 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:41:41 -0400, jr wrote:
> read it. excepting the last paragraph where, arguably, I was "rude",
> the _whole_ post is about "Chris & Co somehow "owe"" the _user
> community_, in my opinion, fwiw. yet, you persist in making this a
> personal thing, about "me".
>
> know what?
>
>> ... "*plonk*" ...
Good luck with that.
In the words of Stephen Colbert: I accept your apology.
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I reply because it gives me opportunity to write the sentence better.
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:41:41 -0400, jr wrote:
>
> > read it. excepting the last paragraph where, arguably, I was "rude",
> > the _whole_ post is about "Chris & Co somehow "owe"" the _user
> > community_, in my opinion, fwiw. yet, you persist in making this a
> > personal thing, about "me".
I ought to have written: ... "Chris & Co somehow "owe"" it to the _user
community_, and to POV-Ray itself, in my ...
> >
> > know what?
> >
> >> ... "*plonk*" ...
>
> Good luck with that.
>
> In the words of Stephen Colbert: I accept your apology.
Wikipedia tells me he's someone in TV. I'm a radio person, don't own, nor
watch, TV. therefore ***whooosh***.
and I apologise to the reader for continuing to carry out this .. spat in
public. netiquette, as I found out reading about message cancellation, requires
both parties to dislike one another in private :-), via email. (while mine is
available, Mr H's is not)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:50:03 -0400, jr wrote:
> I reply because it gives me opportunity to write the sentence better.
>
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:41:41 -0400, jr wrote:
>>
>> > read it. excepting the last paragraph where, arguably, I was "rude",
>> > the _whole_ post is about "Chris & Co somehow "owe"" the _user
>> > community_, in my opinion, fwiw. yet, you persist in making this a
>> > personal thing, about "me".
>
> I ought to have written: ... "Chris & Co somehow "owe"" it to the _user
> community_, and to POV-Ray itself, in my ...
>
>
>> > know what?
>> >
>> >> ... "*plonk*" ...
>>
>> Good luck with that.
>>
>> In the words of Stephen Colbert: I accept your apology.
>
> Wikipedia tells me he's someone in TV. I'm a radio person, don't own,
> nor watch, TV. therefore ***whooosh***.
That's fine. I still accept your apology for calling me a liar.
> and I apologise to the reader for continuing to carry out this .. spat
> in public. netiquette, as I found out reading about message
> cancellation, requires both parties to dislike one another in private
> :-), via email. (while mine is available, Mr H's is not)
There's a reason I don't use a valid e-mail address. I leave that as an
exercise for the reader. People who have a need to know know how to get
in touch with me.
Netiquette also requires being polite when making requests of people.
Hopefully you've learned something about that and didn't engage in some
selective reading.
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:50:03 -0400, jr wrote:
>
> > I reply because it gives me opportunity to write the sentence better.
> >
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:41:41 -0400, jr wrote:
> >>
> >> > read it. excepting the last paragraph where, arguably, I was "rude",
> >> > the _whole_ post is about "Chris & Co somehow "owe"" the _user
> >> > community_, in my opinion, fwiw. yet, you persist in making this a
> >> > personal thing, about "me".
> >
> > I ought to have written: ... "Chris & Co somehow "owe"" it to the _user
> > community_, and to POV-Ray itself, in my ...
> >
> >
> >> > know what?
> >> >
> >> >> ... "*plonk*" ...
> >>
> >> Good luck with that.
> >>
> >> In the words of Stephen Colbert: I accept your apology.
> >
> > Wikipedia tells me he's someone in TV. I'm a radio person, don't own,
> > nor watch, TV. therefore ***whooosh***.
>
> That's fine. I still accept your apology for calling me a liar.
>
> > and I apologise to the reader for continuing to carry out this .. spat
> > in public. netiquette, as I found out reading about message
> > cancellation, requires both parties to dislike one another in private
> > :-), via email. (while mine is available, Mr H's is not)
>
> There's a reason I don't use a valid e-mail address. I leave that as an
> exercise for the reader. People who have a need to know know how to get
> in touch with me.
my, my, you really are (in the vernacular) as thick as two short planks.
given your background, you should have been polite and taken your .. fist
shaking off-list. you had the opportunity, multiple times, and apparently knew
about that rule all along. (inexcusable)
> ...
(and no, no apology for "as thick as", and no apology for implying you lack(ed)
.... veracity; ie you're playing games, and that, at least, is not true to the
spirit of the thread's topic)
jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> On 23/07/2020 21:05, Bald Eagle wrote:
> > At the moment, the major 4 points that I see are:
> [snip]
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood: I thought you meant an update about the POV
> project rather than moray?
Perhaps - it's easy almost to the point of effortlessness when dealing with
texts, emails, newsgroup posts, etc.
An update about the POV project would of course be great - a short list of 3.8
additions, the loss of our primary developer, the need for new developers and
people to document the flow of POV-Ray's source code...
That would all tie in rather well.
But yes, I was speaking about Moray, since it's the least understood, and the
topic most fraught with unnecessary confusion. People could merely click on
HOME, read a short blurb that clarifies _everything_, and be done.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:31:22 -0400, jr wrote:
>> There's a reason I don't use a valid e-mail address. I leave that as
>> an exercise for the reader. People who have a need to know know how to
>> get in touch with me.
>
> my, my, you really are (in the vernacular) as thick as two short planks.
Wow, you really don't know how to behave in public, do you? You want to
continue to be insulting rather than just walk away.
Way to show your true colors.
> given your background, you should have been polite and taken your ..
> fist shaking off-list. you had the opportunity, multiple times, and
> apparently knew about that rule all along. (inexcusable)
>
Consider for a moment how you're reacting to my perhaps rather
intentional rudeness in your direction. You don't like it very much, do
you?
It's different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?
Maybe consider that the next time you decide to rant in public. You want
to tell me to take a personal dispute with you "off list", but you are in
fact the one who took personal issue with the entire project and decided
to vent in public. Perhaps a private venue would have been more suitable.
You clearly wanted to start a fight with your original post, and with
your follow-up with Chris. I can't help but notice that you have barely
engaged with his responses, and that says a lot about your motivations.
You brought a shit-ton of negativity in at the outset, and then said
"what? me?" and clutched your pearls when called out for it.
Take a look at how Bald Eagle is engaging with Chris. That's a
productive discussion. It's a useful discussion, and it's actually
*helping*.
What you did? Not so much.
>> ...
>
> (and no, no apology for "as thick as", and no apology for implying you
> lack(ed)
> .... veracity; ie you're playing games, and that, at least, is not true
> to the spirit of the thread's topic)
I know that you know, deep down, that you behaved badly - in name-calling
and in calling me a liar in public about my role in the project. You
*know* that what you did was wrong, but because of my response, you have
raised your defenses and can't bring yourself to admit that in public,
because you don't want to show weakness (even though admitting one's
error is certainly not an admission of weakness - sadly, that's something
not enough people understand these days).
Nevertheless, I accept your apology. I know you *want* to, but you can't
because you feel you'll "lose face". That's OK. I get it.
As for me, I'll apologize to you for opting to respond "in-kind" to your
rudeness by way of making a point. Clearly as smart as you are, that
approach doesn't work with you. I made an error in judgment in how best
to call you out for your rudeness. In all honesty, your rudeness simply
pissed me off because it was directed at someone I've known for years and
think of as a friend, and it was (and is) uncalled for. For my choice of
approach, I am sorry.
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Coming a bit late to the discussion, life and all kinds of twists and turns been
getting on the way. I can see a lot of concerns being raised, as well as light
being shed on a good deal of stuff already. Important info on eg. the state of
development, things lurking in the background, even some history and what it has
been taking for making POV go through all these years and having it working on
modern equipment. My humble thanks for all that indeed! :)
At this point I'm afraid I haven't got much to say what it comes to for example
hopping along in development, coding, maintenance etc., sadly it's all way
outside of my expertise and capabilities. However, as both an active long time
POV user and as visiting the news groups pretty much on a daily basis, I'd like
to express my most sincere gratitude for the existence of POV-Ray as a whole.
I found POV back in the late '93, when a family friend gave me a 3.5" disk with
a version 2.0 on it. I think it was included on some PC magazine of that time
and there was a huge article on 3D and ray-tracing. I remember printing out the
whole povdoc file with our dot matrix printer, and oh the joy of even trying to
render anything with a 386SX 16 MHz. :D Somewhere during the first half of '94
we got a 486DX2 66 MHz in the house, and also got my hands on POV version 2.2,
so things started rollin' wild for real. Although a ray-tracing joke for some,
but at least I have ever since updated my comps according to how fast I can
render with POV. :D
All the way up to this day and through every official version over the years,
POV has been my main software of choice. In some random utility sense I've used
for example TopMod, Silo 2 Pro, Wings 3D and PoseRay in my workflow for certain
projects, but in the end it's always been the POV SDL environment where I really
feel at home. Nothing else comes even close, and using any other software almost
feels like a sacrilege. :D Back in the past I tried some old trial version of
Moray, but didn't really get the hang of it. Perhaps, if it ever sees a
comeback, I'd surely give it a new try though!
Now after all this time and many great years of POVing, I'm just so unspeakably
happy that POV is still around. From the bottom of my heart I wish things would
turn out well so we could have POV with us for the next 25 years as well!
Cheers! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
jr, just letting you know your last two posts got caught in our spam
filter. I've tweaked the rules a bit, please try re-posting if you wish
and they should get through.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> jr, just letting you know your last two posts got caught in our spam
> filter. I've tweaked the rules a bit, please try re-posting if you wish
> and they should get through.
>
> -- Chris
_thank you_. (my .. paranoia was already kicking in! :-)) will re-send.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> ...
> I know that you know, deep down, that you behaved badly - in name-calling
> and in calling me a liar in public about my role in the project. You
> *know* that what you did was wrong, but because of my response, you have
> raised your defenses and can't bring yourself to admit that in public,
> because you don't want to show weakness (even though admitting one's
> error is certainly not an admission of weakness - sadly, that's something
> not enough people understand these days).
you, me, everybody. we're all just .. accidents of birth. and we all have to
live with the person we've turned into. but it is a mistake to assume what
makes you "tick" must, therefore, be the others' motivation too. eg, I can not
imagine shooting someone for .. laughs, yet, without doubt, such people too
exist. what you write above is, in essence, projection, sorry to say.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection>
> ...
for me "rudeness" is largely reactive, and serves two purposes. firstly to draw
the line (wrt behaviour), secondly to cut through the crap in situations where
polite hand-waving and use of euphemisms are de rigeur (which is indicative of
stultifying decline, the witnessed-by-all-yet-no-one-lifts-a-finger situations.
imo). and you only need to look at our, um, differences. what I see (from you)
is busy shooting the messenger, because you find it convenient (?) to value the
"shape" of the message and how it's delivered, over its content. hence, all the
'jerk' and 'dick' .. bluster[*]. (btw, here in the UK 'jerk' simply is the
stuff you rub into a butchered chicken, ie a marinade)
[*] 'bluster' meaning unproductive, wasted time, in addition to the
by-definition grandstanding.
so you keep writing that you picked the argument because you consider CC your
friend, and acted to defend him. is what friends are for, right? now tell me,
how much time, roughly, have you spent on this dispute? you have the skill set,
and previous experience with the wiki[*], so why did you not invest the time you
"wasted" on me, trying to make the wiki a more attractive place for potential
users? even just half an hour a week will, over time, make a massive
difference. would your friend not gain more benefit from that than from sifting
through "our shit" (your's + mine)? and while on CC. I would hope (and
actually do think) that he's capable of calling me out of order if he felt ..
attacked or demeaned.
[*] I _could_ envy you for being able to provide such practical, hands-on
support/help.
lastly, you mentioned BE, and contrasted our respective approaches to show me ..
the error of my ways, so to speak. well, BE wrote something about me acting as
the "lightning rod", and yes, I set out to .. stir the anthill. then CC wrote
in some reply to BE, quote:
"But you know what? Despite the fact this thread has been a bit, um, rowdy, it's
shown me that there's still a bunch of people who do care and has helped improve
my feelings about the whole thing. I might even enjoy getting stuck back into
the code, time will tell."
now for me, becoming persona non grata, in your eyes and those of others, will
be a small price to pay, just for reading that.
jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
