The following reply was made to PR misc/33495; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Arto Selonen <arto@selonen.org>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: misc/33495
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:49:04 +0300 (EEST)

 Hi!
 
 Even though this PR might have already outlived its usefulness, I can't 
 help but offer some viewpoints, mostly for future reference in handling 
 these types of problems (in fortune(6), man pages, other documents, etc).
 
 The main problem is that anything can be offensive to anybody, and this
 could change very rapidly (think of any accident/catastrophe/etc that can
 turn a positive thing into something very bad). One can not foresee these,
 and so any reference can become offensive/rude.
 
 Strongly related to this are the questions of "does anybody have a right 
 to not be offended?", and "how much effort should be put into trying to 
 avoid offending others?".
 
 With regards to fortune(6), I think there should be a certain expectation 
 of getting offended, as there are lots of all sorts of aphorisms, jokes,
 quotes, and what not in there (man page uses the term 'adage', which 
 according to the definitions google offers is reasonably accurate).
 
 However, the man page also gives a somewhat false impression that some
 "fortune cookies" might not be offensive. I'll argue that to be false.
 *There are only potentially offensive adages there*. Some are "known" to
 almost certainly offend many people, some have so far simply failed to 
 find the "wrong" audience for that particular piece.
 
 So, the main change could be made to fortune(6) man page, so it would 
 remind readers of the potentially offensive content in there, regardless 
 of the category used. "Some effort has been made to classify the contents 
 into categories such as 'almost certainly offensive' and 'less offensive'.
 However, due to the nature of these 'fortunes', any one of them may
 offend you due to its content, relation to your life situation, or the 
 source or context of the quote. Therefore, it is simply impossible to
 guarantee 100% non-offensive content in here. You have been warned."
 (I just hate disclaimers).
 
 As for classifying content into various levels of offensiveness:
 (and I'm not referring to this specific PR, but rather to any content)
 
  	- just because the content references some group in a negative
  	  manner, it does not automatically offend *all* those people
  	  (eg. "Everybody is an idiot." => ~6 billion potentially offended)
 
  	- the content may not be offensive, but the context where it
  	  comes from may offend those recognizing it, or those
  	  who associate it with their own negative experiences
  	  relating to it
  	  (eg. whatever Hitler said may be offensive to many)
 
  	- even a very offensive content may have other values, such as
  	  historical perspective, reminder of the dangers associated
  	  with a concept, etc; there may be more value in making sure
  	  the lesson is not forgotten, even if it means being offended
 
  	- truth may also be offensive, is lying or ignorance better, then?
 
  	- NetBSD may be used by children, should all content be made
  	  "child-proof"? who should decide what is child-proof?
  	  how does that relate to preserving some of the UNIX history
  	  like command names, inside jokes, etc?
 
  	- what may have been funny might now be offensive, and what once
  	  was offensive, may now be funny (possibly just because it used
  	  to be offensive); how much effort should/could be put into
  	  constantly re-classifying the contents as times and people change
 
  	- who could possibly make any classification decision correctly?
 
  	- NetBSD is a global effort, yet the world has not yet turned into
  	  one homogeneous group, where we all share the same values and
  	  experiences, so it can not possibly please everybody at the same
  	  time while doing the same thing; there are only limited resources
  	  for customizing it to various uses, however the source is
  	  available and quite liberally licensed for everybody to make
  	  their own modifications, should they so choose
 
 
 Im summary: I find it impossible to classify content more than simply
  	    saying "This may offend you". Maybe others are more successful.
  	    I can only hope that people will be able to find strength,
  	    once offended, to get past that experience and be able to
  	    forgive others, understanding that the meaning was never to
  	    purposefully offend in the first place.
 
 Disclaimer: I don't represent anybody but myself, though I am thankful
  	    for the NetBSD developers for their continued work, that has
  	    made it possible for me to use the OS successfully for several
  	    years in various environments.
 
 
 Sincerely,
  	Arto Selonen
 
 
 PS. My 3.99.18 gave only one Hitler quote with 'fortune -m Hitler', and
      I failed to realize how that would match the properties given in the
      original PR (I'm too young and too detached, I guess).
 
      *Expanding* from that, some people who report offensive
      fortunes in the future may understandably have difficulties in
      describing a problem that causes them emotional distress. Those who
      then try to correct the situation may not realize what the offensive
      part is, and this may well lead to communication problems where nobody
      is at fault, yet meaningful and polite discussion may prove elusive at
      best. Hopefully, a mutual understanding will still be reached, even
      when everybody is using a language foreign to them.
 
 -- 
 #######======------  http://www.selonen.org/arto/  --------========########
 Everstinkuja 5 B 35                               Don't mind doing it.
 FI-02600 Espoo         arto@selonen.org         Don't mind not doing it.
 Finland              tel +358 50 560 4826     Don't know anything about it.