On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:28:14 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. manoj -- Democrats give their worn-out clothes to those less fortunate. Republicans wear theirs. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C