From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 26 00:12:36 2007 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 B33E716A419 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:12:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pauls@utdallas.edu) Received: from smtp3.utdallas.edu (smtp3.utdallas.edu [129.110.10.49]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CF913C44B for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:12:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pauls@utdallas.edu) Received: from [192.168.2.102] (unknown [24.175.90.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp3.utdallas.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D7865505 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:12:35 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:12:35 -0600 From: Paul Schmehl To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <3AF266D1C00C5A180CAD4592@paul-schmehls-powerbook59.local> In-Reply-To: <000701c82fbf$45d93160$6701a8c0@mobility> References: <000801c82fa9$7c9ad700$6701a8c0@mobility> <20071125234621.GB3362@kobe.laptop> <000701c82fbf$45d93160$6701a8c0@mobility> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: who wrote this 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: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:12:36 -0000 --On November 25, 2007 5:59:53 PM -0600 "eBoundHost: Artur" wrote: > yea that's a great answer. thanks for your insight. this is not some > technical question that can be researched, this in fact tarnishes the > image of the freebsd community, so it's not such an easy "go rtfm" type > of deal. > > problem is that i just came accross it myself and obviously nothing has > been done about it in the past. so i would like to ask of people, is > there no better way to get the point accross? do you have to have this > wording? is it set in stone and can't be changed? I insist strongly > that we should rework this example, and if anyone insists strongly on > not doing it, I would like to understand what motive can be possibly > behind this other than something very deeply evil. > I'll take up the challenge. Hitler was evil. Quoting Hitler is not. When we seek to suppress information, no matter how troubling, we obscure the very lessons of history we need most to learn. If, because Hitler was evil, we do not allow discussion of him, how will future generations learn of his evil? As we argue this very point, there are people in the world insisting that the holocaust never happened, that Hitler did not commit the evil deeds that history has recorded he *did* commit. If we refuse to speak of him, those who insist he wasn't evil will win the argument by default. Surely that is not what you desire? Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/