From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 22 03:41:10 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86E716A42C for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 03:41:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.web-strider.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F68D43D68 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 03:40:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedwin2k (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id j6K80Wb75098; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:00:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Fabian Keil" , Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:59:07 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 In-Reply-To: <20050719172603.42b2c2a7@localhost> Importance: Normal Cc: Subject: RE: Demon license? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 03:41:11 -0000 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Fabian Keil >Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:26 AM >To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: Demon license? > > >"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote: > >> Greg Lehey said: >> >> "I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and >> associated it with FreeBSD." >> >> Re-read this please. "DEVIL" image? What is that? Devil in >> this context is a religious term. So what Greg is really saying >> here is that "we" would object if someone drew a religious image >> and associated it with FreeBSD" > >You are quoting out of context. > >Greg wasn't referring to Beastie as devil, the person before him was. That would be me, and no I was not as I've explained twice now. >Greg was intentional "misunderstanding" that Beastie was meant with >devil. At least that's how I understood it. > Greg doesen't generally post to that level of complexity. What he is objecting to is pretty straightforward - Beastie isn't a devil. Well the word "devil" is a religious term, so what Greg means is that "Beastie isn't a religious icon and anyone's use of the word 'devil' in conjunction with Beastie carries the incorrect connotation that Beastie is a religious icon" If your disagreeing with that, then are you supporting the idea that Beastie looks like a devil AKA icon objectionable on religious grounds? Because that is the converse of what Greg is saying. Greg took my meaning as Beastie=devil, not "devil-looking-image could be drawn and associated with FreeBSD by anyone" I realize that the idea I was attempting to convey was more complex and deeper than a 2 second sound bite. Please carefully reread the thread and I think you will understand it better. When I used the word "devil" in the sentence I was meaning a graphical drawing of a red being with horns and a tail, and that should have been apparent. I was not meaning the Catholic religious interpretation of the word "devil" meaning Satan. It is a sad commentary on the power of the religious conservative movement that you can't even use the word "devil" to mean anything other than "Satan" in a sentence anymore. Greg objects to the term "devil" in association with Beastie because he knows that too many stupid people cannot make this distinction anymore, and it's safer to simply not use the word "devil" anywhere near FreeBSD or Beastie so as to avoid these stupid people from claiming FreeBSD is a satanic operating system. I disagree with this because I will always choose to fight against ignorance rather than just accept it and make up some politically correct mealymouthed excuse. Sure, some stupid people cannot be educated into understanding that the Beastie image isn't an image of a devil, because they believe that the only possible interpretation of the word "devil" is Satan. I would rather work to educate them, like I'm working to educate you, that not all uses of "devil" are religious. If you or they cannot accept this, then go to Hell. ;-) Ted