Dear Marc, > Please consider that millions of people have heard about this case on TV, > but so far you are the only person who thinks of this case when looking > at baby pictures (there is no connection to babies in the dutroux case at > all...), at least the only person on this list, while many others have > made it clear to you that they don't think in tis strange way, including > Dave.
I did not talk about "baby pictures", but about the particular picture that was in the screen-shots section. I have asked Dave if he had any other pictures of his (dressed) son available, and I offered my help in improving the photographs as best as I can. Also, I have proof that I am not the only person that considered it a bad idea to have a picture of an apparently naked, wet child in the screen-shots section of a program that is used not only in the US or Europe, but world-wide. I want to remind you that there are countries on this world that consider an unveiled woman offensive, let alone a naked woman, or child, and not everyone will post his thoughts about this matter on the list, perhaps mainly due to language differences, and neither would have I, because this is not a technical matter that you can "discuss", like say, if we would use C++ or some higher level language for the Gimp core code, or when we should get rid of deprecated Gtk implementations. Those are the things that you can "discuss", because they are intellectually, not emotionally justifiable, and do not depend on your culture. Also, there is no "choosing a side", or changing your mind by arguments in this issue, as Simon said, and this is why I mailed Dave, not you, and not to this list, because I expected he would understand my opinion immediately. > What's also not normal is that you continously insist that you know that > Dave removed the picture because he follows your reasoning, despite there > is evidence to the contrary. Dave clearly stated that he took away the picture as a direct consequence of my mail. In his own words: "this discussion (or rather, the original mail) made me see a popular website's place in the internet slightly differently". He has no problem with baby photos, and neither have I, but you might understand that there is some kind of strong correlation between my mail and him taking the picture away, or you are the one who is trolling. > At the moment, you are just trolling, nothing more. And you surely know > that and still go on with your abuse of this case, which is probably the > reason why so many people on this list are upset. Shame on you. I again apologize for all the confusion and trouble I have caused on this list, please forgive me. I never meant to send my thoughts about the picture to a developer's list. Also, I have clearly stated in an earlier message that I want to end now this discussion that I did not want to start in the first place, and especially not on this place. It is posts like yours that keep the words rolling, because they attack me personally, saying I am "not normal", have "a smutty mind", or accusing me of other things, like "trolling" or "abusing". You might understand that I can not let that stand as it is. Regards, Markus Triska. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
