[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor

Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> 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
hold such a view even if you do not, so it's worth addressing.

I do have objections to hot-babe.  I think it's degrading to people I
care about.  So I wouldn't package it.

But that does *not* mean that I think nobody should be allowed to; my
primary concern with respect to Debian is that we follow our actual
policies, and if people want a new policy, they should make it the
usual way.

Debian can choose to publish hot-babe or not; either way I don't care
much about it, except that I would not be willing to package it

Please don't paint me in a corner by saying that if someone is against
prohibiting a package, it must be because they "have no objections" to

As Manoj has pointed out, many of us have objections to vi also.


Reply to: