Greg wrote:
--- Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think though that we need more people pointing out the
obvious
flaws in GIMP.
Obvious to whom? Do you speak for the list members?
I think this theme has been arisen here many times. And I believe the
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote:
Not just noise, his points have some merit. But they are directed to
the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his
points. That ironically makes his mails pointless...
If you regard my contributions as noise then
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 11:52:13 Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-02-07 13:47]:
Much unnecessary quote removed.
One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to edit an
image for your own use and can revisit the original then the absense of
Von: gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time
reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will
not be successful here because I will follow a policy I have followed
over 30 years on mail lists -- keep on
On Thursday 04 October 2007 03:41:05 Michael Schumacher wrote:
Von: gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time
reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will
not be successful here because I will follow
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 02:55:35 -0700, gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote:
Not just noise, his points have some merit. But they are directed to
the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his
points. That ironically
gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...] This layer would hold instructs that would apply my
adjustment [...]
Yes! In fact, when I first started to work with layers I'd expected
the layers to work like this (i.e. store change instructions instead
of pixels).
Being an old Unix hacker, I'd go
On Thursday 04 October 2007 04:42:55 Raphaël Quinet wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 02:55:35 -0700, gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote:
Not just noise, his points have some merit. But they are directed to
the wrong audience and the intended
--- Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think though that we need more people pointing out the
obvious
flaws in GIMP.
Obvious to whom? Do you speak for the list members?
We are all very well aware of them...
We are?
...and you are just stealing our precious time.
Again, do you
On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:
Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have
at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for non-
distructive editing. The term is a contradiction in itself. Perhaps
you can take the time to
Hi,
while your explanation of non-destructive editing is all fine, I still
think that your postings to this list are nothing but noise. This list
is about using GIMP. The users who are interested in development know
very well that everything you asked for is already on our roadmap. You
can even
* gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-02-07 13:47]:
Much unnecessary quote removed.
One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to edit an
image for your own use and can revisit the original then the absense of
non-destrucitve editing features may not be a handicap. The
Patrick Shanahan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* gimp_user [EMAIL PROTECTED] [10-02-07 13:47]:
Much unnecessary quote removed.
One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to
edit an image for your own use and can revisit the original then the
absense of non-destrucitve
13 matches
Mail list logo
