> > 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

Just as offensive as what?  I'm sorry, but I'm unoffended by any of these
images, as I hope is everyone else.


> relatives fought there--so is it a difference of thousands of offended
> people versus a handful to you?

I'm thinking more about threshholds, here.

But, as long as you raise the issue of the number of people, you're going
to have a very hard time finding even a *logo* that has *any* value yet
which does not offend *someone*.


 [...]
> > > 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
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where?  Or do you mean over-interpreting people?  You clearly
over-interpreeted me as being offended when that was about as far from the
case as is possible.


> 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.

Is your point, then, that you are over-interpreting people's non-offended
responses as being offended?  Surely that's not what you were trying to
say.  But, I honestly don't see any other point to what you were saying.

I suggest a direct approach in writing.


> > ``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'
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 [...]
> I did say "mildly annoyed". I was trying to suggest that it didn't matter

Exactly.  The best that you have turned up is someone who is mildly
annoyed but who doesn't really care.  That says about all that we need to
know about that.


> > 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

Careful, we don't have the Iwo Jima photo up there.

When other countries emulated the Uncle Sam ``I Want You'' posters, for
their own propoganda, were they endorsing the US armed services?  Were
they using ``Uncle Sam'' posters?  No, they were using a successful image
composition for their own ends.  That's all that I see going on here.
The original image *was* a propoganda; there are reasons why it worked
well.  There's nothing wrong with using the good ingredients to make an
effective image for an unrelated cause, anymore than another country
making an ``I want you'' knock-off is promoting the US armed forces.


> 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.

I should hope you wouldn't.  Symbols should never cause people problems.


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

If you like.  I don't see it that way, but clearly this isn't getting
anywhere, since your response amounts to a dismissal rather than analysis.


 [...]
> I'll thank you to let me keep my friend's anonymity in the meanwhile if
 [...]

Your welcome.  Both times.  You needn't thank me a third time.


> 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.

No.  I was insinuating that you were forming an idea in your mind and
imagining how other people might plausibly react.  That is what is meant
when one speaks of projecting one's own ideas onto others.

As far as the idea of forming an opinion in a vacuum, people don't work
that way.  I believe that the context was under the assumption that the
image had no established meaning outside of the U.S.  How could someone
see a placeless, nameless drawing of a handful of fictional characters
planting a flag and immediately gain interpretations of WWII, if they
weren't familiar with the photo?  Only if someone told them.

That was the context.  There was no insult intended, and I don't think
that there was any actually given, even unintentionally.  If, however, I
mis-spoke and your friend feels that I insulted him, then I offer my
apologies.


> > 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

No, the analogy is almost exact, here, while your analogy was completely
off.  If you don't agree to that, we cannot begin to make a comparison.
(Though, to answer your previous question: No, I woudln't be offended.
Though your question really is not at all related to the present
situation.  Neither the NetBSD web site, nor the original photo, says
anything about anyone sucking rutabegas, nor is any even remotely similar
message contained therein.)

I deleted most of your other off-hand dismissals, but I'll elaborate a
little here:


Planting a flag is also pretty generic. It could be *anywhere*, with *any*
people, and *any* flag.  It's only if you know about the Iwo Jima photo
and it's particular composition that you can make this association.

The implicit assumption in my analogy is that the composition of the
hypothetical ``returning heroes'' picture would be similarly distinctive
and immediately recognizable.

Suppose that there existed an almost exactly analogous photo and derived
image pair.  Is there *any* reason for a US citizen to feel offended at
the use of the derived image?  I can't see any.

It's not a straw man.  It *almost*exactly* captures the whole matter, with
the nationality reversed.  If you feel that there is a flaw, somewhere,
please put your finger on it rather than dismissing it, if you wish me to
take seriously your further comments on this subject.  (To my mind, the
only flaw is that if there *any* basis for offense, then the reversed
scenario of my analogy would cause more offense.)


> 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

When did I ever say that the original photo wasn't used for propoganda?
Of course it was.  Please don't attribute words or beliefs to others that
they do not espouse.


> > 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.

No, I built an analogy.  If it looks silly to be offended at the
hypothetical analogous derived image, then you should take the same
critical attitude and apply it to the thesis that the current web image is
offensive.


> > > 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
 [...]
> Mac OS X is really, really cool. The GUI-building, FREE development suite

(shrug)

Okay, I haven't really paid enough attention to OS X.  I'll leave that
point open.  Maybe if I find myself with a few thousand dollars that I
can't use, I'll buy a Mac.  I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.
(^&


> > 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

Being a friend != being friendly.

Perhaps it was a ill choice of words, though.  In any case, the daemon
looks cooperative and helpful.  The creature looks like something I'd
rather avoid having in my apartment---especially while I'm sleeping.


> little scared if they were--there's some nasty ulterior motives going on
> if they get me a beer when I order them to. :)

I think that the creature would just burp at you and maybe throw
something, if it couldn't be bothered to come over and maul you.  (^&


 [...]
> 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

Maybe if you seriously suggested a alternative, that would be more
effective?


> 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

Well, if you're a/the webmaster for www.NetBSD.org, you can decide
whatever you like about the content on the site, of course.  And if it
offends you (or your friends), you can certainly make changes based on
that.  But, aside from that, who are *you* to decide who is reasonable?
(^&


> > 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.
 [...]
> See now that's just funny. =]

I tend to agree.  But the point is: People take real offense to the daemon
image.  This seems to be much stronger than what you report your friend
feels.


  ``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --rauch@math.rice.edu