Re: [Gimp-developer] Baby photos (was: Gimp 2.0)
Dear Marc, > 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 > Dave. I did not talk about "baby pictures", but about the particular picture that was in the screen-shots section. I have asked Dave if he had any other pictures of his (dressed) son available, and I offered my help in improving the photographs as best as I can. Also, I have proof that I am not the only person that considered it a bad idea to have a picture of an apparently naked, wet child in the screen-shots section of a program that is used not only in the US or Europe, but world-wide. I want to remind you that there are countries on this world that consider an unveiled woman offensive, let alone a naked woman, or child, and not everyone will post his thoughts about this matter on the list, perhaps mainly due to language differences, and neither would have I, because this is not a technical matter that you can "discuss", like say, if we would use C++ or some higher level language for the Gimp core code, or when we should get rid of deprecated Gtk implementations. Those are the things that you can "discuss", because they are intellectually, not emotionally justifiable, and do not depend on your culture. Also, there is no "choosing a side", or changing your mind by arguments in this issue, as Simon said, and this is why I mailed Dave, not you, and not to this list, because I expected he would understand my opinion immediately. > 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. Dave clearly stated that he took away the picture as a direct consequence of my mail. In his own words: "this discussion (or rather, the original mail) made me see a popular website's place in the internet slightly differently". He has no problem with baby photos, and neither have I, but you might understand that there is some kind of strong correlation between my mail and him taking the picture away, or you are the one who is trolling. > 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. I again apologize for all the confusion and trouble I have caused on this list, please forgive me. I never meant to send my thoughts about the picture to a developer's list. Also, I have clearly stated in an earlier message that I want to end now this discussion that I did not want to start in the first place, and especially not on this place. It is posts like yours that keep the words rolling, because they attack me personally, saying I am "not normal", have "a smutty mind", or accusing me of other things, like "trolling" or "abusing". You might understand that I can not let that stand as it is. Regards, Markus Triska. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Baby photos (was: Gimp 2.0)
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:40:14AM +, 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" [1] > > 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 Dave. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Baby photos (was: Gimp 2.0)
> I can think of a lot of reasons for Dave to a) remove the image and b) > keep the image removed. This discussion being the first one (even > without considering the positions exchanged [1]). I certainly won't ask > him to put it up again because this is of no vital interest to me. I know that it was me who triggered that. Why can't you believe this? I hope Dave will clarify this on the list so that you can take it for granted. > What a pity. This could have been an interesting discussion. One of the reasons that I will not "discuss" this with you is that I feel you are more interested in "discussing" per se than what happens to the baby and the photo. "Discussing" is of no interest to me with regards to this picture. I felt it should not be on the site, for the baby's sake, and Dave felt so, too. There is no way for me to make you feel so, too, because you are so attached to the wording I choose, and to the structure of my arguments. To convince Dave, I needed no arguments, and no structure, but a short message sufficed. That Dave removed his own picture should be enough argument for you. This is not "getting too hot" for me, but I consider it a waste of time to "discuss" with persons of your mindset. I knew that Dave would not be that kind of person, and that is why I mailed him privately. I never wanted to "discuss" this on the Gimp developer's list. All I can do know is not defend myself, but to clarify the wording of the private mail I sent to Dave for all you others, who never were intended to see it. Best regards, Markus Triska. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Baby photos (was: Gimp 2.0)
Markus Triska ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > As I stated in an earlier message, Dave has now removed the photograph in > question, and I consider the issue resolved. I therefore have no interest to > explain my point of view any deeper. If it werent that sad it'd be funny. You got what you wanted so you can stop defending your position and even avoid to (*gasp*) think about it. > 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. I can think of a lot of reasons for Dave to a) remove the image and b) keep the image removed. This discussion being the first one (even without considering the positions exchanged [1]). I certainly won't ask him to put it up again because this is of no vital interest to me. However, as my friends probably will confirm, discussions about morale and/or "the right thing" *are* of a great interest to me and I firmly believe that your motives (or at least what I think your motives are - you did not object my interpretation yet) are the utterly wrong reason to put down a baby picture. Usually I think hard before picking a position in a discussion. I am also prepared to change my position in a discussion, but this won't happen without any arguments. Hardly getting any is a disappointment. I'll happily defend my opinion about that, however since you've chosen the easy route to not to argue about it, I'll stop holding my breath. What a pity. This could have been an interesting discussion. Bye, Simon [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. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Baby photos (was: Gimp 2.0)
Dear Simon! > 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" [1] 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. > > In all of your mails you kept the distinction between these three issues > blurry and unless you try to keep these issues separate and calmly argue > about this every further discussion is pointless. > I have no interest in explaining my point of view to each and every individual on this list in detail until they all get it, also because many of them have apparently already decided that they never will, and also because I do not know you at all. I think that the persons here either are getting my opinion right from the start, or they won't ever. I sent word to Dave privately because I somehow knew he would be of the first type, and this is why I chose him, and not anyone else. I would never have sent this to the list myself, nor to any other person from the list, because I knew it would be asking for trouble. This is perhaps also due to the fact that only those persons that can NOT follow my arguments write here again and again, while the persons that share my opinion do not stand up publicly, but keep sending me private mails with the notice that I must not forward them to the list under any circumstances, as if this was the only thing I have in mind, or if I had ever done so. As I stated in an earlier message, Dave has now removed the photograph in question, and I consider the issue resolved. I therefore have no interest to explain my point of view any deeper. 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. Best regards, Markus Triska. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Baby photos (was: Gimp 2.0)
Markus Triska ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 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. As I wrote you in a personal mail I believe nobody here is accusing you of the things you read into our mails. Of course putting yourself in the role of the victim is a convenient way to avoid thinking and arguing. 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" [1] (I believe that something very similiar to Godwins law applies here...). As I wrote in my lengthy personal mail to you I believe you mix up three things: * Presenting GIMP badly due to unprofessional advertizing. * Privacy of babys and the role of their parents in that context. * Potentially horrible side effects of displaying baby photos. I right now won't bother to repeat my arguments why I believe that none of these three things makes a point with respect to the photo on gimp.org. In all of your mails you kept the distinction between these three issues blurry and unless you try to keep these issues separate and calmly argue about this every further discussion is pointless. For the records: No, I don't think about Dutroux when seeing a baby. I guess I am rude and have no human feelings or so. Bye, Simon [1] i.e. an argument you can't argue against without putting yourself in a bad light. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Baby photos (was: Gimp 2.0)
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 message: "... 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Baby photos (was: Gimp 2.0)
I realize this is off-topic, and that I should not feed the trolls any further, but if these ideas straight out of the dark ages are left unchallenged, it may seem to casual readers of the archives or the list that everybody here agrees with them. On 22 Apr 2004, at 4:05, Markus Triska wrote: > Sven: > > The picture is in no way offensive and anyone who draws a relation > > to the Dutroux tragedy is either sick himself or overly cautious. > > I think we can agree that most of us rather would not have a > screen-shot of an adult woman or man, half-naked like this, I think we can agree that we should not speak for others, lest our ignorance shines through too clearly. I reserve the right to make judgements about nude photos on a case by case basis. Personally, I have no a priory objection to any form of nudity. I do object against exploitation, but I also object against caving in to distorted morals. People do not lose dignity when they are shown naked. > in the screen-shots section, albeit professional models who get > paid for their job. I do not know why you make a difference for > children. Because there is no loss of dignity for naked children. Whether you are a religious person who follows the teachings of Christ, who said that children are without sin, or whether you actually noticed the Enlightenment that struck Europe a couple of centuries ago, no-one (well, allmost no-one) thinks a photo of a naked baby is wrong, undignified or sexually arrousing. > If I had not mailed Dave, how long would the photo still be around? > Maybe his children will be thankful some day, when they understand > what was going on, that not everyone has a photo of them with no > clothes on. And maybe if you had not mailed Dave, his children would have been spared of such extremes of narrowmindedness for a little while longer. That would truly have been something to be grateful for. > Given that Dave seems to have understood my point and removed the > picture, I don't know why you think Dave seems to have understood your point; it certainly does not follow from his removing the picture, which was for other reasons: 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. 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. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
