thanks Rated 3 out of 5 stars
It is not necessary to be proficient in the thing that one critiques. I can be critical of a performance by a musician or of a book by an author without being required to perform better or write better than them. That is the nature of critical review.
I maintain that the watermark is unnecessary because it spoils the effect of the image and the theme, and makes the creator look self-obsessed. I've looked at many themes, and this is the only one I've seen watermarked, hence my comment. It was not nasty or intended to discourage, but made the point that the beautiful image would be enhanced without the obstruction and distraction of the watermark. It was less a "complaint" than a simple observation.
I thank the creator for inviting me to use other themes; I shall do just that. Cheers.
Update in response:
Yes it is unfortunate, I agree. I withdraw the word; perhaps it was ill-chosen. I'll replace it with: it makes the theme look like it's all about the creator, when it's not; it's meant to be all about Firefox. Does that make more sense? A themed background is no place for an advertisement, and that's what a watermark looks like. That's all I'm trying to say. I apologise for the offense.
I was nothing but polite to you, and you return with a personally directed remark that I appear "self obsessed". That's unfortunate, and uncalled for.
ETA: I appreciate the apology, thank you.