OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[John Reimer]

Hello BCS,

> Hello John,
> 
>> Hello bearophile,
>> 
>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>> 
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>> I'm curious to know what "bearophile" means?
>> 
> While I also consider the choices you are questioning to be "less than
> ideal", the fact that, aside from his user name, there is nothing in
> this NG its self to object to suggests to me that /this/ is not the
> correct forum to raise the issue in. It is (or should be) well
> understood that links posted in one site linking to another imply a
> bit of "buyer beware".
> 


"less than ideal" is wimpy way of putting it.  You might as well give your 
support for it by such a statement.  (Oh no... here I'm forcing my opinion 
on another Judeo-Christian! ;) )  Incidentally, it doesn't appear that there 
is any correct forum in which to raise the question.  Please suggest a correct 
procedure in approaching this.


Here are my reasons for posting here.


(1) This is the D language discussion group.  Promotion of D happens here. 
 It is the center of D life.


(2) His blog links are connected to his site consistantly in his posts here


(3) His blog links are carried consistantly through the "Planet D" feed, 
which consistantly promote NOT only his D blog material but also his furry 
critters blogs. (yes, I can stop signing up to D planet feed altogether and 
lose all connection to other feeds :P)... but that won't improve D's reputation 
any, now will it?


(4) His *root* link is referenced in Andrei's Phobos2 documentation on ranges. 
 An email address would have sufficed there.


(5) "bearophile" now mixed with the content, which sooner or later, many 
people of all ages will see from the D world has bizarre implications... 
and I suppose I must stop all imagination from running wild on this one after 
seeing what kinds of things he publicly displays at his site.  I'm sorry: 
there is just no good connotation for that alias given the history of modern 
words ending in "phile".  Innocently... "lover of bears" is cute until you 
see a picture of human-like figure in a explicit "tangle" with a furry critter 
from his site.  Excuse the extreme frankness here. 


(6) His public connection of his website here indicates that he appears to 
have no shame concerning this part of his life.  I therefore feel no shame 
in showing the dangers of such an association publicly also.  If this is 
a poor mode of reasoning, then I'm still waiting to have this carefully explained 
to me /minus/ the typical lame "religion" accusations.


(7) You'll have to suggest to me any other situation where D has had to worry 
about external links being this bad.


If you think this is "less than ideal"... how much does it take before someone 
sees how bad this is?  Are people completely oblivious these days to the 
nature of where all this leads?  If this were same person that posted /drawings/ 
of pedophilia related material, or perhaps even rape drawings, would that 
be acceptable association for the D community too?  You will be identified 
by what you associate with.  It's not a matter of passive "leave and let 
a guy have his space."  He chose to connect himself with the D language this 
way!  Come on guys!  Wake up!  Has TV and movies lulled everyone into some 
sort numbness here so that they can no longer see a problem with this stuff? 
 Does it take some secular psychologist to suggest the problems with this 
to you?


A question: why should a link be "buyer beware" here?  Is D having too much 
difficulty managing itself.  Shall we paste such a thing all over D?  Is 
this design team so careless as to not understand the effects of websites 
it links to or the image it projects? Even most advertisement services and 
marketing companies probably know this! You want to leave the worldview out 
of this?  Then please just consider the practical reasons as to why such 
an association stinks.


Of course, we're need to always be careful on the internet, but we're talking 
about the promotion of a system language that we want to gain widespread 
interest across the world, no?  It's not just about each one of us as individuals... 
it's about D and a whole slew of people that are affected by it.


If I have responded too severely in my initial post (or this one, for that 
matter), I'm afraid it's because I am frustrated with so much apathy here 
and absolutely astonished at how oblivious people are to the fallout that 
these sort of things create.  You don't /have to/ ascribe to religous system 
to see evidence of this.


In his favour:


bearophile is polite and consistant in his approach to posting here.  I appreciate 
that.  Now I *request* that he'll just take the step further and somehow 
help us not have any association of this material with D!


Bearophile... you appear to have some supporters here, so you apparently 
have nothing to be ashamed of, although I disagree.   But I think you are 
hurting D by allowing your lifestyle choices to be associated with the language 
design.  I ask you to please change this.


-JJR