> So you are offended by people who are offended by others' offense?
I didn't say I was offended. Angry is what I am.
You're not me. You don't get to decide what does & does not offend me. And don't try to impose your world view of what should & should not be offensive on me.
My position: conference organisers should agree on a standard, and adhere to it. Now & again something (like mpesce's presentation) will be in a grey area. The standard will get recalibrated, one way or another. People uncomfortable with the standard won't go to the conference. Companies uncomfortable with the standard won't sponsor. Some attendees will get offended at the conference. And that's fine. Because the standard was known, agreed on, publicised, and adhered to by attendees, presenteres and organisers.
And if people take offense, and something is in a grey area, then apologise - it was not intended, I understand you were offended, this does fall under the policy, I'm sorry. It won't happen again. We're going to tighten the loophole so that people know where they stand next year.
And if you notice, that's exactly what happened - my compliments to Mark & the organisers.
The *only* people turning this into the mud fight are the people who are complaining that someone should take offense in the first place.
> Is there any way your post can be interpreted as anything but
> straightforward hypocrisy?