Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect So which civil rights are you referring to? Details in a private reply So you're spewing slander across the broad spectrum of all or almost all Christians and refusing to back up your allegations in public? Yes, that will work well, methinks. -- Henning Makholm However, the fact that the utterance by Epimenides of that false sentence could imply the existence of some Cretan who is not a liar is rather unsettling.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:26:10AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p It is not about fear, just some uneasiness inside. IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be named and so one ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Am 18.12.03 um 11:05:36 schrieb Sven Luther: That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be named and so one ? Exactly: Debian GNU/First one that shall not be named Debian GNU/Next one that shall not be named Debian GNU/Other one that shall not be named Even the right letters. -- |=| Michael Piefel |=| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin |=| Tel. (+49 30) 2093 3831
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as What are the UUs? One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together (living in sin as some people will say) for several years. They approached him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not bother as having established commitment through living together for so long was good enough. Of course lots of vicars won't share that opinion. But in urban areas it's pretty common to shop around for a vicar who's opinions agree with yours anyway. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:10, David Palmer. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Supply all of the relevant, and none of the extraneous:- Debian GNU/Free Debian GNU/Net Debian GNU/Open I disagree. Debian GNU/Linux is free, it works well on the net, and it is open. I think that your naming suggestion will create confusion. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 20:08, Michael Piefel wrote: Am 18.12.03 um 11:05:36 schrieb Sven Luther: That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be named and so one ? Exactly: Debian GNU/First one that shall not be named Debian GNU/Next one that shall not be named Debian GNU/Other one that shall not be named Even the right letters. Supply all of the relevant, and none of the extraneous:- Debian GNU/Free Debian GNU/Net Debian GNU/Open No one need be upset at that. Just leave the BSD part off. It is understandable that the people at the various BSDs have some level of proprietary 'pride' in their creation. I don't think that this minimal association would upset them, the market knows what it is getting, and Theo De Raadt won't kill anybody because his distro is being associated with some kind of glorified fairy. Regards, David.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sven That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then Sven differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be Sven named and so one ? Indeed ! GNU/First one that shall not be named GNU/Next one that shall not be named GNU/Other one that shall not be named ~velco
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: ... neither of the two above, who are pretty obviously losers (even though they're certainly on very different sides; surprise, sometimes there's more than two of 'em). There's more than one actual difference between the two statements, though, and I claim those are much more relevant. For example, the one is a short list of specific persons, whereas the other is an enormous and ill- defined list (the number of people where it's not obviously clear if they count as Jews or non-Jews is pretty large). Also, I'm pretty sure that one of these groups consists only of deceased persons. Nobody can make them suffer. The actual point of hate speech, at least as I understand it (our terms for these things are not quite the same), is that it is (designed|likely) to cause such suffering. If pressed, I'd be likely to count stuff like admit it, you're just practising hate speech als hate speech, though, even though it is actually only targeted at a specific person (each time). Though it is probably entirely sufficient to characterize it as a blatant ad-hominem. Y'all are going to bust a vein on this one. So far, on *.debian.org, I've found a great many people who actively hate Jesus, this german who apparently has familiar views on Jews (as does frighteningly much of Europe), and a whole bunch of college professors who actively hate America. And everybody has communistic views on the business world. And, for third parties reading this in future, just look at what they're getting ready to do to *me*. Just for those keeping a scorecard. (I just want to be able to link to this post in future to completely destroy your credibility).
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Momchil Velikov wrote: Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sven That would be a funny naming scheme. That said, how would we then Sven differentiate the three BSD ports ? GNU/First one that shall not be Sven named and so one ? Indeed ! GNU/First one that shall not be named GNU/Next one that shall not be named GNU/Other one that shall not be named Loosely abbreviated: GNU/Fotsnoben GNU/Notsnoben GNU/Ootsnoben yeah, sounds very mystic. Probably means elk spit in some nordic language, too. I vote for that. cheers, dalibor topic
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Patrick) wrote on 18.12.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:32:41AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: | On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote: | | Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what | you hate. | | Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like | this... | | If I say I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, is that practising hate | speech? No, but if you say you hate Jews, then many would claim you are. If you wanted to be cynical, you could point out which side won the second world war... ... neither of the two above, who are pretty obviously losers (even though they're certainly on very different sides; surprise, sometimes there's more than two of 'em). There's more than one actual difference between the two statements, though, and I claim those are much more relevant. For example, the one is a short list of specific persons, whereas the other is an enormous and ill- defined list (the number of people where it's not obviously clear if they count as Jews or non-Jews is pretty large). Also, I'm pretty sure that one of these groups consists only of deceased persons. Nobody can make them suffer. The actual point of hate speech, at least as I understand it (our terms for these things are not quite the same), is that it is (designed|likely) to cause such suffering. If pressed, I'd be likely to count stuff like admit it, you're just practising hate speech als hate speech, though, even though it is actually only targeted at a specific person (each time). Though it is probably entirely sufficient to characterize it as a blatant ad-hominem. MfG Kai
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Baker) wrote on 17.12.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:25:11PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. ^^^ Straw man means imagining a problem and then attacking it, which is preciesly what you are doing here. Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect of Christianity under most circumstances, but drawing from the same traditions). Somehow, though, I find this unlikely. I haven't bothered to look closely at the smaller and more fundamentalist sects. The Unitarians might have a different position; they seem the most likely. But they don't have enough voting members to succeed against the above. Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. If I were a betting man, I'd bet I can guess what exactly it is - what the Anglicans are currently in not-quite-civil-war about. Of course, don't expect Nunya to ever get it. MfG Kai
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as What are the UUs? One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together (living in sin as some people will say) for several years. They approached him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not bother as having established commitment through living together for so long was good enough. What would Henry VIII do? -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henning Makholm) wrote on 18.12.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect So which civil rights are you referring to? Details in a private reply So you're spewing slander across the broad spectrum of all or almost all Christians and refusing to back up your allegations in public? Given that the one he replied to already *has* backed them up, I don't see your point. Yes, that will work well, methinks. It does. It tells me which one of you two to killfile. Hint; it's not Joel. MfG Kai
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:30:57PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as What are the UUs? Universal Unitarians. Sort of a cross between Christianity Lite and Pagan Lite; a very feel good religion, for the most part. One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together (living in sin as some people will say) for several years. They approached him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not bother as having established commitment through living together for so long was good enough. Of course lots of vicars won't share that opinion. But in urban areas it's pretty common to shop around for a vicar who's opinions agree with yours anyway. Well, yes. Like I said, many individual persons don't have any problem with what I do, particularly not once they see the relationship for any length of time. It's the collective that has issued policy statements condemning it, and *that* tends to influence a lot of people's assumptions. In other words, it's very much like someone saying Black people are all stupid and evil. Present company excepted, of course. (Note that I'm not trying to claim the breadth or depth of bias that was, and often still is, directed against that particular group; it's just an example that most people will be able to put into context.) -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgphcwJHC8GoO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:43:27PM -0800, Nunya wrote: The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Which is why the phrase In God We Trust is engraved or printed on all the US currency. That's why the Pledge of Allegiance has the phrase, Under God.. Yeah, adamant. -- Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ pgpBTIrBp9QEP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:52:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Baker) wrote on 17.12.03 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. If I were a betting man, I'd bet I can guess what exactly it is - what the Anglicans are currently in not-quite-civil-war about. Not quite, but it is a related issue somewhat further along the spectrum. One which, by it's nature, probably can't be addressed at all until the current fracas is settled (in a manner I'd consider favorable). It may be that, at some point in the future, the doctrinal statements change, especially that of the Anglicans; they seem one of the more likely. But, to date, it hasn't. Of course, don't expect Nunya to ever get it. No comment. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpBHiOYpRFkx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:21:23AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect So which civil rights are you referring to? Details in a private reply So you're spewing slander across the broad spectrum of all or almost all Christians and refusing to back up your allegations in public? Yes, that will work well, methinks. Anyone who wishes to: 1) Email me privately and ask 2) Read my livejournal (hint: it's obviously named, and should show up trivally with Google) 3) Recall comments made on #debian-devel in IRC 4) Read comments made in other posts to Debian lists in the past or 5) Do other basic Googling will be able to figure out exactly what topic I'm talking about. It isn't that I refuse to discuss it in public; it's that I'm tired of discussing it in this thread, on this mailing list. The 'slander', if such it is (and I, obviously, don't consider it such) is against the named set of churches, and those that follow their doctrinal decrees (which may be, but almost certainly isn't, the same set as their followers; most people disagree with at least one doctrine of their chosen church, in my unscientific, empirical observation). But, like I said. I'm willing to back it up, in private. I just don't particularly care to keep debating it on this list, at the moment, particularly given how far off-topic we've come. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgprMcf3j43X9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:48:31AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:15, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as What are the UUs? One Anglican minister I knew told me of a couple who had been living together (living in sin as some people will say) for several years. They approached him about arranging a wedding ceremony, and he suggested that they need not bother as having established commitment through living together for so long was good enough. What would Henry VIII do? Ck | N K,S And, from my upbringing, Wherever you find three or four Episcopalians, you'll find a fifth. (To those under the dominion of the Metric system, I apologize; this probably won't seem very funny...) -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpUt26d9tWQn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
This one time, at band camp, Tom said: Y'all are going to bust a vein on this one. So far, on *.debian.org, I've found a great many people who actively hate Jesus, this german who apparently has familiar views on Jews (as does frighteningly much of Europe), and a whole bunch of college professors who actively hate America. So far all i have observed you to find is your inability to either read or write. I guess you just like to hear yourself talk, which is fine, but would you mind doing it in a local bar, instead of where I expect to get some work done? And everybody has communistic views on the business world. I would suggest rereading. And, for third parties reading this in future, just look at what they're getting ready to do to *me*. ??? - this is a mailing list - what can they possibly do to you? (Besides individually kill-filing you, which I am doing now). Just for those keeping a scorecard. (I just want to be able to link to this post in future to completely destroy your credibility). Or yours. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgpFDAHEyjA5A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu 12/18/03 08:43, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:43:27PM -0800, Nunya wrote: The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Which is why the phrase In God We Trust is engraved or printed on all the US currency. That's why the Pledge of Allegiance has the phrase, Under God.. Yeah, adamant. Adamant about the seperation of state and non-christian churches[0]. But, of course us weirdos[1] in california decided the pledge was unconstitutional... of course I'm sure that was overturned[2]. And there is no _seperation_ of church and state. There is simply the freedom to choose your own religion, and the federal congress has no authority to make laws regaurding religion. However, this is the federal government, states (depending on their constitutions) can make laws as they see fit [3]. [0] Due to the definition of a religion. Satanism is generally described by the masses as a cult, rather than a religion. [1] Ok, it was really the 9th circuit of the US superior court (me thinks, but close enough. [2] I'm too lazy to check. [3] Well, almost, we did have a civil war over this. -- | Josh Lauricha| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Bioinformatics, UCR | |--|
Re: Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Adamant about the seperation of state and non-christian churches[0]. But, of course us weirdos[1] in california decided the pledge was unconstitutional... of course I'm sure that was overturned[2]. No, not overturned. Waiting on appeal to the Supreme Court, which takes its Own Sweet Time to do anything.
Re: Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
What are the UUs? Unitarian Universalists. Possibly the most liberal church in existence. I think they're great. ;-) They don't require adherence to any doctrine (you can even be a UU atheist; although it started out as a Christian group, that's now optional). They're very big on social justice and equality. Right-wingers would probably call them the politically correct chuch.
Re: Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:25:31PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Adamant about the seperation of state and non-christian churches[0]. But, of course us weirdos[1] in california decided the pledge was unconstitutional... of course I'm sure that was overturned[2]. No, not overturned. Waiting on appeal to the Supreme Court, which takes its Own Sweet Time to do anything. Well, I was the one who said it first but in fairness I'll admit you're right: there's about 5 more things like that: congress starts each day with a prayer, god is named during the president's swearing in, c. The atheists win that point.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:07:44PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? Oh, is *that* who Tom Ballard is? I'd heard about this guy. Stuff is starting to fall into place now. -- G. Branden Robinson|If you wish to strive for peace of Debian GNU/Linux |soul, then believe; if you wish to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |be a devotee of truth, then http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:32:41AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote:
Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what
you hate.
Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like
this...
If I say I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, is that practising hate
speech?
___ ___ _ _
/ ___|/ _ \| _ \ \ / /_ _| \ | |
| | _| | | | | | \ \ /\ / / | || \| |
| |_| | |_| | |_| |\ V V / | || |\ |
\|\___/|/ \_/\_/ |___|_| \_|
Bah, but you probably did that on purpose, invoking the Deliberate
Invocation Corollary.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from
Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | bad judgement.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:53:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:07:44PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? Oh, is *that* who Tom Ballard is? I'd heard about this guy. Stuff is starting to fall into place now. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html You guys usually argue circles around me. The fact that you're arguing so weakly out to tell you something.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 08:43:29AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:43:27PM -0800, Nunya wrote: The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Which is why the phrase In God We Trust is engraved or printed on all the US currency. That's why the Pledge of Allegiance has the phrase, Under God.. Yeah, adamant. The under God bit was added to the Pledge during the Eisenhower administration as a token gesture against godless communists. Not sure about the currency, but we (the U.S.) didn't even *have* federal currency until the 20th century. Historical revisionism has never been more successfully practiced than by Christians and capitalists in the United States during the 20th century. -- G. Branden Robinson| Eternal vigilance is the price of Debian GNU/Linux | liberty. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Wendell Phillips http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:02:29PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:43, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Point to something specific, and we'll kick the fuckers out. I along with many others are looking forward to seeing John Ashcroft being kicked out. /me rises from the pew and says Amen! See? I can be religious. -- G. Branden Robinson| What influenced me to atheism was Debian GNU/Linux | reading the Bible cover to cover. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Twice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- J. Michael Straczynski signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] The 'slander', if such it is (and I, obviously, don't consider it such) is against the named set of churches, and those that follow their doctrinal decrees Claiming that Christians are against civil liberties is slander in my book. You named, among other, a subset of Christians that I belong to, and claimed that our doctrinal decrees are against civil rights. I hold this to be untrue, and unless you can back up your claims, I am going to think of you as a liar. But, like I said. I'm willing to back it up, in private. If you're not willing to back up your accusations in public, you shouldn't make them in public. -- Henning Makholm Hele toget raslede imens Sjælland fór forbi.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 08:50:48PM +, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] The 'slander', if such it is (and I, obviously, don't consider it such) is against the named set of churches, and those that follow their doctrinal decrees Claiming that Christians are against civil liberties is slander in my book. You named, among other, a subset of Christians that I belong to, and claimed that our doctrinal decrees are against civil rights. I hold this to be untrue, and unless you can back up your claims, I am going to think of you as a liar. No, I claimed that the doctrinal decrees included condemnations of specific behavior which are turned into laws by a voting block that puts into power politicians who make laws based on those decrees, among other things. The end result of that process is one in which I am denied a specific civil right. But, like I said. I'm willing to back it up, in private. If you're not willing to back up your accusations in public, you shouldn't make them in public. I already have, just not in this forum. Go read the other sources I listed. But if you want more context in which to read, I'll offer you two words: Civil union (I won't use Marriage, because I find the mention of it in law to be one of the primary examples of religion intruding upon the secular law). And no, it's not same-sex unions that are at issue (as I said elsewhere). -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpK6HUMUaVcO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:26:10AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... Nah, bullshit. I've heard enough racists use that kind of reasoning. It's no big deal. Face it, you have to respect people. OTOH, I myself am going to lighten up. :-)
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 12:26, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p Of course an Ursula LeGuin reference would be that knowing an object's/person's real name allows you to control the object/person. sigh... I really do need to read the rest of the Wizard of Earthsea series. -- Stephen Depooter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:54:28PM -0500, Stephen Depooter wrote: On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 12:26, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p Of course an Ursula LeGuin reference would be that knowing an object's/person's real name allows you to control the object/person. This is, in fact, shared to some degree in Rowling's work. Note how few people know Voldemort's real name - and how much power that seems to grant them, in dealing with him. Or maybe it's just that they remember him being an adolescent prat, like everyone else, and don't see him as all that different. :) Voldemort! Voldemort! Voldemort! See, nothing hap... sigh... I really do need to read the rest of the Wizard of Earthsea series. Yes, you do. Don't forget the latest compilation of short stories. It gives a huge amount of (very valuble) context to the history behind some major plot points in the main series. Like why Roke has the strictures it does about the gender of students, and what they're allowed to do. Oh, and it wraps up some loose ends, too. Like the Master Summoner. And no, those aren't spoilers. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpEcuEMWUlkM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:26:10AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:42:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Well, just for the record, i personnally would prefer we don't use demon name for keyword if possible. Forgive me for the gratuitous Harry Potter reference, but fear of a name increases fear for the thing itself. ;-p IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... Hey, we already covered Lovecraftian names... -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpFjnRw0Nhdt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:42:27AM -0800, Nunya wrote: IOW, lighten up, people. Otherwise, we'll be referring to Debian GNU/That Which Shall Not Be Named... Nah, bullshit. I've heard enough racists use that kind of reasoning. It's no big deal. Face it, you have to respect people. And way out from Right Field... OTOH, I myself am going to lighten up. :-) Excellent! Maybe this thread will eventually drop. Or maybe I'll just killfile it like I should have a week ago. -- Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ pgpSixT4XR20W.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:21:40PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then There are very important distinctions between the following statements: Christians are stupid. Tenets of the Christian faith offend me. I consider a belief in X to be foolish/silly/stupid/whatever. Organized religion is meaningful only as a method of controlling people gullible enough to fall for it. [ ObDisclaimer: If you want to know which, if any, of the above are ] [ actually an opinion I hold, ask me in *private* email. ] One of these things is not like the others... one of these things is not the same. While the topicality is questionable (actually, it's not; it's pretty much completely off-topic), making assertions about behavior that happens to be a requirement for membership in a given group is not the same as making assertions about that group (for example, it applies equally to entities who are *not* part of that group, but exhibit the same behavior). -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpKOgpUatMr9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:00:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:21:40PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then There are very important distinctions between the following statements: Christians are stupid. Tenets of the Christian faith offend me. I consider a belief in X to be foolish/silly/stupid/whatever. Organized religion is meaningful only as a method of controlling people gullible enough to fall for it. I wasn't thinking of you, but let's take a quote of yours and see which of these statements is most applicable: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01512.html: (religious fanatics - the one group that seems more incapable of mastering spelling and grammar than the speakers of 'Leet) Is this about a tenet of the Christian faith? No Is it a statement about organized religion or mind control? No Is It a statement about a Christian's belief? No That only leaves one alternative. Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:16, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:00:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: I wasn't thinking of you, but let's take a quote of yours and see which of these statements is most applicable: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01512.html : (religious fanatics - the one group that seems more incapable of mastering spelling and grammar than the speakers of 'Leet) He did not say that all Christians are religious fanatics. Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate. Godwin. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:59:38PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: He did not say that all Christians are religious fanatics. Godwin. Copout.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:16:18PM -0800, Nunya wrote: I wasn't thinking of you, but let's take a quote of yours and see which of these statements is most applicable: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200312/msg01512.html: (religious fanatics - the one group that seems more incapable of mastering spelling and grammar than the speakers of 'Leet) Is this about a tenet of the Christian faith? No Correct. Is it a statement about organized religion or mind control? No Semi-correct. It is a statement about a sub-set of organized religion (to wit, the fanatical sub-set). But, technically, correct. Is It a statement about a Christian's belief? No Correct. That only leaves one alternative. Since you're fond of URLs: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html (I believe that's even the website that keeps appearing in this thread) I never claimed that the four statements I listed covered all statements made. To do so would, in fact, be a ludicrous statement. The statement above is not *any* of the four statements in my previous email; it is a fifth statement (among even more than that, but I can't be bothered to make a precise count; I simply know that it is no less than six, because Ican think of at least one additional statement that has been made). Therefore, it does *not* leave only one alternative. It leaves at least two, one of them being the exact statement made (granted, the statement was made in a context of humor based on informal empirical observation, rather than a rigorous scientific study, but since you have cited no such study to refute it, and it's my damn mailbox, I stand by my right to summarize it as I see it). Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate. As someone else already said, Godwin. It may, or may not, be a true statement that I have authored or spoken a statement that would qualify; in fact, given the number of things I have said or typed over the years, many of them ill-advised, I probably HAVE do so in at least one incident at some point, or something that could reasonably be taken as such. However, the statement in question is not, and in asserting that it is, you're attempting to argue from a point of emotion rather than logic. For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. It's certainly easy to *feel* like folks might just hate your beliefs, and often you for having them, when they're willing to go that far. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpW9weTJjL3f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 00:21, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 02:02:03PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: And way out from Right Field... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html go back and count the # of christians are stupid statements substitute any racial or ethnic group for christians see how the statements sound in your ears then Stupid people are stupid. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote: Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what you hate. Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like this... If I say I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, is that practising hate speech? Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. ^^^ Straw man means imagining a problem and then attacking it, which is preciesly what you are doing here. You all are so blatantly just stating your opinions as objective fact, so it's pretty hopeless. I've tried to appeal to your sense of fair treatment to all humans, which is a sentiment common to all decent people. I don't need to attack you: you're attitudes will turn off a sufficient percentage of people on their own.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:25:11PM -0800, Nunya wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or beliefs of someone you don't agree with are sufficient to condemn them to an eternity of suffering as hate speech (and I generally do), I'm on the catching end of such a statement from every person who supports, directly or indirectly, any sect of Christianity which I am aware of, all of whom advocate divine justice, and most of which also advocate the continued denial of civil rights as well. ^^^ Straw man means imagining a problem and then attacking it, which is preciesly what you are doing here. Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect of Christianity under most circumstances, but drawing from the same traditions). Somehow, though, I find this unlikely. I haven't bothered to look closely at the smaller and more fundamentalist sects. The Unitarians might have a different position; they seem the most likely. But they don't have enough voting members to succeed against the above. Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. You all are so blatantly just stating your opinions as objective fact, so it's pretty hopeless. I've tried to appeal to your sense of fair treatment to all humans, which is a sentiment common to all decent people. Fair treatment is exactly what I'm claiming is being denied me, by the large religious voting block formed by adherents of the above-listed religions, which form a significantly more than majority share of the population of the United States, and the state of Colorado, today, when they vote to support politicians who adhere to the position statements of those institutions and their followers. I don't need to attack you: you're attitudes will turn off a sufficient percentage of people on their own. I cannot respond to this in any fashion that is anything except pointless invective. While it would relieve some tension for me, it wouldn't really serve any long-term purpose. So, instead, I'll remove the source of tension. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpxelvR913qN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:39:07PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Fair treatment is exactly what I'm claiming is being denied me, by the large religious voting block formed by adherents of the above-listed religions, which form a significantly more than majority share of the population of the United States, and the state of Colorado, today, when they vote to support politicians who adhere to the position statements of those institutions and their followers. The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Point to something specific, and we'll kick the fuckers out. Point to something general, and I'll say point to something specific.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:32:41AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: | On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote: | | Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what | you hate. | | Ya know, I've always wondered something when people say things like | this... | | If I say I hate Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, is that practising hate | speech? No, but if you say you hate Jews, then many would claim you are. If you wanted to be cynical, you could point out which side won the second world war... Cameron.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:59:38PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: He did not say that all Christians are religious fanatics. Godwin. Copout. Yes, it is too bad he is copping (sp) out on discussing all sorts of things immediately relevant to the development of Debian. Can we please get back to some more pertinent flames? -- gram signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:43, Nunya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:39:07PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Fair treatment is exactly what I'm claiming is being denied me, by the large religious voting block formed by adherents of the above-listed religions, which form a significantly more than majority share of the population of the United States, and the state of Colorado, today, when they vote to support politicians who adhere to the position statements of those institutions and their followers. The US is pretty adamant about separation of church and state. Point to something specific, and we'll kick the fuckers out. I along with many others are looking forward to seeing John Ashcroft being kicked out. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect [...] Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. So which civil rights are you referring to? The Anglican church seems to be doing reasonably well in terms of civil rights recently (I think that they already have gay priests, and gay marriage is being debated). Quite a number of Anglican ministers and members of the congregation have defected to the Catholic church because of this (and they apparently are not missed at all). I haven't been following the matter closely, I haven't been an Anglican (or any type of Christian) for some time. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? -- gram signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect [...] Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing. So which civil rights are you referring to? The Anglican church seems to be doing reasonably well in terms of civil rights recently (I think that they already have gay priests, and gay marriage is being debated). Quite a number of Anglican ministers and members of the congregation have defected to the Catholic church because of this (and they apparently are not missed at all). I haven't been following the matter closely, I haven't been an Anglican (or any type of Christian) for some time. Details in a private reply (and I'll send them to those who ask - privately; we're already so far off topic we're losing sight of dry land). The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as such, but they WILL recognize an oath of enduring commitment sworn before God, under their doctrines - or at least, that is the summation of the ceremony issue that I was given by a member of said clergy and long-time friend, about a month ago, after the ordainment of the Bishop that caused the latest not-quite-schism). My personal experience is, in fact, that most members of the Anglican communion that I have contact with are, at worst (for me), somewhat discomfitted by a clash between doctrine and principle. They are the same people who voted to allow the recent changes. Which is one reason why I take issue with organized religion far more often than with people who happen to be members of it, but don't have personal problems with my actions - they happen to be the most likely to vote (in secular elections) against the implied vote that the doctrinal statement would expect. Or, to steal a quote, A *person* is smart. *People* are dumb, stupid, panicky animals and you know it. -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' : `. `' `- pgpdMydc6X9DA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:07:44PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:03:00PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:44:58PM -0800, Nunya Who wrote: Oh, its our good friend Tom Ballard. Maybe you could get back to working on Debian and stop trolling now? Man, that is so fucking weak.
Re: [OT] Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 06:30, Chad Walstrom wrote: On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:51:47 -0800, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Well, it depends on what mythology you're working from. In the Christian mythology, which is probably the dominant context for evaluating that sort of question, On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:29:15PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: And, pray tell, why is that? Hindu mythology had demons far longer than Christianity (indeed, probably longer than any of the faiths of the descendents of Abraham). So what makes the Christian mythology more dominant? I don't think Russ was digging for a fight when he made that statement. Most likely his mind was wandering on more interesting topics, so he didn't qualify each statement with a disclaimer about his opinion. I'm still amused that people equate Loki with evil. ;-) He's just misunderstood! It's Lokis' association with other factors such as fire and famine that tend to lend a connotation of evil to his reputation in the minds of some people, that's all. Pre Charlie Daniels, there was a guy that won a competition with the devil (again involving a fiddle playing contest), and the devils' part of the deal was to leave forever, and never bother mankind again. 'Fair is fair', he said, 'You won, and I'll go, but before I do, think about this. From now on, who are you going to blame it on.' Lots of people need to keep the devil around in some form or another, but they're not existentialists.
