Hiho, I did mention that it is hard to interpret the context of a snippet of an IRC conversation one wasn't part of. Not to mention the problematics of a proper discussion on IRC in general, where generally people are reacting to things they read a few sentences ago, and can't type fast enough to formulate their thoughts in quick reply, not to mention the lack of extra-verbal communication one misses in a medium like that, and linguistic issues of people not communicating in their mother tongue, or dialects of what seems to be the same language. sincerely, Marije On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:28:10 -0800 "J. Liles" <malnourite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Marije Baalman <nescivi@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > Hiho, > > > > > > I had to go back and find this original post (or was there more > > that I missed? ... not watching this list so closely at the > > moment), to see what the fuzz was all about. > > > > > > My 2 cents: > > > > The picture per se is not so much the problem, I think, the > > alternative picture suggested (jokingly?) by the person using > > <male> as nickname would be problematic. But more importantly, I > > get the impression (from his remark about the angry wife) that the > > person using <male> as nickname in the IRC has a serious problem > > with his wife, and respect towards her, and maybe women in general, > > and I can't escape the impression that his marriage is suffering > > from it. But alas, there's only so much you can interpret into a > > short chat history that you didn't partake in. > > > > <snip> > > Before I begin this reply I must first (and I do suggest that you all > do the same) go inform my assistant to hurry up and boil some pitch, > for it will soon be needed if we are to tar and feather this rogue, > nay, this scoundrel who calls himself '<male>' on IRC. Ah, but before > we put to shame this impudent wretch, let us take a moment to > consider the gravity of his evil deed. Let us review the transcript > once more: > > <male> falktx_: I had to look up the image to see what he was talking > about... hardly offensive. > > Here, the evil one appears to saying that he researched the image that > Shane Richards compared to pornography, and found it to be nothing of > the sort. Only a true villain could be so blind to the fact that > everything seen through holy eyes is pornographic. > > <falktx_> this pic: http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net/tmp/scr124.png > <falktx_> it's Hatsune Miku > <falktx_> a big thing on japanese culture actually > <falktx_> I've switched the default to be without her pose, but the > 12.04.1 KXStudio ISO will remain with that as default > <falktx_> I think it's very cute > <hurfadurf> haha, oh man. > <male> falktx_: Ah, but you're not a 350lbs angry wife. > <nilsge> falktx_: you are ecchi, man > <nilsge> lol > <hurfadurf> male: whoa, shots fired! > <hurfadurf> haha > > Here, 14 year old loser, <falktx_> (not to be confused with an adult > man who selflessly devotes massive amounts of his time to developing > and maintaining what many consider to be the premier Linux Audio > oriented distribution), mentions that he thinks the image of Hatsune > Miku is cute. Blasphemy! The rotten prankster <male>, in his twisted > little mind, tries to imagine what kind of person would be "not > amused" by the image. Because of his low class standing, <male> is > clearly aware that "not amused" is a euphemism that (sexist) men use > when the searing hatred that often emanates from jealous individuals. > He knows that Mr. Richards also referred the individual beaming this > hatred as his 'partner', a euphemism for wife... What kind of wife > would be jealous of a cute little cartoon doll figure? Why, a > morbidly obese one, of course. This kind of accurate and witty humor > is exactly what is wrong with the world today. We must stamp it out > immediately and instead exalt the kind of impotent, holy rage the Mr. > Richards exemplified in his original post, where he reached for > people to blame for his own failure to backup his working system. > > <male> falktx_: Change it to this (NSFW) in the next release: > http://goo.gl/HRFE1 > > Next, the greasy and fox-like <male> suggests a new image to be the > default background. An image that is what everyone who read Mr. > Richards original post imagined the background to be, but was > disappointed to discover that it was not. By using wit to expose Mr. > Richards' comments as misleading, if not libelous, this <male> has > delivered a great blow to our righteous indignation. This cannot be > allowed. > > Forthwith, the tar will be ready! Down with lightly mocking humor. > Down with this toxic reasonable-ness. We must not let these devils > interfere with our right, nay, our God Given Right, to be offended by > any and every thing we see on this Earth, from now till judgement day! _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
