What's the best photo editor for non-professional?

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Square Peg wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:28:52 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Square Peg wrote:
I found David's comments useful. I also found your comments about the
products useful, but I find your comments about David unhelpful and
even illogical. I get the strong impression that you have an agenda to
push your preferences and convince everyone that you are right. For
me, that calls into question the validity of all of your comments.
I just get tired of David's repeating his tired agenda illogically.
It mayu be a repeat for you, but it was new for me. I found it
helpful.

I also found him courteous and respectful, which I cannot say for you,
which diminishes (for me) the value of what you say.

You'll learn. Which helps more, a nice tone of voice, or accurate
information?

If the person who believes that they're conveying good, accurate
information to me is also yelling, flipping the bird or being otherwise
insulting then I will probably not care what they're saying.
Bad-mouthing other posters for no apparent reason makes you look very
bad Mr Davidson.
GIMP does look like a mess of disconnected windows, which I also found a
bit disorienting compared to the old version of Corel PhotoPaint I was
thinking of "upgrading" from.
When I dug a bit deeper, I found that PhotoPaint V8 (released in 1998 as
part of the CorelDRAW8 suite) had more useful features than the current
version of GIMP.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote:
Floyd, but for you to call my response above "ballistic", and your
response "non-personal" renders it difficult to take anything you say
seriously.

David, when you think every comment made in a thread
relates to your person, and when every comment that
doesn't agree with yours is a personal insult, that *is*
a "ballistic" response.

Your replies referring to David as "illogical" and "silly" and his
experiences as "invalid" makes it pretty darn clear that it's a personal
attack.
Don't try and weasel-word your way out of an apology.
Otherwise, you look just like the sort of usenet denizen which you claim
to not be.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:59:47 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

measekite wrote:
[]
It does take some getting used to but it actually is better. First
they are not all over the place. You can take these many little
Windows and configure them to reside in two main panels. I have one
panel on the left side of my screen and one panel on the right side.
I then have the photo image in a windows in the center. You can move
the panels anywhere on the screen.

I'm pleased to hear that GIMP has improved since I tried it ..

The major Gimp problem is printing.

.. but does that mean it still has some way to go?

David

Without a doubt. They need:

adjustment layers
a solution to the printing problem
improvement on some of their algorithms
and 3rd party book support like what is available from PS.

dj_nme wrote:
If the person who believes that they're conveying good, accurate
information to me is also yelling, flipping the bird or being otherwise
insulting then I will probably not care what they're saying.
Bad-mouthing other posters for no apparent reason makes you look very
bad Mr Davidson.

So just where did I bad mouth *anyone*?

I commented on what people posted, not on the people who
posted. I did none of what you've listed, so I hardly
see where your comment is applicable.

I assume your observations about GIMP are as inaccurate
as your observations about previous posts.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"D.Mac" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Square Peg wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:28:52 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Square Peg wrote:
I found David's comments useful. I also found your comments about the
products useful, but I find your comments about David unhelpful and
even illogical. I get the strong impression that you have an agenda to
push your preferences and convince everyone that you are right. For
me, that calls into question the validity of all of your comments.

I just get tired of David's repeating his tired agenda illogically.

It mayu be a repeat for you, but it was new for me. I found it
helpful.

I also found him courteous and respectful, which I cannot say for you,
which diminishes (for me) the value of what you say.

You'll learn. Which helps more, a nice tone of voice, or accurate
information?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Accurate information?
Come on Floyd... Aren't you the fool who told Paul Furman he should keep the
images of mine he illegally posted to his site because he'd get a mighty big
settlement out of me if I persisted in forcing my rights under the DMCA?

Well your "accurate information" almost cost him everything he owns and his
ISP a huge penalty for letting him continue.

If he had pushed it, *you* would have lost, not him. If
he did not wish to waste a pile of money on a really
stupid legal battle, that is a very reasonable choice to
make. And you are fortunate.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

dj_nme wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote:
Floyd, but for you to call my response above "ballistic", and your
response "non-personal" renders it difficult to take anything you say
seriously.
David, when you think every comment made in a thread
relates to your person, and when every comment that
doesn't agree with yours is a personal insult, that *is*
a "ballistic" response.

Your replies referring to David as "illogical" and "silly" and his

I did not refer to David as either of those. Stop
making things up just to start a stupid fight.

experiences as "invalid" makes it pretty darn clear that it's a personal
attack.

If *he* puts that into the discussion, then it is *not*
a personal attack to discuss it.

Don't try and weasel-word your way out of an apology.
Otherwise, you look just like the sort of usenet denizen which you claim
to not be.

Please be more accurate in your accusations.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
dj_nme wrote:
If the person who believes that they're conveying good, accurate
information to me is also yelling, flipping the bird or being otherwise
insulting then I will probably not care what they're saying.
Bad-mouthing other posters for no apparent reason makes you look very
bad Mr Davidson.

So just where did I bad mouth *anyone*?

I commented on what people posted, not on the people who
posted. I did none of what you've listed, so I hardly
see where your comment is applicable.

I assume your observations about GIMP are as inaccurate
as your observations about previous posts.


Good grief.

Apart from that last sentence, may I quote where it is VERY obviously
pointed at the *people* who posted:
"I've never understood why anyone wants to print directly from GIMP..
Hence nothing you've ever said about GIMP and printing is of any value
to me."
"the last phrase is absolutely wrong and the initial part of the
statement is silly"
"just another typical "GIMP isn't exactly like what I use now, therefore
it is not intuitive" complaint. Which is to say it is not valid."
"you admit that you have virtually no familarity [sic].. so just how can
your judgment be logically valid?"
"No David, you posted a logically invalid critique"
"your comments are not valid in other ways too"
"I just get tired of David's repeating his tired agenda illogically."
"He has posted that sort of rant approximately 201.3 times in the past
year or so. Along with, one might add, a lot of even more absurd
comments..."
"I don't care if you like GIMP, or not."
"you do post negative comments about programs that you don't use and
know virtually nothing about. Why is that?"
"you went balistic [sic] when corrections were posted"
"I pointed out the invalidity of what you said, and did not make any
comments that were not directly related to what you had said. I simply
do not make up gratuitous commentary"
"Negative comments about things you have no experience with are not
"findings", the [sic] are bigotry verbalized."
"you are the one who just went ballistic. And are still in that state
apparently"

Nothing personal, eh? (O:

The interesting thing here is that Mr Davidson will likely look at those
and still think they are not personal. But maybe, just maybe, Mr D, you
might take note of how many people are drawing attention to your tone,
but no-one to date has had a go at David..

I also support his comments, and agree that Gimp has the clunkiest
interface of all the competing programs that I have tried. I do use
Gimp (latest version) reasonably frequently, as one day I will be
weaning myself off Adobe/Microsoft. But I really struggle with Gimp in
the same areas that David and others seem to. It is worth trying though.

Anyway, if it would help I can offer some versions of all those
statements above *without* the personal invective, and explain why the
wording is often both personal and insulting.

Mr D's later comment was very revealing:
"You'll learn. Which helps more, a nice tone of voice, or accurate
information?"

Uhuh. Maybe Mr D might wish to take a course on *personal*
communication, and take particular note of the bits about the
information being lost if it is not presented appropriately.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
dj_nme wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote:
Floyd, but for you to call my response above "ballistic", and your
response "non-personal" renders it difficult to take anything you say
seriously.
David, when you think every comment made in a thread
relates to your person, and when every comment that
doesn't agree with yours is a personal insult, that *is*
a "ballistic" response.
Your replies referring to David as "illogical" and "silly" and his

I did not refer to David as either of those. Stop
making things up just to start a stupid fight.

experiences as "invalid" makes it pretty darn clear that it's a personal
attack.

If *he* puts that into the discussion, then it is *not*
a personal attack to discuss it.

Don't try and weasel-word your way out of an apology.
Otherwise, you look just like the sort of usenet denizen which you claim
to not be.

Please be more accurate in your accusations.

Some-one else has beaten beat me to it.
The words of Mark Thomas in message ID
sums it up quite nicely and require
no further embellishment from myself (quoted verbatim).

Mark Thomas ) wrote:
Good grief.

Apart from that last sentence, may I quote where it is VERY obviously
pointed at the *people* who posted:
"I've never understood why anyone wants to print directly from GIMP..
Hence nothing you've ever said about GIMP and printing is of any value
to me."
"the last phrase is absolutely wrong and the initial part of the
statement is silly"
"just another typical "GIMP isn't exactly like what I use now,
therefore it is not intuitive" complaint. Which is to say it is not
valid."
"you admit that you have virtually no familarity [sic].. so just how
can your judgment be logically valid?"
"No David, you posted a logically invalid critique"
"your comments are not valid in other ways too"
"I just get tired of David's repeating his tired agenda illogically."
"He has posted that sort of rant approximately 201.3 times in the past
year or so. Along with, one might add, a lot of even more absurd
comments..."
"I don't care if you like GIMP, or not."
"you do post negative comments about programs that you don't use and
know virtually nothing about. Why is that?"
"you went balistic [sic] when corrections were posted"
"I pointed out the invalidity of what you said, and did not make any
comments that were not directly related to what you had said. I
simply do not make up gratuitous commentary"
"Negative comments about things you have no experience with are not
"findings", the [sic] are bigotry verbalized."
"you are the one who just went ballistic. And are still in that state
apparently"

Nothing personal, eh? (O:

The interesting thing here is that Mr Davidson will likely look at
those and still think they are not personal. But maybe, just maybe,
Mr D, you might take note of how many people are drawing attention to
your tone, but no-one to date has had a go at David..

I also support his comments, and agree that Gimp has the clunkiest
interface of all the competing programs that I have tried. I do use
Gimp (latest version) reasonably frequently, as one day I will be
weaning myself off Adobe/Microsoft. But I really struggle with Gimp
in the same areas that David and others seem to. It is worth trying
though.

Anyway, if it would help I can offer some versions of all those
statements above *without* the personal invective, and explain why the
wording is often both personal and insulting.

Mr D's later comment was very revealing:
"You'll learn. Which helps more, a nice tone of voice, or accurate
information?"

Uhuh. Maybe Mr D might wish to take a course on *personal*
communication, and take particular note of the bits about the
information being lost if it is not presented appropriately.

Your words can come back to haunt you and mostly will.
Have a nice day.

Mark Thomas wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
dj_nme wrote:
If the person who believes that they're conveying good, accurate
information to me is also yelling, flipping the bird or being otherwise
insulting then I will probably not care what they're saying.
Bad-mouthing other posters for no apparent reason makes you look very
bad Mr Davidson.
So just where did I bad mouth *anyone*?
I commented on what people posted, not on the people
who
posted. I did none of what you've listed, so I hardly
see where your comment is applicable.
I assume your observations about GIMP are as inaccurate
as your observations about previous posts.


Good grief.

No kidding!

Apart from that last sentence, may I quote where it is VERY obviously
pointed at the *people* who posted:
"I've never understood why anyone wants to print directly from GIMP..
Hence nothing you've ever said about GIMP and printing is of any value
to me."

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

"the last phrase is absolutely wrong and the initial part of the
statement is silly"

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

"just another typical "GIMP isn't exactly like what I use now, therefore
it is not intuitive" complaint. Which is to say it is not valid."

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

"you admit that you have virtually no familarity [sic].. so just how can
your judgment be logically valid?"

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

(Spelling flame noted. 1 demerit for you.)

"No David, you posted a logically invalid critique"
"your comments are not valid in other ways too"

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

"I just get tired of David's repeating his tired agenda illogically."

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

"He has posted that sort of rant approximately 201.3 times in the past
year or so. Along with, one might add, a lot of even more absurd
comments..."

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

"I don't care if you like GIMP, or not."

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

"you do post negative comments about programs that you don't use and
know virtually nothing about. Why is that?"

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

"you went balistic [sic] when corrections were posted"

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

(Spelling flame noted. 1 demerit for you.)

"I pointed out the invalidity of what you said, and did not make any
comments that were not directly related to what you had said. I simply
do not make up gratuitous commentary"

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

"Negative comments about things you have no experience with are not
"findings", the [sic] are bigotry verbalized."

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

(Spelling flame noted. 1 demerit for you.)

"you are the one who just went ballistic. And are still in that state
apparently"

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.

Nothing personal, eh? (O:

It *all* references what the other person brought into
the discussion.

The interesting thing here is that Mr Davidson will likely look at those
and still think they are not personal. But maybe, just maybe, Mr D, you
might take note of how many people are drawing attention to your tone,
but no-one to date has had a go at David..

Look who they are too!

I also support his comments, and agree that Gimp has the clunkiest
interface of all the competing programs that I have tried. I do use
Gimp (latest version) reasonably frequently, as one day I will be
weaning myself off Adobe/Microsoft. But I really struggle with Gimp in
the same areas that David and others seem to. It is worth trying though.

Anyway, if it would help I can offer some versions of all those
statements above *without* the personal invective, and explain why the
wording is often both personal and insulting.

Mr D's later comment was very revealing:
"You'll learn. Which helps more, a nice tone of voice, or accurate
information?"

Uhuh. Maybe Mr D might wish to take a course on *personal*
communication, and take particular note of the bits about the
information being lost if it is not presented appropriately.

I've been in the business of communications for 4 decades and
some...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Let's just pick a few...

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Apart from that last sentence, may I quote where it is VERY obviously
pointed at the *people* who posted:
"I've never understood why anyone wants to print directly from GIMP..
Hence nothing you've ever said about GIMP and printing is of any value
to me."

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.
Let's repeat it:
"Nothing you've ever said about Gimp and printing is of any value to me."

Oh, no, not personal at ALL, Floyd. Good grief again.

That alone reflects two important facts
- that you disrespect people on trivial criteria
- you don't understand that others might have different needs to you

"you admit that you have virtually no familarity [sic].. so just how can
your judgment be logically valid?"

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.
OK, let's be *very* specific. If you are "referencing exactly what he
wrote", can you post a link to where he said he had "virtually no
familiarity"?

If not, then try to at least admit to *yourself* that you make stuff up
and/or simply twist it and add a little hyperbole/exaggeration to suit
your Linux/Gimp promoting agenda.

"your comments are not valid in other ways too"

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.
It sounds to me like the very old trick of attempting to degrade
someone's reputation by repeated *non-specific imputation*.
WHICH comments, and HOW are they not valid?
If you don't elaborate, you should keep your fingers away from the keys.

"I just get tired of David's repeating his tired agenda illogically."

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.
Please read the comments directly above ("It sounds to me.."). You did
it AGAIN.

Have you heard the phrase "attacking the man not the ball"?

"He has posted that sort of rant approximately 201.3 times in the past
year or so. Along with, one might add, a lot of even more absurd
comments..."

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.
Sure sounds to *me* like a broken record... Please provide links and
proof of those 201.3 examples, and explain how telling someone they are
making absurd comments isn't personal. And please read the comments
above - you did it AGAIN.

"Negative comments about things you have no experience with are not
"findings", the [sic] are bigotry verbalized."

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.
So, in your country, saying their comments are bigotry isn't an insult?
Use that line in many bars, or just on the 'net?

"you are the one who just went ballistic. And are still in that state
apparently"

Sure sounds like I'm referencing exactly what he wrote,
not his person.
What???? You aren't reading *any* of this, are you?

It *all* references what the other person brought into
the discussion.
Bull****.

Look who they are too!
And there you go AGAIN. Yes, I've looked. And what they all posted
here seems fine - good feedback about the programs in question, and
certainly right on the mark when it comes to pointing out your rude
behavior.

I've been in the business of communications for 4 decades and
some...
Which really only goes to show one of two things:
- if its technical comm's you are talking about, then maybe you should
understand that personal comm's are just a tiny bit different.
- if its personal communications you were in, those 40 years were wasted.

And yes, that was *my* personal attack...