Re: not a first amendment question

1997-12-04 Thread Brian White
> Brian> Morality is a touchy subject and (in my opinion) the _only_ place to > Brian> draw this line is all or nothing. > > Agreed, except that clearly illegal stuff should be banned, of > course. I doubt anyone would condone a child_pornography.deb package, > for instance :-) Yes, "the law" is

Re: not a first amendment question

1997-12-03 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Petri Wessman) wrote on 02.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 16:40:00 -0500, Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Brian> Morality is a touchy subject and (in my opinion) the _only_ place to > Brian> draw this line is all or nothing. > > Agreed, except tha

Re: not a first amendment question

1997-12-02 Thread Aaron Howell
On Tue, Dec 02, 1997 at 03:00:22PM +0200, Petri Wessman wrote: > On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 16:40:00 -0500, Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > I think the recent comparison to "fortune" was valid. It asks whether > or not to install the "offensive" portion at install time. Why > couldn't the purit

Re: not a first amendment question

1997-12-02 Thread Petri Wessman
On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 16:40:00 -0500, Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Brian> Morality is a touchy subject and (in my opinion) the _only_ place to Brian> draw this line is all or nothing. Agreed, except that clearly illegal stuff should be banned, of course. I doubt anyone would condone a chil

[OFF-TOPIC] Re: not a first amendment question

1997-12-01 Thread Stephen Zander
Petri Wessman wrote: > Sigh, someday I'll probably understand the American mentality when it > comes to sex (and equating it with violence on the "ooo, bad stuff" > scale). When you do, let me know (and I live there - thought I'm not one) :) Stephen --- "Normality is a statistical illusion." --

Re: not a first amendment question

1997-12-01 Thread Petri Wessman
On 30 Nov 1997 02:13:23 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: bruce> Good healthy sex is fine. The stuff I objected to had nothing bruce> to do with sex, it concerned acts only a mentaly ill person bruce> would carry out. Ummm... careful with those generalisations. I've gone through some incarnation of

Re: not a first amendment question

1997-11-30 Thread bruce
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) > I'm _seriously_ offended by this. The idea that the bible (or quake) has > more redeeming features than purity is ridiculous. You're being sarcastic, right? > By the way, why the move to -devel? I didn't do it. Bruce -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM