> My other point, to which I refer Occam's razor is that without evidence, > it's unreasonable to claim some sinister government plot to sanitize > history as the reason why he chose to paint it as he did.
John, If you read the interviews accessible on the web (which I'm not going to cite this time because I've read them before and can't be arsed to plough through again, just trust me that they're there) you'll find that the US Postal Service did, in fact, specify to the artists that they were not to show cigarette smoking on the stamps designs. So, there was indeed a government "plot" to sanitize history. "Sinister" was not specified (I searched the entire thread just to be sure, and you're the first to use that word), it is your personal introduction of hyperbole, falsely attributed to an opposing argument, in order to paint your opponents as paranoid. Regards, Anthony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > John Sessoms > Sent: Sunday, 19 October 2008 9:48 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history > > From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > John Sessoms wrote: > > > >> > Occam's Razor sez the painter "moved" the hand so it'd fit on the stamp. > > > > Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the > > right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original > > literally and exactly or not. > > That's one of my points, i.e the artist is entitled to his vision. > > My other point, to which I refer Occam's razor is that without evidence, > it's unreasonable to claim some sinister government plot to sanitize > history as the reason why he chose to paint it as he did. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
