OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[John Reimer]

Hello Nick,

> "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.
> 


It shows professional courtesy if nothing else.  This is not a small thing, 
Nick.  If you see it as small, then we have nothing to discuss here.  I don't 
know if you actually examined the content, so you may or may not know what 
you are talking about.


> 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.
> 


A lot of religious content sickens me too... however, your analogy assumes 
"offense" is the only issue here.  We are talking about material that would 
be considered extremely pornographic: censor is common etiquette for such 
material.  Bearophile warns near the material but the content remains visible. 
 I can spell it out for you in a private email if you wish.


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


Oh please don't be so thick.  Is it so much trouble to clean up a few pictures, 
add a logon system for those that absolutely must see the dirt, or move programming 
material to another blog/website?


-JJR