Thank you for your rational and neutral reply! My intention is not to just troll around. You ask: > Couldn't this reasoning be applied as criticism for the fun

Thank you for your rational and neutral reply! My intention is not to just troll around. You ask: > Couldn't this reasoning be applied as criticism for the funeral of Michael Jackson, Jim Henson, basically any celebrity or political figure, and any soldier who returns from military service in a casket? I don't see this as a rethorical question, and I am going to answer it: Yes, definitely. In my opinion valuing the death of a politician or another person of public interest in the media higher than all common-day tragedy is an insult. My brother lost his very best childhood friend in a tragic car accident. My grandma commited suicide (which surprisingly, tragically is actually not that uncommon with elderly people). Where is his hashtag? I am not trying to make the same argument or really claim the same sympathies, but I am trying to point out that loss is universal, sad and never fair. In some cultures the idea of absolute equality in death is prevalent. This concept is canceled out by the media attention of the death of a person. I feel very hurt, and loss is bad, there is no question that the individual has a right to mourning and grieving over the loss. But since there this is a universal concept it is unfair to bring other people into this. I do not blame Eric, but I am not sure I understand the motives of making this in to some sort of hashtag campaign. I feel that this is very unfair, because in this emotional discourse there is no rational argument allowed. I hear people say that "Well what would it hurt, it is just a name in a spec!?". Would we feel the same way if religious groups would claim to influence technology in such a way? How about a Jesus Blue or a JHWH-Green. Religious feelings are also not up for debate, which is why I am claiming to feel molested, because there is no arguing allowed.