Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:57:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Good <tomg@nrnet.org> To: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Gary Kline <kline@tera.com>, Dutch Collins <dutch@charm.net>, Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Question about the mascot Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990812080926.3751A-100000@mailhost.nrnet.org> In-Reply-To: <37B21484.E48CF5A3@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > You are proving my point here. You don't care about the marketing
> > > implications at all, it just makes you feel good to know that you are
> >
> > Argumentum ad hominem, Doug.
>
> No, an ad hominem argument is something like, "You're ugly and your mother
> dresses you funny, therefore you are wrong about the mascot." My pointing
You stated previously:
#############################################################################
> You are proving my point here. You don't care about the marketing
> implications at all, it just makes you feel good to know that you are
> thumbing your nose at society. Don't get me wrong, as far as I'm concerned
> that's a perfectly legitimate thing to feel good about, and goes along
> quite well with the fact that freebsd is a vanity OS by and for the
> developers.
> Doug
#############################################################################
Or was this another `Doug' ?
Your assertion is that my alleged disdain for society is why I oppose
your efforts to sanitize the mascot...
How, pray tell, do you have privy to my emotions? This sounds like
an either you possess impressive omniscience or are engaging in an
ad hominem attack...
You also term FreeBSD a `vanity OS'. It sounds to me like you have issues
with more than the logo. Are you aware that `vanity' has a pejorative
attached and this sounds like you are *personally attacking* the authors?
> out that your own words show you to be on the side of those I am arguing
> against is not an attack on you, it's an accurate description of your
> position.
You grasp neither my position nor my emotional state, friend.
> > My point is that if a product/idea requires a paradigm shift you make
> > some people uncomfortable. Also, you seem less informed about marketing
> > than you may wish to believe.
>
> Now we're veering off into an area that can't be debated on its merits, so
> there is no point in continuing down that road. In reality I am quite well
> informed about marketing principles but there is no point in trying to
> prove that to you.
Impressive counterpoint.
> > This issue to me is one of free speech,
>
> No, it isn't. The only way that it would be is if there was someone saying
> that freebsd should no longer use the "little devil" logo, and NO ONE is
> saying that. You need to stop characterizing the discussion as one of free
> speech because there are no free speech issues involved.
When you start telling others how to market their product, that their logo
makes you `uncomfortable' and therefore they should modify it (whether in
part or in total) to suit you - you are practicing censorship. This is sad.
Truly. Whether one stickers music (albums) because s/he doesn't like the
form of the message (or fears the content), protests outside abortion clinics
(or worse) because s/he presumes to tell others how to live or merely tries
to coerce people into changing their logo - in whole or in part - s/he *is*
practicing censorship. That is a free speech issue.
American history is replete with examples of this sort of thing. You are
practicing coercion. I find that repugnant. Your arguments are weak and
your intent is truly questionable in my view.
> > So make some. I'll take a few and plaster them on my boxes. But you
> > don't have the right to tell someone else that they shouldn't market their
> > product as they see fit, based on your view of morality.
>
> The fact that you could make that statement, again, directly underneath my
> quote saying that I am precisely not doing what you are accusing me of
> doing shows me that this discussion has reached the point where you are no
> longer interested in the merits, but are merely repeating phrases that you
> think will garner you sympathy with your audience in a pointless attempt to
> cast me in the role of an "evil censor." Therefore continuing along this
> line with you would be fruitless, so I will simply wish you good day.
You *are* proposing that they market their product in a twofold manner.
In a style of their choosing - and one of your choosing becuase it makes
you less uncomfortable. That is coercion. Whether overt or tacit the
message is that `someone other than you' might feel uncomfortable enough
not to use a product based on its logo. Unless the providers use yours...
This sort of thing is coercion. And frankly, your assertions to the contrary
appear disingenuous - at best.
You carry on reiterating that it is not a free speech issue when you want
someone to alter what they are saying - in form if not content. Hmm...
Why the repetition if this is not truly a very questionable proposition?
I'm moving on to other issues as well, Doug. I'm very pleased to see that
a member of the FBSD team has responded to this thread by declining to
whitewash Chuckie.
Bravo FreeBSD Development Team!
------- North Richmond Community Mental Health Center -------
Thomas Good MIS Coordinator
Vital Signs: tomg@ { admin | q8 } .nrnet.org
Phone: 718-354-5528
Fax: 718-354-5056
/* Member: Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility */
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.96.990812080926.3751A-100000>