Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On Do, 2016-01-07 at 18:14 -0500, Anthony Walter wrote: > > Napoleon conquered the world some 200 years ago. That is long enough as > nobody seems to have strong negative association with his actions > > Follow this link if you want to see why WW2, and by extension the people > who created it and

[Lazarus] Reducing output when building bigide?

Whenever I build Lazarus 1.6RC1 bigide, using the terminal command make bigide, there is a lot of seemingly unneeded screen output in the form of hints regarding "Sender" not being used and such. Is there any way to block this from being printed to screen? A parameter for make or something

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Anthony Walter wrote: > I have five uncles, on both my mother's and father's > side, who fought and died in WW2. When I've visited their graves in France > and Hawaii everyone I met seemed to a good understanding of the war's cost > in human life

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

Now this is strange: a "FREE SOFTWARE" project discussing whether they should or should not discuss political/historical/cultural views. 2016-01-08 13:43 GMT-03:00 Shaun O'Connor : > I concur completely, Just because a particular graphic is included in the >

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On 01/08/2016 10:44 AM, Mattias Gaertner wrote: On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:05:56 -0500 wkitt...@windstream.net wrote: [...] There is a difference between forbidding a flag and promoting it. having built-in procedures to paint flags and symbols is not promoting those symbols and flags... I'm

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

Il 08/01/2016 18:47, Juha Manninen ha scritto: No, this project must be politically NEUTRAL instead. I perfectly agree with this statement of yours, but this is not the case. I would never object to a collection of religious and political symbols, where swastika could have its place together

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On 08.01.2016 11:35, Mattias Gaertner wrote: The unit provides example functions for some common symbols, especially drawing flags (e.g. PaintBarbadosTrident, PaintCanadianMaple). It does not support a big amount of flags and symbols. It only supports a few selected flags and one of them was the

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 08.01.2016 11:35, Mattias Gaertner wrote: The unit provides example functions for some common symbols, especially drawing flags (e.g. PaintBarbadosTrident, PaintCanadianMaple). It does not support a big amount of flags and symbols. It only supports a few selected flags

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:19:09 +0100 Zeljko wrote: >[...] > Shall we ask hollywood producers to stop making > movies/documentaries which shows german nazi flag ? Shall we ask video > games makers to stop produce games which shows nazi symbols (eg. > wolfenstein) ? C'mon ppl

Re: [Lazarus] Reducing output when building bigide?

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:51:39 +0100 Bo Berglund wrote: > Whenever I build Lazarus 1.6RC1 bigide, using the terminal command > make bigide, there is a lot of seemingly unneeded screen output in the > form of hints regarding "Sender" not being used and such. > Is there any

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

Juha, Well said. This clearly came from the heart. It is not important as to whether or not I agree with what you have said. What is important is that you have and have exercised the right of free speech and that is what this is all about. Free speech may not include the "right to shout fire

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On 01/08/2016 10:48 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: Juha Manninen wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Terry A. Haimann wrote: As someone of Jewish heritage I say get rid of it. Mattias actually removed the function, obeying like a good German boy when somebody with

Re: [Lazarus] Reducing output when building bigide?

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:06:48 +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: >Bo Berglund wrote: >> Whenever I build Lazarus 1.6RC1 bigide, using the terminal command >> make bigide, there is a lot of seemingly unneeded screen output in the >> form of hints regarding "Sender"

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 01:27:20 +0100 "Roberto P." wrote: > My 2 cents: > > 1) a program routine is just a program routine, like pencils or a > paintbrush; neither of them is symbol. > If you are not comfortable with that symbol (any symbol that can be > offensive to anyone),

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

Juha Manninen wrote: On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Terry A. Haimann wrote: As someone of Jewish heritage I say get rid of it. Mattias actually removed the function, obeying like a good German boy when somebody with "Jewish heritage" tells him. Uhhh, I can't believe he did

Re: [Lazarus] Reducing output when building bigide?

Bo Berglund wrote: Whenever I build Lazarus 1.6RC1 bigide, using the terminal command make bigide, there is a lot of seemingly unneeded screen output in the form of hints regarding "Sender" not being used and such. Is there any way to block this from being printed to screen? A parameter for make

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 23:27:50 +0200 Juha Manninen wrote: >[...] > Unfortunately popular symbols get negative associations sometimes. How > long it takes to get rid of them? As long as it takes to get rid of Neo-Nazis. How long does it take to find out that this thread

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Marc Santhoff wrote: > It is. I'm living in Germany, and the law forbids the use of Nazi > symbols. I don't know exactly, what it looks like, but there actually is > a clear definition how it looks like. Probably the circle around the > swastika

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On Fr, 2016-01-08 at 08:16 -0500, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:43 AM, Marc Santhoff wrote: > > > People see something and are driven by feelings. I watched a case like > > this already regarding FreeBSD. Some users insisted of changing the > > deamon

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

Mattias, This sudden eruption of political correctness inspired me; and, as a person of proper upbringing, it led me to realize just how offended I have been all through these years of the profanity and vulgar language sprinkled in and among Lazarus sourcecode. A quick search reveals 69

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On 01/08/2016 06:16 AM, Mattias Gaertner wrote: On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:19:09 +0100 Zeljko wrote: [...] Shall we ask hollywood producers to stop making movies/documentaries which shows german nazi flag ? Shall we ask video games makers to stop produce games which shows nazi

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

Hello Matthias, On 08/01/16 10:40, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 23:27:50 +0200 > Juha Manninen wrote: > >> [...] >> Unfortunately popular symbols get negative associations sometimes. How >> long it takes to get rid of them? > > As long as it takes to

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:43 AM, Marc Santhoff wrote: > People see something and are driven by feelings. I watched a case like > this already regarding FreeBSD. Some users insisted of changing the > deamon logo because they are afraif of the devil. Rather ridiculous, it >

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On Fr, 2016-01-08 at 08:25 -0500, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Marc Santhoff wrote: > > > It is. I'm living in Germany, and the law forbids the use of Nazi > > symbols. I don't know exactly, what it looks like, but there actually is > > a clear

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

The historic relativism in some mails are shocking and shows horrific lack of historic knowledge. There was nothing good about the Nazis and it was their ideology and symbolism that got them to power and still attracts people to their twisted beliefs. There is nothing wrong with a PaintSwastika

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

I concur completely, Just because a particular graphic is included in the distribution densest oblige one to make use of it. If we all got nit picky about the meaning of various symbols we would never get anywhere, , I say let the matter rest and concentrate on continuing the good work of a

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

my 2 cents in a development environment there should be no room for any kind of symbolism, only primitives any symbolism can safely stand in an external/extra/optional library nomorelogic -- ___ Lazarus mailing list

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

My two cents. This has gotten completely out of hand. When an item has multiple meanings (e.g., artistic, religious or offensive political history) we should give it the benefit of the doubt and LEAVE IT IN. This is Lazarus (an international programming organization), not a totalitarian

Re: [Lazarus] Do we really need a PaintSwastika procedure?

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:05:56 -0500 wkitt...@windstream.net wrote: >[...] > > There is a difference between forbidding a flag and promoting it. > > having built-in procedures to paint flags and symbols is not promoting those > symbols and flags... I'm glad that you agree that removing a helper