[Clipart] OpenClipart and Debian.

[Daniel Carrera]

Bryce Harrington wrote:

> Well, clearly you're offending people here on this list, so while you
> claim to be respectful of other people's sensitivities, clearly you're
> failing to do so here.

Ah.  I didn't know that.  This is the first time someone says that.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone.  Please accept my sincere apologies.


> Your emails sound like you are demanding us to become censors for 
> Germany.

I honestly can't imagine who you see that in my emails. I proposed to 
separate UN and Olympic flags from other flags. That's not censorship, but 
it still addresses the issue well enough. And I made very effort to say 
that OCAL is not expected to bend over backwards for everyone. Just make a 
"reasonable" effort.

You seem to think I suggested something dramatic like putting a police 
officer at the entrance of OCAL. I suggested a separate category for 
non-UN non-Olympic flags.



> > Please don't say that, it's not nice. And no, I'm not. 
> 
> Well, within the past few days you've suggested that the people here are
> insensitive, unreasonable, and irresponsible.

I think that some coments have been insensitive. I haven't used the other 
terms though, nor did I think them. That's not picking a fight. And it's 
no more than what other members have done. I've seen belittling of 
opinions that are not shared by a poster, and that is insensitive.

You know? I actually don't think the Nazi flag is offensive. I just accept 
that many find it offensive and I accept it.

> You've called people's comments and positions irrelevant and silly.  

That's not an insult, and they were accurate statements. Whether one 
particular person doesn't agree with someone's culture/morality/etc is not 
the issue. I don't think the Nazi flag is offensive, I don't find it 
offensive, but that is irrelevant. The point is that a significant group 
of people do.

> These are all rather rude things to say to people, and makes them angry 
> and quarrelsome.  This is why I say that someone could think you're 
> trying to pick a fight.

Okay, I can accept that some things I said might have come accross badly. 
Email is a poor medium of communication. I can't convey such things as 
tone of voice and body language. Something that might sound perfectly 
reasonable to me when I write it might sound different to you when you 
read it. I apologize for any offence I might have caused. Really.

> It would be preferrable to focus your comments onto the solutions Ted
> proposed rather than arguing about the opinions he expresses.  

I'll give this some thought. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not sure I 
disagree.


> In some of your emails it does sound like you are proposing for complete
> removal of the flag.  It is good that you clarify that.

My first email might have seemed like that. I admit I hadn't thought about 
alternatives throughly. So I suggested a "clean" archive and another for 
other things. Even that is not a removal, but it has problems. In my 
second email I refined the proposal to the non-UN non-Olympic flags thing.

> In other emails
> you have proposed use of keywords to mark the flags, which actually has
> already been implemented.  However, you do not appear to acknowledge
> that we already have an approach planned out for this, and much of the
> code implemented for it. 

I'd like to propose that there be keywords that provide more granulaity 
than just "flags" as above.

Peace?

-- 
Daniel Carrera            | I know everything, I just can't remember
Join OOoAuthors today!    | it all at once.
http://www.oooauthors.org | :-)