Hello timecop, the politeness of Japanese people is just a trick, isn't it ? For the future I would recommend to totally ignore postings by timecop. Peter Kirchgessner timecop@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Disclaimer: This should really be addressed personally to egger, but after > writing this I thought that I should post it for general consumption > anyway. If you are easily offended, or if you think that SuSe "rulez", or > if you think that you are a "31337 g1mp h4x0r" then you shouldn't read > the rest of this message. > > On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 egger@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > You are such a whining moron. Why should I solve YOUR homemade > > problems? Now go think again.... > Hey shithead, all I am asking for is a fucking patch for a piece of shit > program that could have been replaced by photoshop 6 long fucking time > ago. And I am not even asking you to do it, because obviously you are > incapable of helping others. No go back to running your idiot friendly > suse distribution and fuck off. I haven't installed gimp 1.2 and I don't > plan to until you elitist bastard developers plan to provide me with a > patch from 1.1.32 to 1.2.0. And if it doesn't happen then I guess fuck > gimp. If you ignorant fuckheads want your shit to suceed you need to > worry about USERS not what YOU want to do. My recent postings here about > providing for a more consistent *USER* experience with gimp were met with > fucking idiotic hostility of "31337 hax0rs g1mp 1z 31337 d0nt fux0r w1th > 1t" type attitude, if you want your shit to be used by random web > designers who don't know how to recompile their kernel and don't know what > version of GTK they have installed on the system, you need to pay > attention to shit like this. As long as you think that gimp is your fuck > toy, that's going to stay exactly that way, and most people who know what > they want will be using photoshop instead. So fuck off and die, and don't > litter the mailing list with your retarded postings. *I* have a genuine > user concern, that is having to download 10mb of source code instead of a > patch, when nothing is stopping *the developers* from providing me with > such things. If I was asking for gimp to be integrated into Office 2000, > you might think I have a problem. But all I am asking is for something > that you shitheads have done for the last year giving patches from > previous version to the next, and how the fuck is this any different from > providing a patch from 1.1.32 to 1.2.0. Like I said, fuck off and die. > > tc > > -- > $B!&!E!D(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,!D!E!&(B > timecop at japan.co.jp | $B#O#ADL?.%5%S!<%93t<02q<R(B | NTT DoCoMo > I thought everything that Linus Torvalds is involved with was divine > perfection? Must be a problem with NEC and Sony -about Crusoe recall > $B!&!E!D(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,!D!E!&(B -- Peter Kirchgessner http://www.kirchgessner.net mailto:peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
