In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226>,
 "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <raf### [at] raf256com> wrote:

> >> I agree, and it's very easy to implement imho.
> > Hah! Judging from this and your other posts, you don't have the 
> > slightest clue about any kind of coding, let alone implementing 
> 
> You are the most un-freindly [for me] person I ever met on news:// - 
> congratulations ;)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so harsh. That "very easy to implement in my 
honest opinion" part just annoyed me. It isn't, and could only seem so 
to someone who hasn't looked at the code involved. I've done a lot of 
patching myself, and frankly, your attitude of "this is easy, why 
doesn't one of you people do it?" is irritating, especially when it is 
neither easy nor at all simple. I can only suggest that you do a bit 
more research (like actually looking at the code) before stating that 
kind of opinion. Maybe try doing something yourself instead of just 
saying it's easy and asking for someone else to do it.


> > If it's so easy, why are you asking for someone else to do it?
> [...]
> > someday, when I have a lot of time to kill.
> You answared Yourself.

No I didn't. If it were easy, it wouldn't take a lot of time to do.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message