I know I'm going to get flamed or ignored for this, but what are the chances
of me downloading the expired 3.7 beta 22?  I was hoping to do some
multi-core rendering this weekend.  It kills me to see only 25% CPU usage
for a 20 hour rendering!  Thanks in advance for recommending SMPOV, but I
can't go without radiosity.

I apologize for asking, but I missed the expiry date by only a few days, and
I absolutely promise not to post any bug reports...

- James

Post a reply to this message

Blackfeather <jam### [at] blackfeathermediacom> wrote:
> I absolutely promise not to post any bug reports...

  That's not really the purpose of beta-testing...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Blackfeather <jam### [at] blackfeathermediacom> wrote:
>> I absolutely promise not to post any bug reports...
> 
>   That's not really the purpose of beta-testing...
> 
That is another one of your totally unnecessary responses.
He is only notifying that he has read the Beta updates thread and has 
understood what the reason for the expiration is. Mainly, I guess, to 
avoid being flamed by you. I think he will be totally flabbergasted by 
the fact flame avoidance turns out to be a cause for unnecessary flaming 
in itself. Well, perhaps that was the intention and this was meant as a 
joke. Please next time use a smiley.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> >   That's not really the purpose of beta-testing...

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
> ...Mainly, I guess, to avoid being flamed by you.


Yeah.  Thanks, but I expected it.  It comes with being a noob.

I suppose what I really want to do is called "beta-using".  I wouldn't be
the only "beta-user" in this forum, since many here are using the beta22
and back-dating their computers.  I just need some kind, understanding,
(and potentially rule-breaking) soul to provide me with a copy no longer
available for download.

....and hopefully not start a war on the brink of the official 3.7 release.

- James

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> That is another one of your totally unnecessary responses.

  Look who is talking.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> That is another one of your totally unnecessary responses.
> 
>   Look who is talking.
> 
yip, it's me again.

Post a reply to this message

> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> That is another one of your totally unnecessary responses.
> 
>   Look who is talking.

You have an obvious and long-standing problem about diplomacy
(and nuance, distance,...).
Face it, and do something about it. Please.

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:

> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> That is another one of your totally unnecessary responses.
> > 
> >   Look who is talking.

> You have an obvious and long-standing problem about diplomacy
> (and nuance, distance,...).
> Face it, and do something about it. Please.

  It's quite amusing how people make reproaching posts which themselves
are exactly what they reproach about.

  First someone blames me of posting totally unnecessary responses...
in a totally unnecessary post.

  Then someone else blames me of not being diplomatic... with a post
which can't be called very diplomatic either.

  Somehow the word "hypocrisy" comes to mind.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Somehow the word "hypocrisy" comes to mind.

ROFL

Welcome to the club, Warp! There will always be a few people who do not
appreciate a direct response. Now that I don't post so often for exactly the
same reason, some people had to find someone else to hate - that seems to be
you, so congratulations :-P

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:

>>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> That is another one of your totally unnecessary responses.
>>>   Look who is talking.
> 
>> You have an obvious and long-standing problem about diplomacy
>> (and nuance, distance,...).
>> Face it, and do something about it. Please.
> 
>   It's quite amusing how people make reproaching posts which themselves
> are exactly what they reproach about.
> 
>   First someone blames me of posting totally unnecessary responses...
> in a totally unnecessary post.
> 
It wasn't unnecessary. It was meant to reassure a fairly new person here 
that it was not his fault that he got flamed from a direction that he 
was not expecting. I considered it very likely that after such a 
treatment this person was so scared that he would not come back. As you 
know one of the explicitly named sins in POVray news group is harassing 
  someone to the point that they leave. Hence my attempt to undue the 
harm that you might have inadvertently caused.
And it was indeed also to try and make you aware that what you wrote was 
based on very superficial reading. That you consider it unnecessary 
simply means to me that you still don't get it that in a polite 
discussion you first try to understand what the other person is saying 
before you reply.

Post a reply to this message