All this person asked was that no flames were posted on the sole basis that there is a biblical text in the image. You've been told time and again that if you don't like the image, all you have to do is move on. But your past and continual behavior is quantifiable as flames. There's plenty of evidence from your past posts, even by your own admition "some of my comments were a little more rude than necessary..." I loathe biblical texts, thus I loathe this wallpaper. Does that count as 'flaming'? Umm, loathing isn't flaming, no. But seeing as you consistantly post rude comments towards artist of Christain persuation...yeah, that's flaming! Believe whatever you want, but I can't stand this 'If you don't agree with me, shut up!' sort of crap. If I got you wrong, I'm honestly sorry.. I guess you're sorry then since this obviously wasn't what was said. It was a simple request not to be flamed. ...but this kind of remark sounds to me like anyone who writes anything that opposes your beliefs is a flamer in your eyes. Hmm, if they had any objections with substance to them, and posted them in a proper context, that really wouldn't fall in the definition of a flame...but this really doesn't apply to you, does it? (hmm, I seem to remember a laugh you had with yourself asking if God was a schizo recently) We've seen the flames come before and this person just nicely asked not to be bullyed. Just can't help yourself can you? Too much entertainment for ya, isn't it?

About the schizophrenic god stuff - ok, the first comment was written in a kinda flamish style. I'm sorry for that. I get like that when something sets me up, even if it's (as it was in that case) completely unrelated to what I say/write. I know that's not a good thing, but I'm only human, too. So, I should have asked my question differently, and more clearly. What I wanted to ask was not whether god is actually schizophrenic (I'm an atheist. That question wouldn't make sense to me), but how your definition of trinity differs from schizophrenia. I still don't really know what you meant by 'mental personalities' as opposed to 'actual personalities'. And, one more thing about this - please keep in mind that I'm not a native speaker. I don't always know whether a phrase I use is considered rude or not. Now back to the actual topic - 'please don't flame me for biblical content' is something that just begs to be flamed at. The problem is not what it says, but what it implies. One gets the impression that, while 'god sucks'-comments are forbidden, a 'yeah, that'll show that non-believing scum!' is OK, and that the author is under the general impression that anti-christian comments are flaming. And that is a thing that gets me mad indeed.

Let me clarify. Aking not to be flamed for the Biblical text is simple this. Because I am a Christian, everything I do has a slant towards Christianity. My art in no exception. If you thought the wallpaper overall was bad just say it is bad! If you thought it is bad because I used a biblcal text with it, just say it is bad becasue of the text. To try an open a debate about God is what I wanted to avoid. Now it seems my description is even deciphered for it's Christian content. Simple put, if you don't like the art, say it. If you don't like the text used, keep it to yourself. That is what I see as flaming.

Whee. This is getting more complicated every day. OK, the way I see things, we got two opposing influences in this debate. One being freedom of speech, which is basically saying whatever you want. The other is trying not to offend people. I'm definitely not going to shut up because some people don't like what I say. On the other hand, I sometimes get way carried away. Unfortunately, in internet forums, this is exactly when I write something - if I'm calm, I just don't care. I probably wouldn't have cared about this one, under normal circumstances. You rightly ask what about the circumstances isn't normal. Well, lately this site has been flooded with pseudo-artistic christian content by someone who featured patently stupid (in my eyes) and insulting (consult the jargon file for a definition of 'flame') opinions and links. There was this atheist test where he tried to ridicule science by asking for the evolution of the coke can, there was all this 'only one way to heaven', 'science proved that the earth was created in six days about 10000 years ago' and similar stuff that just didn't acknowledge the possibility that somebody else may have a consistent view of the universe that differed from his own. I guess some of my comments came from a certain 'eye for an eye' attitude I try to get rid of, which is not easy. I mean - this sort of stuff is about as offending to me as my god/schizophrenic, god/big brother, god/despot comments probably were to you. I won't say I didn't intend to offend anyone - when I wrote it, I did - but I'm sorry I wrote it. I'm also sorry that I offended you, as I am not aware of any really offending comments you made. I am especially sorry that I posted offending comments on your stuff. I make mistakes, I'm aware of it, but sometimes I just can't hold myself, so stopping isn't all that easy. Plus, when I can hold myself, I don't write a comment. Maybe you should sometimes not take my comments seriously, and I will try to calm down and think a little more before I press the 'send' button. can't promise how well this works, though... (I know. I'm a bad person)

I'm not offended by your comments about God. They don't persude me in my beliefs. Neither do I want you to shut up. That is not right, no matter how one looks at it. That are many views of God, yours (if I am correct) being there is no God. Plain and simple we are diametriclly opposed. You have much a right to speak as anyone in this forum. I think that proper manners to not offend purposely is right. I place my art here for those who like it, as I believe many other artist do. I don't like all the postings I see, so I don't use them. Some I think are just plain revolting, and rude. Yet, this is the world we live in. Not all my art has a Christian theme. ALthougn I am a Christian and my beliefs will come out in much of whta I do (art being one), as I suspect yours do also. With that said, please keep evealuating my work. Your voice is no less valuable that anyone else.

Uh. Excuse me. Let's assume that Alethia is saying "Shut up if you don't agree with me". He's not, but let's accept your point of view. You don't like this. Still, you constantly are telling those of us who don't agree with your views to "shut up". See a problem here? Tim

If I remember correctly, I am constantly telling that kde-look is not the right place for religious spam. There is a difference between 'Shut up' and 'Go somewhere else'.

"This is not the place for religious spam". So, essentially you are just saying "go away". Wow. Tremendous difference... >< ~~ Re: "spam": As has already been told you, if you don't like the work, say so. If you don't agree with the message, that's ok too. The word "spam" is uncalled for. "Not the place". Are you in charge of content on KDELOOK? Yes? No? Either you are or you are not. Please tell me (us) plainly. My work, as Alethia's and Nate's, reflects my worldview and values as does other people's female-demeaning bikini art and other sorts of "non-gear/non-tux/non-linux specific" papers. So, some worldviews can be expressed here but not those who believe certain things? Of course, again my real question is "according to whom". At the very least, show me the admin-posted KDE-LOOK submission policy. OK? -- tim

I have to agree with Tim that considering this "spam" is incorrect. Spam is unsolicited, posting, email, etc........... However, this is an open forum. Is spam even possible? By the shear nature of an open forum, I would say no.

So, essentially you are just saying "go away". Wow. Tremendous difference... <sarcasm>So, I'll just go to the next church, cry 'Hail Satan' or something like that for half an hour, maybe sacrifice a virgin, and when the priest tells me to go away, I'll just say 'No! You're violating my freedom of speech and religion and so on!'</sarcasm> The word "spam" is uncalled for. Or is it? I don't think you're doing this for the artistic value, but for 'spreading the word'. That's advertising in an internet forum - spam. So, some worldviews can be expressed here but not those who believe certain things? Now you're talking double standards. As long as you advertise links like this one: http://home.earthlink.net/~tjbrown527/atheisttest.html I will throw how I think god, should he exist, is a despot in your face. To my knowledge, I never mentioned any submission guidelines, so I'll ignore that paragraph.

You haven't answered my question, sir. The fact that I have a link to a page that says something you don't like (for whatever reason) doesn't answer the question "Can one worldview be expressed here and not another?" I'm bored to tears with saying this, but I continually mark my work as "for christians". It's not offered to you any more than "butt-in-the-air tuxbunny art" is offered to me. Are you really so unable to do what we do with the stuff we don't like...just skip it? Please give a clear answer to this. Does my work have a message? *Gasp* Intentionally so. See, I'm a Christian. A follower of Jesus Christ. So OBVIOUSLY, what I do will reflect that. So, are you the KDELOOK content monitor? Can you quantify that I am not here for the art as well? And why can't you just ignore stuff you don't like...as we do? Three specific little questions that only need a clear yes/no answer. -- tim

If it weren't for religious spam, I wouldn't express my world view here. The labeling is a weak argument, because in order to see that it's made 'only for christians', you have to open it. If you care to remember, there was a time when a lot of borderline to pornography content was submitted here on kde-look. This stuff got about the same comments your stuff gets right now, and after a time, vanished. There was no written rule against it, either - still, it wasn't appropriate - in very much the same way yours isn't. I think this should answer your questions. By the way - I also hate it when somebody demands 'yes or no'-answers from me. Especially when the answers aren't as simple as yes or no.

* Especially when the answers aren't as simple as yes or no.* Yeah, I'm sure you'd appreciate more "squirm factor". But I think we both know you are dodging. 1. Either you are a KDELOOK admin or not. Simple or Not? 2. Can you or can you not blow off stuff you don't like? I do that, even stuff that mocks my work. Even if I see it. Can't you? Life is never going to accomodate itself to you in a "non offensive" manner. So you adjust. Again, this is a very simple question to answer. 3. Can you quantify that I am not here for the value of art as well as a message? Again, that is simple. You are evading, plain and simple. Tim

Yeah, I'm sure you'd appreciate more "squirm factor". But I think we both know you are dodging. ------- What the...? What I know is that when somebody demands yes/no choices, he's usually asking suggestive questions. The universe just doesn't work in black and white. Your questions may seem simple the first time you look at it, but the context makes them complicated. There is such a thing as 'implications'. Take the first question for example. I am not a kde-look admin, no. But that is of no importance. Thus, the question cannot be answered by just 'no' - the very least is a 'No, but...'. So, no, I can not, I want not and I will not give simple answers when the matter at hand is complicated. But that is not dodging anything.

*So, no, I can not, I want not and I will not give simple answers when the matter at hand is complicated. But that is not dodging anything.* But it isn't complicated. It is very simple. It's only complicated when you are trying to construct a way to block one person's work while appearing "tolerant" and permitting someone elses when they are also multiposting and updating. Of course, you must hide that it's merely about what Alethia (who's thread this is), Nate and I stand for. THAT is what makes it complicated. a). Do you have the strength of will to simply walk away from something you see that you don't like. Whether the label is on the thumbnail or in the description, you must still make a choice to look or not. It's the same choice. But I posted all this down below. b). Do you have the power and "right" to tell others here that their material is not "appropriate" for an *open forum*. We won't even get into how you arrive at "appropriateness"...especially considering you have nothing (no God?) to base moral absolutes on. My questions are simple...and there is no ulterior motive on my part. By the way, I'll assume you saw my posts below. I'll be waiting for a response...and I'll keep an eye out for you to complain to the poster of Aqua and Silver Penguin. WIth all those separate posts, he *must* be trying to get attention. And of course, one day, he'll be updating those... *groan* --tim

"I never mentioned any submission guidlines..." I leave you with what I've read from you before... *kde-look is not the right place...* That, sir is a DIRECT contradiction to what you have just claimed. Again, are you the "kde-look content monitor". There is a group of you who seem to believe you are. --tim

Just that there isn't a written rule against something doesn't mean it's appropriate. There is no contradiction.

Here's what I asked: "So, are you the KDELOOK content monitor? Can you quantify that I am not here for the art as well? And why can't you just ignore stuff you don't like...as we do?" You haven't answered my question. All you've done is say certain submissions "are not appropriate"....which doesn't answer my question(s). 1. are you a KDELOOK Monitor? 2. Can you quantify that I am not here to distribute art *as well as* a message? 3. Can you or can you not ignore stuff you don't like. Again, these are VERY simple questions. Tim

Oh, well. Here we go again: 1. Yes and no. I'm not an official member of the kde-look crew, but I am a consumer, so I care about what it becomes. This is about the same way a car driver cares about whether the streets get repaired although he is not a member of the city council. 2. I think so, yes. Your 'artwork' as well as your behavior make that very clear indeed. 3. No. As I have explained above, until I open the package, I do not know what is inside. I hope this is clear enough. You can't ask for exact answers when all you want to hear is 'yes' or 'no', so this will have to do.

*I think so, yes. Your 'artwork' as well as your behavior make that very clear indeed.* Ok. You can quantify it. Then Do it. Let's see your proof. You say you *can't ignore the message till you know what's there". Well sir, you don't make sense because you can't *ignore* something that you are not *aware of*. Your answer doesn't work. To *ignore* something implies that you know it is there, does it not? My point is as it has been. others as well as my self see stuff that is patently offensive. Even if we don't *know it* until we open it. My point is...can't you just decide to turn away from it? -tim

*Yes and no. I'm not an official member of the kde-look crew, but I am a consumer,* Well then you are no different than me. Which means you can say you don't like what I post, but you have no right to tell me to take it somewhere else. No, you are not a KDE-LOOK admin. That was my question. -- Tim

Ok. You can quantify it. Then Do it. Let's see your proof. ------- 40 wallpapers that are basically the same three-minute-gimp jobs based on other people's wallpapers or a gradient, trivial updates, reposts and the like are a pretty good indicator, don't you think? I cannot prove it, of course, but I don't think that is necessary. You asked for quantification, not proof. You say you *can't ignore the message till you know what's there". ----------- Your point was that I could safely ignore your submissions because you labeled them as 'only for christians'. Problem is - I have to open the submission and read the comment to find the label that tells me I should never have opened it in the first place. Open the box with the crowbar you will find inside. I do think this answer works. My point is...can't you just decide to turn away from it? ------------ I could. But do I want to? I might end up without a place to look at. Take a look at history - a lot of stuff went wrong because people decided to look away. And take a look at the present - wars are fought over religion again. No, I don't want to look away.

* Then Do it. Let's see your proof.* So, that last sentence isn't asking for proof? 1. How does any of this indicate *MOTIVE*? Here we go again. First you are wrong in the time I spent on those papers considering how little I knew about Gimp at the time. However, "time spent" != "motive", so...so far you've said nothing. Based on other peoples wallpapers? Which one???? Not one of my works is. There is one that I did that has the same nasa background, but I wasn't even aware of that until way after the fact. Of course, you didn't ask, you just *made another assumption*. Go figure. Trivial updates? Some of them were asked for. Others were ones I thought necessary, such as text fixes. have you noticed lately alot of papers that are "Updated" with nothing in the revision history to tell you *what was done*? You are silent about those! But they aren't ME, are they? Gotta give *them* room! Number of posts? Then you better go yell at whoever posted two pages or so of Silver Penguin and Aqua Penguin two days ago. Does this prove motive? And if it does, why aren't you chasing others around...such as SIlver and Aqua penguin??? Oh yeah..then there's been a few submissions in the last day or so that are simply different sizes but different posts...OH NO!!! Again, all assumptions. You can only make an assumption. And because you aparently have a predisposed bias against most anything I say, that will continue. Bias is more comfortable than truth. You don't know my heart. You don't know my motives. This is just raw prejudice. 2. Again, in order to *ignore something* you must be aware that it is there. If it's not there, that kind of gets rid of the need to ignore it, doesn't it? If I put a label on the thumnail and say "it's for CHristians"...how is that different than you seeing it if you click on the thumnail and read the description? You are being disingenuous. In either case, you must still respond with "Oh. Christian stuff. Never mind." You just don't want to see a hint of it anywhere, do you? It's not about you CHOOSING to pass by something you see, it's about you being so overly sensitive that you can't bear even the awareness that something is in front of you that might "touch your bubble". Again, when Alethia, Nate, and myself see stuff we deem as trash and it's right there in front of it...we hit our back arrow. Do you have the strength to do that? 3. here we come down to the nitty gritty. You have come out and said you *won't* ignore it. Forget the fact you are not a KDELOOK admin. Forget the fact that you have no more pull than anyone else. You will deem what is and is not appropriate for this site. Shoot...Look at what's going on in this thread...what are most of the posts about? YOU. You and your right to deem what is appropriate content for others. The only "war" here is the discussion we are having...and it comes down to what you are *imagining*. You have nothing that really goes to motive, except your presuppositions, which are not applied to others with the same stringency. You sidestep the decision issue by making it an issue of "lable placement". You spend time bickering about something that isn't happening. THe crickets would be chirping in this thread if it weren't for this one long discussion. And you want peace? I don't think so. I think you just want all references to God away from here...you are mad at Him, but instead of taking it to Him, you take it out on those who belong to Him. If you want, I can easily dredge up quotes from you to back this up. -- tim

While I'm waiting for response to the previous, I couldn't help but notice this... *I could. But do I want to? I might end up without a place to look at.* Again, it's all about you. You won't leave us alone because *YOU* may not have what you want. Forget that the other content will still be here. As long as we believers are here and have the "nerve" to bring it up you'll be out there running around, flailing your arms around in the air crying "innappropriate...inappropriate..." In the meantime, we quietly tolerate all manner of stuff we don't like. enough. -- tim