Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Andrew DeFaria <Andrew AT DeFaria DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:08:32 -0800
Lines:	43
Message-ID:	<crt9le$q0e$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 55 DOT 0501091339390 DOT 734 AT narnia DOT n DOT ml DOT org> <E1Cnphl-0003vg-00 AT deer DOT gmane DOT org>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT sea DOT gmane DOT org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host:	adsl-64-142-12-79.sonic.net
User-Agent:	Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
In-Reply-To:	<E1Cnphl-0003vg-00@deer.gmane.org>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Reed
>> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 12:51 PM
>> To: Gary R. Van Sickle
>> Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
>>
>> On 2005-01-08T17:57-0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> ) - The limericks in question are of interest only to 
>> junior-highschool-age
>> ) sysadmins and lawyers.
>>
>> I find them humorous.
>
> So are you a lawyer, or a junior-high-school-age sysadmin?

Isn't that your still unproven assertion? Stop engaging in strawmen.

>> ) - Redacting the limericks in question from Cygwin will eliminate 
>> the risk
>> ) they cause.
>>
>> You are not a lawyer,
>
> Says who?

Well you could easily clear that up. Are you a lawyer? Obviously not 
since by your very own assertion you are not interested in these 
limericks! (See what happens when you use silly arguments - you trip 
yourself up in them).

>> Please do not try to express a false legal opinion to justify a 
>> faulty personal one.
>
> I am expressing no legal opinion. I am merely stating the obvious: if 
> there's no potty-mouth there to offend, nobody can be offended by the 
> potty-mouth. Do you disagree with this axiom?

We have not established that either. Again it is your assertion.
-- 
Why do people ask "Can I ask you a question?".... Didn't really give me 
a choice there, did ya sunshine?


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -