Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.

[Andrew DeFaria <Andrew at DeFaria dot com>]

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 minimum, the obfuscation you describe is absolutely 
> required. However, I'd like an answer to a question which I raised 
> with a different poster: What's the reason to provide this profanity 
> at all in the Cygwin distro? 

People, people! We're forgetting the real reason why we slave and toil 
with Cygwin! The answer to your question Gary is simple - Because we're 
mean! There ya go! End of discussion!

> To the best of my knowledge, there are no Cygwin X-screensavers loaded 
> with obfuscated pornographic pictures. I can't imagine one being 
> accepted were it to be proposed by somebody. But dirty limericks get 
> the green light? Why?

'Cause their funny! And because we're mean!

> But, in the intrest of the desire of many here to have their porn and 
> limericks too, I offer this new constructive vote category suggestion:
>
> "[ ] I demand more filth! Add a new "Porn" category to Setup!"
>
> Frankly, I'd think just pulling the off-color material is the easiest 
> solution from a legal, moral, technical, and argumentological standpoint.

Translation: I will continue my proslitizing until I get my way!


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/