On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:01:37AM -0800, sudog wrote:

> Well, perhaps a better logo then would be a swastika. After all, with that 
> line of reasoning, it really doesn't matter which symbol ends up on the 
> front page because keeping offense to a minimum is no longer an issue. 
> Okay that's a bit over the top.. 

It's more than over the top.  You are comparing US Marines on Iwo Jima
with Nazis.  Isn't there a rule about being the first to use "Nazi" or
"swastika", or is that just Usenet?

> I happen to agree (now that I know about it) that basing an image on one 
> associated with conquering a nation isn't particularly Good.

When did America conquer Japan?  

> Why not use a giant mushroom cloud and the word "Nagasaki" with an arrow 
> pointing to the base? 

Because the two images are not even remotely similar.

It's not at all uncommon for nations to honor brave soldiers, even if
they were among the enemy.

The symbolism is good, and I hope it stays.

Comparing it to other symbols not remotely related isn't worth pursuing.

-- 
UNIX/Perl/C/Pizza__________________________________shannon@widomaker.com