 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] deletethistoo povrayorg> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 07:21:17 -0400, jr wrote:
> 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>
Fair point. I remember a few years ago someone making the observation
that "we don't see others as they are, we see them as we are".
Something I think everyone should keep in mind.
>
>> ...
>
> 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)
The "shape" as you put it of the message is important, however. If you
want to motivate people (going back to what we talked about with
motivation/loyalty), the approach one takes matters. It's not incumbent
on the recipient of the message to interpret the intent and motivation of
the person sending the message. It's incumbent on the sender of the
message to know their audience and connect with them in a meaningful way.
There are ways to be direct and "cut through the crap" without being
rude. It is *generally* more effective to take a positive approach
rather than inflaming in order to get a reaction.
> [*] 'bluster' meaning unproductive, wasted time, in addition to the
> by-definition grandstanding.
Yes, I do understand the English language - both the US 'edition' and
Queen's English. You have no reason to have known that before, so this
isn't a slam, merely a statement of fact. I have joked for years about
being "bilingual" because of my familiarity with both variants.
> 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.
How I use my time is my own matter. That said, while I certainly *could*
have done some of the things that you ask, I'm not a graphic designer or
a layout wizard. It takes a village to make changes like that that are
going to work. Is there some reason you haven't used the time to, say,
learn about how to use a wiki, learn to code C++, or consider other ways
in which you might contribute to the project other than, as you put it,
"stir the anthill" and deal with the fallout of being rude in doing so
and then spending the time doubling down and defending that decision
rather than just saying "yeah, I could've handled that better, sorry" and
moving on.
We both could have used the time in other ways, and we both chose to
pursue this interaction instead.
>
> 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."
Who's to say, though, that more people wouldn't have said "you know what,
I would as well" had you taken the time and considered your audience to
not engage in using a negative approach to get what you wanted? You saw
Chris' response that the negativity was not something that was helping
him want to even answer the questions raised (some of which, as I've
said, were good questions, and could have been phrased more). Now if the
project lead is saying "the negativity was not helping here" - how many
others have filtered the discussion entirely because you didn't show some
basic respect to the guy who's put 25+ years of his life, his own time
and money, into this project?
Generally, people react better to a positive message than a negative
message. It's only when all other approaches have failed (e.g. the
current protesting going on in the US) where engaging in more negative
tactics becomes necessary.
IMO, the POV-Ray project is not the right place to engage in negative
approaches to getting attention, because it's a volunteer effort
(partly), and because a strong community supports each other rather than
tearing each other down.
> 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.
I've been around the 'net long enough to not particularity care what
strangers on the 'net think about me.
Calling me a liar, however, when I haven't engaged in telling
falsehoods....That's a question of integrity. You specifically called me
a liar for saying I wasn't a part of TAG, and then held up my canceling a
post where I realized I had not read closely enough (using well-known
functionality of the NNTP protocol) so I could write a more accurate
response as evidence that I was lying about being a part of the team.
You were corrected on that. You didn't know that NNTP had that
functionality. That's cool. You learned something. I would appreciate
your acknowledgment that you made a mistake and that I did *not* in fact
misrepresent my relationship with the project. I think that is a
reasonable expectation.
--
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 01:14:14 -0400, Pekka Aho wrote:
> 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! :)
It's always fun to see folks who were around in the early days on
CompuServe. :)
My earliest images were rendered on a Vendex V20 system (took quite a
while), and then a 386DX with a math coprocessor. I had a chat with
Chris a few years back, and he showed me the entry from the image library
on CompuServe for a cribbage board that I rendered using POV-Ray and
modeled in Moray. The cards were scanned on a flatbed scanner my
employer's marketing department had; I still have the deck (got it when I
was in the USSR back in '88 on a concert tour). The cribbage board
itself is in my closet, though I've lost a few of the pegs over the years.
I never really got into the guts of SDL, always used Moray in the early
days (I paid for a license and probably still have the key somewhere).
I've played with Wings3D a bit (though not recently), and have thought
that that has potential, but from my (somewhat dated) experience with it,
it was far better for building single objects rather than scenes. But as
a CSG modeler, it's pretty good for that.
But I always held those who worked in SDL directly and could translate
their vision (not just shapes, but textures - I am awful at textures) in
very high regard. Giles Tran, Shay, and so many others produced
absolutely jaw-dropping images; for me, it was like watching an
illusionist perform magic and not knowing (or caring) how it was done.
Today I play in Blender when I need to put something together, but
getting the POV-Ray plugin going is something that I've not fully
completed. I need to get back on that and re-render some of my more
recent images with it. It'd be interesting to see the differences in
output compared to Cycles.
--
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24.07.2020 13:02, Chris Cason 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.
It should be noted that it does just happen. The filter is very
effective; there is just too much spam causing high maintenance
otherwise. As you know, I had it happen to me, too :-)
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/07/2020 01:41, Jim Henderson wrote:
> My earliest images were rendered on a Vendex V20 system (took quite a
> while), and then a 386DX with a math coprocessor. I had a chat with
> Chris a few years back, and he showed me the entry from the image library
> on CompuServe for a cribbage board that I rendered using POV-Ray and
> modeled in Moray.
Found my Compuserve data :-)
[76702,1452] Jim Henderson Lib:10
CRIBBG.GIF
Gif, Bytes: 177199, Count: 48, 29-Apr-94
Title : Cribbage Board and Perfect Hand!
Keywords: 800 600 256C MORAY POV CRIBBAGE CARDS
800 x 600 x 256 (254)
This image is of a cribbage board and a "perfect" 29 hand! The image
was originally modelled with Moray 1.3 and rendered with POV 2.0. The
card images were scanned in using an HP ScanJet IIc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 08:10:41 +1000, Chris Cason wrote:
> On 25/07/2020 01:41, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> My earliest images were rendered on a Vendex V20 system (took quite a
>> while), and then a 386DX with a math coprocessor. I had a chat with
>> Chris a few years back, and he showed me the entry from the image
>> library on CompuServe for a cribbage board that I rendered using
>> POV-Ray and modeled in Moray.
>
> Found my Compuserve data :-)
>
> [76702,1452] Jim Henderson Lib:10 CRIBBG.GIF
> Gif, Bytes: 177199, Count: 48, 29-Apr-94
>
> Title : Cribbage Board and Perfect Hand!
> Keywords: 800 600 256C MORAY POV CRIBBAGE CARDS
>
> 800 x 600 x 256 (254)
>
> This image is of a cribbage board and a "perfect" 29 hand! The image
> was originally modelled with Moray 1.3 and rendered with POV 2.0. The
> card images were scanned in using an HP ScanJet IIc.
That's the one :D
--
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/07/2020 23:10, Chris Cason wrote:
> On 25/07/2020 01:41, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> My earliest images were rendered on a Vendex V20 system (took quite a
>> while), and then a 386DX with a math coprocessor. I had a chat with
>> Chris a few years back, and he showed me the entry from the image library
>> on CompuServe for a cribbage board that I rendered using POV-Ray and
>> modeled in Moray.
>
> Found my Compuserve data :-)
>
> [76702,1452] Jim Henderson Lib:10
> CRIBBG.GIF
> Gif, Bytes: 177199, Count: 48, 29-Apr-94
>
> Title : Cribbage Board and Perfect Hand!
> Keywords: 800 600 256C MORAY POV CRIBBAGE CARDS
>
> 800 x 600 x 256 (254)
>
> This image is of a cribbage board and a "perfect" 29 hand! The image
> was originally modelled with Moray 1.3 and rendered with POV 2.0. The
> card images were scanned in using an HP ScanJet IIc.
>
> Wish I still had the source files for the cribbage board I did back in the day - I
scanned the playing card images in using a scanner the marketing guy at work had (it
was a 16-bit colour scanner, a rarity in the early 90s) - they were from a deck of
cards I got in the USSR. I still have the cards (and the cribbage board I modelled it
on), so I could recreate it if I really wanted to, but it wouldn't be the same.
The image will do. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> ...
> Calling me a liar, however, when I haven't engaged in telling
> falsehoods....That's a question of integrity. You specifically called me
> a liar for saying I wasn't a part of TAG, ...
</sigh>
# jr 21.7 2145
you have admin privilege for the news server, and the wiki, afaik, and, guessing
here, for the main website.
# JH 21.7 2208
I don't have admin privileges for the news server or the wiki (any more).
# jr 21.7 2340
can you even point to any ng post in the last, uh, four years or so, where you,
or a member of the mysterious TAG, has asked for help with anything?
# jr 22.7 1630
so my understanding of NNTP is that once a post has "gone through", ...
therefore, without admin privileges (or an indebted djinn) you, as "another end
user", ought not to have been able to withdraw your post (with haste :-)).
# JH 22.7 1727
Your understanding of NNTP is incorrect. No admin privileges are needed to
cancel your own posts or supersede them. It's a common thing to do in the
USENET world.
# JH 22.7 2156
I await your apology for insinuating that I lied to you about my role in the
project.
# JH 23.7 1513
Your insinuation that I was lying about my involvement in the project based on
your total lack of comprehension as to how NNTP works is
completely separate from...
# JH 23.7 2345
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.
so those are the key sentences from the relevant posts. I've done the legwork,
now you do your bit. not that it matters. you, I suspect (and said before),
are playing some kind of game (unfortunately; this thread really isn't helped by
some .. drama queen getting over-emotional). so, I'll be brushing off the muddy
bits from my sleeves now, because I have better use for my time than to
entertain a [insert your expletive of choice here].
jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
