OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[John Reimer]

Hello Don,

> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> Hello bearophile,
>> 
>>> (And my name is bearophile, thank you).
>>> 
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> John, I think you make a valid point that the D community should check
> that any site which is officially linked to, provides reasonable
> indication when you are leaving the technical section, particularly
> when there's potential for offense. (For example, linking to a
> terrorist website might be damaging for D).
> 


Yes.  Meanwhile I admit my failure to approach this in a more graceful manner.


> But in other respects, if you're arguing from a Christian perspective,
> I don't see how bearophile's apparent acknowledgement of the truth of
> Romans 1 is anything but beneficial. He's no different from any of us.
> Rom 3:23.
> 
> -Don.
> 


Well, I don't know if he would agree with you that he is acknowledging it. :)


>From the Christian perspective, as you point out,  you are correct that he 
is no different from any of us, except that you leave out some important 
details that are contextually completed by the words in and surrounding Romans 
3:23.  :)


There's an irony here in the word "beneficial" which would cause me to react. 
 However, I will leave your statement here, which contains the most fundamental 
description of the situation that could ever be said.  


-JJR