Dear Branko!

> Dave:
> + when I read this mail, I got defensive a bit - the thought 
> + that someone thought the photo could be viewed sexually kind 
> + of turned my stomach. So I took it down.
> In other words, it's not your point, but the fact that you raised it, 
> that you could think of such a gruesome thing, that made Dave take 
> the picture down.

As I stated before, the "gruesome thing" you mention was not as far fetched as 
you seem to imply, if you follow European news these days. I hope that 
neither Dave nor you nor anyone else thinks that I *myself* found the picture 
arousing, and don't ever half-accuse me of this again.

My intention was exactly to bring to Dave's attention that there could be 
people that think of it that way, and I think that this was exactly what made 
Dave take the picture down, so I don't understand how you can say it was not 
"my point" that had this effect.

Unfortunately, there is no long-term hiding in religion nor is it safe to stay 
in your "dark ages". Abusing children for disgusting pictures IS a problem 
today, which we can not neglect or deny, and saying that children are without 
sin certainly does not improve the situation or makes abusers go away, even 
if it is or were true.

Reading all the mails that I have received in private today, I conjecture that 
I was not the only person feeling that there was something wrong to show the 
picture as it was, even if they do not stand up and say it in public.

> Your morals have nothing to do with it; if they 
> had, Dave would probably not have taken the picture in the first 
> place, let alone posted it.

This might or may not be true, I do not know. I can imagine parents that think 
of their children as so natural and lovely that they really don't think about 
such issues, unless they are told to do so. Also, you did not quote Dave's 
words that immediately preceded your quote, which I consider essential to his 

"... I didn't think of any negative connotations, but indeed I wasn't thinking 
"that way". 

I can only again point out that if I had known that Dave would forward my 
initial mail to a public mailing list, I would have come up with different 
reasons and phrasing. The mail was intended to be read by Dave, not you, nor 
anyone else.

All in all, I don't know what you want from me by writing such a post to the 
list. You think I am abusing children? No, I don't. That I found the picture 
arousing? No, I did not. You think I should not have mailed Dave? None of 
your business. You think the picture should stay? Go make a picture of 
yourself, naked, and put it on the list, but keep your children safe. Dave 
has decided to replace the picture with something more neutral, and I think 
that was OK.

Best regards,
Markus Triska.
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to