On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:42:09PM -0500, Eric d'Alibut wrote: > I don't have any idea what Shuttleworth's politics are, but he > obviously does not hesitate to associate himself -- even if "only" > semantically -- with so-called revolutionary movements known for their > terrorist agendas.
In what way does "ubuntu.org" have a terrorist agenda? Or does pacifist equate to terrorist in your dictionary? If you can demonstrate that it _does_ genuinely have a terrorist or militant agenda, I'll stand corrected. <rant> "Terrorist" has become such a bull-shit word. The worst "terrorist" is America, with your depleted uranium "dirty-bombs" which you throw around at every opportunity, with your arms-companies selling land-mines to anyone who wants one, with your "oil before people" capitalist mentality, with your "shock and awe" tactics and your moronic amoral president, with your consumerism and obesity in a world where people are starving, with your "our lifestyle is more important than your life" mentality. Take a good look at your own country's agenda. Australia is not much better. </rant> I doubt that the name Ubuntu Linux was chosen in order to associate the product with the politics of ubuntu.org, but if it was, good on them for supporting an organization that (as far as I can see) promotes international peace. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
