From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-18 09:01:06
Tarjei Knapstad wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 07:10, Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>christopher diggins wrote:
>>>From: "Tarjei Knapstad" <tarjei.knapstad_at_[hidden]>
>>>To: "Boost-dev" <boost_at_[hidden]>
>>>>The rest of the suggestions I simply don't like at all :P (and most
>>>>are close to impossible to iconify in any way that links the logo
>>>>and the icon and doesn't make the latter look butt ugly).
>>>At least the submitters have contributed something. If you are going
>>>to be rude, then I would suggest keeping your opinions to yourself.
>>>I for one think that the huge selection of logos to choose from is
>>>wonderful. We are very lucky to have people willing to take the time
>>>to design so many logos so that we can choose the best one. My
>>>personal thanks to each and every logo submitter.
>>I was going to say I didn't find the original post rude, but then I realized I
>>stopped reading before I got to the 'butt ugly' part.
>>Yes, rude indeed!
> Sorry guys, I didn't mean to be rude at all (I see how it may read to
> people now though).
> I was not referring to the logos themselves (generally they are of good
> quality, and I fully respect the work people have put into them), but
> rather how it would look if you tried to squash them into an icon.
> Sorry again, no offense intended.
Please be reminded that being able to iconify the logo is not
a requirement. It is unfair to change the requirements midstream.
Please be kind. I agree with Christopher Diggins. I'm also impressed
by the wide selection. For that, we should be thankful to those
who took the trouble twiddling pixels and vectors.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk