From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 29 18:49:26 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014B016A4CE for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:49:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9645443D49 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:49:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iATIqoC6002459; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:52:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <41AB6F4F.4050908@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:49:51 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040929 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: frank@exit.com References: <200411291819.iATIJkf5027124@realtime.exit.com> In-Reply-To: <200411291819.iATIJkf5027124@realtime.exit.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Beastie/ how about Mozilla? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:49:26 -0000 Frank Mayhar wrote: > Jon Noack wrote: > >>Can we please stay on-topic? Stephan's email seems to have sparked a lot >>of Christian-bashing, and I can't see how that is on-topic. Sure, he >>probably deserved to be flamed for not finding the "beastie_disable" knob, >>but I am offended by some of the emails I've seen. Since when is it >>acceptable to ridicule a person's religious beliefs on stable@? > > > When their religious beliefs start affecting my life, I'm not going to remain > silent about it. You can call that "ridiculing" or "Christian-bashing" if > you want, but as far as I'm concerned it's impossible to ridicule someone who > is shaken by a _picture_ of _cartoon_(!) on their computer. > > I would have been happy to remain silent on this, but it led to Scott's > commit that removed the beastie menu and that was going too far. In that > sense, yes, it is indeed relevant for stable. Please drop the religious argument. My decision was based on months of experience, not a single email. I'm most concerned that we are allowing ourselves to be so distracted by it. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you like it, use it. If you don't like those that don't like it, please keep it to yourself. Scott