OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Nick Sabalausky]

"John Reimer" <terminal.node at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:28b70f8c142608cb5cabec91a980 at news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello bearophile,
>
>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
>
> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>
>
> At first, I thought this alias was innocent enough, but after visiting 
> your much promoted site (promoted in the D community), I'm not so sure 
> what to think.  I almost blanched at some of the content and greatly 
> regretted having visited it.
>
>
> If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I ask you consider 
> carefully the implications of some of your the creature fantasies that you 
> blog about. I'm surprised nobody else has complained.  Or maybe I should 
> not be so surprised considering how politically incorrect it is to 
> challenge any ideology (or fantasy, for that matter) even if it be so 
> morally bankrupt so as to be considered extreme indeceny and deviance by 
> any number of different cultural standards. The implications there as 
> graphically displayed, while not quite clear, are in the direction of 
> bestiality... and if not, are confused enough as to be presumptiously 
> indifferent to any ethical question about the horrible nature of it.
>
>
> You are not doubt quite bright, as your other interests and participation 
> in D design have made clearly evident.  But I just can't believe such 
> content is so closely linked to this group and the D design process.  I 
> should think you would be embarrassed.  I know I am to have been subjected 
> to it.
>
>
> If you're shocked that I'm confronting you openly on this, the reason lies 
> squarely in the fact that you are boldly and unashamedly displaying the 
> material in a site that is linked here multiple times; and I believe such 
> boldness warrants the same measure of confrontation in return.  I hope you 
> will change your mind about the material.  I'd wish both your mind on the 
> matter and the material would completely change, but I don't have the 
> right to request much more than that you disassociate it completely with 
> your dealings with D, so that those it concerns  don't have to be involved 
> in the particulars of your fantasies whenever you link your site here.
>
>
> Of course, it is equally people's right here to support you in your 
> freedom to display such things (while providing the links here).  If they 
> do, however, it speaks volumes about peoples general apathy to the 
> downward spiral of society where increasingly indecent content is seen as 
> normal and harmless. This is a great shame, and I'd be sorry to see that 
> people don't care anymore.
>
>
> For those that see this as flamebait, I request that you do not respond. I 
> just felt somebody had to say something about this.  If this is perceived 
> to be libelous, I ask that you consider carefully how damaging your 
> content is to others, and the feelings it might engender in its viewers. 
> Thus, you should recognize that this post merely elucidates on what's 
> already evident.
>
>
> -JJR
>
>

??...You can't seriously expect someone to censor their website just because 
someone else on the web might have a problem with some of the content.

I have a problem with religous content (some of it even sickens me), but I'm 
not going to give anyone on the net a big lecture just because they stuck 
"Jesus" in their username or put drawings of churches and bible quotes on 
their website.

Would you have all potentially offendable content removed from the net? 
There wouldn't be any net left.