OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[John Reimer]

Hello Christopher,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Hello bearophile,
>> 
>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>> 
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>> 
> No cross, no crown, no green star. If you're disgusted by someone's
> username and it isn't actively evil, pretend you don't know what it
> means. Don't write a post abusing his desired lifestyle.
> 


Hmm... very interesting.


And where does this "rule" of yours come from?  I'd say your forcing your 
philosophy on me. That's not very nice. :)


I do wonder how far you take this way of thinking.  I'm sure this solution 
has caused more problems then it's solved since you alone must hold the key 
to the definition of "actively evil".  Or maybe you don't, and there is no 
such thing?  Then I suppose it's good to turn a blind eye to everything?


Anyway, my point is that I had no cause to presume anything about his name 
without content from his site.   If he is able to publicly and actively promote 
his desired lifestyle, then I most surely am able to reject or refute it, 
correct?   What perhaps you should have suggested is that he keep his private 
lifestyle private if he didn't want to be confronted about it, right?


Apparently, it's nobody's right to question anything.  Does that make sense? 
 Then while someone has the right to actively promote his/her amberrant lifestyle, 
another has to keep tight-lipped about it so as to not interfere... meaning 
they are not allowed to promote their own views.   Kind of once-sided.  I'm 
sure marketing people love people like you. :)


Interestingly, D design would never succeed under such a system, would it?


-JJR