who wrote this

Jerry McAllister jerrymc at msu.edu
Mon Nov 26 09:30:40 PST 2007

On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:58:08AM -0600, eBoundHost: Artur wrote:

> >On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 03:23:56PM -0600, eBoundHost: Artur wrote:
> >
> >>All I have to say is WTF is wrong with whomever wrote this page.
> >>http://www.freebsd.org/internal/fortunes.html
> >>======================
> >>>>Examples of entries that should not usually be declared 'offensive':
> >>>>* Hitler quotes.
> >>======================
> >
> >I think the point is that it does not specifically belong in the offensive
> >list just because the author was Hitler, or for that matter any other
> >offensive person.     Do you want it to say, it doesn't belong in the
> >offensive list just because Ronald Reagan said it - or that Limburg guy?
> >They are offensive persons.
> >
> >Well, maybe those _do_ all belong in the offensive list.
> >
> >But, the above is the meaning for the statement on the page.
> >
> >////jerry
> No Jerry, you misunderstood my point.  I'm not talking about which quotes 
> go into which list.  My complaint is about how that web page is structured, 
> and that its wording should be reworked. 

No, I didn't misunderstand it.   You don't like the way they are describing
which goes in to which list.   The current wording is saying that it does
not specifically belong on the offensive list just because it come from
an offensive person.   I, not too tongue-in-cheek suggested some other
examples who might be used in place of the 'hitler' name that could
categorize something coming from an offensive source but not necessarily
belong in the offensive list merely because of the source.

Actually, I think the original page wording is a little skimpy about
the concept, but the example[s] given do very well at illustrating the
intended meaning.  eg, by just saying that hitler quotes are examples
of entries that are not offensive, it leaves to ones ability to 
misunderstand or misinterpret, the reasoning behind hitler quotes not
being offensive entries.    One really has to look at the other category
to see that it does not fit in the, somewhat better described, offensive
list category to pick up the reasoning for it being in the non-offensive
list, eg, it ain't one of those so it must be one of these.

So, I haven't yet thought of a good, adequately lean, but clarifying phrase, 
though if one comes to me I will submit it, but a clarifying phrase could 
well be included and the hitler example remain with it because it establishes 
a very strong case-in-point example.


> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list