From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 22 16:13:45 2008 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 0A37716A47B for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:13:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perlcat@alltel.net) Received: from ispmxmta06-srv.windstream.net (ispmxmta06-srv.windstream.net [166.102.165.167]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B295E13C459 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:13:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perlcat@alltel.net) Received: from ispmxaamta08-gx.windstream.net ([72.37.126.241]) by ispmxmta06-srv.windstream.net with ESMTP id <20080122161343.PIWS15841.ispmxmta06-srv.windstream.net@ispmxaamta08-gx.windstream.net> for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:13:43 -0600 Received: from ext-b14-241.omhq.uprr.com ([72.37.126.241]) by ispmxaamta08-gx.windstream.net with ESMTP id <20080122161339.EMEQ27517.ispmxaamta08-gx.windstream.net@ext-b14-241.omhq.uprr.com> for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:13:39 -0600 From: perlcat Organization: dis To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:10:12 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <20080122125651.V2077@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <4795F9F1.1010603@student.utwente.nl> <20080122170018.G1140@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20080122170018.G1140@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801221010.12767.perlcat@alltel.net> Subject: Re: are we CRIMINALS? 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: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:13:45 -0000 On Tuesday 22 January 2008 10:01:49 Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> Orwell should just change title from "1984" to "2010-15" > > > > Maybe it's just me, but this whole thing kinda feels like somebody > > walking around the house naked and then suing an innocent passer-by > > for seeing them naked. > > > > Oh my, this is so ridiculous... > > no it is EXACTLY like that! > Except that I can understand why the problem viewing Windows in the naked metaphor -- it'd be a lot like being sued by Ernest Borgnine for looking at him naked -- I'd be so busy gouging my eyes out that I wouldn't even notice getting served with papers. For the common good, for your sanity, for the good of your possible descendants, DON'T LOOK!!!