After re-reading the first message of the thread I'm convinced that, despite the present logo not being offensive in any way, it can sometimes give a wrong impression.
My humble suggestion is that we gather suggestions and, if we find none, maintain the logo. Otherwise change it. So here is my (serious) idea for a logo that fits with the "relax" motto: http://www.papeldeparede.etc.br/wallpapers/snoopy-e-woodstock_6591_1024x768.jpg On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Giovanni P <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Et_selskab_af_danske_kunstnere_i_Rom.jpg > is this offensive? > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Bryan Green <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I would assume we would discuss it as we are now. >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Giovanni P <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If I declare myself offended (for no reason, because there is absolutely >>> no >>> reason to be offended by the present logo) by the next logo you come up >>> with, will you change it? >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Bryan Green <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > > It may not offend you, but apparently it offends some people. This >>> is a >>> > > bad thing for a logo. I think this is why it is rare for the human >>> > figure >>> > > to be common in most logos. Most keep logos very simple. >>> > >>> > There are 7 billion people on Earth - you'll never fit them all. >>> > Let's move away from abstract angry offended people to concrete ones >>> > with their own arguments why they thought that logo hits them and >>> > discuss their problem personally. Anyone around? Joan? >>> > Otherwise this is counterproductive discussion about edge cases which >>> > will never happens. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > ,,,^..^,,, >>> > >>> >> >> >
