On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:40:14AM +0000, Markus Triska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You have not yet explained what exactly makes you think of Dutroux
> > when looking at the Photo and what exactly you think has been gained by
> > removing that image in that context. The Dutroux connection is
> > especially important, since this is a typical "Totschlagargument" 
> It rather was the other way around. Only because I continuously read and hear
> about this alleged criminal on the media did I think about this context when
> looking at the photo. You can take that remark out of my initial mail, and
> the point it raised would still be valid.
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
This is certainly not normal.
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.
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.
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
Gimp-developer mailing list