On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:28:08AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Not really. The rest of the explanation for non-US is that those
packages weren't illegal to USE in the USA, but were illegal to
EXPORT. We don't have a section for packages that you aren't
allowed to have, or aren't allowed to
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 02:18 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 01:06:11PM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
True, the Koran just invites to kill your ennemy bloodily, that's very
different...
Thats wrong, thats just an interpretion.
I wonder how could text be
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 02:18 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 01:06:11PM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
True, the Koran just invites to kill your ennemy bloodily, that's very
different...
Thats wrong, thats just an
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 22:24 +1300, Philip Charles wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 02:18 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 01:06:11PM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
True, the Koran just invites to kill your ennemy
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 22:24 +1300, Philip Charles wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 02:18 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 01:06:11PM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
True, the Koran just invites to kill your ennemy
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| That's a bad reason; if you applied it consistently you'd have to get
| rid of frozen-bubble.
everybody knows that frozen-bubble is useful for delaying Debian
releases.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user
On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 00:13 +, Rich Walker wrote:
It is outrageous to think that China's or Saudia Arabia's censorship
regimes should somehow influence our decision making in the slightest.
I believe the correct flame-inducing argument at this point is tell
that to the first person
On Saturday 11 December 2004 01:13, Rich Walker wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3] Non-US exists because export of strong crypto from the US is an
illegal act in the US. Hence, Debian has already accepted that
local laws
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 01:24:32PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
On Saturday 11 December 2004 01:13, Rich Walker wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3] Non-US exists because export of strong crypto from the US is an
On Saturday 11 December 2004 14:28, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 01:24:32PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
wrote:
On Saturday 11 December 2004 01:13, Rich Walker wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[3]
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 17:07 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op vr, 10-12-2004 te 15:38 +, schreef Will Newton:
Do you see why it seems like Debian is more of a political talking shop
that a
team trying to develop an operating system?
Debian has always been a political organization;
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:03:42AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
Yes, you are being absurd. Since you are presumably not understanding the
point, let me explain more clearly:
Pornography is widely regarded as being demeaning and insulting to women.
The female body is beautiful. Why would
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 01:06:11PM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
True, the Koran just invites to kill your ennemy bloodily, that's very
different...
Thats wrong, thats just an interpretion.
I wonder how could text be written such that the question wether it invites
to kill someone
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 03:45:23AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* John Hasler
| William Ballard writes:
| The Bible should be in Debian. But the Koran, the Torah, and the Vishnu
| texts (name escapes me at the moment) should all be in there too.
|
| Debian is not Project Gutenberg.
On Thursday 09 December 2004 14:06, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're coming very late to the conversation. A District
Attorney angling for higher office or someone in the Morality
Police (think Saudi Arabia) or a petty member of the CCP might not
care about there will be conflicts
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 22:48 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thursday 09 December 2004 14:06, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're coming very late to the conversation. A District
Attorney angling for higher office or someone in the Morality
Police (think Saudi Arabia) or a petty
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is. if we want people in Arabia to be able to possess Debian
disks.
The solution to censorious regimes is not to say, well, ok, we'll
censor ourselves so you don't even have to bother.
On Friday 10 Dec 2004 15:13, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is. if we want people in Arabia to be able to possess Debian
disks.
The solution to censorious regimes is not to say, well, ok, we'll
censor ourselves so you don't even have to bother.
Which
Op vr, 10-12-2004 te 15:22 +, schreef Will Newton:
On Friday 10 Dec 2004 15:13, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is. if we want people in Arabia to be able to possess Debian
disks.
The solution to censorious regimes is not to say, well, ok, we'll
On Friday 10 Dec 2004 15:24, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Which is a fine point of view if you are making a political point. But as
far as I am aware we are trying to make an operating system.
Sure. So we should not censor ourselves.
I don't see how that follows from what I said.
Here's a
Op vr, 10-12-2004 te 15:38 +, schreef Will Newton:
On Friday 10 Dec 2004 15:24, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Which is a fine point of view if you are making a political point. But as
far as I am aware we are trying to make an operating system.
Sure. So we should not censor ourselves.
I
On Friday 10 Dec 2004 16:07, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Have you taken a look at what hot-babe actually looks like? I suspect
you haven't. I don't think it will offend anyone.
I have looked at it. And I don't think it is an acceptable thing to ship as
part of an operating system. I am an atheist
On Dec 10, 2004 at 16:30, Will Newton praised the llamas by saying:
I have looked at it. And I don't think it is an acceptable thing to ship as
part of an operating system. I am an atheist and a liberal but the majority
of people in the world are not.
I don't think it is an acceptable thing
David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 10, 2004 at 16:30, Will Newton praised the llamas by saying:
I have looked at it. And I don't think it is an acceptable thing to ship as
part of an operating system. I am an atheist and a liberal but the majority
of people in the world are not.
Will Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday 10 Dec 2004 15:24, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Which is a fine point of view if you are making a political point. But as
far as I am aware we are trying to make an operating system.
Sure. So we should not censor ourselves.
I don't see how
David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 10, 2004 at 16:30, Will Newton praised the llamas by saying:
I have looked at it. And I don't think it is an acceptable thing
to ship as part of an operating system. I am an atheist and a
liberal but the majority of people in the world are
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 10, 2004 at 16:30, Will Newton praised the llamas by saying:
I have looked at it. And I don't think it is an acceptable thing
to ship as part of an operating system. I am an atheist and a
liberal
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Though you could try the following set of criteria:
We could have all kinds of criteria. The ones you propose are not, in
fact, our criteria. Our criteria are something like:
1. Does the license meet the DFSG?
2. Is there a Debian maintainer willing to
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Though you could try the following set of criteria:
[I added these back in for the sake of clarity]
1. Are there already similar packages in Debian? NO - okay, add.
2. Does it offer significant *technical*
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, I don't want a different set of criteria. As a user, I am
concerned that Debian is in danger of having a thousand CPU
monitors[1] all with RC bugs. A process for restricting addition of
semi-duplicate packages might reduce workloads all round,
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 01:34:58PM -0800, Scott Robinson wrote:
As long as Debian is a distribution - a precomposed packaging of as much
software as possible - then there will be conflicts like this.
Perhaps that's the crux of the problem - an emphasis on quantity
rather than quality.
Hamish
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 07:42, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Fortunately, though, pictures of naked dogs are *not* considered
to be appealing to prurient interests. Unless, *maybe*, a hyper-
horny 13 year old boy is seeing a picture of dogs copulating, and
not in the
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 19:57 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 07:42, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Fortunately, though, pictures of naked dogs are *not* considered
to be appealing to prurient interests. Unless, *maybe*, a hyper-
horny 13 year old boy
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.
And what would she say about any number of other iffy packages?
bible-kjv? Probably nothing because it isn't offensive to her.
fortunes-off? Because hot-babe uses graphics it's worse?
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 13:34 -0800, Scott Robinson wrote:
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.
And what would she say about any number of other iffy packages?
bible-kjv? Probably nothing because it isn't offensive
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 11:22, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 10:01 +1100, Brian May wrote:
So are you saying I should take my web pages of my naked dogs down?
Depends on who's prurient interests are appealed to by your naked
dogs.
Fortunately, though,
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 11:22, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fortunately, though, pictures of naked dogs are *not* considered
to be appealing to prurient interests. Unless, *maybe*, a hyper-
horny 13 year old boy is seeing a picture of dogs
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 01:09, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fortunately, though, pictures of naked dogs are *not* considered
to be appealing to prurient interests. Unless, *maybe*, a hyper-
horny 13 year old boy is seeing a picture of dogs copulating, and
not in the context
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 09:25:31PM +0100, Andrea Bedini wrote:
Il giorno lun, 06-12-2004 alle 01:49 +, Andrew Suffield ha scritto:
Word games. Censorship is when a citizen of one body chooses to have
that body distribute something (by being a citizen and distributing
it), and another
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:51:59AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Editing would be if the maintainer decided to remove the
package. Censorship is when some other developer tries to force him.
If an ftp-master in the course of doing the work of processing NEW rejects
a package, or a member of
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:32:14 +, Will Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Monday 06 Dec 2004 10:01, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The difference being that editing is a choice made by the person
doing the work, while censorship is a choice made by an otherwise
unrelated person in the same
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 20:31 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 11:22, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 10:01 +1100, Brian May wrote:
So are you saying I should take my web pages of my naked dogs down?
Depends on who's prurient interests are
On Tuesday 07 Dec 2004 20:26, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I don't think this holds. Censoring is editing for ideological
reasons, which is a subset of editing. It has nothing to do with who
does it. A censor is a third party, and editor is a third party, at
least in literary terms.
Is
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you have no objections to bestiality web sites then?
The assumption here is that one must either have no objections, or
else have objections and then proceed to object and want things
removed. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but there are many who
Il giorno mar, 07-12-2004 alle 18:37 +, Andrew Suffield ha scritto:
This is not the case: one member of a community chooses to do something
on which community doesn't agree. So community decides to not follow his
member and *let him do what he wants by his own*. Debian should not do
Russell == Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell As an example see some of the books of advice for
Russell pregnant women. They have LOTS of photos of nudity
Russell including nipples and public hair. Women seem to buy
Russell such books in quantity.
From time to
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 16:55 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:53:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, to the best my knowledge the kernel doesn't contain any pictures
of naked people either. I might be mistaken.
6.12.2004 pisze Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[...]
Also, to the best my knowledge the kernel doesn't contain any pictures
of naked people either. I might be mistaken.
It is much, much worse. There is a picture of naked animal there.
Jubal
--
[ Miros/law L Baran, baran-at-knm-org-pl, neg
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 16:57 +1100, Brian May wrote:
Russell == Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russell As an example see some of the books of advice for
Russell pregnant women. They have LOTS of photos of nudity
Russell including nipples and public hair. Women seem to
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:13:29PM -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. We are not calling on the Morality Police to take the
particular web site down. We are not saying, you can not
install that app on your computer.
There's a *fundamental* difference between don't want
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 07:03 +0100, Miros/law Baran wrote:
6.12.2004 pisze Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[...]
Also, to the best my knowledge the kernel doesn't contain any pictures
of naked people either. I might be mistaken.
It is much, much worse. There is a picture of naked animal
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:32:29 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 19:24 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's a *fundamental* difference between don't want hot-babe
in Debian and don't want hot-babe to *exist*.
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:50:25 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 15:07 +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:45:56AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 05-Dec-04, 04:55 (CST), James Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no excuse for
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 15:36 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:13:29PM -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No. We are not calling on the Morality Police to take the
particular web site down. We are not saying, you can not
install that app on your computer.
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 07:03 +0100, Miros/law Baran wrote:
6.12.2004 pisze Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Also, to the best my knowledge the kernel doesn't contain any pictures
of naked people either. I might be mistaken.
It is much, much worse.
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:36:13 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Maybe we should have such a process; maybe not. But regardless,
the current process allows each individual developer that judgment.
All Debian process is a result of having a problem, and
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:27:39 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Steve Greenland wrote:
Okay everybody, repeat after me: Choosing not to distribute a given
package is NOT censorship. We are not telling people that they
can't install, use, and/or distribute the package, just that we
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:21:04 -0600, Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 05-Dec-04, 09:07 (CST), Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:45:56AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 05-Dec-04, 04:55 (CST), James Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:23:52 +0100, Jonas Meurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 05/12/2004 James Foster wrote:
Pornography may be offensive to some. Is the package description
for hot-babe accurate? Are people who do not want it installed
being forced to install it?
People who may be offended
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:49 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 07:03 +0100, Miros/law Baran wrote:
6.12.2004 pisze Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Also, to the best my knowledge the kernel doesn't contain any pictures
of naked
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:55:27 +, Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hmm. Let it not be said that I don't respond in a fashion that
the responded is likely to understand.
Or, putting it another way: failing to include this piece of code
does Debian no demonstrable harm.
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:57:19 +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Here's one useful suggestion, I think:
If hot-babe is useful as a .deb, make it available as such through
its own web site or something. This works for many other packages
not accepted into the Debian tree for
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:39 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:32:29 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 19:24 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's a *fundamental* difference between don't want
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:57:19 +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Here's one useful suggestion, I think:
If hot-babe is useful as a .deb, make it available as such through
its own web site or something. This works for
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:38 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:50:25 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 15:07 +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:45:56AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 05-Dec-04, 04:55 (CST), James
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:45:20 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 15:36 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:13:29PM -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No. We are not calling on the Morality Police to take the
particular web site
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:08:31 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:57:19 +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Here's one useful suggestion, I think:
If hot-babe is useful as a .deb, make it
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:07:32 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:39 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:32:29 -0600, Ron Johnson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 19:24 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 01:18 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:08:31 -0600, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:57:19 +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Here's one useful
Ron Johnson wrote:
Legal, illegal, what's the difference? *I* want to package it.
Therefore, anyone who tries to stop me is censoring me.
Nobody can stop you from creating a package of it. Folks on the Debian
project can collectively decide whether or not the project should be a
party to
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nobody can stop you from creating a package of it. Folks on the Debian
project can collectively decide whether or not the project should be a
party to distributing it.
Currently the only procedure we have in place for this, short of
convincing the
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 23:44 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Legal, illegal, what's the difference? *I* want to package it.
Therefore, anyone who tries to stop me is censoring me.
Nobody can stop you from creating a package of it. Folks on the Debian
project can
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Who's we here, kemo sabe? Last I looked, you are not a project member.
You haven't looked in a while.
Bruce
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Currently the only procedure we have in place for this, short of
convincing the maintainer to withdraw it, is a GR.
Yes, I will work on that.
And, IIRC, you aren't one of those folks anyway, right?
No, that's wrong. I was added to the active Debian developer keyring
On Monday 06 December 2004 08:01, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:49 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Umm, all animals (except humans) are naked.
:-O and here I always thought I was naked underneed my clothes!
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Nobody can stop you from creating a package of it. Folks on the Debian
project can collectively decide whether or not the project should be a
party to distributing it.
Currently the only procedure we have in place for this, short of
convincing the maintainer to
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, except for..
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that these other possibilities don't exist.
Bruce was not suggesting any of them either, and my real point is that
none of them are on-topic for debian-devel.
6. project decides informally that potential legal
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:06:00PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
What is actually happening here is that one individual Debian
developer is choosing to distribute a given package, and some other
developers are trying to stop them. That's censorship. Even if they
don't have the
On Monday 06 Dec 2004 06:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Stupidly enough, you have committed the idiotic mistake of
assuming that everyone holds to your premises, that firstly,
tolerating intolerance is somehow a good thing -- why should it be is
beyond me.
Oh, this is about intolerance is
On Monday 06 Dec 2004 10:01, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The difference being that editing is a choice made by the person doing
the work, while censorship is a choice made by an otherwise unrelated
person in the same organisation.
Editing would be if the maintainer decided to remove the
package.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:01:16AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Actually, the developer is choosing to have Debian distribute a
package, and
others are trying to stop Debian from distributing the package.
Word games. Censorship is when a citizen of one body chooses to have
On 06/12/2004 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
in my eyes there shouldn't be any tolerance for intolerance, as you
woun't get respect in return. rather your tolerance will be
exploited.
Right. I am not about to go about tolerating people who are
intolerant of artr, jsut because it
On 06/12/2004 Steve Langasek wrote:
Publishing houses never let writers edit their own work -- at least until
they're famous and have mindless followers who'll buy and read any formulaic
tripe they slap together. I don't think I like the idea of Debian becoming
the Stephen King of the Open
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that these other possibilities don't exist.
So why are you muttering about GRs when at least 9 other avenues exist
and GRs are proven to be divisive and a waste of time?
Bruce was not suggesting any of them either, and my real point is that
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 12:12:53PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
You're being offensive, you should not be included in Debian.
Reading this one comment made this whole craptacular thread worth reading.
- David Nusinow
Il giorno lun, 06-12-2004 alle 01:49 +, Andrew Suffield ha scritto:
Word games. Censorship is when a citizen of one body chooses to have
that body distribute something (by being a citizen and distributing
it), and another citizen tries to stop them.
This is not the case: one member of a
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 21:25 +0100, Andrea Bedini wrote:
Il giorno lun, 06-12-2004 alle 01:49 +, Andrew Suffield ha scritto:
Word games. Censorship is when a citizen of one body chooses to have
that body distribute something (by being a citizen and distributing
it), and another citizen
Ron == Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ron Umm, all animals (except humans) are naked.
Not true; have a look at some of the photos here:
URL:http://www.tech-sol.net/humor/funphoto121.htm (note: web page
produces stupid warnings; ignore them and it seems to work). There
probably are
Ron == Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ron If you are presenting pictures that appeal to the prurient
Ron interest and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or
Ron scientific value, then you very well might be violating your
Ron ISP's AUP.
So are you saying I should
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 10:01 +1100, Brian May wrote:
Ron == Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ron If you are presenting pictures that appeal to the prurient
Ron interest and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or
Ron scientific value, then you very well might be
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:13:08PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
On 06/12/2004 Steve Langasek wrote:
Publishing houses never let writers edit their own work -- at least until
they're famous and have mindless followers who'll buy and read any formulaic
tripe they slap together. I don't think I
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:21:41AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:13:08PM +0100, Jonas Meurer wrote:
On 06/12/2004 Steve Langasek wrote:
Publishing houses never let writers edit their own work -- at least until
they're famous and have mindless followers who'll buy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/03/2004 12:08 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 01:26:50AM +0100, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 2004-12-02 18:11:03, schrieb Manoj Srivastava:
The Bible is illegal to distribute in the most populous nation
Pornography may be offensive to some. Is the package description for
hot-babe accurate? Are people who do not want it installed being
forced to install it?
People who may be offended by the package should read its description
and make up their own mind about whether or not they would like to
On 05/12/2004 James Foster wrote:
Pornography may be offensive to some. Is the package description for
hot-babe accurate? Are people who do not want it installed being
forced to install it?
People who may be offended by the package should read its description
and make up their own mind
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2004 à 14:23 +0100, Jonas Meurer a écrit :
There's no excuse for censorship, ever.
so you would even accept nazi propaganda material in debian, just
because you dislike censorship?
You're being late for invoking the Godwin law.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
On 05/12/2004 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2004 à 14:23 +0100, Jonas Meurer a écrit :
There's no excuse for censorship, ever.
so you would even accept nazi propaganda material in debian, just
because you dislike censorship?
You're being late for invoking the Godwin
[Jonas Meurer]
can you give further information about this 'Godwin law'? you mean
that i repeated what Godwin already mentioned?
Different Godwin, I believe.
URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
* Jonas Meurer wrote:
can you give further information about this 'Godwin law'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
Sebastian
--
PGP-Key: http://www.mmweg.rwth-aachen.de/~sebastian.ley/public.key
Fingerprint: A46A 753F AEDC 2C01 BE6E F6DB 97E0 3309 9FD6 E3E6
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 14:29 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2004 à 14:23 +0100, Jonas Meurer a écrit :
There's no excuse for censorship, ever.
so you would even accept nazi propaganda material in debian, just
because you dislike censorship?
You're being late
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
