OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[John Reimer]

Hello Nick,

> "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.
> 


Yeah, I think I misunderstood you there.  Thanks for the clarification.


-JJR