The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "purity" package

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
...
  >	I am also concerned about him dismissing all the protests
  > about the bible-kjv that people have voiced; I do not think we should
  > be promoting or distributing any religious works, espescially as we
  > pointedly only distribute one.

Presumably no-one else has ever packaged anything. (As far as bible versions
go, every other one is in copyright still.)  If anyone wants to package
the Quran, the Bhagavad Vita, the book of Mormon or whatever, there's
nothing to stop them, provided they aren't in copyright.

I don't quite understand why these Americans who are so keen not to be
censored are also so keen to stop anyone having the chance to read the
bible.  It seems it's OK to publish stuff promoting bestiality, child rape
and endless violence, but not to let people pray or to read about 
how God gave himself up to death for our sake.  Does that make sense? Not
to me!

Most of the people who wrote your constitution would have thought the
Supreme Court's judgments on public prayer utterly insane and evil.  We
certainly don't need such folly spread across the rest of the world.

  >          If we are now yanking packages on
  > personal affront, I'd like to enter the bible into the sweepstakes
  > too. 
 
Now it seems you're being provocative for the sake of it.

  >	For the record, I think it was wrong to yank a work just
  > because it offended someones sexual taboos and hangups; and to
  > unilaterally disregard the opposition viewpoint.
  >
  >	However, I'm not sure that there is any point furthering this
  > discussion. 

Not so. It is of great importance to decide whether or not we are the kind of
organisation that publishes things that are grossly offensive.  Most of us
would, I think, be uncomfortable with the idea and relieved that Bruce and
the maintainer have sorted the problem out.  We certainly need to have
someone who is able to say: this won't do.

-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver

PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1




--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .