Vine and Branches

Wallpaper Other

Source (link to git-repo or to original if based on someone elses unmodified work): Add the source-code for this project on opencode.net

0
5 .0
Description:

Simple but easy to view. Made with GIMP 1.3. I use this for my Xdesktop background on my WinXP machine @work. Please no flaming me for the biblical text. It's just what I believe.
Thank You

0xdeadbeef

16 years ago

Please no flaming me for the biblical text.

I loathe biblical texts, thus I loathe this wallpaper. Does that count as 'flaming'? Get a grip, dude. 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, but this kind of remark sounds to me like anyone who writes anything that opposes your beliefs is a flamer in your eyes.

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

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

Report

0xdeadbeef

16 years ago

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'.

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

"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

Report

0xdeadbeef

16 years ago

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.

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

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

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

*As for the rest, you don't seem to want to get my point. The crowbar thing was not important from the start. It only cancels your argument that ignoring stuff is easy. Imagine someone hanging a playboy poster in your workplace. Could you ignore it? Just think about it, I don't expect an answer anymore.*

Crowbar thing??? No, I think you just don't want to accept responsiblity for your choices. you are using three fallacies:

1). I have told you repeatedly do the same *here*. That has nothing to do with your example.

2). Being a half-century old, I have lived long enough to be in situations where I can't control what is around me. Like *in the workplace*. Ever worked in a factory? Porn hanging on walls where you are working sometimes.

3). Your argument implies that any type of description or even thumbnail is 'wrong' because you must 'see' either. AGain, you use "placement" as an argument. Thumbnails exist on the summary page. And often even, my titles give you a tip as to what it is. In either case, why doe's "where it is" make one whit of difference? It's *Up to you!*

Ignore it. It is a CHOICE. It is ALWAYS a CHOICE.

Being a believer in the kind of world I live in, I must always make that choice. So, you see, I live with that problem every day.


Now, I'd like to ask you again, can you make that choice?


The rest of your stuff really doesn't matter. Why? Because you are making a subjective comment regarding what you *consider* art. You are then giving your *opinion*. *"not art"* != "not here"

Plus, it's a way to attempt to shift the attention from the questions I posited to you.

You are constantly trying to tell me what I *should do* based on your value judgements. However, being an agnostic at least (if not an atheist), is there ANYTHING you can base your value system on that says *anything* is objectively right or wrong?

No supreme moral lawgiver=> no moral law=> no moral absolutes=> everyone makes their own rules. It's then up to each individual what is right and wrong.

So, according to your own belief system, *who are you* to tell me what I should and shouldn't do? What makes *anything* right or wrong?

And of course, now that you know I deal with this stuff every day in the real world and do, in fact, ignore it...*can't you*?

--- Tim

Report

0xdeadbeef

16 years ago

I count 14 entries of yours that are based on other peoples work in an obvious way, and around 5 that seem to be mostly copied, but that I'm not sure about. Then there's a whole bunch of more than 20 entries that are gradient-and-clip-art (which is, because the clip art is the only complicated part of it, also based on other peoples work) cut&paste jobs. Art? I don't think so. And I don't buy that you didn't know you based it on other peoples work. I mean - you used the pictures, so you were bound to know they existed.

You're not the only one who makes trivial updates and double posts, but the only one who reposts his stuff when the rating drops, and most trivial updates I see are yours. Double posts is a different matter (and yes, I have commented the Aqua penguin posting frenzy). I didn't mention the number of posts.

As for the rest, you don't seem to want to get my point. The crowbar thing was not important from the start. It only cancels your argument that ignoring stuff is easy. Imagine someone hanging a playboy poster in your workplace. Could you ignore it? Just think about it, I don't expect an answer anymore.

And now this discussion is over. A discussion is over when somebody starts quoting himself out of context. What you said was:

'Ok. You can quantify it. Then Do it. Let's see your proof.'

As proof is not needed for quantification (merely a nice add-on), so this doesn't make any sense. Later, you quote yourself like this:

'Then Do it. Let's see your proof'

You never asked if I could prove it, yet you try to twist your own words as if you had. You have a habit of seeing simplicity where there is none. This is getting way too orwellesque for me, so I'm out. Believe whatever you want to believe, think what you want to think, forget the peace offer - I don't care anymore.

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

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

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

* 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

Report

0xdeadbeef

16 years ago

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.

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

*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

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

*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

Report

0xdeadbeef

16 years ago

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.

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

"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

Report

0xdeadbeef

16 years ago

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

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

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

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

*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

Report

0xdeadbeef

16 years ago

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.

Report

timbrown527

16 years ago

* 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

Report

0xdeadbeef

16 years ago

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.

Report

C

alethia

16 years ago

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.

Report

MagiNathan

16 years ago

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?

Report

0xdeadbeef

16 years ago

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.

Report

C

alethia

16 years ago

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.

Report

12345678910
product-maker Base: 4 x 5.0 Ratings
Be the first to comment
File (click to download) Version Description Downloads Date Filesize DL OCS-Install MD5SUM
*Needs pling-store or ocs-url to install things
Pling
0 Affiliates
Details
license
version
updated Jan 02 2004
added Jan 02 2004
downloads 24h
0
mediaviews 24h 0
pageviews 24h 0