Well ok, I'm happy with that if "Other" lets me include pictures of beautifuly women containing the Gnome-Logo on their tops or pants. The pont is, that I really do not understand, why we can make art out of everything but human beings? On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 22:03 +0100, Thomas Wood wrote: > My main reasons for not including "adult" content on art.gnome.org was > that we have had complaints before about it so no longer accept this > type of material. I don't want to include any material on art.gnome.org > that might offend any users, which "adult" material can do. > > On the subject of new categories though, I would like suggestions on the > following categories: > > GNOME, Nature, Abstract, Other? > > I think GNOME, Nature and Abstract should cover most of the current > backgrounds. Should we also make a category for distribution wallpapers? > We still get quite a few of these, although the submission policy says > we don't accept them. > > -Thomas > > > Marius M. M. wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I was just discussing with thos my idea of a new Category for wallpapers > >on art.gnome.org. First, here the log: > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ><thos> I want to add some more background categories > ><devilx> maybe a password protected adult category. > ><thos> er no > ><devilx> :( it was worth a try > ><thos> well, it would be pretty hard to password protect a sectino of > >the ftp > ><thos> but why onearth should there be adult content on art.gnome.org > >anyway? > ><devilx> I don't mean "porn" with adult. Just.. do you remember the > >Login Screen i've submitted, thos? > >... > ><devilx> thos, I mean, I'm sure nobody will hate art.gnome.org if it > >provides some nice ladies in bikinis licking the gnome-logo or stuff > >like that. > ><devilx> you don't even need to write a login. Just a warning-page, > >explicit content. > ><thos> devilx, well there were complaints last time... > ><devilx> sry, but who complains about a wallpaper with a nice lady? (not > >porny, it should be just esthetically nice) > ><thos> er, other women do > ><devilx> thos, they can also add nice guys, if they want. So what's the > >problem. > ><thos> devilx, it's just appropriate > ><thos> er > ><thos> not appropriate > ><thos> would you ever see that sort of content on the official windows > >site? > ><tirpse> on msd - yes > ><tirpse> i mena this multimedia - entertaimant page from MS, i cant > >remember how it was called > ><tirpse> ah > ><tirpse> www.msn.com > ><devilx> thos, no, because everyone at microsoft has at least one stick > >in his ass. > ><devilx> thos, and I don't expect to see that kind of content on > >www.gnome.org > ><devilx> thos, I just would like to see it on art.gnome.org > ><devilx> and the point is: Who does not accept on the > >"explicit-content"-page, won't see the pictures. Who accepts and > >complains, is just dumb. Because why do I accept the terms to view stuff > >I don't like? > ><devilx> thos, even picasso and all other artists have drawn pictures of > >females, because it is art. Why do you want to censor art? > ><devilx> look at this: > >http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=25357 > >... > ><devilx> personally I don't like the wallpaper, and I don't like her. > >But they rated the paper 55%. So, it doesn't seem to be that bad. > >... > ><thos> devilx, perhaps you should ask other people on the list to get > >their opinion > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >So, now I'm asking you. What do you think about this? > >Thanks. > > > >Bye > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >artweb-list mailing list > >artweb-list gnome org > >http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/artweb-list > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > artweb-list mailing list > artweb-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/artweb-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part