Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:28:14 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <email@example.com> 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 people's
>> > sensibility.
> This is pointless.
> Let's just have hot-babe with as much nudity/porn/whatever as the
> maintainer 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 should also move anything else that the USA
> law could classify as a reason to bust Debian/SPI people in jail, to
> non-us. There isn't much of it, I hope.
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.
Democrats give their worn-out clothes to those less fortunate.
Republicans wear theirs.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C