Christian Seberino wrote:
On Mon, March 26, 2007 3:17 pm, Gabriel Sechan wrote:
You're self contradictory here. You say that marriage is the only
acceptable outlet for sex. Then you claim marriage isn't (just) about
sex.
Then you say the religion isn't sexuall repressed. At least one of these
is
not true.
What do you mean? Do you mean if marriage is about more than sex that
suddenly it can't satisfy that anymore? Linux is trying to be a excellent
desktop to compete for the end user. Does that mean it can't be a great
web server anymore?
_Linux_ is not trying to be anything. It's an idea. It has not thoughts,
let alone needs. The closest you might come to giving it a persona is
calling it a movement. But it's really not that either.
There are certainly many Linux _users_ who would like to see Linux
/function/ excellently as a desktop (computing) solution. There are also
many users who just want Linux to function as an excellent back room
server, or router, or whatever.
However, wanting an excellent desktop solution does not require the use
of Linux, especially if, in doing so, other functionality is adversely
affected. There are certainly good reasons for _not_ using Linux even if
it does satisfy the desktop needs.
Many people in this country have
tried the sex without marriage route and it generally works pretty
well.
Marriage basically is about a promise not to abandon someone. I think
most people want a promise like that. Whether sex without marriage
works
pretty well is a big question. I doubt it. I wonder if all the
out-of-wedlock children would agree with you that it works pretty well.
You think they'd prefer to not be born instead?
I think they'd prefer to be born into a home with married parents. Don't
you?
cs
Don't know all of them (do you?), so I can't speak for all of them them
(Can you?).
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
