Re: Photo Tampering Throughout History

I don't think I can rule things out of by invoking the word.  But I'm really 
not interested in the much broader discussion/argument about defining what a 
child is, at the moment.

I think it was pretty clear what the working definition was for the purpose 
of this discussion.  And your making an issue of it, at this point in the 
discussion, seems like it is more baiting than anything else.  Maybe I'm 
wrong on that but that's what it struck me as.

In any event, I, for one, am not going to get bogged down in a semantic 
argument, (doesn't mean I never will just that I won't this time). 
Thankfully, you're not the final arbiter of whether that means I get to 
participate in the thread.  Also, thankfully, (equally if not moreso), I 
don't have much else to say.

I think it was wrong, unseemly, coarse, pathetic, sad, etc. that someone 
thought that enhancing Emma Watson's bust on a Harry Potter movie poster was 
a good/appropriate thing to do.

Mike F.


-----Original Message----- 
From: Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 5:08 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Photo Tampering Throughout History

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:
> OK you don't know what a child is.

No, I know what all the various definitions are.  I just don't know which
ones are supposed to have any bearing on this discussion, or what *sort*
of bearing they are supposed to have -- beyond, of course, your belief
that you can rule things out of order by invoking that word.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot 


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot