SPAM: Score 3.2: RE: SPAM: Score 2.5: Re: FreeBSD logo design competition

stheg olloydson stheg_olloydson at
Thu Feb 10 15:42:51 PST 2005

--- Johnson David <DavidJohnson at> wrote:

> From: stheg olloydson [mailto:stheg_olloydson at]
> > 
> > Well, well, well! Hit too close to home did I?  I said that those
> > complaining about the beastie belong to an irrational minority that
> > wish to impose their religion on others. In what way is this
> statement
> > bigotry or anti-Christian or anti-American?
> The phrases you used were: "America's Taliban", "force their
> religious
> orthodoxy", "eliminate the barrier between state and church",  "make
> the
> United States into a theocratic country", and "an irrational
> minority".
If you wish to quote me, then use a real quote and not selective "sound

SO>Over the years, the only complaints I have ever heard have come from
SO>America's Taliban. 
What is the Taliban? A group of religious fanatics that believe their
interpretation of their holy book is the only one and if, necessary, it
should be forced on others. So what is America's Taliban? Americans of
the same ilk. Search the archives to see the source of those making
this complaint. I can't help the fact they're Americans.

SO>Leaving aside the question of whether or not the complainers are in
a SO>position to make any sort of IT decision, one must ask what is
their SO>motivation for complaining. They are simply trying to force
their SO>religious orthodoxy on others. 

This is undeniable because that's _why_ they're complaining.

SO>These are the same people trying to eliminate the barrier between
SO>state and church to make the United States into a theocratic

True, this is a leap of faith on my part, but a small leap. But I think
is reasonable to assume that anyone going to the trouble to advocate
that a cartoon character is an inherently evil is likely to believe a
state religion is a good idea, too. 

SO>Therefore, these complaints can be categorized as coming from an
SO>irrational minority that should be ignored.

> So yes, there are some "Christians" who probably do want a theocracy
> and an
> elimination of the disestablishment clause. But those people are in
> the very
> small insignificant minority.

I explicitly said that. I did NOT say that were Christians; that was

> I did not take offense because you merely mentioned that these people
> exist.

Sure you did. You are offended because you inferred by statements to
mean something I didn't say. Then when I pointed that out to you, you
made the same claim. 

> I took offense because you have magnified these people far beyond
> their
> petty importance. Your post was NOT about the logo contest, but the
> continuation of an errnoneous and politically loaded stereotype.


I didn't magnify their importance, whoever decided to change the logo
to appease them did. Of course my post was about the contest. Let me
synopsize it for you since you clearly have comprehension difficulties.
First, I brought up the fact that the decision to change the logo was
kept secret from the community. Then I questioned the "need" for the
change. (This is apparently the only part you read.) Then I questioned
the method being used to pick the new logo. Then I made the argument
that if "the FreeBSD Project" kowtows to one group's prejudices, why
not go all the way and kowtow to all of them.

> David Johnson

Best regards,

Stheg Olloydson

Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 

More information about the freebsd-advocacy mailing list