-
 KDE-Apps.org Applications for the KDE-Desktop 
 GTK-Apps.org Applications using the GTK Toolkit 
 GnomeFiles.org Applications for GNOME 
 MeeGo-Central.org Applications for MeeGo 
 CLI-Apps.org Command Line Applications 
 Qt-Apps.org Free Qt Applications 
 Qt-Prop.org Proprietary Qt Applications 
 Maemo-Apps.org Applications for the Maemo Plattform 
 Java-Apps.org Free Java Applications 
 eyeOS-Apps.org Free eyeOS Applications 
 Wine-Apps.org Wine Applications 
 Server-Apps.org Server Applications 
 apps.ownCloud.com ownCloud Applications 
--
-
 KDE-Look.org Artwork for the KDE-Desktop 
 GNOME-Look.org Artwork for the GNOME-Desktop 
 Xfce-Look.org Artwork for the Xfce-Desktop 
 Box-Look.org Artwork for your Windowmanager 
 E17-Stuff.org Artwork for Enlightenment 
 Beryl-Themes.org Artwork for the Beryl Windowmanager 
 Compiz-Themes.org Artwork for the Compiz Windowmanager 
 EDE-Look.org Themes for your EDE Desktop 
--
-
 Debian-Art.org Stuff for Debian 
 Gentoo-Art.org Artwork for Gentoo Linux 
 SUSE-Art.org Artwork for openSUSE 
 Ubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Ubuntu 
 Kubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Kubuntu 
 LinuxMint-Art.org Artwork for Linux Mint 
 Arch-Stuff.org Art And Stuff for Arch Linux 
 Frugalware-Art.org Themes for Frugalware 
 Fedora-Art.org Artwork for Fedora Linux 
 Mandriva-Art.org Artwork for Mandriva Linux 
--
-
 KDE-Files.org Files for KDE Applications 
 OpenTemplate.org Documents for OpenOffice.org
 GIMPStuff.org Files for GIMP
 InkscapeStuff.org Files for Inkscape
 ScribusStuff.org Files for Scribus
 BlenderStuff.org Textures and Objects for Blender
 VLC-Addons.org Themes and Extensions for VLC
--
-
 KDE-Help.org Support for your KDE Desktop 
 GNOME-Help.org Support for your GNOME Desktop 
 Xfce-Help.org Support for your Xfce Desktop 
--
openDesktop.orgopenDesktop.org:   Applications   Artwork   Linux Distributions   Documents    LinuxDaily.com    Linux42.org    OpenSkillz.com   
 
Apps
News
Groups
Knowledge
Events
Forum
People
Jobs
Register
Login

-
- Poll . 

Should KDE unrelated content be deleted?


Posted by  on Nov 6 2001

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home
Never! It's censorship31%31%31% 31%
No! Only Porn.10%10%10% 10%
Yes! Quality is king59%59%59% 59%
Votes: 2703
goto page: prev   1  2  3  4  5  6 

-

 Deleting wallpapers

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 7 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

My suggestion: Delete a wallpaper after 3 days, if it has a rating auf 30% or less.


Reply to this

-

 poll - vote

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 7 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

Hi !

This voting is bullshit. the result doesnt mirror the feelings of the people, cause you can flood the poll. please dont vote and enable the preview for this pic. Its art with erotic touch and most of us has seen a brust before and if a kid see it, hell, its irrelevant cause our body is nothing which we must hide (for kids too). its human !

Ronny


Reply to this

-

 SPAM v Original work

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 7 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

I think the focus of this poll is more related to the fact that some people have been spamming the site with low-quality "wallpapers". It's not the "titilating" images that I object to, but rather the fact that people unashamedly post images that are not their own. Just my opinion, but I believe that content that is not original (particularly where the original artist is not credited) should not be shown.


Reply to this

-

 "beautiful art"

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 7 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

I'm sorry, but this is bugging me too much. I have to share this opinion, though a very unpopular one.

Whenever someone says that "porn" isn't appropriate for this site, it offends them, it needs to be censored, etc., someone ALWAYS comes right back and says "it's not porn". They'll call it beautiful art, erotic wallpaper, anything along those lines, but they refuse to call it porn.

from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

"pornography: the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement"

from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

"pornography (pr-ngr-f)
n.

1.Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

Want to argue that it's not erotic behavior?

"erotic (-rtk)
adj.

2.Tending to arouse sexual desire."

How about arguing that the pictures aren't explicit?

"explicit (k-splst)
adj.

3.
a.Readily observable: an explicit sign of trouble.
b.Describing or portraying nudity or sexual activity in graphic detail."

Can you honestly say that the pictures which were argued to be "beautiful art" weren't intended to cause some sexual arousal, and didn't display some nudity? If not, then they are porn. They may have been art too, even beautiful art, but they were also porn.

I'm not arguing that the pictures are mentally harmful, or immoral, or out of place, or just wrong, or that they should be taken off the site, I'm arguing against those who say that they are not pornography. They are.


Reply to this

-

 still nope

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 8 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

Yup, you just proved that these images were not "pornographic".

I suggest that you look at this part of your definition, "intended to cause sexual excitement". These images were clearly not designed to do this. Instead, these images were meant to portray the beautiful human body in it's most most natural state. Indeed, to prove this, look at the lighting in the pictures. They accentuate the curves-- the form-- and the geometric detail.

THAT is the difference between softcore pornography and art with nudity. One is suggestive of sexual activity, and the other doesn't. And the images on this site don't so far. Just because an image has a naked body part does not make it suggest sexual activity. Of course, it may suggest it to some people like you. But then again, in different parts of the world, "the cultural norm" is different. Female breasts, for example, are not such a big deal in many European countries. On the other hand, a picture of a women with a full sleave shirt and a pair of pants may be considered pornographic in other parts of the world (particularily some Muslim countries).

Really, because of this, I think we should just let people who click on images deside wether they want to see it or not.


Reply to this

-

 i give a shit for ..

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 8 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

muslim countries or possible muslim users
that could be offended by erotic or pornographic pictures. This fucking religion for pig fucking arseholes should be destroyed.It's something by stupid men that live in a time before our civilized
countries.Muslim religion is for stupid morons that wants to suppress women and girls. I hate the muslim !!!


Reply to this

-

 Oh, yeah?

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 8 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

Have you heard about freedom? This is a KDE site, and I think you couldn't express yourself as you are doing here. Make a site to express your horror about muslim. Coming back to freedom, they are free to follow any religion, as well as your father was free to be a heterosexual. Have you imagined if he isn't, and never had a women? Then, we are free of a person who hates another, just because her religion. Well, I don't have anything against gays, but I'd like you catch the point. Let your father free to be a hetero, let the muslim free to follow his principles, let us free from your stupid comments.


Reply to this

-

 good lord

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 8 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

What a primitive! I'm a muslim, living in the U.S., and instead of being offended I'm just amused (but then, growing up in America I'm used to this sort of opinion).

I feel sorry for you and your family.


Reply to this

-

 naked body=>sex?

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 17 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home


> 1.Sexually explicit pictures

Is a naked body a sexually explicit picture?
The problem with many people (I'm not saying you fit in the category) is that for them naked body => sex. And they call others perverts!!!

Anyway, I don't think there is a problem with porn, whatever that is, precisely. And yes, one should have the choice to hide R and X rated pics in some way.


Reply to this

-

 intentions and goals

 
 by tabby_cat on: Nov 8 2001
 
Score 50%

I think it depends on your intentions for the site. I take this site to be a themes etc repository for kde users. Not just a repository of kde specific items. Otherwise why are there gtk themes?

Catagories are necessary.

Being logged in to rate items it important too. One vote per item per user.

It might just be me but shouldn't cookies or something be used to record being logged in? I find it annoying to have to log in again everytime I come here.

Some sort of filtering system would be nice too.


Reply to this

-

 Blah

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 8 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

This site might as well be called www.wallpapers.org - too much crap, too little real themes/styles for KDE.


Reply to this

-

 valid point

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 8 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

It might seem a bit harsh, but should the wallpaper category be removed? There are countless sites on the web which provide excellent wallpapers, but this is the only site that caters for KDE themes and styles (I don't think themes.org really counts at this stage). This is not to detract from people who have submitted artistic and appealing wallpapers, but others unfortunately seem unable to resist the temptation to spam the site.


Reply to this

-

 Remove Wallpapers

 
 by MessiahWWKD on: Nov 8 2001
 
Score 50%

Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea at all in my opinion. That's really the only problem with this site. Without all the floods of wallpaper, this site would be even better.


Reply to this

-

 I agree...

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 8 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

I agree at some point. But we *all* must have the reponsability of increasing the KDE content. Let's make more themes, skins, and other things, related to KDE, and upload!
About the wallpapers: there hundreds of porn sites, hundreds of wallpapers sites... I, myself, acess some of them regularly, who doesn't? However, let's destiny this one to our pleasure of handling KDE. The scope here is KDE.


Reply to this

-

 Hummm......

 
 by anonymous on: Nov 8 2001
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

All I know is if I put some of these wallpapers as my background image my GF would freak. I don't mind them being here but there probably should be some kind of disclaimer for the younger kidos. You have to be real carefull with that stuff these days. Great site though:)


Reply to this

goto page: prev   1  2  3  4  5  6 

Add commentAdd commentall pollsSuggest new pollBack



-
-
Do you like or dislike Ubuntu Unity?
 Yes, unity is alien technology!
 It is less confusing than Gnome 3 default, shell.
 Granny thinks it is much more usable than Gnome 2
 Canonical is embarrasing itself with this split project
 Gnome 3 default shell is much better
 I dislike Unity, Gnome 3 default shell is alien technology!
 None of the above, I like the 2Gb for free and Apple alike behavior. Will post a comment instead

resultmore
 
 
 Who we are
Contact
More about us
Frequently Asked Questions
Register
Twitter
Blog
Explore
Apps
Jobs
Knowledge
Events
People
Updates on identi.ca
Updates on Twitter
Facebook App
Content RSS   
Events RSS   

Participate
Groups
Forum
Add App
Public API
About KDE-Apps.org
Legal Notice
Spreadshirt Shop
CafePress Shop
Advertising
Sponsor us
Report Abuse
 

Copyright 2003-2014 KDE-Apps.org Team  
All rights reserved. KDE-Apps.org is not liable for any content or goods on this site.
All contributors are responsible for the lawfulness of their uploads.
KDE and K Desktop Environment are trademarks of KDE e.V.