On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:17:46AM -0300, Fabricio Cannini wrote:
--- Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
Am 2004-12-07 10:39:42, schrieb Fabricio Cannini:
Me wonders if simply NOT installing hot-babe
wouldn't fix this.
IMO Seems to be the easiest solution.
In theory !
Warniong : I'm not an Ordained Debian Developper (TM) : my words are
just those of a Debian User, worried by this new upsurge of hair
splitting, US smelling madness.
Hi again,
perhaps to bring down the conversation to something more constructive,
I think we should base decision to have
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 12:00:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:17:46AM -0300, Fabricio Cannini wrote:
--- Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
Am 2004-12-07 10:39:42, schrieb Fabricio Cannini:
Me wonders if simply NOT installing hot-babe
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 09:31 -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 12:00:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:17:46AM -0300, Fabricio Cannini wrote:
--- Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
Am 2004-12-07 10:39:42, schrieb Fabricio
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 09:29:55AM +0100, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
Debian might fare much
better if its members who happen to be citizens of the U f*ck*ng S of A
rememeber sometimes that they are *not* center and moral arbiter of the
world... The same can be told of (semi-) legal
--- Everton da Silva Marques
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:12:21PM +0100, Michelle
Konzack wrote:
Am 2004-12-01 13:16:11, schrieb Fernanda Giroleti
Weiden:
First of all, it's a sexist package, sure.
Putting a program on Debian
in which you have
Am 2004-12-07 10:39:42, schrieb Fabricio Cannini:
Me wonders if simply NOT installing hot-babe
wouldn't fix this.
IMO Seems to be the easiest solution.
In theory ! In many countries it is illegal
to have some stuff on CD or other Media.
Don't put it on the CD!!
And WHO stores the
--- Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
Am 2004-12-07 10:39:42, schrieb Fabricio Cannini:
Me wonders if simply NOT installing hot-babe
wouldn't fix this.
IMO Seems to be the easiest solution.
In theory ! In many countries it is illegal
to have some stuff on CD or other
Am 2004-12-07 11:17:46, schrieb Fabricio Cannini:
I've already seen long, enduring, die-hard threads,
but not like this one.
I was soe day offline, and do not know,
how many messages this thread have
but I think more then 600.
And in how many days...
Best to you.
Greetings
Michelle
--
5.12.2004 pisze William Ballard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:28:14PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
might want, and put it on non-us since it is illegal to distribute such
things in the USA (and unlike the possibility of offending people's
sensibilities, THIS
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 05:55:18 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Personal taste? No.
Opinion about what the law states? Yes.
Mere opinions about the law by laymen carry little weight. Do
you have any concrete evidence that actually proves (rather than
demolishes) your
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:49:08 -0500, William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:28:14PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
might want, and put it on non-us since it is illegal to distribute
such things in the USA (and unlike the possibility of offending
people's
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:28:14 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004, Nick Sillik wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 16:22 +0100, Paul Plop wrote:
A flower may not be a good idea. For many specialists, a flower
is a phallic representation. I could hurt some
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 06:46 +0100, Miros/law Baran wrote:
5.12.2004 pisze William Ballard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:28:14PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
[snip]
The interesting part is, how easily some of us resort to the plain, old
censorship in the name
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:27 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:49:08 -0500, William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:28:14PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
might want, and put it on non-us since it is illegal to distribute
such
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:48:47 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:27 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:49:08 -0500, William Ballard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:28:14PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:26:17AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Umm, only if it is indeed deemed to be illegal. So far, there
has been just FUD about this issue. I am not sure that artistic work
qualifies as porn, which seems to be the case here.
Artistic or not,
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 01:06 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:48:47 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:27 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:49:08 -0500, William Ballard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Dec 05,
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:24:49PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
shrug. At least in .au we have some legislation to protect minority
groups but we're not living in a totalitarian PC clampdown.
Sounds irrelevant. There's a big difference between 'protect minority
groups' (from what?) and
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:13:54PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:26:17AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm, only if it is indeed deemed to be illegal. So far, there
has been just FUD about this issue. I am not sure that artistic work
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 12:42:05AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:13:54PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:26:17AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm, only if it is indeed deemed to be illegal. So far,
Give me *one* authoritative definition of pornography that applies to
this picture. Until you give me one, I'll consider all the ones I've
seen so far to be the accurate ones, and none of them say these pictures
are pornography.
It's been said that pornography is other people's erotism.
Em Dom, 2004-12-05 s 02:53 +, Andrew Suffield escreveu:
I can't see why. The whole free software concept brings an idea of
giving equal oportunities to everyone.
How is it equal opportunities to say: You can't do that unless you
also find a woman who's willing to do it as well?
That's
As already written in -women, this is the point which saddens me the
most in this thread. I'm really disappointed by seeing most
contributors just not realize why this package, as proposed, is
likely to hurt the feelings of several women (probably not all, I
don't know) as well as,
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:34:36PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
As already written in -women, this is the point which saddens me the
most in this thread. I'm really disappointed by seeing most
contributors just not realize why this package, as proposed, is
likely to hurt the feelings
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 10:53:56PM -0200, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
What I think should be done is pictures of a man should be added to the
package *or*, as someone else suggested, add the picture of a flower
blooming
A flower may not be a good idea. For many specialists, a flower is a
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 16:22 +0100, Paul Plop wrote:
A flower may not be a good idea. For many specialists, a flower is a
phallic representation. I could hurt some people's sensibility.
Paul
I was thinking that we could use pictures of the Eiffel Tower or
Washington Monument in various
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004, Nick Sillik wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 16:22 +0100, Paul Plop wrote:
A flower may not be a good idea. For many specialists, a flower is a
phallic representation. I could hurt some people's sensibility.
This is pointless.
Let's just have hot-babe with as much
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:28:14PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
might want, and put it on non-us since it is illegal to distribute such
things in the USA (and unlike the possibility of offending people's
sensibilities, THIS is a real issue as things stand). While at it, we
They
I find the notion of introducing censorship in order to not 'hurt
their feelings' to be morally repugnant.
Yes yes, I understand why you don't like it. What I wanted was an
explanation of why objecting to this package was probably _more_
offensive than proposing it.
(Bearing in mind that in
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 13:16 -0500, Nick Sillik wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 16:22 +0100, Paul Plop wrote:
A flower may not be a good idea. For many specialists, a flower is a
phallic representation. I could hurt some people's sensibility.
Paul
I was thinking that we could use
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:52:59AM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
I find the notion of introducing censorship in order to not 'hurt
their feelings' to be morally repugnant.
Yes yes, I understand why you don't like it. What I wanted was an
explanation of why objecting to this package was
Oh no, there's the possibility that somebody else might look at some
low quality porn versus Other people are actively forcing their
beliefs onto us. Isn't it obvious?
...
That's what censorship means in every context, under any practical
definition. It's impossible to deny access
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:44:36PM +1100, Ben Burton wrote:
It has been proven endless times that once you start doing this, you
can't stop. For any package, there is going to be some minority group
that is offended by it.
Sounds to me like your problem is not so much with the
shrug. At least in .au we have some legislation to protect minority
groups but we're not living in a totalitarian PC clampdown.
Sounds irrelevant. There's a big difference between 'protect minority
groups' (from what?) and 'compel everybody to behave in a manner
approved of by minority
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:38:30PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 13:16 -0500, Nick Sillik wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 16:22 +0100, Paul Plop wrote:
A flower may not be a good idea. For many specialists, a flower is a
phallic representation. I could hurt some people's
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 14:34 +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:38:30PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 13:16 -0500, Nick Sillik wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 16:22 +0100, Paul Plop wrote:
A flower may not be a good idea. For many specialists, a flower is
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 03.12.2004, 22:55 -0600 schrieb Ron Johnson:
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 00:55 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 19:21, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We could have ftp.debian.XX (where XX is the country code) be a cname
pointing
to a server
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 12:07 +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 03.12.2004, 22:55 -0600 schrieb Ron Johnson:
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 00:55 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 19:21, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We could have ftp.debian.XX
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 04.12.2004, 05:49 -0600 schrieb Ron Johnson:
That might have been me.
It was Cesar Martinez Izquierdo.
Ok, so it was _also_ me :-)
I also suggested using DebTags as the
categorizing mechanism for that.
Maybe the 2 could be used in
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 10:48 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:31:43 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:32:26AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:03:59 -0600, John Goerzen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You are quite
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 05:49:28AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
I also suggested using DebTags as the categorizing mechanism for
that.
Maybe the 2 could be used in concert?
Uhm... I would like to keep subjective tags outside of the central
debtags repository, delegating such categorization to
Em Qui, 2004-12-02 s 23:57 -0800, Erik Steffl escreveu:
As already written in -women, this is the point which saddens me the
most in this thread. I'm really disappointed by seeing most
contributors just not realize why this package, as proposed, is
likely to hurt the feelings of several women
As already written in -women, this is the point which saddens me the
most in this thread. I'm really disappointed by seeing most
contributors just not realize why this package, as proposed, is
likely to hurt the feelings of several women (probably not all, I
don't know) as well as,
Fernanda Giroleti Weiden wrote:
Em Qui, 2004-12-02 s 05:45, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
First of all, it's a sexist package, sure. Putting a program on
Debian in which you have pictures of nude women is VERY agressive
to the most women. Yes, it's agressive to me.
As already written in -women, this
Will Newton, on 2004-12-02, 19:57, you wrote:
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 07:35, Neil McGovern wrote:
Ok, Yes, if push comes to shove, I'll be happy to stand trial for the
inclusion of hot-babe in main.
I can't see how that choice is yours to make.
Seen his name?
SCNR,
Joerg
--
Joerg
Am 2004-12-02 14:48:20, schrieb Adam Majer:
A significant number of packages in Debian are not integral to Debian.
Generaly I am using Debian/WOODY and I have found 8 packages
which may be difficult. One of them is funny-manpages.
I do not know about the other 6000 Packages which are more in
On Thursday 02 December 2004 20:00, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The internet community that Debian is apart of would consider this
fairly tame, considering what a mistyped search engine address seems
to pop up on the screen.
A few years ago I visited a sex museum in
On Thursday 02 December 2004 23:38, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. I would like some Raphael budes, yes. and some studies by
michelangelo too. Oh, you think that is not porn?
I think calling the hot-babe package and images 'art' is a bit
farfetched.
Do you consider pictures
On Thursday 02 December 2004 19:21, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for violent games religion, the question *does* need to be
asked: how far will D-Ds bend their mostly libertarian/Leftist
views in order to ensure that Debian *disks* can be possessed in
as much of the world as
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:07:14PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2004-12-02 08:44:34, schrieb David Weinehall:
Really, she's 13, and you think it'd do any difference whatsoever to
expose her to a pixelled image of a nude woman?! Sheesh. Either
you've been shielding her completely
On 03-Dec-04, 07:52 (CST), Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't art be pornographic and porn be artistic anyway?
I think the very definition of pornography (in the US, at least)
denies this possibility. If it's art, then it's erotic, not
pornography.
Nitpickers R Us,
Steve
--
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Some of the islamic countries like Turkey, Jordania and Morocco
Turkey isn't islamic country but secular one, AFAIK.
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 20:48, Adam Majer wrote:
China would *appear* to be one,
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/28/china.bibles/
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=28012002-054849-9679r
If you follow the links you'll find they refer to a man charged with
involvement
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:20:00 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 17:53 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:45:35 -0600, Ron Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004
On Friday 03 Dec 2004 09:49, Joerg Wendland wrote:
Will Newton, on 2004-12-02, 19:57, you wrote:
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 07:35, Neil McGovern wrote:
Ok, Yes, if push comes to shove, I'll be happy to stand trial for the
inclusion of hot-babe in main.
I can't see how that choice is
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 00:55 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 19:21, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for violent games religion, the question *does* need to be
asked: how far will D-Ds bend their mostly libertarian/Leftist
views in order to ensure that Debian
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that the best solution to many of the worlds problems would be to
provide really cheap laptops and good net access (including satellite net
access). The idea is that everyone in the world should be able to download
whatever they like (with a
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:57:56PM +0100, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:17:37PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
However, I'd be *highly* agitated if someone gave my daughter a
CD-ROM with *any* nudy cartoons.
I'd rather live with this risk than with less freedom.
only in a
Quoting Fernanda Giroleti Weiden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi all,
I read all the thread and I noted you are forgeting a main problem about
this package. In my point of view:
First of all, it's a sexist package, sure. Putting a program on Debian
in which you have pictures of nude women is VERY
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:34:06PM -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[... nonsense ...]
Where did you see someone asking for inclusion of child porn ?
Mike
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:34:06 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:53:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:32:18 +, Will Newton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: And we have no time to set up i
judgement over content -- there is a clear criteria
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 07:53:41AM +0100, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As already written in -women, this is the point which saddens me the
most in this thread. I'm really disappointed by seeing most
contributors just not realize why this package, as proposed, is likely
to hurt
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:03:59 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You are quite right. We cannot fight all battles for everyone.
Let's make an operating system.
And stop trying to censor data and make sure our users are
only exposed to RightThink. We should stop being the
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 21:57:20 -0500, Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wednesday 01 December 2004 06:55 pm, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
But by this logic, Debian should include every bit of software it
can -- if those countries with pesky copyright laws won't let us
distribute it there,
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:23:21 -0600, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:55, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:41:30 -0600, Joe Wreschnig
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 15:42, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:01:08
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:38:03AM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2004-12-01 18:23:47, schrieb sean finney:
then don't give your daughter sudo privileges on your debian machines,
and she can't install it! :)
Too late... She is 13 and Administrator already...
Had learned very fast how
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:34:06PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:53:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:32:18 +, Will Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And we have no time to set up i judgement over content --
there is a clear criteria
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:53:41 +0100, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Quoting Fernanda Giroleti Weiden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi all, I read all the thread and I noted you are forgeting a main
problem about this package. In my point of view:
First of all, it's a sexist package, sure.
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 23:47:11 +, Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We need to decide what statutes if any this program could violate
if distributed, and if the risks of alienating/denying that portion
of users (in this case, people under 18/21 in
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:18:35PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:01:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Then, Disk 1 (which is very full-featured, after all) can be
passed out where ever and to who
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 15:19 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:46:18 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Put such possibly controversial matter in contrib?
No. Contrib is meant for things that depend on stuff that is
not free,
Ok.
and is not
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 15:53 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:09:48 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If my wife saw my son with these pictures on a disk that I gave him,
she'd take a frying pan and beat me dead.
I am sure I would say the same about
Quoting Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Packages can hurt feelings, yes. vi hurts mine. The bible
hurts other peoples. purity-off also hurt a lot of peoples
feelings. Can't please everyone. There are over 15k packages in
debian. Some of them surely hurt the sensibilities of a
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 01:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:23:21 -0600, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:55, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And how do we find who we are alienating? Oh, I know: lets have a
GR.
Don't put words in my mouth. I hate
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 16:07 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:35:04 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 21:23 -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:51:55PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
I'm not sure, how »pornography«
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 23:13 +, Will Newton wrote:
On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 11:15, Ron Johnson wrote:
Well, guess what? I live in the American South, and I'd like to
give away disks to young geeks and wannabees without having to
worry about whether his/her parents or teacher would wig
On Thursday 02 December 2004 16:21, Ron Johnson wrote:
anything that promotes free speech is pretty vague, but, for
example, the PRC might not allow crypto s/w. Thus, maybe non-US
may need to be renamed non-PRC?
They do allow crypto s/w, AFAIK. At least none of my friends got
detained yet.
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 15:23 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:08:59 -0600, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
However, pornography causes significant legal problems in the US,
and probably moreso in many other countries. If I give a Debian CD
containing this
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 01:54 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:57:56PM +0100, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:17:37PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
However, I'd be *highly* agitated if someone gave my daughter a
CD-ROM with *any* nudy cartoons.
I'd
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 16:29 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:34:06PM -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[... nonsense ...]
Where did you see someone asking for inclusion of child porn ?
John was taking Manoj's reasoning to the limit.
--
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 01:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:34:06 -0600, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:53:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:32:18 +, Will Newton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: And we have no time
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 02:44:22 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 01:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:34:06 -0600, John Goerzen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:53:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 02:40:47 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 16:29 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:34:06PM -0600, John Goerzen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [... nonsense ...]
Where did you see someone asking for inclusion of child porn ?
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 02:35:39 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 15:23 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:08:59 -0600, Joe Wreschnig
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
However, pornography causes significant legal problems in the US,
and probably
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 02:44:22AM -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lewd exhibition of the genitals
genitals: A sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic, narrowly
defined, is any of those parts of the body (which are not always bodily
organs according to the strict definition)
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 11:32:18PM +, Will Newton wrote:
On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 21:35, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Right. We should not have games like quake, doom, or
nethack,. since they promoite murder and mayhem and eating of
corpses.
So far so sarcastic. IMO if it can be
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:04:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that the best solution to many of the worlds problems would be to
provide really cheap laptops and good net access (including satellite net
access). The idea is that
* Ron Johnson
| Nor all the violent games. No killing of hordes of orcs. orcs
| were once elves, you know.
|
| Are there any such FPS' in Debian? nethack is there, but the
| violence is imagined, not in your face.
lxdoom is in main. quake2 and -data are in contrib.
--
Tollef Fog
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:45:25AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:53:41 +0100, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Quoting Fernanda Giroleti Weiden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi all, I read all the thread and I noted
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 02:36:56AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 01:54 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:57:56PM +0100, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:17:37PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 10.36, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:04:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
In Europe, cheap printing led to [...] a
sudden huge broadening in thought [...]
In China, the result of the very same technology was the exact
opposite; [...]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:04:06PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
On Thursday 02 December 2004 10.36, Kevin Mark wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:04:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
In Europe, cheap printing led to
* Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041202 08:15]:
As already written in -women, this is the point which saddens me the
most in this thread. I'm really disappointed by seeing most
contributors just not realize why this package, as proposed, is likely
to hurt the feelings of several women
Op wo, 01-12-2004 te 19:34 -0600, schreef John Goerzen:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:53:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:32:18 +, Will Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And we have no time to set up i judgement over content --
there is a clear criteria for
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:19:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:06:18 +1100, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:30:24PM -0200, Everton da Silva Marques wrote:
It's VERY oppressive to force hot-babe out of Debian because of
personal
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:13:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:34:34 +0100, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I do not like to go to prison in Iran or may be killed because I
have such application on one of my Desktops.
The solution is to change iran,
On Thursday 02 December 2004 07:53, Christian Perrier wrote:
The package is currently sexist, in my opinion. I just hope that
saying this loud enough will make the maintainers change their
mind. If it does not, well the result will be another sexist thing in
free software.
LOL, the package
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:18:35PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:01:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Then, Disk 1 (which is very full-featured, after all) can
Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 02:13:25AM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 01:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:23:21 -0600, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:55, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And how do we find who we are alienating? Oh, I
1 - 100 of 250 matches
Mail list logo
