Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
...
Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user.
Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus
that's his consent.
Not quite.
Try clicking on the root installer node to specify to install
everything. You
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 12:43:40PM -0500, Daniel B. wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
...
Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user.
Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus
that's his consent.
Not quite.
Try clicking on the
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Daniel B. wrote:
[snip]
The thread is dead. Long live the thread!
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|,4- )
/LURK
[ ] Offended. Think about the children!
[x] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values.
[ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list
is now?
LURK
--
The content of this e-mail is confidential, may contain privileged material
and is
Oh for the love of me, DeFaria:
[snip]
Please do not try to express a false legal opinion to justify a
faulty personal one.
I am expressing no legal opinion. I am merely stating the
obvious: if
there's no potty-mouth there to offend, nobody can be
offended by the
potty-mouth.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Oh for the love of me, DeFaria:
Actually I don't love you at all.
[snip]
You snipped the good stuff. So are you a lawyer or a potty mouthed
junior high-school sys admin? We are dying to know!
Please do not try to express a false legal opinion to justify a
faulty
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 06:20:45PM +0100, Volker Bandke wrote:
BTW, my computer randomly selected the tagline below. Is it
obscene? Should I burn my Laptop (she wouldn't like that, I am
sure)
Sex without love is an empty experience, but, as empty experiences
go, it's one of the best. --
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Cygwin already provides the content.
Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user.
Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus that's his
consent.
The user does not know he is giving consent to
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this
obscene content?
This is not the question.
Yes, it is.
Arbitrary pronouncement, in light of this I see no flaw in my
reasoning. The content exists, it has already been provided. Should
Francis Litterio wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Cygwin already provides the content.
Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user.
Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus
that's his consent.
The user does not know he is giving
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Francis Litterio wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Cygwin already provides the content.
Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user.
Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus that's
his consent.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Reed
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 12:51 PM
To: Gary R. Van Sickle
Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On 2005-01-08T17:57-0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
) - The limericks in question are of interest only to
junior-highschool-age
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Reed
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 12:51 PM
To: Gary R. Van Sickle
Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On 2005-01-08T17:57-0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
) - The limericks in question are of interest only to
junior
On 8 Jan 2005 at 1:37, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
[snip]
Why would you suggest that expressing a thought, however you
might disagree with it, should be illegal?
For the silly reason that I happen to know that a lot of things related to
Nazis or Hitler in Deutschland ungültig ist.
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
It's simple
common sense.
In a world where McDonalds loses a bajillion-dollar lawsuit because its
coffee is hot, common sense is a thing of the past my naive friend.
Actually, McDonald's lost that suit not because the idiot spilled it on
her
On Jan 7 19:39, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote:
== fortunes2-o ==
Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that
cocaine stuff
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in
Nuremberg trial
Is
On Jan 8 01:37, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Why would you suggest that expressing a thought, however you
might disagree with it, should be illegal?
For the silly reason that I happen to know that a lot of things related to
Nazis or Hitler in Deutschland ung?ltig ist. Ferinstance, check
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
For the silly reason that I happen to know that a lot of things related to
Nazis or Hitler in Deutschland ungültig ist. Ferinstance, check out the
German aircraft in MS's Combat Flight Simulator - no swastikas, 'cause if
there were, they couldn't
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle might have said:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Good thing I didn't install it at work, and that I don't work at a
Megacorp that has whole departments devoted to rooting through
peoples' files looking for reasons to fire them.
IMHO, this is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Probably because some expressions relating to Nazism are illegal in
Germany. One of our German users would probably know this for sue.
Correct. Denying that the Nazis killed million of Jews is a criminal offense.
Spying on somebody else's
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this
obscene content?
Yes, why not?
Yes, it is traditional.
Yes, administrators like those kind of things.
Yes, computers are not for children.
Yes, because we like freedom of speech.
Yes, because we like
On Jan 8 01:37, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Why would you suggest that expressing a thought, however
you might
disagree with it, should be illegal?
For the silly reason that I happen to know that a lot of things
related to Nazis or Hitler in Deutschland ung?ltig ist.
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
For the silly reason that I happen to know that a lot of things
related to Nazis or Hitler in Deutschland ungültig ist.
Ferinstance,
check out the German aircraft in MS's Combat Flight Simulator - no
swastikas, 'cause if there were,
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle might have said:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Good thing I didn't install it at work, and that I
don't work at a
Megacorp that has whole departments devoted to rooting through
peoples' files looking for reasons to fire them.
Gerrit P. Haase (who should know better) wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this
obscene content?
Yes, why not?
Because they're lousy with potty-mouth.
Yes, it is traditional.
Granted, off-color jokes are as old as time.
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle might have said:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle might have said:
define 'profane' first
Any of the limericks under discussion. Your turn.
that's an example; not a definition
--
Unsubscribe info:
The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene
content?
This is not the question. Cygwin already provides the content.
Therefore the question is: should it be removed? That is to take action
beyond that which is already available to the user. Those actions being
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase (who should know better) wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this
obscene content?
Yes, why not?
Because they're lousy with potty-mouth.
IYHO I might add.
Yes, it is traditional.
Granted,
Joshua Kolden wrote:
You argue that it should, because you bleepasses/bleep some of the
content as obscene, ...
Joshua! How could continue to put forth obscene and offensive filth onto
the Internet, even as a typo! ;-)
You're only giving Gary more ammunition!
--
I put contact lenses in my dog's
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Joshua Kolden wrote:
You argue that it should, because you bleepasses/bleep some of
the content as obscene, ...
Joshua! How could continue to put forth obscene and offensive filth
onto the Internet, even as a typo! ;-)
You're only giving Gary more ammunition!
Oh shit I'm
Joshua Kolden wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Joshua Kolden wrote:
You argue that it should, because you bleepasses/bleep some of
the content as obscene, ...
Joshua! How could continue to put forth obscene and offensive filth
onto the Internet, even as a typo! ;-)
You're only giving Gary more
There is also the issue of legal risk. Is the material illegal in any
country (which would cause obvious difficulty for any user or
maintainer in such countries) and do any of these countries apply
their laws extra territorially (which might cause problems to anyone
visiting a country with an
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Kolden
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 2:31 PM
To: Gary R. Van Sickle
Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin
-Original Message-
From: Volker Bandke
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 4:03 PM
To: Gary R. Van Sickle
Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
[snip]
But why aren't you putting fortune-o's in your siggy as well?
I am not?
[snip]
No, you are not. Why is that? In your
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Cygwin already provides the content.
Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user.
Bull. It is not installed by default. The user must select it, thus
that's his consent.
You have almost completely misstated my argument. Allow me to restate
it in
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:43:55PM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:47:35PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:40:16PM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:26:08PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu,
On Jan 6 20:03, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Ah jeez deFaria:
As an atheist I always wonder why christians can turn the
other cheek
but cannot seem to muster how to turn their eyes away!
As a thinking man, I always wonder why atheists:
1. Hate Christianity, yet harbor no such hatred
On Jan 6 21:18, Charles Wilson wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files?
[ ] Offended. Think about the children!
[ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values.
[ ] Don't care. Can we go back to
not about
jokes in the first place, but somehow this discussion reminds me
of the book in a fatal way
I've follow with interest this talk about an obscene content in cygwin
file and I agree 100 % with Corinna.
Stop wanting to burn Witches or to chase Communists, they are all dead
Argh please enough with the pedantic and infantile America/American
bashing. It's disgusting. Everyone act like mature adults PLEASE!
Zach
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:29:03 +0100, Corinna Vinschen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 6 21:18, Charles Wilson wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
How do
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
NB: Did anybody read Fahrenheit 451 from Ray Bradbury?
It's not about
jokes in the first place, but somehow this discussion reminds me
of the book in a fatal way.
Me too, it also reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron.
Bill
--
___
oo //
Brian Bruns wrote:
As grown adults, who are capable of making our own decisions, we need
to not let our religious views, or personal views for that matter,
impede on others who have their own views.
How dare you try to force that point of view on us!
That's moral recusrion.
--
Unsubscribe
On Jan 7 01:28, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
Right now I'm looking at the debian packages instead:
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortune-mod
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortunes-bofh-excuses
which generate 5 packages: fortune-mod (the binaries),
On Jan 7 06:35, Zachary Uram wrote:
Argh please enough with the pedantic and infantile America/American
bashing. It's disgusting. Everyone act like mature adults PLEASE!
The whole discussion isn't exactly mature. Time to move the discussion
to cygwin-talk, I guess. I've set the Reply-To
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
Sent: 07 January 2005 11:44
To: cygwin; cygwin-talk
Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Jan 7 06:35, Zachary Uram wrote:
Argh please enough with the pedantic and infantile America/American
bashing
[ ] Offended. Think about the children!
[ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values.
[ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how
negative this list is now?
[x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional
in the extreme and can only result
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:04:49PM -0800, Raye Raskin wrote:
Expletive deleted.
Well, thanks! That is in perfect keeping with the rest of this thread.
Just imagine the consequences if you hadn't deleted that expletive. We'd
have another long thread about whether the cygwin mailing list should
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:22:32AM -0500, Brian Bruns wrote:
Personally, I thought that them doing this was a sign of a more
innocent time, where we didn't have to worry about every single
word that came out of our mouth (or keyboard).
Seriously guy, your type is one of the primary reasons
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:25:42PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
NB: Did anybody read Fahrenheit 451 from Ray Bradbury? It's not about
jokes in the first place, but somehow this discussion reminds me
of the book in a fatal way.
I read the book but I don't remember it too well. I've
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Yeah, it does. For the first time in history, there are now two
lawyers for every human on the planet. Lawyers subsist almost entirely
on a diet of lawsuits.
Funny, I thought they ate food like the rest of us...
Actually, when you think about it, it's impossible for that
Kal Dee schrieb:
Not sure if the highly obscene limericks (/usr/share/fortune/limerick)
are meant to be in the cygwin distro...
phpwiki optionally uses fortune to fill in fresh pages with some stupid
quotes. nobody ever so far complained about those limericks.
phpwiki pages are publicly
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:40:35PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jan 7 01:28, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
Right now I'm looking at the debian packages instead:
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortune-mod
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortunes-bofh-excuses
Of Christopher Faylor
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:52 AM
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:22:32AM -0500, Brian Bruns wrote:
Personally, I thought that them doing this was a sign of a more
innocent time, where we didn't have to worry about
Terry Dabbs wrote:
I worked at a division headquarters of large company, where we had
hundreds of people who would log into their email account on the VAX.
When logging in you would see a message of the day. The guy
administering this got tired of the same old boring messages and
started
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Good thing I didn't install it at work, and that I don't work at a Megacorp
that has whole departments devoted to rooting through peoples' files looking
for reasons to fire them.
IMHO, this is the single best reason for obfuscating the profanity with
rot13.
--
Expletive deleted.
Well, thanks! That is in perfect keeping with the rest of this thread.
Just imagine the consequences if you hadn't deleted that expletive. We'd
have another long thread about whether the cygwin mailing list should be
censored.
And then, of course, there's the children.
;-)
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jan 7 01:28, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
Right now I'm looking at the debian packages instead:
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortune-mod
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortunes-bofh-excuses
which generate 5
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Raye Raskin
Sent: 07 January 2005 17:23
Hey, Christopher, if you want to see something *really* offensive,
just take a look at this:
**
This e-mail
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
Sent: 07 January 2005 14:52
Business issues are not the point here, though. My issue is that I
grant others the right to be offended by the type of language we're
talking about. It is a given that there are many
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Peter A. Castro might have said:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jan 7 01:28, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
Right now I'm looking at the debian packages instead:
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/fortune-mod
OK, anybody still reading this thread probably already knows how to
do this, but just in case, here's what you need to do to clean up
your fortune files (other than just deleting them):
First, make sure you have the tools you need and double-check that
the offensive files are in plaintext:
$ ls
Mike wrote:
Since you must *ask* for the 'rude' version of fortune (fortune -o)
before you get any of the alleged offensive material, then what's the
problem?
@ fortune
sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting, adage
category: Games
requires: cygwin
The problem is that it doesn't inform the
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Jon A. Lambert might have said:
Mike wrote:
Since you must *ask* for the 'rude' version of fortune (fortune -o)
before you get any of the alleged offensive material, then what's the
problem?
@ fortune
sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting, adage
category:
Mike wrote:
I would have been better informed about the nature of the package.
How eloquent.
Try 'man fortune'.
man fortune doesn't work until after you've already downloaded and installed
the offensive material on your machine.
--
Unsubscribe info:
Jon A. Lambert wrote:
Mike wrote:
I would have been better informed about the nature of the package.
How eloquent.
Try 'man fortune'.
man fortune doesn't work until after you've already downloaded and
installed the offensive material on your machine.
Yes but it *can* work just after you install
Yes but it *can* work just after you install it but before
you ever run
it! This part seems like a disclaimer if I've ever saw one:
-oChoose only from potentially offensive aphorisms. Please,
please,
please request a potentially offensive fortune if
and only if
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:25:42PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
NB: Did anybody read Fahrenheit 451 from Ray Bradbury? It's not about
jokes in the first place, but somehow this discussion reminds me
of the book in a fatal way.
I read
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Good thing I didn't install it at work, and that I don't work at a
Megacorp that has whole departments devoted to rooting through
peoples' files looking for reasons to fire them.
IMHO, this is the single best reason for obfuscating the
profanity with
The David Korn who is not the Korn Shell guy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
Sent: 07 January 2005 14:52
Business issues are not the point here, though. My issue is that I
grant others the right to be offended by the type of
Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote:
== fortunes2-o ==
Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that
cocaine stuff
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in
Nuremberg trial
Is something like this even legal in Germany?
--
Gary R.
Most agree that it's a packaging bug in fortune, and that the
limericks file should be renamed limericks-o and ROT13'd.
End of discussion.
Nononono, don't you try to force your end-of-discussion values on ME!
I agree that at a minimum, the obfuscation you describe is absolutely
required.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Jon A. Lambert might have said:
Mike wrote:
Since you must *ask* for the 'rude' version of fortune
(fortune -o)
before you get any of the alleged offensive material, then
what's the
problem?
@ fortune
sdesc: Print a random, hopefully interesting,
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for providing the
profanity at all?
A number of people like them.
Best,
Rodrigo
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:
- Original Message -
From: Rodrigo de Salvo Braz
To: Gary R. Van Sickle
Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 6:04 PM
Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for
providing
the profanity at all?
A number of people like them.
Best,
Rodrigo
A number of people like hard pore cornography too. Cygwin doesn't provide
that, at least not in
- Original Message -
From: Gary R. Van Sickle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 6:18 PM
Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for
providing
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for providing
the profanity at all?
Hello?
Anybody?
Apparently some distros have split off the package into parts like
fortune - the program with no data
fortune-min - the quotes
fortune-off - the stuff that'd
Jon Lambert wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Perhaps. Could somebody tell me the single-best reason for
providing
the profanity at all?
Hello?
Anybody?
Apparently some distros have split off the package into parts like
fortune - the program with no data
fortune-min - the
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
A number of people like them.
A number of people like hard pore cornography too. Cygwin doesn't provide
that, at least not in visual form, at least not that I'm aware of.
The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Most agree that it's a packaging bug in fortune, and that the
limericks file should be renamed limericks-o and ROT13'd.
End of discussion.
Nononono, don't you try to force your end-of-discussion values on ME!
Heh... On most other messages
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote:
== fortunes2-o ==
Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that
cocaine stuff
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in Nuremberg trial
Is something like this even legal in Germany?
Why would you
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Most agree that it's a packaging bug in fortune, and that the
limericks file should be renamed limericks-o and ROT13'd. End of
discussion.
Nononono, don't you try to force your end-of-discussion values on ME!
[I'm not done forcing my morals on you...]
I agree that at a
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:26:26PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote:
== fortunes2-o ==
Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that
cocaine stuff
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in Nuremberg
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
A number of people like hard pore cornography too. Cygwin doesn't
provide that, at least not in visual form, at least not that I'm aware of.
The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this
obscene content?
Same reason any other piece of functionality
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:41:58AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:26:26PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote:
== fortunes2-o ==
Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that
On 5 Jan 2005 at 23:38, Christopher Faylor wrote:
How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files?
[ ] Offended. Think about the children!
[ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values.
[ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how
More DeFaria:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote:
== fortunes2-o ==
Would you please have another look at my nose and put in
that cocaine
stuff
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Giesing in Nuremberg trial
Is something like this
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:26:26PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Jerry Williams, not of the band Grateful Dead, wrote:
== fortunes2-o ==
Would you please have another look at my nose and put in that
cocaine stuff
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr.
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:32:14PM -0500, Brian Bruns wrote:
Remember, alot of these have been in the fortunes package for god
knows how long, and Cygwin isn't the only one thats going to have
them. I'm betting that any distro that has the
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 09:57:48AM +0100, Vaclav Haisman wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:32:14PM -0500, Brian Bruns wrote:
Remember, alot of these have been in the fortunes package for god
knows how long, and Cygwin isn't the only one thats
On Jan 5 23:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:36:53PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not sure if the highly obscene limericks (/usr/share/fortune/limerick)
are meant to be in the cygwin distro...
Wow. I think I vaguely recall that something like this was in fortune
On Jan 5 23:43, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
Ok, I will maintain it and will get a release out in the next couple
days (one week at the outside). For the record, I will be changing
limerick (and gerrold.limerick, which is in the freebsd sources) to -o
files but continuing to install them.
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Kal.Dee
Sent: 06 January 2005 03:37
Hi all,
Not sure if the highly obscene limericks (/usr/share/fortune/limerick)
are meant to be in the cygwin distro...
Kalman Dee
Canberra, OZ
:) ROFLMAO thank you for pointing out this
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:54:16 -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
My write-in candidate:
[x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the
extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble.
As a Christian, I agree with Gary. :)
I actually
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:24:17AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jan 5 23:43, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
Ok, I will maintain it and will get a release out in the next couple
days (one week at the outside). For the record, I will be changing
limerick (and gerrold.limerick, which is in
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
Sent: 06 January 2005 04:39
Maybe we need a vote. I would really like to know how people
feel about
this. We haven't had a vote in a long time so:
How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin
Christopher Faylor wrote:
How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files?
[ ] Offended. Think about the children!
[ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values.
[x] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this
list is now?
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:54:16 -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
My write-in candidate:
[x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the
extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble.
As a Christian, I agree with Gary. :)
I actually think it's
Me too:
[x] Not offended. Clean it up anyway. It's unprofessional in the
extreme and can only result in embarassment and trouble.
I agree it should be rot-13 etc.
--
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem
Dear Cygwinistas:
Steve Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] offers:
Maybe the package maintainer could consider building two
packages : a 'clean' fortune and rename the current package
to 'fortune-xxx'. I have no idea how easy or difficult this
is, but it would satisfy both camps.
I second
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
