On 18 August 2010 18:11, Colin Law <clan...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I did not say that it was necessarily a generally accepted definition, > merely that by that definition GIMP is recursive and therefore my > original statement that 'it depends on the definition' is true. > Having said that I believe I have seen that definition used somewhere > on the web so it must be ok. I will just have a quick google ... Ah > yes, have a look at > http://old.nabble.com/11.04-Natty-Narwhal-td29463807i20.html#a29470562
Except that Wikipedia says no such thing, so you are deluding yourself completely... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_acronym So, please, before we all lose the will to live instead of INVENTING definitions to back up your assertion, try sending some LINKS to ANY definition that suggests GIMP is recursive, for it is not and will never be so... unless you prove otherwise. Case closed for now, methinks! Sean -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
