"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fabian Keil > >Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:26 AM > >To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > >Subject: Re: Demon license? > > > > > >"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Greg Lehey said: > >> > >> "I'm sure we would object if someone drew a 'devil' image and > >> associated it with FreeBSD." > >> > >> Re-read this please. "DEVIL" image? What is that? Devil in > >> this context is a religious term. So what Greg is really saying > >> here is that "we" would object if someone drew a religious image > >> and associated it with FreeBSD" > > > >You are quoting out of context. > > > >Greg wasn't referring to Beastie as devil, the person before him was. > > That would be me, and no I was not as I've explained twice now. > > >Greg was intentional "misunderstanding" that Beastie was meant with > >devil. At least that's how I understood it. > > > > Greg doesen't generally post to that level of complexity. What he is > objecting to is pretty straightforward - Beastie isn't a devil. Well > the word "devil" is a religious term, so what Greg means is that > "Beastie isn't a religious icon and anyone's use of the word 'devil' > in conjunction with Beastie carries the incorrect connotation that > Beastie is a religious icon" > > If your disagreeing with that, then are you supporting the idea that > Beastie looks like a devil AKA icon objectionable on religious grounds?
I think it's a reasonable idea, that a person not knowing BSD might come to the conclusion, that Beastie is a small nice looking devil. I guess I did it myself, but I don't remember. Beastie looks cute, that's good enough for me. I couldn't care less, if he's just looking like a devil or if he's supposed to be one. > Because that is the converse of what Greg is saying. > > Greg took my meaning as Beastie=devil, not "devil-looking-image could be > drawn and associated with FreeBSD by anyone" > > I realize that the idea I was attempting to convey was more complex and > deeper than a 2 second sound bite. Please carefully reread the thread > and > I think you will understand it better. When I used the word "devil" in > the sentence I was meaning a graphical drawing of a red being with horns > and a tail, and that should have been apparent. I was not meaning the > Catholic religious interpretation of the word "devil" meaning Satan. I got that. > It is a sad commentary on the power of the religious conservative > movement that you can't even use the word "devil" to mean anything > other than "Satan" in a sentence anymore. > > Greg objects to the term "devil" in association with Beastie because > he knows that too many stupid people cannot make this distinction > anymore, and it's safer to simply not use the word "devil" anywhere > near FreeBSD or Beastie so as to avoid these stupid people from > claiming FreeBSD is a satanic operating system. And this as well. > I disagree with this because I will always choose to fight against > ignorance rather than just accept it and make up some politically > correct mealymouthed excuse. Sure, some stupid people cannot be > educated into understanding that the Beastie image isn't an image > of a devil, because they believe that the only possible interpretation > of the word "devil" is Satan. I would rather work to educate them, > like I'm working to educate you, that not all uses of "devil" are > religious. If you or they cannot accept this, then go to Hell. ;-) I have no problem accepting it, however I think I can differentiate between devil (the evil fallen angel) and devil (the outfit), even if I didn't make this clear in the other mail. What's more important, I wouldn't care I the core team decided to use the first meaning. I'm not a big fan of political correctness myself. Fabian -- http://www.fabiankeil.de/
pgph58Drk8hdL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
