Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #162344 > unrolled thread

sexist content in the package openclipart2-png

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Fernando Arenas <arenas.f@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 12:40 +0100
    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Jerome BENOIT <sphericaltriangle@rezozer.net> - 2015-12-31 13:20 +0100
    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 13:30 +0100
      Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2015-12-31 14:20 +0100
    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-12-31 13:40 +0100
      Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:30 +0100
    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2015-12-31 14:20 +0100
      Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png David Baron <d_baron@012.net.il> - 2015-12-31 14:30 +0100
      Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 02:30 +0100
      Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 03:50 +0100
    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Javier Barroso <javibarroso@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 17:20 +0100
      Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-31 17:40 +0100
        Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png "John L. Ries" <jries@salford-systems.com> - 2015-12-31 20:30 +0100
          RE: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Arno Schuring <aelschuring@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:40 +0100
    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2015-12-31 21:20 +0100
      Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2015-12-31 21:40 +0100
        Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 10:50 +0100
          Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 17:30 +0100
            Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png peter@berghold.net - 2016-01-01 17:40 +0100
              Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-01 17:50 +0100
                Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 19:40 +0100
              Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Terence <terence.john@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 18:00 +0100
                Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 22:30 +0100
                  Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-01 23:10 +0100
                  Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Charlie <ariestao@ipstarmail.com.au> - 2016-01-02 00:10 +0100
                    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 04:30 +0100
              Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 18:50 +0100
                Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2016-01-01 19:10 +0100
                  Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Lee Winter <lee.j.i.winter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 20:10 +0100
                  Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2016-01-02 09:00 +0100
                    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-01-02 09:20 +0100
                      Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-02 18:10 +0100
                        Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-02 18:20 +0100
                          Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2016-01-02 19:00 +0100
                    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Tony van der Hoff <tony@vanderhoff.org> - 2016-01-03 11:40 +0100
              Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-01-01 18:50 +0100
            Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 02:30 +0100
              Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 14:00 +0100
                Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 01:30 +0100
                  Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 09:40 +0100
                    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2016-01-06 10:20 +0100
                      Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 16:40 +0100
                    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-01-06 10:50 +0100
                Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 11:30 +0100
                  Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-01-06 13:00 +0100
                  Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2016-01-06 13:10 +0100
                    Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png jdd <jdd@dodin.org> - 2016-01-06 13:30 +0100
                      Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-06 14:40 +0100
                        Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 16:50 +0100
                          Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 17:50 +0100
                            Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-06 21:20 +0100
                      Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 16:00 +0100
                        Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2016-01-06 16:10 +0100
                        Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2016-01-06 16:30 +0100
                        Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Charlie Kravetz <cjk@teamcharliesangels.com> - 2016-01-06 17:40 +0100
                          Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png jdd <jdd@dodin.org> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0100
                          Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 20:00 +0100
                            Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-07 14:50 +0100
                              Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-07 15:10 +0100
                                Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-07 15:30 +0100
              Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2016-01-05 18:00 +0100
                Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 01:30 +0100
                Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Matt Ventura <mattventura@mattventura.net> - 2016-01-07 00:50 +0100
                  Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 07:20 +0100

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#162687

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 09:36:58 +0100
deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Start educating is what I want to say, start educating your children, and
> building up self protection. Believe me this is the only way you can
> protect them.

And that would start with educating the parents...
 
Cheers,
 
Ron.
-- 
     A fractal is by definition a set for which the Hausdorff Besicovitch
            dimension strictly exceeds the topological dimension.
                                                            -- Mandelbrot
                                    
                   -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162707

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Renaud  OLGIATI
<renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 09:36:58 +0100
> deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Start educating is what I want to say, start educating your children, and
>> building up self protection. Believe me this is the only way you can
>> protect them.
>
> And that would start with educating the parents...
> [...]

For those of you who find the discussion more objectionable than the
images, I have four questions:

(1) Are you relying on the first image in the list, the face of a
reclining woman?

There are, in fact, cultures where the makeup an expression would
indicate a woman of a certain class, but, then again, there is
something discriminatory and repressive about accepting such opinions
as authoritative.

When I saw that image, I'll admit I was wondering whether the OP were
a sock puppet looking to generate some Streisand effect and a little
more user love for the package.

So I took a look to see if the package is worth using and I think it
probably is, in general.

(2) Are you basing your opinions only on the low resolution png images
in the debian directories Thomas Schmitt pointed out?

They are mostly a bit "cuter" at that resolution.

Which leads to the third question,

(3) Have you gone to the trouble of installing the openclipart2
package and looking at the svg images under the /usr/share/ so that
you can base your opinion on the actual contents?

(4) Aside from the copyright issues, would you be game for including
vectorized playboy centerfolds at full resolution in general clipart
packages for family and work?

-- 
Joel Rees

Be careful when you look at conspiracy.
Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well:
http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/2011/10/conspiracy-theories.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162688

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:36:58AM +0100, deloptes wrote:
> I would suggest all of you stop this discussion. It points to no where.

Your suggestion would carry more moral weight if you had followed your own
advice, rather than suffixing your opinion as if as some kind of definitive
coda.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162689

Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Others? You and I seem to have different ideas about what we want
>> children to find when they reach up on the family/school bookshelf.
>
> Please leave your children's upbringing out of our operating system.
> I'm not sure why you would have Debian's packages printed and on
> display in your bookshelf without scrutiny. As a parent, you know that
> it's your responsibility to limit their access to whatever your
> culture might find offensive, if you don't wish them to be exposed to
> that. On the school bookshelf I expect to find a good encyclopedia
> containing a lot more interesting images than what is available in the
> clip-art package, and if not, they can always turn to Wikipedia
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast comes to mind).
>
> Hopefully no one will have to determine if a package is "child-safe"
> before accepting it into Debian. That would be a big can of worms to
> open.

But we already do so. The fortunes package has the sexually-oriented
jokes and the atheism aphorisms split out into the fortunes-off package,
because it is (rightly IMO) considered that people might take offense at
getting these randomly.

There is nothing wrong with trying to reach a reasonable accommodation
with people to make them feel more comfortable. The only argument
against OP is simply that you feel that they are not asking for a
*reasonable* accommodation. That can be debated, but a dismissive tone
like above does not come over like you're interested in actually
debating it.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162692

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:00:48AM +0100, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> writes:
> > Hopefully no one will have to determine if a package is "child-safe"
> > before accepting it into Debian. That would be a big can of worms to
> > open.
> 
> But we already do so. The fortunes package

The fortunes-off package is in Debian, and so was accepted. I have not
seen anyone seriously suggest that the clipart in question is removed
from Debian outright: the discussion seems to be around adding
categorisation, which IMHO would be useful for many more reasons than
just addressing this issue.


-- 
Jonathan Dowland

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162693

On 06/01/16 10:00, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with trying to reach a reasonable accommodation
> with people to make them feel more comfortable. The only argument
> against OP is simply that you feel that they are not asking for a
> *reasonable* accommodation. That can be debated, but a dismissive tone
> like above does not come over like you're interested in actually
> debating it.

To me, the OP doesn't seem to be asking for an "accommodation" at all, 
but rather for the images to be removed and similar material excluded 
from Debian in future.

Other parties in this thread are proposing accommodations such as 
"partition the package" or "whatever we do, can we at least get the 
images organized *usefully* so that we don't have to browse literally 
every subdirectory of this clipart collection to find the images we want?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162696

Le 06/01/2016 13:00, Martin Read a écrit :

> To me, the OP doesn't seem to be asking for an "accommodation" at all,
> but rather for the images to be removed and similar material excluded
> from Debian in future.

sexism - like describing women as men's toys should be prohibited (apart 
for historical work), and images may be such. I didn't find the time to 
scan the opencliparts collection, but I very easily see what can be a 
problem.

Debian code of conduct (https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct) do not 
speak of this aspect of the problem.

Fosdem one (https://fosdem.org/2016/practical/conduct/) is a bit more 
comprehensive, but not much

That said I see more and more in large meetings people asking against 
sexism that still shows in some diapos.

I also remember of discussions asking why there are so few women around, 
when they are more present in IT world...

it's mostly a matter of respect: do not blame somebody for his gender, 
religion or color (or anything else like fatness or dumbness...)

jdd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162698

jdd writes:
> sexism - like describing women as men's toys should be prohibited
> (apart for historical work), and images may be such.

And disrespectful images of pasta should also be prohibited.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162708

On 01/06/2016 08:38 AM, John Hasler wrote:
> jdd writes:
>> sexism - like describing women as men's toys should be prohibited
>> (apart for historical work), and images may be such.
>
> And disrespectful images of pasta should also be prohibited.

We've already been through this loop with Supertuxkart, on the games 
list, where "Sara" was depicted wearing a Bikini in a beach scene. 
<quote> "when a human body is "portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., 
dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial 
expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used 
as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person)". 
<unquote>

To be blunt, it appears the call is for us to be in need of brain police 
"for the children" instead of a parent being responsible for their own 
policing what their children come in contact with. Otherwise, we accept 
liability for the content of packages and potentially might get sued 
over ANY lack of "due diligence". We would have to erase all images of 
children at play because they might incite some errant priest to act 
out. That is the thing, any attempt to censor anything not illegal is a 
slippery slope and best avoided or we accept liability. Ric




-- 
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162712

On Wednesday 06 January 2016 15:45:22 Ric Moore wrote:
> > jdd writes:
> >> sexism - like describing women as men's toys should be prohibited
> >> (apart for historical work), and images may be such.
> >
> > And disrespectful images of pasta should also be prohibited.
>
> We've already been through this loop with Supertuxkart,

I don't remember Supertuxkart objectifying women to the extent of equating 
them with pasta. :-/

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162731

On Wednesday 06 January 2016 11:46:09 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Wednesday 06 January 2016 15:45:22 Ric Moore wrote:
> > > jdd writes:
> > >> sexism - like describing women as men's toys should be prohibited
> > >> (apart for historical work), and images may be such.
> > >
> > > And disrespectful images of pasta should also be prohibited.
> >
> > We've already been through this loop with Supertuxkart,
>
> I don't remember Supertuxkart objectifying women to the extent of
> equating them with pasta. :-/
>
> Lisi

Being a long term DM-II diabetic, I'd like to see any images of pasta, 
which I should not eat, excised from all of these image packages, 
thereby removing the temptation. :-]>

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162703

jdd wrote:

> it's mostly a matter of respect: do not blame somebody for his gender,
> religion or color (or anything else like fatness or dumbness...)

I do not blame, I do ascertain something. And I do not understand the type
of political correctness claimed around.
If someone is fat, than s/he is fat. period. First of all s/he has to agree
with it and admit it for her/his own good.
BTW a doctor dealing with overweight (political correct word) people stated,
most (90%) are fat because they have unhealthy life and food. All desieases
they have are a result of it. No one can escape causality. That's it! This
is not a blame. This is a fact. Period.

Either one is committed to the truth or to the opposite. There is no in
between, even if you use political correct words, it will not change the
ontological truth. But I also do not see what this all has to do with the
OPs desire to see the images removed. This is what buzzed me. People do not
want to deal with issues, rather prohibit by low, which is not exactly good
in all cases

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162704

On 06/01/16 14:53, deloptes wrote:
> BTW a doctor dealing with overweight (political correct word) people stated,
> most (90%) are fat because they have unhealthy life and food. All desieases
> they have are a result of it. No one can escape causality. That's it! This
> is not a blame. This is a fact. Period.

If you are committed to the truth (rather than merely the superficial 
facts), "90% of obese people are obese because they have an unhealthy 
lifestyle and diet" is nowhere near enough information, since it doesn't 
address why they have an unhealthy lifestyle and diet, and the glib 
answer (popular with people who want to deny obese people access to 
socialized medicine) "because they choose to" isn't *useful* in 
addressing the problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162706

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:53:14 +0100
deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> wrote:

>  dealing with overweight (political correct word) people 

Please: "ponderally challenged"...
 
Cheers,
 
Ron.
-- 
                     Under capitalism, man exploits man.
                   Under communism, it's just the opposite.
                                          -- J.K. Galbraith
                                    
                   -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162711

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:53:14 +0100
deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> wrote:

>jdd wrote:
>
>> it's mostly a matter of respect: do not blame somebody for his gender,
>> religion or color (or anything else like fatness or dumbness...)
>
>I do not blame, I do ascertain something. And I do not understand the type
>of political correctness claimed around.
>If someone is fat, than s/he is fat. period. First of all s/he has to agree
>with it and admit it for her/his own good.
>BTW a doctor dealing with overweight (political correct word) people stated,
>most (90%) are fat because they have unhealthy life and food. All desieases
>they have are a result of it. No one can escape causality. That's it! This
>is not a blame. This is a fact. Period.
>
>Either one is committed to the truth or to the opposite. There is no in
>between, even if you use political correct words, it will not change the
>ontological truth. But I also do not see what this all has to do with the
>OPs desire to see the images removed. This is what buzzed me. People do not
>want to deal with issues, rather prohibit by low, which is not exactly good
>in all cases
>
>regards
>

Even if a doctor states 90% of obese people are that way due to an
unhealthy lifestyle, how do you, as an observer, determine who is in
that other 10%. There is no way to make that determination without
their health records. That is the truth.

-- 
Charlie Kravetz
Linux Registered User Number 425914
[http://linuxcounter.net/user/425914.html]
Never let anyone steal your DREAM.   [http://keepingdreams.com]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162714

Le 06/01/2016 16:44, Charlie Kravetz a écrit :

> Even if a doctor states 90% of obese people are that way due to an
> unhealthy lifestyle, how do you, as an observer, determine who is in
> that other 10%. There is no way to make that determination without
> their health records. That is the truth.
>
and no reason to ask about that in the first place...

jdd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162721

Charlie Kravetz wrote:

> Even if a doctor states 90% of obese people are that way due to an
> unhealthy lifestyle, how do you, as an observer, determine who is in
> that other 10%. There is no way to make that determination without
> their health records. That is the truth.

You've seen an "obese" coming out from McDonalds or similar with take away
bag full to the top?
How do you feel? S/he is taking care of what ... the money all we pay to the
health care system for her/his treatments?

I wanted to put a focus on the facts, not to talk that much about why and
who.
The facts speak for themselves, I am not telling that one should confront
the obese people on the street, but the political correctness in this sense
is not correct, because these people go away with the feeling they can go
on doing this forever and at the end laugh at you and get a treatment for
free, payed by whom? I'm saying this about Europe - I'm not sure how it
looks like in the other countries.

Same with the request to remove some images from a package no one knows.

What I want to point your attention to is, that too much political
correctness is no good. I hope you all understand this.

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162766

On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 07:51:26PM +0100, deloptes wrote:
> Charlie Kravetz wrote:
> 
> > Even if a doctor states 90% of obese people are that way due to an
> > unhealthy lifestyle, how do you, as an observer, determine who is in
> > that other 10%. There is no way to make that determination without
> > their health records. That is the truth.
> 
> You've seen an "obese" coming out from McDonalds or similar with take away
> bag full to the top?
> How do you feel? S/he is taking care of what ... the money all we pay to the
> health care system for her/his treatments?

I personally resent that. If I'm drunk I can't order a drink from a bar,
and yet ...

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162767

deloptes writes:
> You've seen an "obese" coming out from McDonalds or similar with take
> away bag full to the top?  How do you feel? S/he is taking care of
> what ... the money all we pay to the health care system for her/his
> treatments?

Chris Bannister writes:
> I personally resent that.

Do you also resent people who engage in other dangerous hobbies?
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#162768

On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 08:02:14AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> deloptes writes:
> > You've seen an "obese" coming out from McDonalds or similar with take
> > away bag full to the top?  How do you feel? S/he is taking care of
> > what ... the money all we pay to the health care system for her/his
> > treatments?
> 
> Chris Bannister writes:
> > I personally resent that.
> 
> Do you also resent people who engage in other dangerous hobbies?

I suggest you read what I wrote again, including the part you snipped.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web