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: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:30:15 -0800
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <crnulm$vkd$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 61 DOT 0501071733010 DOT 22768 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <E1Cn5qG-0005UI-00 AT deer DOT gmane DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: <E1Cn5qG-0005UI-00@deer.gmane.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Note-from-DJ: This may be spam

Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

>> Most agree that it's a packaging bug in fortune, and that the 
>> limericks file should be renamed limericks-o and ROT13'd. End of 
>> discussion.
>
> Nononono, don't you try to force your end-of-discussion values on ME!

[I'm not done forcing my morals on you...]

> I agree that at a minimum, the obfuscation you describe is absolutely 
> required. However, I'd like an answer to a question which I raised 
> with a different poster: What's the reason to provide this profanity 
> at all in the Cygwin distro? 

People, people! We're forgetting the real reason why we slave and toil 
with Cygwin! The answer to your question Gary is simple - Because we're 
mean! There ya go! End of discussion!

> To the best of my knowledge, there are no Cygwin X-screensavers loaded 
> with obfuscated pornographic pictures. I can't imagine one being 
> accepted were it to be proposed by somebody. But dirty limericks get 
> the green light? Why?

'Cause their funny! And because we're mean!

> But, in the intrest of the desire of many here to have their porn and 
> limericks too, I offer this new constructive vote category suggestion:
>
> "[ ] I demand more filth! Add a new "Porn" category to Setup!"
>
> Frankly, I'd think just pulling the off-color material is the easiest 
> solution from a legal, moral, technical, and argumentological standpoint.

Translation: I will continue my proslitizing until I get my way!


--
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/