians are stupid. Tenets of the Christian faith offend me. I consider a belief in X to be foolish/silly/stupid/whatever. Organized religion is meaningful only as a method of controlling people gullible enough to fall for it. I wasn't thinking of you, but let's take a quote of yours and see which of these statements is most applicable: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01512.html: (religious fanatics - the one group that seems more incapable of mastering spelling and grammar than the speakers of 'Leet) Is this about a tenet of the Christian faith? No Is it a statement about organized religion or mind control? No Is It a statement about a Christian's belief? No That only leaves one alternative. Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:19:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I believe that if you cared to do the research on Usenet and mailing list debates of this kind, my statement above is defensible as fact on rigorous statistical grounds. But I don't care enough to do the work to prove that to you. :) That is not much of a proof, it's just a reassertion of your statement, simply asserting it to be true. Until you research it, you don't know it. You only believe it.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:59:38PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: He did not say that all Christians are religious fanatics. Godwin. Copout.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. ^^^ Straw man means imagining a problem and then attacking it, which is preciesly what you are doing here. You all are so blatantly just stating your opinions as objective fact, so it's pretty hopeless. I've tried to appeal to your sense of fair treatment to all humans, which is a sentiment common to all decent people. I don't need to attack you: you're attitudes will turn off a sufficient percentage of people on their own.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:39:07PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Fair treatment is exactly what I'm claiming is being denied me, by the large religious voting block formed by adherents of the above-listed religions, which form a significantly more than majority share of the population of the United States, and the state of Colorado, today, when they vote to support politicians who adhere to the position statements of those institutions and their followers. The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Point to something specific, and we'll kick the fuckers out. Point to something general, and I'll say point to something specific.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:35:54AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: | You are totally rationalizing. *sigh* From Branden's original post where he mentioned the names: We might use names from Christian demonology (since the BSD mascot is the cute and devilish daemon), with the first letter shared by the demon's name and the corresponding BSD flavor. Once again, the stated intent /was/ a punning reference to the BSD daemon. Like I said, go right ahead. I really want to see how this plays out.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:07:44PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? Man, that is so fucking weak.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:24:49AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:06:47AM -0800, Nunya wrote: [snip] I think this is what my momma meant when she told me to avoid 3 subjects in general conversation: politics, sex, religion. Yeah, let's avoid conversation altogether, or only talk about the weather... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html Damn, that was too easy.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:31:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:23:39PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:12:56PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Because Christians are the people who primarily take offense at this sort of thing in the context that we were discussing in this portion of the thread. That's another opinion expressed as a generalization. I think you better quit while you're ahead. It seemed inductively valid, but easy enough to disprove. Anyone care to provide a counter-example? Do any non-Christians wish to express personal discomfort or offense with the names I proposed? Muslims and Jews also believe in demons. Witches believe in demons. African nature-religionists also believe in demons. Face it dude, you're hatred and unfairness towards one specific group of people is shining through. I don't think this project is so enlightened after all.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:31:17AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Somehow, I don't think Branden will mind being told his dislike of parochial religious fundamentalists is showing. I suspect he'd be proud of it. But you'll see for yourself, soon enough. I don't believe in magical beings. I *do* believe some humans intentionally set out to hurt other humans. Branden's beliefs and sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear. (Note: your response was measured and even). Please explain to me the relevance of these names without the specific intent of discomforting people. The *intent* is clear. If you can explain for, historical, literary, philosophical reasons, I will enthusiastically support those names. If it's just because let's piss off the Christians, then I say, pick something else. Actually I think you *should* pick those names. I'd love to see the resulting carnage :-)
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:38:45AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:53:18AM -0800, Nunya wrote: | I don't believe in magical beings. I *do* believe some humans | intentionally set out to hurt other humans. Branden's beliefs and | sneering disdain for some of his fellow humans is quite clear. ... and in some cases justified. Who are you to pass judgement on others? | Please explain to me the relevance of these names without the specific | intent of discomforting people. The *intent* is clear. They are a reference to the BSD association with daemons. I thought that was quite obvious? Yeah, and the Duke Blue Devils and the Wake Forest Demon Deacons have references to them to. I think if they used these names for their dormatories people would raise an eyebrow. You are totally rationalizing.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:59:57AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: For a different, somewhat postmodern take on angels and demons, see the roleplaying game _In Nomine_, published by Steve Jackson Games, which can be played as pure good angels vs. evil demons, with complete moral ambiguity, with demons as heroic rebels against the repression of heaven, or anything else inbetween. Or read Stephen Brust's _To Reign in Hell_, which posits an alternative explanation of the creation of the world, the nature and causes of the conflict between the angels under Yahweh and those under Satan, and the origin of humankind. Sounds a lot like a plot in very early issues of 1980s of Hellblazer, a comic which by the way is being made into a movie with Keanu Reeves (it's being filmed as we speak). http://www.insanerantings.com/hell/movie/ [Heaven is oppressive, right-wingers are malevolent, world saved by the paganists/hell. Subtheme: civil war in hell. Good stuff.] I personally liked an issue of Beautiful Stories for Ugly Children: Sympathy for the Devil. Satan's real name is Wally. He's a nice enough fellow, if it wasn't for all the assholes that keep showing up asking him what to do. Wally's a friend of mine, he's a brother :-)
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:24:34PM -0600, Paul Baker wrote: What I propose to solve this is to lowercase the K. I think Debian GNU/kNetBSD reads a little better. It takes the emphasis off the k. And when adding the l for libc as well, Debian GNU/klNetBSD. Another option may also be putting the k/l after the BSD. Debian GNU/NetBSDk and Debian GNU/NetBSDkl. What you are, in fact, suggesting, is Hungarian notation. :-)
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:42:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:02:44 -0500, Nathan Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Your proposal would change that. I oppose it, and I would oppose it just the same if you wanted to call them Loki, Kali or Hitler. (To pick a few at random.) Using names of evil, real or imagined, is not something that would be helpful to Debian. That kind of publicity we don't need. Excuse me? Since when is Kali, the name of one of my Godesses, a name of evil? What do you have against my religion? I am not happy with you bandying around such aspersions. I think this is what my momma meant when she told me to avoid 3 subjects in general conversation: politics, sex, religion. It might offend your freedom of speech but I think we should just all agree to drop it, and avoid subjects like this in future.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:29:15PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And, pray tell, why is that? Hindu mythology had demons far longer than Christianity (indeed, probably longer than any of the faiths of the descendents of Abraham). So what makes the Christian mythology more dominant? (even by sheer numbers of adherents, past and present, I would wonder if Hinuism would obviously have to cede ground there). No, no, no, that's the wrong way to approach it. Instead of getting into a pissing contest about who's relgion is better, pray enlighten us with your beliefs about demons, and we'll make up our own minds :-)
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:12:56PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Because Christians are the people who primarily take offense at this sort of thing in the context that we were discussing in this portion of the thread. That's another opinion expressed as a generalization. I think you better quit while you're ahead.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:30:52AM +, Colin Watson wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 02:19:58PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:03, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Demons are evil, and the BSD mascot is a demon (albeit a stylised Below is the first definition provided by the dict daemon command in Debian. From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]: Demon \Demon\, n. [F. d['e]mon, L. daemon a spirit, an evil spirit, fr. Gr. dai`mwn a divinity; of uncertain origin.] 1. (Gr. Antiq.) A spirit, or immaterial being, holding a middle place between men and deities in pagan mythology. [1913 Webster] I wonder if people here object to the daemon() library call. I have to say that this whole discussion is reminding me of Jesux (http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Node/4081/) ... If you believe in paganism you should know that calling something by its truename is an attempt to control it, and is dangerous. What makes you think those of us opposed to invoking evil believe ourselves to be good? grin The conversation has taken a lighter tone. It's not offensive. Knock yourselves out.
Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 07:33:17PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I doubt knowledgeable and thoughtful adherents to the Christian religion -- the kind who can actually attend a seminary and not flunk out -- find the names I proposed particularly offensive. Street names from Berkeley have appeal, and few fundies assign Manichean properties to asphalt. I hope I'm attributing correctly. My philosophy of good and evil is private and irrelevant -- but this conversation has made me uncomfortable. I'm killfiling it but -- I'm uncomfortable. Could you take it elsewhere?
Re: APT-Fu 0.2.3
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:31:11AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I certainly have no idea of the historical background of the word, but my `guessed derivation' does actually sort of make sense in that context... [snip] I read the archives to make sure nobody already posted this. -fu has a entry in the jargon file: http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/f/-fu.html -fu [common; generalized from `kung-fu'] Combining form denoting expert practice of a skill. That's going to take some serious code-fu. First sighted in connection with the GIMP's remote-scripting facility, script-fu, in 1998.
