User blog comment:Cloak5000/Too many Open Source characters/@comment-174.240.128.211-20130607213109/@comment-174.240.128.211-20130607224620

I don't mean to sound like a humorless prude, but where are we going to draw the line on the stupid and the perverse? If some idiot goes on heromaker and makes a lame rendition of "Captain Dildo" and declares it "Open Source" are we supposed to feel obligated to promote every lame 55 minute character that may or may not be truly intended for free use? I think it's one thing if the character was used in a commercial venture or if an obvious amount of thought and/or creativity went into the character, but i think if i was going to use a name like bananahammock, i could come up with something much funnier. i feel like unless you have a really good reason to use such a name, it's a waste of time to even read the title of the article.