Semantics

[Rich Rudnick]

If my friends knew I was even contemplating a response to this, they'd
probably be be playing kill the pig, because I love a troll: 

On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 10:21 -0700, John or Margaret Montgomery wrote:
> I am using the heading  - 'semantics' because I know that words
> matter.
> 
> I am well aware that Linus used the infamous phrase in a playful,
> jesting manner. I have not felt some other users of the term, to be
> using it with tongue in cheek.

A relevant reference, please.
> 
> I find no humor in the phrase 'Self-appointed Benevolent Dictator For
> Life'. Mr. Shuttleworth may be the nicest person on earth but the
> dictator thing is real. Do we have any examples of a 'benevolent
> dictator'? The answer is yes, many times, for awhile but the
> benevolent adjective, sooner or later becomes a lie. I keep reading
> between the lines of Mr. Shuttleworth's statements and many on this
> list, that 'the ends justify the methods'.
> 
Please mention an end the methods are intended to implement.

> Consider the word 'canonical'.  Have you looked up the definition for
> it in a good dictionary? There is something here which bothers me and
> I think, should bother more of you than it appears to do. 
> 
Mr. Hands has kindly provided a reasonably complete definition. I think,
considering the almost aggressive secularity of ubuntu (think
march-artwork), that unless you can provide a reference or an end that
contradicts it, the most likely reference would be:

Canonical form (Math.), the simples[1] or most symmetrical
      form to which all functions of the same class can be
      reduced without lose[2] of generality.

> All of the major Linux distributions have some form of democracy which
> underpins the company. Presidents can, and indeed. have been voted
> out. That can not happen with Canonical short of a palace junta. 

If my memory serves me, slackware is run by a dictator (using the
political definition, not the ethical :), thereby negating the 'all' in
your assertion. To further refute this, I'll use the wayback machine:
redhat dictated that rpm's should be compiled for i386. Some people
disagreed, and mandrake 'forked'. No junta needed.
> 
> If Mr. Shuttleworth is so certain in his message of 'humanity', why is
> he so distrustful of his fellow human-beings? In fact, why is this
> list censored?

I've been here a month. Please tell me who's been censored; I've seen
one censured. (You are right, the words we use do matter.)

> Let us have some fresh air!
> 
> Sincerely
> John Montgomery

Let us have some fresh air
> 
Rich Rudnick


[1] a spelling bug?
[2] another?