In message
[email protected], “Greg
ory Brown” writes:
Free exercise is entirely different than state supported endorsement.
The notion that the US is a Christian nation is only settling for
Christians.
And only some Christians; many find the notion offensive or even
blasphemous.
-s
On 7/11/07, Gregory B. [email protected] wrote:
That’s the reasonable argument against the name. My concern is that
many folks in the thread assumed “God == Christianity” and that is
extremely offensive to me.
Agreed, but “God == Islam” or “God == Judaism” is equally loathsome.
On 7/11/07, Peter S. [email protected] wrote:
In message [email protected], “Greg
ory Brown” writes:Free exercise is entirely different than state supported endorsement.
The notion that the US is a Christian nation is only settling for
Christians.And only some Christians; many find the notion offensive or even blasphemous.
I worked for a firm once who employed some management consultants who
used the slogan “When Your organization is in trouble turn to GOD”,
GOD being Grid Organisational Development. Their program was total bs
also.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:29:57AM +0900, Lyle J. wrote:
project b/c of it.
It seems to be drumming up business to me.
Only if you believe there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
Sure there’s such a thing as bad publicity. That’s what happens when
you
lose more people than you gain.
That doesn’t seem to be what’s happening here, so far, though.
On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:50 PM, Robert Parker wrote:
blasphemous.
I worked for a firm once who employed some management consultants who
used the slogan “When Your organization is in trouble turn to GOD”,
GOD being Grid Organisational Development. Their program was total bs
also.
Usually any organization that resorts to sloganeering is bs. Well,
there’s a lot of that kind of bs in acronyms in the computer world
anyway…
On 7/10/07, Enrique Comba R. [email protected] wrote:
Jeezzz…
Guys, get a grip!
I adhere 100% which what you say, but we are not living in the 22nd
century :(.
In other words if people are offended – on grounds you consider
irrational, and I might consider irrational – they are offended.
They might rightfully be offended by my sentence that I consider their
offense irrational, please read again, I do not, I just might not be
able to understand the reasons, that is all.
Sometimes you might wish to offend them nevertheless for some greater
reason of course like Freedom of Speech. And I admire people doing so,
expressing their philosophical believes and risking their lives, they
are my heroes.
However, Enrique, do you really feel this is an assessment to Freedom
of Speech here, the name of a SW package?
Well if you feel so you spoke out bravely, but are you sure?
Cheers
Robert
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:15:25PM +0900, John J. wrote:
Usually any organization that resorts to sloganeering is bs. Well,
there’s a lot of that kind of bs in acronyms in the computer world
anyway…
I think that usually any organization that doesn’t do any sloganeering
is
doomed. The real reason you think that usually any organization that
“resorts to sloganeering” is BS is probably that 98% of organizations
are
BS, period.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:43:23AM +0900, Robert Parker wrote:
On 7/11/07, Gregory B. [email protected] wrote:
That’s the reasonable argument against the name. My concern is that
many folks in the thread assumed “God == Christianity” and that is
extremely offensive to me.Agreed, but “God == Islam” or “God == Judaism” is equally loathsome.
I don’t recall anyone suggesting those particular two-way equivalencies.
I am sooo naming my next project pork_meat_eater…that’s not
trademarked, is it Enrique? 
-A
On 11/07/2007, at 14:13, Anthony E. wrote:
I am sooo naming my next project pork_meat_eater…that’s not
trademarked, is it Enrique?-A
LOL!
Be my guest
Well, as part of a Wiccan-Satanistic-Animist-Pagan group, and also as a
convinced atheist (hey, don’t look at me like that, I like the ambiance
at
the Sabbats-Orgies-Celebrations of natural deities-Get together we have
in
my group, they never asked about what I believed in that’s all) I DEMAND
that God is renamed as :
GodOrDevilOrWhateverDeityYouMightBelieveInOrNotInTheLastCaseAddNotBeforeAforesaidDeity.
I think it can do the trick for whoever might read it don’ you ?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 03:41:39AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:
know won’t even type ‘God’, preferring ‘G-d’ or something similar
generic term for deity.
Take note of the fact that the particular piece of software we’re
discussing was announced as “god”, not “God”.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:11:27 +0900, Chad P. [email protected]
wrote:
instead.
On the other hand, “god” is a generic term for a deity. Some religions
have many gods. I think the perspective of most monotheists is
unnecessarily limited to the point that they often do not think of the
fact that there are other, entirely valid, meanings to some of the words
their religions have appropriated.
“God” (a proper name) and “god” (an ordinary noun) are distinct terms in
English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
generic term for deity.
It’s worth noting that this distinction between God and gods is not at
all
unique to Judaism and its inheritors, nor even to monotheistic religions
in general: one need only (for instance) read the pagan philosophers or
examine traditional African religions to find that polytheists often
have
the notion of an omnipotent Ultimate Being of an entirely different kind
to
the subordinate gods or divinities.
Comparing a monitoring tool to a god in the generic sense really
shouldn’t
be too controversial, as it isn’t too different to the usual analogy
drawn
between system services and daemons. If Tom intended otherwise, it was
either a misunderstanding of what the terms actually mean, or a choice
of a bad analogy simply for the sake of being provocative.
-mental
On 10 Jul 2007, at 18:37, Todd B. wrote:
It isn’t the most terrible idea either. Over-restraint in a forum is
an exercise that, though means well, irritates me to no end. A
modicum of [OT]s is healthy for any forum, I think.Todd
Damn strait.
Speaking of which, is XKCD fantastic, or what? Here’s my favourite:
Cheers,
Benj
On 7/11/07, MenTaLguY [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:26:14 +0900, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
“God” (a proper name) and “god” (an ordinary noun) are distinct terms in
English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
generic term for deity.Take note of the fact that the particular piece of software we’re
discussing was announced as “god”, not “God”.Nonetheless, he’s using it unmodified as a proper noun. Unless Tom cares
to be more explicit, the intent of the analogy is ambiguous.
But god can’t be a constant in Ruby.
On 7/12/07, Benjohn B. [email protected] wrote:
On 10 Jul 2007, at 18:37, Todd B. wrote:
It isn’t the most terrible idea either. Over-restraint in a forum is
an exercise that, though means well, irritates me to no end. A
modicum of [OT]s is healthy for any forum, I think.Todd
Damn strait.
Hmm this has been discussed before here and there was no consenus for
it, it was however expressed by many – YHS included – that this
might change with more traffic.
So maybe that could be brought up again.
And watch your language Benji, did you forget the thread we are in 
Robert
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:26:14 +0900, Chad P. [email protected]
wrote:
“God” (a proper name) and “god” (an ordinary noun) are distinct terms in
English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
generic term for deity.Take note of the fact that the particular piece of software we’re
discussing was announced as “god”, not “God”.
Nonetheless, he’s using it unmodified as a proper noun. Unless Tom
cares
to be more explicit, the intent of the analogy is ambiguous.
-mental
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:26:14 +0900, Chad P. [email protected]
wrote:
English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
generic term for deity.Take note of the fact that the particular piece of software we’re
discussing was announced as “god”, not “God”.
To be honest, I was more concerned with addressing the notion that the
idea of God was some sinister monotheist invention, which stems from
popular (but jaundiced) modern ideas about both Christianity and pagan
religions.
If we can either end this thread, take it offlist somewhere, or convert
it back into a thread about the need to consider cultural factors when
selecting package names, that’d be great though.
-mental
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:13:05 +0900, “Gregory B.”
[email protected] wrote:
On 7/11/07, MenTaLguY [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:26:14 +0900, Chad P. [email protected]
wrote:Take note of the fact that the particular piece of software we’re
discussing was announced as “god”, not “God”.Nonetheless, he’s using it unmodified as a proper noun. Unless Tom
cares to be more explicit, the intent of the analogy is ambiguous.But god can’t be a constant in Ruby.
Of course. The naming of the God class isn’t any more signficant than
the fact that Tom necessarily capitalized god at the beginning of
sentences, or that he followed the common convention of giving his gem
a lower-case name, as such.
Chad and I were both thinking of the opening sentence, “I’m proud to
announce the initial public release of god!”
-mental
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 07:07:00AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:26:14 +0900, Chad P. [email protected] wrote:
“God” (a proper name) and “god” (an ordinary noun) are distinct terms in
English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
generic term for deity.Take note of the fact that the particular piece of software we’re
discussing was announced as “god”, not “God”.Nonetheless, he’s using it unmodified as a proper noun. Unless Tom cares
to be more explicit, the intent of the analogy is ambiguous.
In the fact of ambiguity, I prefer to assume good faith.
. . . and, anyway, meaning in a case like this is in the eye of the
beholder. If you want to think of it as God, that’s your choice. If I
want to think of it as god, that’s mine. Ultimately, it’s just
something
like a thirty-seventh-hand translation of a term whose origins are quite
ambiguous themselves.
It’s the concept that really matters, not the collection of phonemes
that
we use to refer to it.
Maybe that’s just me, though.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs