From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 4 11:17:59 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B03106566B for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:17:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerry@seibercom.net) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2CA8FC08 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:17:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yhfq46 with SMTP id q46so11404373yhf.13 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:17:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.195.37 with SMTP id o25mr15893326yhn.46.1325675878412; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:17:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from scorpio.seibercom.net (cpe-076-182-104-150.nc.res.rr.com. [76.182.104.150]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 40sm87210521ano.19.2012.01.04.03.17.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from scorpio (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jerry@scorpio.seibercom.net) by scorpio.seibercom.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3TJ8kq4Trhz2CG5x for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 06:17:55 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3 at scorpio.seibercom.net Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 06:17:55 -0500 From: Jerry To: FreeBSD Message-ID: <20120104061755.4659cdf8@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <201201040016.q040GUA6013103@mail.r-bonomi.com> References: <20120103173943.5b47afc6@scorpio> <201201040016.q040GUA6013103@mail.r-bonomi.com> Organization: seibercom.net X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.2) Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAHlBMVEUAAABYRlwJCw4FAgAIBwKprDkBAQFQLR0BAgCir7VRttp8AAACAUlEQVQ4jZWUTYvbMBCGTVl8V2hX6Gg5G5FbWQdBj0lEfE7BhN4cyzi5Wt1E5L70roWy6N92xok/skkP+5IYrMcz78xIduDWpNM3vFzuA/jX5EY1AI6KHFwW/CzFuQAwqUBbV12p+CzIh6Awq7sg33pn5D64SQXAexffeuQlA/L35RrkaB551OjGfP/cAO8mCNaDcgvfky5ijoD0pAXlCQCnljiAjsJD9Ax05Ko5sZxbnLQcmM+dZg5IjREfZrWIHK0JuwU68pAGwHvfRxBundRzTxxz3r9dNUikPsEihjz2Dc4kjp1hKsJGuot4EDxaxzMoC7XqhxhOSfZrTS6gSX1JVdjp+o1PvWfekXgw3WL0g70nDEwA0H0HQsEZc8sTmFMTkWUfYWC/vdR1zQy3xLQgLwzu90QnlnFLjeiGWBjwhb4Sa42IqOg2qqS4O1/zhKokFUb1Q8Rj4Eb69WVflXEehJ35DgChVTE5n50eaGyMLOfH8AOodoSM4PVYAQgQdBulOa+knklYks3vAuQ+uX492lTl+A+e8qBV2AKoXalVKFfyuUp0pUp1ARaUHh82lv9MN+Ig7CZtgE6FNYvjlywT2VP2dMgOG46gTIWcqdfvuwyXNz0oMJNd/N5lh1YNiJt19ADTUo3VuFSNeQwVqRSrGjSCp53fk2g+Mvfk/gfoPxHeUS8MH9vRAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: FreeBSD Kernel Internals Documentation X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: FreeBSD List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:17:59 -0000 On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:16:30 -0600 (CST) Robert Bonomi articulated: > > Jerry wrote: > > Chad Perrin articulated: > > > > > > Now you have really peaked my interest. On any given day, on a > > > > Windows based forum, the terms: "FreePiss", open-sore", "Lsuck" > > > > etcetera are freely thrown around. On Linux based forums, terms > > > > like: "Winblows", "Microsucks", etcetera are freely used. Would > > > > you please be so kind as to explain to me why it is morally > > > > correct to use one set of terms but not the other? It is either > > > > right or it is wrong. You cannot be slightly pregnant. I > > > > personally find such terms morally repugnant; however, since > > > > they are commonly used on this forum it appears that they are > > > > socially acceptable. Would you not concur or are you going to > > > > try and bullshit your way out of this one? > > > > > > 1. I didn't say it was "morally correct" to use one set of > > > derogatory forms and "morally incorrect" to use the other. You > > > are attributing arguments to me I never made. > > > > I just spent a half hour rereading every post on this thread to see > > if I had inadvertently stated that you had stated in any way that > > it was "morally correct". Guess what, there aren't any such > > statements. snip] > He did *NOT* ask the prior poster to explain "why it _would_be_ > morally correct..." HE demanded that they explain "why it *IS* > morally correct..." Would you please be so kind as to explain to me why ..." You consider that a demand? That is the most incredible statement I read in this entire thread. If I had demanded an answer, I would have clearly indicated it. I am not bashful, as you may have noticed. I simple asked him to explain why such behavior would be morally acceptable. At that point he made the accusation that I had attributed such statements, directly or indirectly to him. I neither did, nor is there any evidence to support the claim that I had. Both of you choose to conveniently sidestep that simple fact. Although to his credit, he did explain his feelings on the matter. Now, if I asked you to explain the moral justification for the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, would I be accusing you of actually having written it? You don't think things through do you?