On 18/08/10 23:19, Sean Miller wrote: > 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 >
Who cares........... -- Ubuntu User #30817 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
