Simon Budig wrote:
Markus Triska ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Maybe Dave can explain to you why he did so, and you can then try
convincing him that he put the picture back, if this is what you want,
but please keep me out of that.

"Uh, this is getting too hot for me, let Dave pick the potatoes from the fire since he is the one who implemented my wish". How convenient.

Please bear in mind the origin of the mail (me, not Markus). Indeed, as has been said, the original mail was the trigger - until I had received that mail it would never have occurred to me that the screenshot could be viewed sexually. After the mail, that thought did occur to me. Perhaps if it were me and not Thomas, I wouldn't mind, but, well, I don't apply the same standards to myself as I do to my behaviour with respect to my son.

[1] Please note, that the removal of the image does not necessarily
mean, that Dave agrees with your opinions on a rational level. His
description of the events very clearly indicates an emotional reaction -
this is by far easier to accept for me than your poking in the fog.

Yeah, this is pretty accurate... in general I think baby photos are great, and I have no problem showing photos of Thomas to more or less anyone. But this discussion (or rather, the original mail) made me see a popular website's place in the internet slightly differently.

I'd appreciate it if we could let this thread drop, though.


Dave Neary

_______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to