spe@cad.cs.cmu.edu.UUCP (03/22/87)
Keywords:
Neville Newman writes:
% The fact of the matter is that by encouraging distribution of this
% (EMACS) code to the entire net-connected world, you are in a position
% of respon- sibility. i doubt that you would ever intentionally put a
% trojan horse program in an EMACS dist that uses the CRT scan to blind
% a user, or shut down cooling circuits if the code found itself in use
% at a reactor installation. The same kind of damage is inflicted on
% individuals and society by that type of irresponsibility as with the
% distribution of this "humor". i would applaud your decision to take
% out the -r option, but it doesn't even begin to deal with the problem.
Sir,
While it is evidently undeniable that you are offended by the material
in question, it is also quite evident that there are others, not quite
as puritan as you, who are able to take this material humourously. I
believe that there is no clause in the GNU-Emacs copyright that
prevents system administrators from deleting this file, if their users
so desire. Dr. Stallman has merely provided a file which is humourous
to some; those who are offended need not keep it around. If you wish,
I will write you a script which deletes it immediately upon
installation.
I find the comparison to a ``Trojan Horse'' program to be quite
inappropriate, for these same reasons. A ``Trojan Horse'', by its
very nature is undetectable and irrevocably damaging. Now, unless you
maintain that you are physically unable to keep from looking at the
file, and that such looking will turn you into a stark, raving maniac,
I would say that your analogy is ludicrous, at best.
The only `problem' here is with people who wish to impose their
opinions of propriety and `offense' upon others. I reiterate: noone
forces you to look at this; noone forces system administrators to keep
it around.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no opinions. Therefore my employer is mine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Philip Engelson +---------------+
Carnegie-Mellon University | POST NO BILLS |
Computer Science Department +---------------+
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARPA: spe@cad.cs.cmu.edu
UUCP: {harvard | seismo | ucbvax}!cad.cs.cmu.edu!spe
----------------------------------------------------------------------kyle@xanth.UUCP (kyle jones) (03/23/87)
> . . . . . . Dr. Stallman has merely provided a file which is humourous > to some; those who are offended need not keep it around. > . . . > The only `problem' here is with people who wish to impose their > opinions of propriety and `offense' upon others. I reiterate: noone > forces you to look at this; noone forces system administrators to keep > it around. Whether sex.1 is offensive or not, it just doesn't belong in the GNU Emacs distribution. It has nothing at all to do with the editor. Am I wrong in thinking that a distribution of an editor should contain only files that aid in the use of that editor? kyle jones, odu computer science ARPA: kyle@xanth.cs.odu.edu CSNET: kyle@odu.csnet UUCP: kyle@xanth.uucp
bh01@CLUTX.BITNET.UUCP (03/23/87)
I propose a new newsgroup; info-gnu-emacs-sex.1 I am tired of all the smoke about sex.1 (if there's smoke there must be fire; if there's fire there must be flames). Next time, rot13 it and we'll have none of this. -russ
rbj@ICST-CMR.ARPA.UUCP (03/25/87)
? Trash like that does not belong on this ( widely public ) network. ? If you must, sent it over private channels ( via mail ). I have not seen it on the network. It is available only by seeking it out, thru ftp, uucp, or by purchasing a tape. ? I am also calling on others who feel as I do to post their opinions. They probably will, but they won't mean anything more than yours. ? If you want to condone rape and other acts of degradation please do it ? on a private channel. This is no place for that. No one is condoning anything. Humor is basically painful, a juxtaposition of the normal and the absurd. Think about it. Sometimes it steps over the line and gets a bit offensive to some people. That is regrettable, but the price of humor. ? I personally don't want to look at that awful stuff and call for all others ? who feel the same way I do to voice their opinions. So when you looked at the `manual', what did you do? Did you quit looking at it after a few lines, or did you read all the `options' to justify more indignation. ? Let the record show: ? ? I feel that all forms of degradation ( including pornography ) ... Why do you feel that pornography is degrading? It is interesting that many people allow their children to regularly watch TV or movies depicting violence, death, and angry unhappy people but would be horrified to expose them to X rated movies where consenting adults are obviously having a good time. If you can stand seeing guns that shoot death, why not guns that shoot life? ? ... are only symptoms, NOT the problem. An interesting point, which might have been even more interesting had you stated rather than implied it. ? I do not feel we should sensor such materials on the basis of ? offensiveness because laws could be used against politically offensive ? ideas given certain political conditions. Like sex. In the case of this `manual' entry, it is the interplay between certain sexual acts and the unix operating system. For example, pedophilia isn't much more funny than rape, but the idea of pairing it with the `child process' concept is amusing. Likewise with the necrophilia first killing it's target process. I doubt whether Mr. Stallman chases jailbait, and I'm sure he wouldn't be caught dead with a necrophiliac. ? I do feel that it is our Gd given right to choose ( discriminate ) ? what we shall expose ourselves and our families to. You have no control over what you are exposed to, only how far you explore it. If you see of hear something offensive, you can only direct your attention elsewhere. ? (discrimination on basis of race, color, religion, and gender is stupid and ? illegal ) Under certain circumstances. ? David William Preisler ? Assistant System Administrator ? phone: (718) 996-7375 (h) ? 780-5905 (w) Brooklyn College ? Computer Science Department ? electronic mail: c/o rm. 0300 NE ? preis@bc-cis.UUCP Bedford Avenue and Ave H ? calbc289@cunyvm.BITNET Brooklyn, New York 11210 ? ? A NYC Judge: I can't define pornograpy, but I know it when I see it... So do I. But I bet we disagree on what it is. As for my opinion, I think it was wrong to distribute it this way. Please rename it to sex.6; sex is a game. (Root Boy) Jim "Just Say Yes" Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> Well, I'm INVISIBLE AGAIN.. I might as well pay a visit to the LADIES ROOM...
rbj@ICST-CMR.ARPA.UUCP (03/26/87)
? Whether sex.1 is offensive or not, it just doesn't belong in the GNU Emacs ? distribution. It has nothing at all to do with the editor. Am I wrong ? in thinking that a distribution of an editor should contain only files ? that aid in the use of that editor? Yes you are. Unix is distributed with games. Some people find them inappropriate for an operating system. The US Government even requires that they be deleted. GNU Emacs has always been distributed with extraneous fluff, including yow, doctor, towers of hanoi (communist propaganda?), and a Mrs. Field's like cookie recipe. The criteria is `all the GNUS that fits'. On one tape. ? kyle jones, odu computer science ? ARPA: kyle@xanth.cs.odu.edu CSNET: kyle@odu.csnet ? UUCP: kyle@xanth.uucp (Root Boy) Jim "Just Say Yes" Cottrell <rbj@icst-cmr.arpa> ...I want FORTY-TWO TRYNEL FLOATATION SYSTEMS installed within SIX AND A HALF HOURS!!!
lear@aramis.UUCP (03/27/87)
The file is not necessary so why look for a fight, guys???
...eliot
--
[lear@rutgers.edu]
[{harvard|pyrnj|seismo|ihnp4}!rutgers!lear]