On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 23:38:29 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:19:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:06:18 +1100, Hamish Moffatt
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:30:24PM -0200, Everton da Silva Marques wrote:
>> >> It's VERY oppressive to force hot-babe out of Debian because of
>> >> personal feelings about nudity. It's pure anti-speech insanity
>> >> leading the way to socialism.
>>
>> > How about we leave it out because it's crap, then?
>>
>> From all accounts, it seems to be a well done piece of software --
>> just its choice of images is an issue.
> Really? To me it seems trivial and almost useless.
More so than the other cpu monitors in Debian? And I have read
peoples descriptions on how well it fuges from one image to the
next. Seems as useful as the next CPU monitor, and probably far more
titillating than most
> Why bother linking the images with the system load? Just set up an
> applet to display porn and get on with it.
I can see how you view this, and what your predilections might
be. Bit perhaps that is not the major intent of the author or the
users?
>> > Why stop at cartoons? Once it's themable, we should ship some
>> > photographs too. And don't worry about the load monitoring, let's
>> > just ship some porn for the sake of it. Call it test data for
>> > pornview or something.
>>
>> Hmm. I would like some Raphael budes, yes. and some studies by
>> michelangelo too. Oh, you think that is not porn?
> I think calling the hot-babe package and images 'art' is a bit
> farfetched.
So people said about cubism when it was first introduced. Art,
like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. Or are you a member of
the culture mafia?
manoj
--
Laetrile is the pits.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
