On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 12:01 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:50:25PM -0600, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote: > > Be real, man. Steve Greenland said it perfectly: "Choosing not > > to distribute a given package is NOT censorship. ... This is not > > a subtle difference." > > Allowing the package with the provision it doesn't contain the original > so-called pornographic (make me laugh) drawings would be censorship. > Allowing the package with the provision it does provide some random > pictures instead of the so-called pornographic (make me laugh again) > drawings would be stupid. No, it would be a great feature. Some want the pictures of the nudie blond cartoon, some want a nude man, some want a rising sun, some want roasting meat. > Allowing the package with the provision it does provide the so-called > pornographic drawings plus some others of a man, for equality purpose > would be hypocrisy. Hey, we agree on something! > On the other hand, not allowing the package would definitely not be the > former of the three, but could be considered to be stupid and/or > hypocrisy. 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 hot-babe in Debian" and "don't want hot-babe to *exist*". -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. "The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won't do." George Orwell, 1940, reviewing /Mein Kampf/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part