OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:gna51a$r4n$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "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.
>

In other words, while you may not consider "real" vs "not-real" to be a 
useful variable to include in the "acceptability" equation, many of us do, 
and that is why we reacted differently in the different situations. In that 
particular portion of my message above, I wasn't attempting to make any 
point beyond that.