On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 06:54:48AM -0600, Roland Hordos wrote:
> While all other credible opensource projects are gaining ground in a
> professional IT setting, the GIMP is being held back because of the
> instant derogatory impact of the name.  If someone who can champion this
> task reads this, please humble yourself for the sake of this amazing
> software that some of us are embarrassed to promote, or simply won't
> until the name is changed.
then stop.  promote actually spending the money to purchase other
applications for their well-namedness.  

that being said, i chuckle when i hear the word 'Kleenex'.  this
chuckle that i get does not restrict me from using this product as a 
'facial tissue'.  being limited by how much money i have available does

quite possibly the first mention of the word gimp in a media situation
is in this movie:
the movie was about prejudice and financially challenged people.  the
word is used in this movie in not such a derogatory way because the
person it was being used to describe was such a functional and well
rounded person.  it is interesting how so much of our fictional stories
are about how bad people work and little howtos about how to disable

the software known as GIMP was started by a spencer as well.  what is
interesting to me is that the company who hired him also is hosting a
searchable archive of newsgroup stuff.  some of the archived news has
changed its message in these years i have been involved.  the news piece
i read was about how the software had been originally written because
such software was not available to the writers -- unless they wanted to
steal.  this archived news has changed.  the name of the company hosting
this archives makes me think of what a baby says when it is happy and 
trying to speak.

perhaps we should start there and ask this company to change its name
because it is such a humiliating message to its users?

any guesses the reason that the original message changed from 'i don't
want to steal so i wrote this software myself' to saying nothing?  the
company reports financial health and seems to be in the position to make
positive change in the world.  could it be that money is only possessed
by perverts?  this also seems to be the message of this thread that
followed this very stupid and terribly predictable thread.

perhaps the original news item i read was wrong.  perhaps the one i read
now is the correct one.  but what could possibly be the reason for it to
have changed?

can anyone provide evidence that the people who have the money and
connections to run this world are not perverts?  my fragile little
psyche would really like an example of how men are not animals who only
react to the very absolutely worst of despicable sexual innuendo.   

and lets give mr. tarantino the credit he deserves.  a scholar of movie
fiction and culture -- i am going to suggest that this movie was a
little howto.  howto reach into your own mind and the way you are in the
world and how your perceptions are.  reach into your life and find that
prejudiced and uncultured 'yahoo' who has put the best part of himself
into a box in his own mind and mistreats it.  it is perhaps a bigger
statment about mans fear of his own sexuality.  like they did in this
movie, find a tough guy in your own mind and use this tough guy to 
kill that part of you which has imprisoned yourself and kill that part 
of you that has been so abused by the expectations of others.

be bigger than your own box.  or make your own maillist.

respectfully yours,


further reading:
for help with the sound:
find an infant, make it happy and listen
gimp:look within

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to