On Wednesday 13 March 2002 21:50, Richard Rauch wrote:
> No, I was not; you're quite right there.  But, it has a very strong,
> pervasive meaning presently.  See my other comment.

Fine, that it does. So is it a matter of degree with you? Somehow I think 
that the Iwo Jima thingy would be just as offensive to people whose direct 
relatives fought there--so is it a difference of thousands of offended 
people versus a handful to you?

> > But you *instantly* grasped the swastika connotations, regardless of
> > the fact that it originated much, much earlier and meant something 
> > completely different before the Nazis got hold of it. --You understand 
> > where I'm headed with this right?--Thus while you appeared gravely 
> > offended by the
> 
> I can't remember the last time that I was gravely offended.  Sorry.  You
> are over-interpreting responses, here.  I don't actually take symbols to
> be anything more than a compact way to express things, based on
> representation and shared culture.

Fine then: You weren't offended and I'll leave my "assumptions" to myself. 
The point is you specifically said I was going overboard, and I'm 
explaining to you that I was trying to make a point which you validated by 
telling me I was going overboard. Or over the top. Or whatever it was you 
said.

> (Unlike representational images, that more or less carry
> their own meaning.)  The current image is a representational symbol, with
> nothing about war, Japan, the U.S., or defeat anywhere to be seen.

Er..  Okay.

> Thanks for making a completely wild guess, but no.  The reason that I
> think that the current image is fine is because it has the attributes
> that I mentioned before.  You have to stretch the imagination more than a
> little to be offended by its composition.  (And by then, you've *long*
> since reached the point where the ``little devils'' would be offensive.)

Composition, no. Inspiration, yes.

> ``Doesn't really care'' doesn't live in the same house as ``offended''.
> Sorry.  If he doesn't care, then move on to the next contestant.  Maybe
> you can find someone who's offended, if you look hard enough.  If that's
> all that you can find, then perhaps you are over-interpreting people as
> being offended (much as you somehow came to believe that I was ``gravely
> offended'' above when I was not offended in the least).

I did say "mildly annoyed". I was trying to suggest that it didn't matter 
enough to him that he would sit up and be noticed in a simple 
back-and-forth like it seems to have become here. So while the impact is 
there, it's not enough for him to waste his energy on it. Myself, on the 
other hand, I have a few minutes of spare time here and there between 
duties. :)

> It would be neat to have a proper logo, yes.  It's harder to commnicate
> as much in a logo, though.  So we probably could stand to have two images
> (hopefully immediately related), one of which is relatively rich in
> interpretation, and the other suitable for use as a logo.

*shrug* No argument here. I don't think the Iwo Jima one is particularly 
good as the more elaborate option, but I freely admit that I personally 
have no problem with it with regards to only myself. Just like I wouldn't 
have any problem with the symbol of a burning white house. Which my 
ancestors cheerfully ignited.

> > What relevance does this have? What happens when they find out what
> > this symbol means? How annoyed would you feel if you'd been working 
> > under a
> 
> Which symbol?  What *does* it mean?  If we tell people that it means that
> ``Blondes have more fun'', and really insist that, despite the lack of
> any blondes in the picture (or, indeed, any color at all), this really is
> *the* *meaning* of the picture, then some non-blondes might indeed be
> offended.  Probably some blondes would be, too, as a matter of principle.

Err..  the inspiration is obvious. Don't try to sever the conceptual link 
with false analogy. You're grasping for straws here.

> I have yet to hear any indication that the image up there was designed
> with any nationalistic perspective.  *Certainly* I can't see any
> reflection of that in the actual image.  If you want to see it there, you
> can probably do so (you have to squint rather hard, I think); you could
> also convince people who don't know either way that there is a
> nationalistic content to the image---but why you'd want to stick that
> notion in their head, I don't know.

Sure it wasn't. And personally I think it's a very non-threatening to 
someone like myself. I do not, however, think it would be non-threatening 
to the relatives of people who died--on either side--in whatever battles 
took place there. Do you think trivializing it like this would be "fine" 
by even the American relatives of the soldiers who may have died there?

> So, what is this a case of,
> but that the people objecting to the image are projecting their own
> interpretations of the image onto others, and then imagining those other
> people are upset?
>
> If that's all that's happening, then it *really* matters what the image
> means to other people, not what you *think* it means to them.

I did say the image upset someone. So I take up the sword and charge with 
it when he can't be bothered to waste his time. I'm not projecting. And 
I'll thank you to let me keep my friend's anonymity in the meanwhile if 
that's okay. :)

> You can export your interpretation by telling your Japanese friends
> ``This image represents the US defeating Japan''.  I think that you are 
> doing them a disservice, though---the image on the NetBSD site 
> represents no such thing, nor I think does the photo of the flag-raising 
> at Iwo Jima (though it may have been *used* at that time, 60 years ago, 
> for such propoganda when the war in the Pacific was being fought).  It 
> certainly carries none of that to me (or apparently to others), so it is 
> not a universal or basic interpretation of even the original photo.

I didn't know what it represented and while I was familiar with the image 
it was inspired from, I had no idea until someone pointed out the 
possibility. At that point I visited my Japanese friend and he politely 
explained what was what, much to my chagrin.

So don't tell me I'm exporting my interpretation onto my Japanese friend. 
You're insulting him by insinuating he is unable to make up his own mind 
in the face of my (wildly inaccurate, apparently,) words.

> I think that that's spelled ``rutabega'', isn't it?  Anyway, this doesn't
> apply.

Right. Odd, my grandfather used to grow them. I knew I should've used 
spinach. =]

> A better analogy would be to ask about an image that showed a group of
> people apparently returning from some taksk to receive honors and
> congratulations from friends.  And it may be explained to me that the
> image has similar composition to a famous one in Japan representing the
> return of the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor.  

You're stretching it here. That image is generic enough that it could be 
anything. Like I said, I'm not the one who came up with this (according to 
you) wildly inaccurate interpretation of an image that was used to rally 
American public opinion behind American troops who were overseas killing 
Japanese people.

> Then we could ask: Would I be offended by such a derived image?  I would 
> not find that offensive in the least.  I would only be concerned with 
> what the actual image conveyed, not the context in which the image's 
> ``ancestor'' was originally created.

You can't divorce the interpretation from what its creators and promotors 
so long ago intended the inspiration image to mean. And you're building a 
big straw house here.

> Unstoppable?  Sounds like a certain monopolistic company.  (^&

=] Thankfully, they are stoppable. :) We're here arguing about something 
silly like a NetBSD logo and it's not illegal (yet).

> I, too, think that NetBSD seems to be self-renewing.  But what this has
> to do with the "creature" image totally eludes me.

Self-renewing likens to immortality, and daemons are immortal to tty 
session logouts. See? Easy conceptual link. =]

> > Ugliness is subjective: I believe it to be quite superb and "clean". It
> 
> I suppose that there's no point in debating aesthetics.  But it certainly
> is baroque.

I disagree in the more general senses of the term, but I'll agree with 
"oddly shaped" if that is taken to mean differently shaped than any other 
common imagery.

> > can't steal my girlfriend, it won't waste its time cutting me off in
> 
> It looks like it could steal your lunch, and might kidnap your girlfriend
> if it took a liking to her.  I wouldn't trust it.  (^&

=] I didn't see a mouth anywhere. More like a hole that he'd have to work 
pretty damn hard to stuff things into. =]

> > > Recall that BSD came from California, dude.  (^&
> >
> > Sorry, that's lost on me. California is cute and cuddly? =] Since when?
> 
> I tend to associate the peace movement with California, I s'pose.  The
> BSD daemon has always seemed a very ``Californian'' thing to me.  I 
> guess that it's just another matter of different people interpreting the 
> same image different ways.

That's definitely the case here. :)

> > If I wanted friendliness I'd be running something other than NetBSD.
> 
> What, pray?  Mac's and MS-WINDOWS are insulting to the user, not
> friendly. The Amiga is no longer being made.  Maybe BeOS, though it 
> sounds like they may be giving up on being a serious OS.  The other 
> BSD's and LINUX are not much, if any, more friendly, as far as I know.

Mac OS X is really, really cool. The GUI-building, FREE development suite 
just completely blows me away. :) The way it's all integrated, the way 
that documentation and the complete compiler/design/etc tools can be 
downloaded without cost.. and there's the terminal window if I'm feeling 
obstinate. It speaks to the NetBSD'er in me, for certain. And it plays all 
Quicktime. I'm sold! It's like what NetBSD might be in five years! :)

> What you say that you want in a system is *exactly* what I'd call a
> friendly system: It's obediant.  It doesn't tie your hands and do what it
> thinks is really in your best interest.  You can trust it because it's
> not running its own agenda.

But Mac's are so .. cool! And my friends aren't very obedient. :) I'd be a 
little scared if they were--there's some nasty ulterior motives going on 
if they get me a beer when I order them to. :)

> A creature such as that, if it is in a corner, is sulking.  That, or if
> it doesn't think that you know about it, it is lurking.  I can tell.  (^&

Lurking is a good one. Like it's sitting there waiting and watching.. 
might be perfectly harmless, but it's out of sight and out of mind until 
it decides to leap out, claws at the ready and... SHRED SOME PENGUIN! :)

> > It *vaguely* resembles what we are told demons look like according to
> 
> And to that extent (far more than the original image calls to mind any
> concept of specific wars or defeats), it may be quite offensive.  Now, it
> doesn't offend me, and I really don't care from this perspective.  But I
> cannot imagine how one can be so sensitive as to perceive offense in the
> current image, and not see a ``demon/devil'' as an offensive thing to
> many others.

Okay, so the image isn't for everyone. That's why I've only half-heartedly 
suggested it. I was quite explicit when describing how *I* feel towards it 
though. :) I freely admit that fundamentalist Christians would probably 
not like such an image. However, since so much of what a fundamentalist 
Christian believes in is unreasonable, I really don't think having such 
illogic in the midst of NetBSD development would be such a good idea. (I 
mean, come on--a Baptist beating the shit out of his kids every night to 
the point where he's wearing out thick leather belts on them? That's 
just abuse, plain and simple.)

> Christians seem to come in all shapes and flavors.  Just today, in fact
> (when I was explaining this email exchange to a fellow grad student) I
> was told a story about a woman who had a shirt with the BSD daemon on it.
> Some very firm-minded Christians were *very* upset to see a shirt
> sporting an icon of ``the evil one''.  They were even more upset to 
> learn that the US government uses some of these ``devil machines''.

See now that's just funny. =]

> I myself am the agnostic/atheist sort, so I really don't care one way or
> the other.  But I can *easily* believe (based on what I've seen of
> Christians) that there are lots of people who will find any kind of
> demon-like image to be deeply offensive.  (I'm also sure that many other
> Christians are able to take the image for what it is, rather than for how
> it can be interpreted.)

My earlier point though: it could be argued that, to these vapourous 
Christians, a cute and fuzzy plush toy of a devil might be much more 
chilling than one that gives proper respect to the Evil One. One 
trivializes convictions, and the other helps those convictions scare 
infant children.. I don't see why a daemon like this wouldn't be more 
appropriate: We've already adopted the daemon as a BSD-type mascot so 
we're already stuck with the daemon image. Why not just make it more 
realistic? =]

> Of course, the creature you provided a URL to looks more like the
> Predator SF creature than a demon, IMHO.  Or perhaps a humanoid 
> crustacean.

Mmm..   I wonder if it tastes like lobster..

-sudog