i can understand why some people would be offended by this, and i can also understand why others (like myself) loved to see this posted, as it is a classic (admittedly thats straining the definition of the word 'classic' (: ). and if anything else, it was a shocker.
some people love dirty and/or lewd jokes, coders included. proof is only as far as your nearest fortune binary*. and i ++'d chipmunk because he, like those who included the -o option in fortune, made it non-mandatory to read the slop - by making the reader select the possibly offensive text after giving a fair warning. and it was fair warning, as lewd means
(according to Word Net):
'suggestive of or tending to moral looseness; "lewd whisperings of a d +irty old man"; "an indecent gesture"; "obscene telephone calls"; "sal +acious limericks" [syn: {obscene}, {salacious}]
and like mr_mischief, i found myself ++'ing George_Shertson for expressing the fact that he had been offended in an adult and intelligent manner, despite the fact that i disagree with his point. i'd kind of figured that this node would be considered 'flamebait' when i read the poetry; i'm glad people here are a little more thoughtful than that.
In reply to Re(5): Dirty Limerick -- Too Lewd for TPJ (Note: adult content)
by strfry()
in thread Dirty Limerick -- Too Lewd for TPJ (Note: adult content)
by chipmunk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |