On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:15:16AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 08:50:08PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > > Yes, hotbabe is sexist (at least in it's current incarnation - if it > > included a male theme then it would only be sexually offensive to > > some) > > Anyone who feels that hot-babe would become less sexually offensive because > it included naked male images as well as naked female images really does > need to rethink their ideas about offensiveness. Somehow putting more > offensive images into a package doesn't strike me as being the way to make > something less offensive.
Not less sexually offensive. But adding naked male images would probably take the edge of the argument of the package being sexist. > Personally, I don't have a problem with the package as-is -- the pictures > aren't exactly the most graphic thing that's likely to pop up unannounced in > a web-browser window, but the authorities frown on distributing anything > tittilating to minors in a lot of places, so I'd "vote" for making it a > series of pictures of a tree shedding it's leaves or something in the > default incarnation. While being all for that series of pictures (nature is beautiful), I find the package pretty meaningless anyway, so I don't see the point of including it in Debian in the first place. I do, however, see some relevance to the discussions. Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
