Markus Triska (triska@xxxxxx) wrote:
> As I stated in an earlier message, Dave has now removed the photograph in
> question, and I consider the issue resolved. I therefore have no interest to
> explain my point of view any deeper.
If it werent that sad it'd be funny. You got what you wanted so you can
stop defending your position and even avoid to (*gasp*) think about it.
> Maybe Dave can explain to you why he did so, and you can then try
> convincing him that he put the picture back, if this is what you want,
> but please keep me out of that.
"Uh, this is getting too hot for me, let Dave pick the potatoes from the
fire since he is the one who implemented my wish". How convenient.
I can think of a lot of reasons for Dave to a) remove the image and b)
keep the image removed. This discussion being the first one (even
without considering the positions exchanged [1]). I certainly won't ask
him to put it up again because this is of no vital interest to me.
However, as my friends probably will confirm, discussions about morale
and/or "the right thing" *are* of a great interest to me and I firmly
believe that your motives (or at least what I think your motives are -
you did not object my interpretation yet) are the utterly wrong reason
to put down a baby picture.
Usually I think hard before picking a position in a discussion. I am
also prepared to change my position in a discussion, but this won't
happen without any arguments. Hardly getting any is a disappointment.
I'll happily defend my opinion about that, however since you've chosen
the easy route to not to argue about it, I'll stop holding my breath.
What a pity. This could have been an interesting discussion.
Bye,
Simon
[1] Please note, that the removal of the image does not necessarily
mean, that Dave agrees with your opinions on a rational level. His
description of the events very clearly indicates an emotional reaction -
this is by far easier to accept for me than your poking in the fog.
--
Simon.Budig@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
