OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Nick Sabalausky]

"John Reimer" <terminal.node at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:28b70f8c144158cb5d8c0c1ac480 at news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> "John Reimer" <terminal.node at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:28b70f8c143d88cb5d632bf3cd10 at news.digitalmars.com...
>>
>>> That's a strong accusation, Steve, without knowing me; it's a very
>>> hasty reduction for circumstances, personalities, and factors you are
>>> quite unfamiliar with.  I didn't see you mention this sort of thing
>>> while people were talking about physically harming the internet
>>> marketer's in horrible ways in the javascript discussion. :)
>>>
>> It was clear that the violent things said in that discussion were not
>> intended literally. The images on bearophile's site are *also* clearly
>> fictional. Thus we don't mind either. But your comments against it
>> were more serious.
>>
>
> Yes, they were serious.  The fact that they are fictional is not an 
> argument for "right" as I expressed in other posts that brought other 
> analogies into the spectrum to show that everyone will enforce their 
> limits at some point, fictional or otherwise.
>

I was merely explaining the discrepancy between how most of us reacted to 
the content in the javascript discussion and how we reacted to your original 
post against bearophile.

>
>> If instead you had said something like "Argh! This whole furry
>> movement makes me want to burn out my eyes and take a lawn-mower to
>> every art institute in the tri-county area!" then we'd be clearly back
>> in the realm of fiction again, and we'd all acknolegde your viewpoint
>> on it, chuckle at the amusingly overstated comment, and silently agree
>> to disagree. And if bearophile decided that he wanted to, he could
>> think "Hmm, some people that are into the D content really don't like
>> this other stuff, so I guess I could add some clearer separtion of
>> topics". (Personally, it doesn't bother me the way it is, though.)
>>
>> Or, as you've come to realize now, you could have said something like
>> "Bearophile, I like your D content, but I find some of those images
>> disturbing, and others might too. Maybe it would be a better site
>> design to have a stronger separation of content." As I'm sure you
>> realize, that would have achieved the same result I described in the
>> paragraph above - but sadly without the "people chuckling at the
>> amusingly overstated comment" part. I like having amusingly overstated
>> comments to chuckle at ;-)
>>
>
>
> Uh uh uh... don't gloat to quickly now. :)
>
>
> You, Nick, are chuckling now perhaps because I have conceded some points 
> here?  I don't think this or the content is a chuckling matter... but as 
> you like.
>

Please re-read. I wasn't chuckling in this case, I was merely pointing out 
that many of us find deliberately colorful overstatements, such as the ones 
in the javascript discussion, to be amusing (and thus, chuckle at *those* 
statements while being well aware that they are just that - overstatements).

>
> In terms of things that are moral issues (even if fictional in form), I 
> believe that you vastly underestimating the potential for damage and 
> influence by public promotion of the material

If this is so, then please enlighten us with examples rather than repeatedly 
flying the "It's dangerous!" flag. Something more substantial than the 
speculative slippery slope argument.