Re: [patch] selected/context colors

[Charles Levert]

* On Sunday 2005-11-20 at 21:39:10 +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> > But I didn't anticipate the "damn" controversy.
> 
> I simply saw the word, didn't see the point, and asked you to remove 
> it.  Now you could have just explained why the word was there.  
> Instead you went off saying that some other file did much worse, 
> and that the courts allow us to say it, or at least that some 
> comedian thinks we can.

Let me restate it:

   "Damn" is *not* a strong word
   (i.e., cursing or foul mouth).

"Chr#st", "f#ck", and "c#nt" are.


> If we all know that colours are subjective, how can you think that 
> some users are bound to complain about the choice of them?

It already did happen in this case.  About the
choice of leaving some of the color capabilities
blank.  Having this happen is the rule, not
the exception.  It's rather harmless, though.

> And how 
> will a puzzling strong word in the source code (which normal users 
> don't see) preempt this?

Maybe.  Still not a strong word, so no puzzle.


> > The thing I find surprising is that you
> > don't give me credit in the first place in
> > automatically assuming that I seriously was
> > thinking in such a fashion.
> 
> Automatically?  Assuming?  I?

Yes.  As in the opposite of:

   B: "You're joking, right?"
   C: "Of course."

Having said that, now that I know that this
"absurdity humor" isn't your kind of thing,
I'm not going to do it even more just to annoy
or to aggravate you.  You don't appreciate this,
I get it, I am going to be more attentive to it
when in direct conversation with you.

There is a pending "joke" out there, however,
but this one has somewhat already been cleared
by you.  Except that I ended up writing it in an
absurd way, so sorry in advance if that approach
offends you.