Hi,
about ten days ago I wrote:
Since Copy Visible is a script, it can't be moved next to Copy. At
least not with the current menu system. Mitch is currently replacing
it with GtkUIManager. We will see if it offers a better solution.
The good news is that this problem has indeed been solved
Hi,
David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cool! Looking at Copy visible, you register a menu entry in
Image/Edit/Copy/Copy _Visible. Do placeholders act the same
as menus?
Well, we are all new to this but it looks as if that's the case.
Sven
___
Markus Triska wrote:
Again, I have to point out that I never intended to send the mail that Dave
quoted to the list - I only thought that he would understand the issues I
raised, and right I was.
I owe Markus a public apology for forwarding this on to the list.
In fact, the baby part of the
Dear Carol!
this is the part where you get embarrassed about the weird forwarding
and spamming.
I am sorry for the inconvenience that I am causing you all as a new user of
the mailing list (and, indeed, ANY mailing list).
When I answered your mail, I did not know that you had also sent it to
Markus Triska wrote:
Dear Carol!
this is the part where you get embarrassed about the weird forwarding
and spamming.
I am sorry for the inconvenience that I am causing you all as a new user of
the mailing list (and, indeed, ANY mailing list).
When I answered your mail, I did not know that
Dave Neary wrote:
I owe Markus a public apology for forwarding this on to the list.
Bravo! I was confident that you would do the right thing, and you
have not disappointed me.
Best,
-- Bill
__ __ __ __
Sent via the KillerWebMail system at
Hi,
Carol Spears wrote:
is this person with the smutty mind a developer?
Perhaps you missed it, but he didn't mail the developers list. I did. And I
shouldn't have.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Neary
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Carol Spears wrote:
while i appreciate someone else being the new person to really abuse the
mail lists (try cc and one time multiple mailings). ((check to see if it
is sent to the list or not)). (((forgive me when i screw up, sometimes
-- all i get is mail list mail)))
Dear Carol!
i dunno. he got everything he asked for. it did not even make sense to
me and he got it.
Oh yeah, and I got so much more too, thank you very much.
this human being should be on the gimp users list. it is polite and
nice there.
i have a bad opinion of someone who so
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Carol Spears wrote:
i have a bad opinion of someone who so easily gets to change things on
an established list.
If I recall correctly, it was Dave who was asking for changes to the list,
or rather, a return to the civility that once was here.
if you want a friendly mail
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:31:38PM -0700, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Carol Spears wrote:
I don't think he has a smutty mind, just is painfully mindful of those
that do. And there should be no chinese wall between the developers and
the users. How else can the
Dave Neary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Markus Triska wrote:
Also, I find the picture of the wet baby in the Screen Shots section
rather annoying. I mean, it's not the baby's fault, but I think that with
all the stuff going on in Europe (Dutroux), placing a half-naked kid with
amateur
Hi,
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have beein playing around with Gimp for some time now, and one
procedure I apply every once in a while is to make a copy of each
visible layer and merge them to a new one (as a means comparable to
CVS tagging - to mark and save a stage of
On 21 Apr 2004, at 14:33, Dave Neary wrote:
Markus Triska:
Also, I find the picture of the wet baby in the Screen Shots
section rather annoying. I mean, it's not the baby's fault, but I
think that with all the stuff going on in Europe (Dutroux), placing
a half-naked kid with amateur
On 21 Apr 2004, at 15:20, Sven Neumann wrote:
anyone who draws a relation to the Dutroux tragedy [and baby
photos] is [...] sick
These kind of remarks may be the reason why somebody like Markus does
not feel welcome to post here. You are overgeneralizing and jumping
at conclusions while
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I make a copy of each
visible layer and merge them to a new one. I
have beein wondering why this is not an option in the layer context
menu (like copy visible and merge those).
There is Selection-Copy Visible which essentially does just
Hi ; ),
Also, I find the picture of the wet baby in the Screen Shots section
rather annoying. I mean, it's not the baby's fault, but I think that with
all the stuff going on in Europe (Dutroux), placing a half-naked kid with
amateur lightning in this section is not a matter of particularly
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
There is Selection-Copy Visible which essentially does just that.
I don't have a Copy visible entry in the Selection menu. Is this in 2.0.x or
in the HEAD?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Neary
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Gimp-developer
Hi,
David Gómez wrote:
I'm not sure where screenshot submissions should go
though - perhaps someone else will pipe up with ideas about that?
I think the actual policy is ok, to put good screenshots, not politically
correct ones.
My point was that I'm not sure what the policy for getting
Hi,
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is Selection-Copy Visible which essentially does just that.
I would never have found that in a million years. Would it be
possible/desirable to duplicate this function in the Layers menu
(Layers-Copy Visible or wherever) which creates a new
Hi,
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't have a Copy visible entry in the Selection menu. Is this in
2.0.x or in the HEAD?
Me stupid. Of course it's Edit-Copy Visible, next to Edit-Copy.
And IIRC it's there since GIMP-1.0. It's definitely in GIMP-1.2 and
GIMP-2.0.
Sven
Hi,
Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
anyone who draws a relation to the Dutroux tragedy [and baby
photos] is [...] sick
These kind of remarks may be the reason why somebody like Markus does
not feel welcome to post here. You are overgeneralizing and jumping
at conclusions while
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is Selection-Copy Visible which essentially does just that.
I would never have found that in a million years. Would it be
possible/desirable to duplicate this function in the Layers menu
(Layers-Copy Visible or wherever) which
Aargh, what a mess. Okay, to sum up: it's Edit-Copy Visible, which
is exactly where it should be, in the Edit menu with Copy. Possibly a
name like Copy All Visible would be better, and possibly it should be
next to Copy instead of at the bottom, but still inevitably many people
will take a
Michael Schumacher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Dave Neary wrote:
Anyway - people kind of missed the whole point of me sending that to the
list... this person mailed me off-list because he saw me as someone
safe to talk to. That's not a nice way to have things on our mailing
list. What can
Hi,
William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Aargh, what a mess. Okay, to sum up: it's Edit-Copy Visible, which
is exactly where it should be, in the Edit menu with Copy. Possibly a
name like Copy All Visible would be better, and possibly it should be
next to Copy instead of at the
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
Well, it was definitely a bad idea of Dave to forward this stuff to
the list since the author more or less asked for keeping it private.
That is really badly missing the point, then.
Here are the questions that we need to consider -
1) What makes the mailing lists a
Dear Dave!
Sorry if this message appears somewhere outside the original thread - I could
not figure out how to use the list properly, although I really tried this
time.
Anyway - people kind of missed the whole point of me sending that to the
list... this person mailed me off-list because he
Markus Triska wrote:
Anyway - people kind of missed the whole point of me sending that to the
list... this person mailed me off-list because he saw me as someone safe
to talk to. That's not a nice way to have things on our mailing list. What
can we do to change that?
As a first step, you could
hi, i was offline for the whole thread. also, i have only read through
half of it. i was delighted when dave neary shared this tutorial with
me and was willing to put it online. so often, there is so much trouble
because people do not see this world to be as wonderful and nice in the
same ways
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 02:00:28AM +, Markus Triska wrote:
Apparently, Dave has understood my point and has taken the photo off the web.
That was in my opinion the only correct behaviour. I think we can agree that
we would not show a naked woman in a Gimp advertisement, even if it is
Again, I am copying the response I sent to Carol a few moments ago verbatim.
--
Dear Carol!
i have looked at the adobe photoshop web site perhaps 4 times. for
information to help my friend run her photoshop le.
Meanwhile, I have tried too, and it was indeed a bit hard to
Hello, I noticed this moment that Carol wrote this also to the mailing list.
Please excuse the confusion, but until recently, it was not necessary for me
to be subscribed to the list, so I'm not sure if this mail is attached to the
right thread.
I am copying the reply that I wrote to Carol
OK, and this is another reply I had meanwhile sent (to Sven, in this case),
and I hope the mailing list agent will know where it fits in - apparently
some parsing of the quoted text is done to make sure that the thread
hierarchy is maintained.
Sorry if this is getting a bit redundant, but I
Do you have problems with posting to the list in general (because there is
someone or something you cinsider unsafe) or just because of the rather
difficult topic?
No, as I outlined in a previous mail, I used safe solely to indicate that I
assumed Dave would have no objections to be asked
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 03:53:18AM +, Markus Triska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we would not show a naked woman in a Gimp advertisement, even if it is
perfectly natural. So why would you show a naked baby?
Because that's apples to bananas. Naked woman are sexually attractive to
normal people.
Because that's apples to bananas. Naked woman are sexually attractive to
normal people. and babies are not.(*)
This obviously can not be the primary reason why we would not show naked
women. The reason, as I understand it, is that the depicted persons easily
lose their dignity when they are
37 matches
Mail list logo