I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
neutral. I do not think that a computer programme should be used as a
medium to purvey one's desire to proselytise the users of it. I do know
that it is meant to symbolise a bringer of light, but it is still not
neutral. I propose that it be changed to an ampule, It is politically
correct, religiously neutral, and embraces science and knowledge.
·······@gmail.com wrote:
> I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
> neutral. I do not think that a computer programme should be used as a
> medium to purvey one's desire to proselytise the users of it. I do know
> that it is meant to symbolise a bringer of light, but it is still not
> neutral. I propose that it be changed to an ampule, It is politically
> correct, religiously neutral, and embraces science and knowledge.
>
Until the EULA for clisp has a no-goy rule or requires circumcision, I
don't really see how it really matters if the logo is a menorah.
I think it's quite clear from their faq that they have no plans to
change it.
QCD Apprentice wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
>> neutral. I do not think that a computer programme should be used as a
>> medium to purvey one's desire to proselytise the users of it. I do know
>> that it is meant to symbolise a bringer of light, but it is still not
>> neutral. I propose that it be changed to an ampule, It is politically
>> correct, religiously neutral, and embraces science and knowledge.
>>
> Until the EULA for clisp has a no-goy rule or requires circumcision, I
> don't really see how it really matters if the logo is a menorah.
> I think it's quite clear from their faq that they have no plans to
> change it.
Can we add a rule stating that any goy feeling particularly put-upon by
the use of a menorah should go find another Lisp system?
--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
!
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> Can we add a rule stating that any goy feeling particularly put-upon by
> the use of a menorah should go find another Lisp system?
... should feel encouraged to make better Lisp system ... if he can.
--
A goy
.
Aleksander Nabaglo wrote:
> Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> > Can we add a rule stating that any goy feeling particularly put-upon by
> > the use of a menorah should go find another Lisp system?
> ... should feel encouraged to make better Lisp system ... if he can.
> A goy
I second both those suggestions.
I too am happy with the current CLisp logo.
If someone else creates an even better CL for Cygwin I'll be happy to
use it regardless of whether it has a Christian cross, Islamic star and
crescent, Discordianism "sacred chao" or the Satanic sigil of baphomet
as its logo.
Of course if you want to seriously attempt the (IMHO) hopeless task of
changing the CLisp logo you would be better served by emailing the
CLisp creators (or whacking yourself in the head with a hammer if that
is easier) rather than asking c.l.l, which has no authority over the
CLisp, to change the logo.
--jfc, An atheist goy.
funkyj wrote:
>
> If someone else creates an even better CL for Cygwin I'll be happy to
> use it regardless of whether it has a Christian cross, Islamic star and
> crescent, Discordianism "sacred chao" or the Satanic sigil of baphomet
> as its logo.
How about a swastika?
Cheers,
Mallor
Mallor wrote:
> funkyj wrote:
> >
> > If someone else creates an even better CL for Cygwin I'll be happy to
> > use it regardless of whether it has a Christian cross, Islamic star and
> > crescent, Discordianism "sacred chao" or the Satanic sigil of baphomet
> > as its logo.
>
> How about a swastika?
The poor old swastika has fallen on tough times in the last 80 years or
so, made very unpopular by a certain group of evil people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
Though I am sure that Hindus would probably like to see their sacred
symbol get some good press
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Hinduism). Maybe a swastika is
a good choice.
Brad
bradb wrote:
> Mallor wrote:
> > funkyj wrote:
> > >
> > > If someone else creates an even better CL for Cygwin I'll be happy to
> > > use it regardless of whether it has a Christian cross, Islamic star and
> > > crescent, Discordianism "sacred chao" or the Satanic sigil of baphomet
> > > as its logo.
> >
> > How about a swastika?
>
> The poor old swastika has fallen on tough times in the last 80 years or
> so, made very unpopular by a certain group of evil people.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
> Though I am sure that Hindus would probably like to see their sacred
> symbol get some good press
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Hinduism). Maybe a swastika is
> a good choice.
I did not previously realize that the word "swastika" itself was
Sanskrit in origin. I was aware that the Nazis borrowed it.
Cheers,
Mallor
"bradb" <··············@gmail.com> writes:
> Mallor wrote:
>> funkyj wrote:
>> >
>> > If someone else creates an even better CL for Cygwin I'll be happy to
>> > use it regardless of whether it has a Christian cross, Islamic star and
>> > crescent, Discordianism "sacred chao" or the Satanic sigil of baphomet
>> > as its logo.
>>
>> How about a swastika?
>
> The poor old swastika has fallen on tough times in the last 80 years or
> so, made very unpopular by a certain group of evil people.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
> Though I am sure that Hindus would probably like to see their sacred
> symbol get some good press
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Hinduism). Maybe a swastika is
> a good choice.
I thought the Hindu version was in the reverse direction to the Nazi
version?
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> "bradb" <··············@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Mallor wrote:
> >> funkyj wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If someone else creates an even better CL for Cygwin I'll be happy to
> >> > use it regardless of whether it has a Christian cross, Islamic star and
> >> > crescent, Discordianism "sacred chao" or the Satanic sigil of baphomet
> >> > as its logo.
> >>
> >> How about a swastika?
> >
> > The poor old swastika has fallen on tough times in the last 80 years or
> > so, made very unpopular by a certain group of evil people.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
> > Though I am sure that Hindus would probably like to see their sacred
> > symbol get some good press
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Hinduism). Maybe a swastika is
> > a good choice.
>
> I thought the Hindu version was in the reverse direction to the Nazi
> version?
>
> Tim
So did I, but according to Wikipedia it is common to be drawn either
way.
I'm not sure, but are we now skirting Godwin's Law?
Brad
bradb wrote:
>
> I'm not sure, but are we now skirting Godwin's Law?
Nope. Nobody's made a comparison about how so-and-so's a bunch of
Nazis. We are simply discussing a symbol that happens to have been
used by the Nazis.
I *did* start that line of discussion hoping someone would fly off the
handle and end the thread. I was "Godwin baiting." But I knew full
well that the swastika is a borrowed symbol, and I was pleasantly
surprised when the bait was not taken and instead it was discussed
intellgiently. Maybe the O.P. has crawled away in shame by now, having
been beaten to death by a pack 'o' pachyderms and a Menorah 'o' Nine
Tails.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Mallor wrote:
> bradb wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure, but are we now skirting Godwin's Law?
>
> Nope. Nobody's made a comparison about how so-and-so's a bunch of
> Nazis. We are simply discussing a symbol that happens to have been
> used by the Nazis.
>
> I *did* start that line of discussion hoping someone would fly off the
> handle and end the thread. I was "Godwin baiting." But I knew full
> well that the swastika is a borrowed symbol, and I was pleasantly
> surprised when the bait was not taken and instead it was discussed
> intellgiently. Maybe the O.P. has crawled away in shame by now, having
> been beaten to death by a pack 'o' pachyderms and a Menorah 'o' Nine
> Tails.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Brandon Van Every
We know you have been trying to decrease the productivity of this
thread since your first post, so I guess you've done it now with the
official referral to nazis.
defcon8 wrote:
> Mallor wrote:
> > bradb wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not sure, but are we now skirting Godwin's Law?
> >
> > Nope. Nobody's made a comparison about how so-and-so's a bunch of
> > Nazis. We are simply discussing a symbol that happens to have been
> > used by the Nazis.
> >
<snip>
>
> We know you have been trying to decrease the productivity of this
> thread since your first post, so I guess you've done it now with the
> official referral to nazis.
That doesn't count either, deliberately mentioning the Nazis in order
to invoke Godwins law and end the thread is cheating. See:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
defcon8 wrote:
>
> We know you have been trying to decrease the productivity of this
> thread since your first post,
Hey lame-o, news for you. Your post was unproductive the moment you
started it. Most people on this thread have been beating you over the
head with this. If you're too thick to get it by now, I don't feel the
slightest bit sorry for you. I posted the constructive criticism early
in the barbeque and you haven't taken the hint, so go set yourself on
fire with a dangerous menorah and be done with you!
> so I guess you've done it now with the official referral to nazis.
As another poster pointed out, you clearly don't understand the fine
points of Godwin's Law. There are many ways to talk about the Nazis
that do not invoke Godwin's Law at all. How do you think
soc.history.war.world-war-ii functions, for instance?
Cheers,
Mallor
"Mallor" <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> funkyj wrote:
>>
>> If someone else creates an even better CL for Cygwin I'll be happy to
>> use it regardless of whether it has a Christian cross, Islamic star and
>> crescent, Discordianism "sacred chao" or the Satanic sigil of baphomet
>> as its logo.
>
> How about a swastika?
In some countries, I guess it would be illegal.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Until real software engineering is developed, the next best practice
is to develop with a dynamic system that has extreme late binding in
all aspects. The first system to really do this in an important way
is Lisp. -- Alan Kay
!
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> Can we add a rule stating that any goy feeling particularly put-upon by
> the use of a menorah should go find another Lisp system?
the use of a menorah should go use other point of view:
(()(()(()(())())())())
:)).
--
A
.
·······@gmail.com wrote in news:1150138718.525850.33400
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
> neutral. I do not think that a computer programme should be used as a
> medium to purvey one's desire to proselytise the users of it. I do know
> that it is meant to symbolise a bringer of light, but it is still not
> neutral. I propose that it be changed to an ampule, It is politically
> correct, religiously neutral, and embraces science and knowledge.
>
You can make it as neutral as you like with clisp -q.
As an atheist and someone not particularly sympathetic to most forms of
nationalism/zionism, I found this irritating. I typically edit the
binary to remove it when using clisp. It's trivial to do so.
sean wrote:
> As an atheist and someone not particularly sympathetic to most forms of
> nationalism/zionism, I found this irritating. I typically edit the
> binary to remove it when using clisp. It's trivial to do so.
I'm an atheist too who doesn't like nationalism/zionism, but I didn't
find a menorah threatening, because as far as I know jews do not preach
or try to convert others. Had it been a star of David, that would've
been something else, I might've found it offensive, being a zionist
symbol.
············@gmail.com wrote:
> sean wrote:
>
> > As an atheist and someone not particularly sympathetic to most forms of
> > nationalism/zionism, I found this irritating. I typically edit the
> > binary to remove it when using clisp. It's trivial to do so.
>
> I'm an atheist too who doesn't like nationalism/zionism, but I didn't
> find a menorah threatening, because as far as I know jews do not preach
> or try to convert others. Had it been a star of David, that would've
> been something else, I might've found it offensive, being a zionist
> symbol.
I'm not atheist or against any religion,
but i dont like this logo.
it doesn't look good.
it is ugly.
i can't see its icon. plz change it
I like it! I'm not Jewish and I don't feel threatened by it. I think
it's nice that someone feels strongly enough about their faith to share
a symbol of it. Light up!
Ben wrote:
> I like it! I'm not Jewish and I don't feel threatened by it. I think
> it's nice that someone feels strongly enough about their faith to share
> a symbol of it. Light up!
Are you happy with women dressed in black rags going around in the
street?
·······@gmail.com wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > I like it! I'm not Jewish and I don't feel threatened by it. I think
> > it's nice that someone feels strongly enough about their faith to share
> > a symbol of it. Light up!
>
> Are you happy with women dressed in black rags going around in the
> street?
If they are sexy rags, mmm, yes, absolutely!
I think they should replace the Menorah with a big pair of tits. Well,
they could have a Menorah wedged between 'em, LOL!
Better idea: every time someone complains, make the Menorah bigger!
Maybe 10% increase each time, and a notice saying, "It's so-and-so's
fault, we made it BIGGER." Eventually the Menorah could be so cool as
to take over your living room.
How about a click-on MP3 video of an atheist whiner being beaten to
death with a Menorah?
Don't get me started about the elephants, the Menorahs, and the crowd
of screaming atheist protesters. EEK! OW! Ouch.
Cheers,
Mallor
> Are you happy with women dressed in black rags going around in the
> street?
I'm not sure what this means. I'm a generally happy person most of the
time.
Ben wrote:
>>Are you happy with women dressed in black rags going around in the
>>street?
>
>
> I'm not sure what this means. I'm a generally happy person most of the
> time.
>
He's referring to the extensive clothing worn by Orthodox women as
"black rags". If he's actually seen this people, he probably lives
around either Brooklyn or Jerusalem :-p.
I'd note that those women aren't forced into being Orthodox. Unlike in
*certain countries* nobody will stone them for moving to a more liberal
sect of Judaism or even becoming atheists, though they may be forced out
of their exclusively-Orthodox community by the Bayit-Owner's Association.
--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> >>Are you happy with women dressed in black rags going around in the
> >>street?
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure what this means. I'm a generally happy person most of the
> > time.
> >
> He's referring to the extensive clothing worn by Orthodox women as
> "black rags". If he's actually seen this people, he probably lives
> around either Brooklyn or Jerusalem :-p.
>
> I'd note that those women aren't forced into being Orthodox. Unlike in
> *certain countries* nobody will stone them for moving to a more liberal
> sect of Judaism or even becoming atheists, though they may be forced out
> of their exclusively-Orthodox community by the Bayit-Owner's Association.
>
> --
> The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
> constructed.
No I was actually referring to the people who call themselves muslim
that think that wearing black around their whole bodies is actually
ordered for in the Qur'an.
defcon8 wrote:
> Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>
>>Ben wrote:
>>
>>>>Are you happy with women dressed in black rags going around in the
>>>>street?
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure what this means. I'm a generally happy person most of the
>>>time.
>>>
>>
>>He's referring to the extensive clothing worn by Orthodox women as
>>"black rags". If he's actually seen this people, he probably lives
>>around either Brooklyn or Jerusalem :-p.
>>
>>I'd note that those women aren't forced into being Orthodox. Unlike in
>>*certain countries* nobody will stone them for moving to a more liberal
>>sect of Judaism or even becoming atheists, though they may be forced out
>>of their exclusively-Orthodox community by the Bayit-Owner's Association.
>>
>>--
>>The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
>>constructed.
>
>
> No I was actually referring to the people who call themselves muslim
> that think that wearing black around their whole bodies is actually
> ordered for in the Qur'an.
>
So you were arguing that extremists call the black clothing a symbol of
Islam, and we don't like the black clothing, therefore religious
symbology is bad, therefore a menorah is a bad logo?
Eyzeh meshuganer!
--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
·······@gmail.com wrote:
> I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
> neutral. I do not think that a computer programme should be used as a
> medium to purvey one's desire to proselytise the users of it. I do know
> that it is meant to symbolise a bringer of light, but it is still not
> neutral. I propose that it be changed to an ampule, It is politically
> correct, religiously neutral, and embraces science and knowledge.
So why are you threatened by a menorah?
"Mallor" <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> Stormcoder wrote:
>>
>> So why are you threatened by a menorah?
>
> They're sharp. They're pointy. They catch things on fire.
Like lisp.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"What is this talk of "release"? Klingons do not make software
"releases". Our software "escapes" leaving a bloody trail of
designers and quality assurance people in its wake."
I'm an atheist too, and I'm not at all offended by the logo; and even
if I was, I wouldn't have the right to complain -- because Clisp is
*free software*, you don't have to pay to use it, noone forces you to
use it, and if you don't like it, you can use another software or you
can even modify Clisp itself!
So I don't see the point about complaining against the Menorah... Clisp
is the result of the work of some people, who have the right to use
their work for whichever purpose they want (unless they break the law
of course!), including spreading their ideas about
religion/politics/science fiction/whatever...
just my opinion
alessio
·······@gmail.com wrote:
> I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
> neutral. I do not think that a computer programme should be used as a
> medium to purvey one's desire to proselytise the users of it. I do know
> that it is meant to symbolise a bringer of light, but it is still not
> neutral. I propose that it be changed to an ampule, It is politically
> correct, religiously neutral, and embraces science and knowledge.
Reading thread title, I thought, "Oh neat! Someone with some chutzpah
for marketing efforts and logos! Let's see what he's got." This is a
game I love to play in open source communities, and I haven't really
gotten anywhere with it yet, but who knows maybe 5 times a charm? So I
cracked this thread open and found...
...that you clearly haven't done any homework at all of any use to a
marketing effort. You are totally barking up the wrong tree. You did
not get the buy-in of the language principles, and you NEVER will.
It seems you have the energy to produce logos and pursue marketing
efforts. That's great! Now, would you please go find some open source
business partners worthy of your energy? It should be clear from this
thread that CLISP will never be big-time populist, even if a fair shake
of people use it currently. They're never going to try to "grow up"
and reach mass distribution, adopt logos acceptable to mainstream
business clients, promote themselves with slick websites, etc. They're
not on that trajectory and they never will be.
Even Python dragged its feet about these issues forever. I'm glad to
see that as of March 2006, the gears finally turned and they FINALLY
did something professional looking for their website www.python.org .
Including an appropriately corporate slick / abstract logo. This could
have happened 2 years ago, when I was involved with the
marketing-python efforts, but Guido and the PSF were techies with a bad
attitude about anything marketing. I'll wager that Guido's move to
Google has caused more serious "adult things" to get done in Python.
Anyways, my main point is that securing the approval of the language
owners is a huge chunk of the marketing and promotion game. Please add
that to your thinking on your next logo attempt. You want it to become
THEIR idea.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
·······@gmail.com wrote:
> I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
> neutral. I do not think that a computer programme should be used as a
> medium to purvey one's desire to proselytise the users of it. I do know
> that it is meant to symbolise a bringer of light, but it is still not
> neutral. I propose that it be changed to an ampule, It is politically
> correct, religiously neutral, and embraces science and knowledge.
>
Read the CLISP FAQ. They explain, in detail, exactly why they use a
menorah.
Also, the menorah doesn't proselytize anyone, unless of course Khanuka
parties do as well.
By the way, what's an ampule?
--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> ·······@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
>> neutral.
...
> Read the CLISP FAQ. They explain, in detail, exactly why they use a
> menorah.
'Tis better to remain silent and risk the CLISP maintainers being
thought of as fools than to point to the menorah section of the CLISP
FAQ and remove all doubt.
·······@gmail.com wrote:
> I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
> neutral. I do not think that a computer programme should be used as a
> medium to purvey one's desire to proselytise the users of it. I do know
> that it is meant to symbolise a bringer of light, but it is still not
> neutral. I propose that it be changed to an ampule, It is politically
> correct, religiously neutral, and embraces science and knowledge.
That's not the best bit. Try reading the source code: the comments are
in english but the variable names and labels are in German.
Also the bytecode instruction map was clearly derived from the results
of a seance.
Print out eval.d, it looks like a tapestry from a wall in hell.
:)
Rob Thorpe schrieb:
...
> Print out eval.d, it looks like a tapestry from a wall in hell.
> :)
Yes, but ...
isn't exactly that the result of "wourld-wide"?
stefan
lin8080 wrote:
> Rob Thorpe schrieb:
>
> ...
> > Print out eval.d, it looks like a tapestry from a wall in hell.
> > :)
>
> Yes, but ...
> isn't exactly that the result of "wourld-wide"?
Can you expand on that reply, I don't understand it.
(If you wish to continue this bizarre line of discussion I started,
that is).
So does noone think it should be changed at all? Maybe there should be
an option on installation of the programme that you may choose to have
a different logo.
defcon8 wrote:
> So does noone think it should be changed at all? Maybe there should be
> an option on installation of the programme that you may choose to have
> a different logo.
I think the consensus so far is that it's up to the maintainers of the
program. They can express what they like with it.
I don't mind the Menorah as a logo, though I disagree with the
sentiment expressed the FAQ on the subject. But it isn't up to me.
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> defcon8 wrote:
> > So does noone think it should be changed at all? Maybe there should be
> > an option on installation of the programme that you may choose to have
> > a different logo.
>
> I think the consensus so far is that it's up to the maintainers of the
> program. They can express what they like with it.
>
> I don't mind the Menorah as a logo, though I disagree with the
> sentiment expressed the FAQ on the subject. But it isn't up to me.
I agree. I didn't mind the menorah at all, in fact, not even noticed it
or thought about it much. But now, having just read the FAQ, I do not
agree with the sentiment expressed and it did alienate me. The answer
there seems far too antagonistic. Now I wish the menorah wasn't there.
Or at least I wish they'd just stopped at the first paragraph that
explained its meaning and then said it had nothing to do with religion
or Jewish nationalism, or that they'd adopted a less confrontational
manner in writing. The links they used are ultra right wing
neoconservative ones, a la Ann coulter and Bill O'Reilly and worse,
some of which are known to falsify their content. One of the links is
even a tripod page made with MS frontpage. Now, you can be Jewish or
whatever, and I'm quite fond of Jews, but if you want to be a Jewish
ultra right wing stinkard or support such, then I'll dislike you just
as I'd dislike any ultra right wing stinkard, and don't tell me i'm a
Nazi for disliking you because you're Jewish, you're the Nazi, you're
the ultra right wing stinkard.
http://clisp.sourceforge.net/faq.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 02:48:14 +0200, <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> The links they used are ultra right wing
> neoconservative ones, a la Ann coulter and Bill O'Reilly and worse,
> some of which are known to falsify their content.
The links *he* provides.
The shit you refers to is one person's work.
P.
--
Anything below this line is being added by the newsserver
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 02:48:14 +0200, <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The links they used are ultra right wing
> > neoconservative ones, a la Ann coulter and Bill O'Reilly and worse,
> > some of which are known to falsify their content.
>
> The links *he* provides.
>
> The shit you refers to is one person's work.
>
> P.
>
> --
> Anything below this line is being added by the newsserver
>
> Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Is there a way to talk *him* into being more considerate and less
confrontational? If he insists on the menorah then at least tone down
the antagonising rhetroric on the FAQ. I don't have much of a problem
with the menorah itself, but I found the FAQ answer quite offsensive.
He's not persuading anyone, everyone already have their mind made up on
this well-publicised issue, he's just pissing people off, even some who
would've otherwise been on his side of the fence.
············@gmail.com writes:
> Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
> Is there a way to talk *him* into being more considerate and less
> confrontational? If he insists on the menorah then at least tone down
> the antagonising rhetroric on the FAQ. I don't have much of a problem
> with the menorah itself, but I found the FAQ answer quite offsensive.
> He's not persuading anyone, everyone already have their mind made up on
> this well-publicised issue, he's just pissing people off, even some who
> would've otherwise been on his side of the fence.
Who cares? If the CLISP authors want to obsess about religion and/or
political beliefs and choose to inflict same upon their users, thats
their perogative. If you find it objectionable, then delete your copies
of CLISP and move on. Or, create your own religion/politics free fork
of the source.
Gregm
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:46:52 +0200, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> wrote:
> Who cares? If the CLISP authors want to obsess about religion and/or
> political beliefs and choose to inflict same upon their users,
Again, it's not *the authors*. It's only one of the maintainers.
P.
--
Anything below this line is being added by the newsserver
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
"Pierpaolo BERNARDI" <·········@secondbox.net> writes:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:46:52 +0200, Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Who cares? If the CLISP authors want to obsess about religion and/or
> > political beliefs and choose to inflict same upon their users,
>
> Again, it's not *the authors*. It's only one of the maintainers.
>
> P.
The same argument applies as far as I'm concerned.
Gregm
Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
> ············@gmail.com writes:
>
>> Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
>> Is there a way to talk *him* into being more considerate and less
>> confrontational? If he insists on the menorah then at least tone down
>> the antagonising rhetroric on the FAQ. I don't have much of a problem
>> with the menorah itself, but I found the FAQ answer quite offsensive.
>> He's not persuading anyone, everyone already have their mind made up on
>> this well-publicised issue, he's just pissing people off, even some who
>> would've otherwise been on his side of the fence.
>
> Who cares? If the CLISP authors want to obsess about religion and/or
> political beliefs and choose to inflict same upon their users, thats
> their perogative. If you find it objectionable, then delete your copies
> of CLISP and move on. Or, create your own religion/politics free fork
> of the source.
>
Exactly right. Your not forced to use it and if some aspect of either
the implementation, documentation or political beliefs of the
developers gets under your skin, then don't use the software. At the
very least, stop moaning about it.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
>
> > ············@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >> Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
> >> Is there a way to talk *him* into being more considerate and less
> >> confrontational? If he insists on the menorah then at least tone down
> >> the antagonising rhetroric on the FAQ. I don't have much of a problem
> >> with the menorah itself, but I found the FAQ answer quite offsensive.
> >> He's not persuading anyone, everyone already have their mind made up on
> >> this well-publicised issue, he's just pissing people off, even some who
> >> would've otherwise been on his side of the fence.
> >
> > Who cares? If the CLISP authors want to obsess about religion and/or
> > political beliefs and choose to inflict same upon their users, thats
> > their perogative. If you find it objectionable, then delete your copies
> > of CLISP and move on. Or, create your own religion/politics free fork
> > of the source.
> >
>
> Exactly right. Your not forced to use it and if some aspect of either
> the implementation, documentation or political beliefs of the
> developers gets under your skin, then don't use the software. At the
> very least, stop moaning about it.
>
> Tim
>
>
> --
> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
I don't see you revolting against the United Kingdom. You are happy
about that? You know you can't do anything, and what I am trying to
imply is not that we cannot do anything, we can; but it would be nicer
if the maintainer would think about the people who would get annoyed by
the menorah, and maybe thank about what profit he is gaining by putting
that picture in the software. I don't understand why one would use a
computer programme as a medium for purveying one's political views.
"defcon8" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
>> Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > ············@gmail.com writes:
>> >
>> >> Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
>> >> Is there a way to talk *him* into being more considerate and less
>> >> confrontational? If he insists on the menorah then at least tone down
>> >> the antagonising rhetroric on the FAQ. I don't have much of a problem
>> >> with the menorah itself, but I found the FAQ answer quite offsensive.
>> >> He's not persuading anyone, everyone already have their mind made up on
>> >> this well-publicised issue, he's just pissing people off, even some who
>> >> would've otherwise been on his side of the fence.
>> >
>> > Who cares? If the CLISP authors want to obsess about religion and/or
>> > political beliefs and choose to inflict same upon their users, thats
>> > their perogative. If you find it objectionable, then delete your copies
>> > of CLISP and move on. Or, create your own religion/politics free fork
>> > of the source.
>> >
>>
>> Exactly right. Your not forced to use it and if some aspect of either
>> the implementation, documentation or political beliefs of the
>> developers gets under your skin, then don't use the software. At the
>> very least, stop moaning about it.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> --
>> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
>
> I don't see you revolting against the United Kingdom. You are happy
> about that? You know you can't do anything, and what I am trying to
> imply is not that we cannot do anything, we can; but it would be nicer
> if the maintainer would think about the people who would get annoyed by
> the menorah, and maybe thank about what profit he is gaining by putting
> that picture in the software.
Why would I want to revolt against the United Kingdom? I've got no
problem with the UK or any issue with being part of the commonwealth -
it has next to know impact on my life and therefore is irrelevant.
However, if I did want to revolt against the UK I could. Plenty of
countries have. The reality is that the UK has far less influence over
Australia than the US these days - now thats far more difficult
because it isn't 'official' in that it is not part of the constitution
and not something you can clearly revolt against.
Your assertion I don't do anything because I don't think I can is both
rediculous and incorrect. Your only evidence that I might believe such
a rediculous assertion is based on the fact I don't agree with your
opinion on the clisp logo. You have absolutely know informmation or
knowledge about my political beliefs, my ethnic heritage or even my
religion and yet you make a stupid assertion that I don't revolt
against the UK because I think I can't. I assume it is this same
flawed logic and lack of evidence that has you so up tight concerning
what a few people use as a logo in their freely provided software.
I think your making the classic mistake of attempting to understand
someone elses motivations from your own standpoint and set of values.
I have no idea why the menorah is part of the Clisp logo and simply do
not care - it is irrelevant to me.
I do think you are still missing the point though. If you don't like
the use of the menorah then simply don't use the software - its that
simple. If enough people feel as strongly about it as you do, then the
clisp community will either have to change things or accept a small
user base.
What seems to be missing in your argument is a small but I think quite
important concept called tolerance. You might not agree with others or
like their taste or beliefs, but as long as they don't affect your
right to beliefs, freedom etc, what is the problem? I can understand
the question of why the menorah and to some extent, I can understand a
question of should it be changed. However, I don't understand the need
to argue the issue - you find it offensive for some reason, I don't -
end of story. I don't even feel inclined to make a judgement either way. The bottom
line is some people got together and built some software and made it
available for anyone to use. Nobody is forced to use it and its not
even the only choice available. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned,
they can use whatever logo they want and argue its for any cause,
belief or agenda they want. They are free to do this. I am free not to
use their software if I feel strongly enough about it. However, I am
NOT free to tell them how they should do things just because I think
it should be done that way or because I don't agree with their use of
a religious emblam or any political agenda they may have. You are free
to raise the issue, but once you see there is little interest, you
should accept the fact others don't have the same issue as you and
move on or try to develop a more compelling argument.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
> "defcon8" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Tim X wrote:
> >> Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > ············@gmail.com writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
> >> >> Is there a way to talk *him* into being more considerate and less
> >> >> confrontational? If he insists on the menorah then at least tone down
> >> >> the antagonising rhetroric on the FAQ. I don't have much of a problem
> >> >> with the menorah itself, but I found the FAQ answer quite offsensive.
> >> >> He's not persuading anyone, everyone already have their mind made up on
> >> >> this well-publicised issue, he's just pissing people off, even some who
> >> >> would've otherwise been on his side of the fence.
> >> >
> >> > Who cares? If the CLISP authors want to obsess about religion and/or
> >> > political beliefs and choose to inflict same upon their users, thats
> >> > their perogative. If you find it objectionable, then delete your copies
> >> > of CLISP and move on. Or, create your own religion/politics free fork
> >> > of the source.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Exactly right. Your not forced to use it and if some aspect of either
> >> the implementation, documentation or political beliefs of the
> >> developers gets under your skin, then don't use the software. At the
> >> very least, stop moaning about it.
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
> >
> > I don't see you revolting against the United Kingdom. You are happy
> > about that? You know you can't do anything, and what I am trying to
> > imply is not that we cannot do anything, we can; but it would be nicer
> > if the maintainer would think about the people who would get annoyed by
> > the menorah, and maybe thank about what profit he is gaining by putting
> > that picture in the software.
>
> Why would I want to revolt against the United Kingdom? I've got no
> problem with the UK or any issue with being part of the commonwealth -
> it has next to know impact on my life and therefore is irrelevant.
>
> However, if I did want to revolt against the UK I could. Plenty of
> countries have. The reality is that the UK has far less influence over
> Australia than the US these days - now thats far more difficult
> because it isn't 'official' in that it is not part of the constitution
> and not something you can clearly revolt against.
>
> Your assertion I don't do anything because I don't think I can is both
> rediculous and incorrect. Your only evidence that I might believe such
> a rediculous assertion is based on the fact I don't agree with your
> opinion on the clisp logo. You have absolutely know informmation or
> knowledge about my political beliefs, my ethnic heritage or even my
> religion and yet you make a stupid assertion that I don't revolt
> against the UK because I think I can't. I assume it is this same
> flawed logic and lack of evidence that has you so up tight concerning
> what a few people use as a logo in their freely provided software.
>
> I think your making the classic mistake of attempting to understand
> someone elses motivations from your own standpoint and set of values.
> I have no idea why the menorah is part of the Clisp logo and simply do
> not care - it is irrelevant to me.
>
> I do think you are still missing the point though. If you don't like
> the use of the menorah then simply don't use the software - its that
> simple. If enough people feel as strongly about it as you do, then the
> clisp community will either have to change things or accept a small
> user base.
>
> What seems to be missing in your argument is a small but I think quite
> important concept called tolerance. You might not agree with others or
> like their taste or beliefs, but as long as they don't affect your
> right to beliefs, freedom etc, what is the problem? I can understand
> the question of why the menorah and to some extent, I can understand a
> question of should it be changed. However, I don't understand the need
> to argue the issue - you find it offensive for some reason, I don't -
> end of story. I don't even feel inclined to make a judgement either way. The bottom
> line is some people got together and built some software and made it
> available for anyone to use. Nobody is forced to use it and its not
> even the only choice available. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned,
> they can use whatever logo they want and argue its for any cause,
> belief or agenda they want. They are free to do this. I am free not to
> use their software if I feel strongly enough about it. However, I am
> NOT free to tell them how they should do things just because I think
> it should be done that way or because I don't agree with their use of
> a religious emblam or any political agenda they may have. You are free
> to raise the issue, but once you see there is little interest, you
> should accept the fact others don't have the same issue as you and
> move on or try to develop a more compelling argument.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> --
> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
You intentionally fail to acknowledge that I was giving an example when
bringing the U.K. to example.
defcon8 wrote:
> Tim X wrote:
>> "defcon8" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Tim X wrote:
>>>> Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> ············@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
>>>>>> Is there a way to talk *him* into being more considerate and less
>>>>>> confrontational? If he insists on the menorah then at least tone down
>>>>>> the antagonising rhetroric on the FAQ. I don't have much of a problem
>>>>>> with the menorah itself, but I found the FAQ answer quite offsensive.
>>>>>> He's not persuading anyone, everyone already have their mind made up on
>>>>>> this well-publicised issue, he's just pissing people off, even some who
>>>>>> would've otherwise been on his side of the fence.
>>>>> Who cares? If the CLISP authors want to obsess about religion and/or
>>>>> political beliefs and choose to inflict same upon their users, thats
>>>>> their perogative. If you find it objectionable, then delete your copies
>>>>> of CLISP and move on. Or, create your own religion/politics free fork
>>>>> of the source.
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly right. Your not forced to use it and if some aspect of either
>>>> the implementation, documentation or political beliefs of the
>>>> developers gets under your skin, then don't use the software. At the
>>>> very least, stop moaning about it.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
>>> I don't see you revolting against the United Kingdom. You are happy
>>> about that? You know you can't do anything, and what I am trying to
>>> imply is not that we cannot do anything, we can; but it would be nicer
>>> if the maintainer would think about the people who would get annoyed by
>>> the menorah, and maybe thank about what profit he is gaining by putting
>>> that picture in the software.
>> Why would I want to revolt against the United Kingdom? I've got no
>> problem with the UK or any issue with being part of the commonwealth -
>> it has next to know impact on my life and therefore is irrelevant.
>>
>> However, if I did want to revolt against the UK I could. Plenty of
>> countries have. The reality is that the UK has far less influence over
>> Australia than the US these days - now thats far more difficult
>> because it isn't 'official' in that it is not part of the constitution
>> and not something you can clearly revolt against.
>>
>> Your assertion I don't do anything because I don't think I can is both
>> rediculous and incorrect. Your only evidence that I might believe such
>> a rediculous assertion is based on the fact I don't agree with your
>> opinion on the clisp logo. You have absolutely know informmation or
>> knowledge about my political beliefs, my ethnic heritage or even my
>> religion and yet you make a stupid assertion that I don't revolt
>> against the UK because I think I can't. I assume it is this same
>> flawed logic and lack of evidence that has you so up tight concerning
>> what a few people use as a logo in their freely provided software.
>>
>> I think your making the classic mistake of attempting to understand
>> someone elses motivations from your own standpoint and set of values.
>> I have no idea why the menorah is part of the Clisp logo and simply do
>> not care - it is irrelevant to me.
>>
>> I do think you are still missing the point though. If you don't like
>> the use of the menorah then simply don't use the software - its that
>> simple. If enough people feel as strongly about it as you do, then the
>> clisp community will either have to change things or accept a small
>> user base.
>>
>> What seems to be missing in your argument is a small but I think quite
>> important concept called tolerance. You might not agree with others or
>> like their taste or beliefs, but as long as they don't affect your
>> right to beliefs, freedom etc, what is the problem? I can understand
>> the question of why the menorah and to some extent, I can understand a
>> question of should it be changed. However, I don't understand the need
>> to argue the issue - you find it offensive for some reason, I don't -
>> end of story. I don't even feel inclined to make a judgement either way. The bottom
>> line is some people got together and built some software and made it
>> available for anyone to use. Nobody is forced to use it and its not
>> even the only choice available. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned,
>> they can use whatever logo they want and argue its for any cause,
>> belief or agenda they want. They are free to do this. I am free not to
>> use their software if I feel strongly enough about it. However, I am
>> NOT free to tell them how they should do things just because I think
>> it should be done that way or because I don't agree with their use of
>> a religious emblam or any political agenda they may have. You are free
>> to raise the issue, but once you see there is little interest, you
>> should accept the fact others don't have the same issue as you and
>> move on or try to develop a more compelling argument.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
>
> You intentionally fail to acknowledge that I was giving an example when
> bringing the U.K. to example.
>
??? It made little sense above, and your post just now makes even less
sense.
"defcon8" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
>> "defcon8" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Tim X wrote:
>> >> Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > ············@gmail.com writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
>> >> >> Is there a way to talk *him* into being more considerate and less
>> >> >> confrontational? If he insists on the menorah then at least tone down
>> >> >> the antagonising rhetroric on the FAQ. I don't have much of a problem
>> >> >> with the menorah itself, but I found the FAQ answer quite offsensive.
>> >> >> He's not persuading anyone, everyone already have their mind made up on
>> >> >> this well-publicised issue, he's just pissing people off, even some who
>> >> >> would've otherwise been on his side of the fence.
>> >> >
>> >> > Who cares? If the CLISP authors want to obsess about religion and/or
>> >> > political beliefs and choose to inflict same upon their users, thats
>> >> > their perogative. If you find it objectionable, then delete your copies
>> >> > of CLISP and move on. Or, create your own religion/politics free fork
>> >> > of the source.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Exactly right. Your not forced to use it and if some aspect of either
>> >> the implementation, documentation or political beliefs of the
>> >> developers gets under your skin, then don't use the software. At the
>> >> very least, stop moaning about it.
>> >>
>> > I don't see you revolting against the United Kingdom. You are happy
>> > about that? You know you can't do anything, and what I am trying to
>> > imply is not that we cannot do anything, we can; but it would be nicer
>> > if the maintainer would think about the people who would get annoyed by
>> > the menorah, and maybe thank about what profit he is gaining by putting
>> > that picture in the software.
>>
>> Why would I want to revolt against the United Kingdom? I've got no
>> problem with the UK or any issue with being part of the commonwealth -
>> it has next to know impact on my life and therefore is irrelevant.
>>
>> However, if I did want to revolt against the UK I could. Plenty of
>> countries have. The reality is that the UK has far less influence over
>> Australia than the US these days - now thats far more difficult
>> because it isn't 'official' in that it is not part of the constitution
>> and not something you can clearly revolt against.
>>
>> Your assertion I don't do anything because I don't think I can is both
>> rediculous and incorrect. Your only evidence that I might believe such
>> a rediculous assertion is based on the fact I don't agree with your
>> opinion on the clisp logo. You have absolutely know informmation or
>> knowledge about my political beliefs, my ethnic heritage or even my
>> religion and yet you make a stupid assertion that I don't revolt
>> against the UK because I think I can't. I assume it is this same
>> flawed logic and lack of evidence that has you so up tight concerning
>> what a few people use as a logo in their freely provided software.
>>
>> I think your making the classic mistake of attempting to understand
>> someone elses motivations from your own standpoint and set of values.
>> I have no idea why the menorah is part of the Clisp logo and simply do
>> not care - it is irrelevant to me.
>>
>> I do think you are still missing the point though. If you don't like
>> the use of the menorah then simply don't use the software - its that
>> simple. If enough people feel as strongly about it as you do, then the
>> clisp community will either have to change things or accept a small
>> user base.
>>
>> What seems to be missing in your argument is a small but I think quite
>> important concept called tolerance. You might not agree with others or
>> like their taste or beliefs, but as long as they don't affect your
>> right to beliefs, freedom etc, what is the problem? I can understand
>> the question of why the menorah and to some extent, I can understand a
>> question of should it be changed. However, I don't understand the need
>> to argue the issue - you find it offensive for some reason, I don't -
>> end of story. I don't even feel inclined to make a judgement either way. The bottom
>> line is some people got together and built some software and made it
>> available for anyone to use. Nobody is forced to use it and its not
>> even the only choice available. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned,
>> they can use whatever logo they want and argue its for any cause,
>> belief or agenda they want. They are free to do this. I am free not to
>> use their software if I feel strongly enough about it. However, I am
>> NOT free to tell them how they should do things just because I think
>> it should be done that way or because I don't agree with their use of
>> a religious emblam or any political agenda they may have. You are free
>> to raise the issue, but once you see there is little interest, you
>> should accept the fact others don't have the same issue as you and
>> move on or try to develop a more compelling argument.
>>
>
> You intentionally fail to acknowledge that I was giving an example when
> bringing the U.K. to example.
>
No, I addressed it as well as I could given the rediculous reference.
Arguing that the use of a logo you find offensive in some free
software is even remotely similar to a country and/or its political
system simply makes no sense - the link is so tenuous as to be pretty
much non existent.
In fact, I invite you to develop that example further. It would be
entertaining to see you struggle to build an analogy between a logo in a
piece of free software for which there are numerous free
and non-free alternatives to the UK and its relationship to Australia
and show how that relationship is an example supporting your arguement
to replace the logo used by clisp.
As I suspect you have adopted this "example" based largely on
ignorance of either country and their relationship to each other, I
should also point out that Australia has had referendums and debate
regarding being a member of the commonwealth and the use of the union
jack on our flag and in each case, the result has supported the status
quo. In fact, in this respect, I would argue your example supports my
position rather than yours as the general feeling in Australia is that
a lot of people see being a member of the commonwealth and use of the
union jack and association with the UK as being pretty much irrelevant
and a non-issue, which is pretty much the same as my opinion of your
failed attempt to gain support for changing the clisp logo.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
> Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
>
> > ············@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >> Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
> >> Is there a way to talk *him* into being more considerate and less
> >> confrontational? If he insists on the menorah then at least tone down
> >> the antagonising rhetroric on the FAQ. I don't have much of a problem
> >> with the menorah itself, but I found the FAQ answer quite offsensive.
> >> He's not persuading anyone, everyone already have their mind made up on
> >> this well-publicised issue, he's just pissing people off, even some who
> >> would've otherwise been on his side of the fence.
> >
> > Who cares? If the CLISP authors want to obsess about religion and/or
> > political beliefs and choose to inflict same upon their users, thats
> > their perogative. If you find it objectionable, then delete your copies
> > of CLISP and move on. Or, create your own religion/politics free fork
> > of the source.
> >
>
> Exactly right. Your not forced to use it and if some aspect of either
> the implementation, documentation or political beliefs of the
> developers gets under your skin, then don't use the software. At the
> very least, stop moaning about it.
Don't you think a person X's right to be upset about a person or group Y using
some unpolitical piece of work to express a fringe political message depends
on whether the work in question is solely the product of Y or whether X has in
fact made significant contributions before it became clear that such a thing
would happen?
What would you say if some OS project you contributed to and that lists you as
contributor were to be taken over by a maintainer who turned out to be fascist
and added a FAQ item about jews? Wouldn't it disturb you to have your
contribution and name associated with that? Don't you think it possible that
you might want to publically dissociate yourself when a usenet discussion
about the topic flares up?
Note that I'm not commenting on the accuracy, offensiveness or
non-offensiveness etc. of the FAQ item -- all I'm saying is that "none forces
you to use it" is a very lame argument if "it" happens to be something that is
partly your work.
'as
Alexander Schmolck <··········@gmail.com> writes:
> Tim X <····@nospam.dev.null> writes:
>
>> Greg Menke <·············@toadmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > ············@gmail.com writes:
>> >
>> >> Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
>> >> Is there a way to talk *him* into being more considerate and less
>> >> confrontational? If he insists on the menorah then at least tone down
>> >> the antagonising rhetroric on the FAQ. I don't have much of a problem
>> >> with the menorah itself, but I found the FAQ answer quite offsensive.
>> >> He's not persuading anyone, everyone already have their mind made up on
>> >> this well-publicised issue, he's just pissing people off, even some who
>> >> would've otherwise been on his side of the fence.
>> >
>> > Who cares? If the CLISP authors want to obsess about religion and/or
>> > political beliefs and choose to inflict same upon their users, thats
>> > their perogative. If you find it objectionable, then delete your copies
>> > of CLISP and move on. Or, create your own religion/politics free fork
>> > of the source.
>> >
>>
>> Exactly right. Your not forced to use it and if some aspect of either
>> the implementation, documentation or political beliefs of the
>> developers gets under your skin, then don't use the software. At the
>> very least, stop moaning about it.
>
> Don't you think a person X's right to be upset about a person or group Y using
> some unpolitical piece of work to express a fringe political message depends
> on whether the work in question is solely the product of Y or whether X has in
> fact made significant contributions before it became clear that such a thing
> would happen?
>
> What would you say if some OS project you contributed to and that lists you as
> contributor were to be taken over by a maintainer who turned out to be fascist
> and added a FAQ item about jews? Wouldn't it disturb you to have your
> contribution and name associated with that? Don't you think it possible that
> you might want to publically dissociate yourself when a usenet discussion
> about the topic flares up?
>
> Note that I'm not commenting on the accuracy, offensiveness or
> non-offensiveness etc. of the FAQ item -- all I'm saying is that "none forces
> you to use it" is a very lame argument if "it" happens to be something that is
> partly your work.
>
Sure, but thats not what is being argued here. We are not talking
about someone who contributed to a project that was then taken over by
another group who have distorted/hijacked/twisted the original goals
into their own political agenda. We are talking about someone who just
doesn't like the use of the logo or the item from the FAQ which
explains why it is being used.
I don't even disagree with the question of whether something should be
done being raised. Just as I think the developers and maintainers are
free to do what they (the group) agree to, others are free to question
that. Likewise, I'm free to say its a non issue and if yo don't like
it, don't use the software.
To return to your scenario - this sort of thing happens everywhere all
the time. Its the risk you take if you participate in a community
based effort - it can always be taken over by a group whose values and
beliefs are different to your own. When it happens, you can attempt to
mobilise support for your own beliefs and take back control or you are
free to try and make everyone aware of what is going on or your free
to just walk away and say stuff it.
My issue with this thread (and its not much of an issue) is that
therre has been no evidence anyone has had their hard work and
contributions misrepresented or ripped off. The issue has not come
from within the clisp developers/maintainers and generally, the
responses on c.l.l have been "so what". One person found the logo
offensive and attempted to gain support for having it changed and it
would appear the offence is based solely on a religious pragmatism. My
perspective is to be more tolerant and if you don't like what they do,
simply don't use it. Its not like there isn't other choices available.
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:46:11 +0200, <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 02:48:14 +0200, <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The links they used are ultra right wing
>> > neoconservative ones, a la Ann coulter and Bill O'Reilly and worse,
>> > some of which are known to falsify their content.
>>
>> The links *he* provides.
>>
>> The shit you refers to is one person's work.
>>
>> P.
>>
>> --
>> Anything below this line is being added by the newsserver
>>
>> Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
>
> Is there a way to talk *him* into being more considerate and less
> confrontational? If he insists on the menorah then at least tone down
> the antagonising rhetroric on the FAQ.
I was referring only to the faq.
P.
--
Anything below this line is being added by the newsserver
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
defcon8 wrote:
> So does noone think it should be changed at all? Maybe there should be
> an option on installation of the programme that you may choose to have
> a different logo.
There is an option for a different logo -- edit the source. You are
not bound by some 500 page EULA that insists CLisp is "licensed, not
sold" and that you are prohibited from reverse engineering it or
modifying it in any way, shape or form.
Heck you could start your own distribution call CLampule (or what ever
you want to call it), that is simply the latest CLisp with the logo
changed. Perhaps you could even write a CL program that would
automatically update your CLampule distribution when ever a new version
of CLisp appears on the official CLisp site.
It would be interesting to see how the poularity of CLampule would
compare with the popularity of CLisp <grin>.
--fj
funkyj wrote:
>
> It would be interesting to see how the poularity of CLampule would
> compare with the popularity of CLisp <grin>.
Of course, if it achieved any notoriety at all, we would take
CLampule's automagical GPL updater code, change the name to CLame-O,
restore the original logo, and make it 10% bigger every time CLampule
is released.
Cheers,
Mallor
defcon8 wrote:
> So does noone think it should be changed at all? Maybe there should be
> an option on installation of the programme that you may choose to have
> a different logo.
Maybe you should learn what a goddamn GPL is.
Cheers,
Mallor
·······@gmail.com wrote:
> I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
> neutral. I do not think that a computer programme should be used as a
> medium to purvey one's desire to proselytise the users of it. I do know
> that it is meant to symbolise a bringer of light, but it is still not
> neutral. I propose that it be changed to an ampule, It is politically
> correct, religiously neutral, and embraces science and knowledge.
Sorry , but maybe you would give a reason for...
Why it should be "religiously neutral" or "politically correct" ?
And...
Why you think that current symbol is not embraces science and knowledge ?
cheers ;)
--
?If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it??
--Albert Einstein
Dmitry Gorbatovsky wrote:
>
> Why you think that current symbol is not embraces science and knowledge ?
Yeah, I mean, heck, it lights up, right? It even lights up
consecutively. It even lights up *electrically*, if you go around the
corner to the Rite-Aid drugstore!
Cheers,
Mallor
Dmitry Gorbatovsky <···············@yahoo.com> writes:
> ·······@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
>> neutral. I do not think that a computer programme should be used as a
>> medium to purvey one's desire to proselytise the users of it. I do know
>> that it is meant to symbolise a bringer of light, but it is still not
>> neutral. I propose that it be changed to an ampule, It is politically
>> correct, religiously neutral, and embraces science and knowledge.
>
> Sorry , but maybe you would give a reason for...
> Why it should be "religiously neutral" or "politically correct" ?
> And...
> Why you think that current symbol is not embraces science and knowledge ?
>
Exactly - this political correctness stuff is really getting
rediculous. I find this type of "corectness" rather stupid.
A religious "logo" only has real significance to those who follow the
religion. While I think we should respect other peoples rights to
their beliefs, I don't see why we should feel threatened by them or
believe there has to be some sort of neutrality in where/how they use
the logo.
The software in question is made available for others to use free of
charge. If I write some software and allow anyone to use it, I think
I've earned the right to use any bloody logo I want (assuming you are
not infringing copyright etc). If you don't like it, then don't use
the software. Its beyond rediculous to start demanding someone changes
the logo on software you have no other connection with than to take
advantage of the developers goodwill and use.
Better still, stop wanking on about political correctness and write
your own implementation and then you can use a nice politically
correct logo.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Tim X wrote:
>
> A religious "logo" only has real significance to those who follow the
> religion.
I am highly amused by the dinner party scene in the Woody Allen movie
"Sleeper." Woody has been in cryogenic suspension for 200 years
(wrapped in tinfoil) and the world is now an absurdist totalitarian
state. He's been thawed because he's the only guy around who doesn't
have an identity and the revolutionaries need him. At the dinner
party, Woody is posing as robot to evade capture. In walk the guests;
by our modern standards their fashions are absurd. But it is 200 years
in the future, and the very notion of fashion is pretty absurd and
arbitrary anyways. In walks one guy with a HUGE swastika on his
outfit, it's full body. This means nothing to the guests at all. They
have no historical context for the symbol, it's just a clothing design.
Cheers,
Mallor
Tim X wrote:
> Dmitry Gorbatovsky <···············@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>·······@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
>>>neutral. I do not think that a computer programme should be used as a
>>>medium to purvey one's desire to proselytise the users of it. I do know
>>>that it is meant to symbolise a bringer of light, but it is still not
>>>neutral. I propose that it be changed to an ampule, It is politically
>>>correct, religiously neutral, and embraces science and knowledge.
>>
>>Sorry , but maybe you would give a reason for...
>>Why it should be "religiously neutral" or "politically correct" ?
>>And...
>>Why you think that current symbol is not embraces science and knowledge ?
>>
>
>
> Exactly - this political correctness stuff is really getting
> rediculous. I find this type of "corectness" rather stupid.
>
> A religious "logo" only has real significance to those who follow the
> religion. While I think we should respect other peoples rights to
> their beliefs, I don't see why we should feel threatened by them or
> believe there has to be some sort of neutrality in where/how they use
> the logo.
>
> The software in question is made available for others to use free of
> charge. If I write some software and allow anyone to use it, I think
> I've earned the right to use any bloody logo I want (assuming you are
> not infringing copyright etc). If you don't like it, then don't use
> the software. Its beyond rediculous to start demanding someone changes
> the logo on software you have no other connection with than to take
> advantage of the developers goodwill and use.
>
> Better still, stop wanking on about political correctness and write
> your own implementation and then you can use a nice politically
> correct logo.
>
> Tim
>
>
Furthermore, the software in question has the GPL for a license. You
can edit the code, and remove the fucking menorah from your copy.
--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
·······@gmail.com schrieb:
>
> I have observed that the current logo for clisp is not religiously
> neutral. ...
Some religious founder did not allow their followers to create an icon.
Hm... you can make one for that?
stefan
lin8080 wrote:
> Some religious founder did not allow their followers to create an icon.
> Hm... you can make one for that?
Um, they did. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
My Bath Fu is strong, as I have
studied under the Showerin' Monks.