Markus Triska (triska@xxxxxx) 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.
--
Simon.Budig@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
