It is ever the case that even the strictest occupations of logic are 
discharged with some modicum of faith and likewise the most ardent 
occupations of faith with some modicum of logic. It is therefore that no 
inarguable effect of pristine logic or faith has yet been recorded. Their 
combined effect is, however, generally accepted and well documented.

The matter in which logic and faith readily coalesce to a demonstrable 
composite effect is observable in the form and fortitude of the flame-like 
bronze construction (suien – lit. “water flame”) present near the top of the 
pagoda finial (sorin). The sorin functions as a lightning rod, and the 
“water flame” as a literal and symbolic ward against fire. Here now, the 
suien stands resolutely in the path of an approaching storm, and here yet, 
the pagoda remains, a stalwart testimonial to engineering and superstition, 
enduring a primordial offense.

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you're under 100-years-old and aren't familiar with the tc-rtc, you might 
be wondering why I'm "talking" like that. Check it out. There are currently 
16 entries, all celebrating a 19th-century textbook. I am fond of the 
writing style.

Anyone can register to comment or vote, so if you'd like to see and comment 
on what amounts to two-months-worth of quality p.b.i uploads -or- if I've 
pissed you off in p.o-t and you want to give my entry all 1s, go to the site 
and have a look around. http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/

---------------------------------------------------------------

This is my entry. It's cropped for the tc-rtc. It's meant to be cropped. As 
a still, it's better cropped. But I'm giving you the full scrollbar-driven 
animated tour. Hand-coded on my Model(er)-M.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'pagoda1.jpg' (550 KB)

Preview of image 'pagoda1.jpg'

"Shay" <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:

> This is my entry. It's cropped for the tc-rtc. It's meant to be cropped. As
> a still, it's better cropped. But I'm giving you the full scrollbar-driven
> animated tour. Hand-coded on my Model(er)-M.
>

Wow! that is a masterpiece, I now feel like I need to purchase a 6ft monitor so
I can really appreciate all the detail without the need to scroll down. Aside
from the obvious amount of time/effort that has gone into the pagoda the
atmospheric effects with the clouds/media really add to the image and are also
fantastic.

My only criticism is you should have saved it for the CSG sub-round as I don't
think anything could beat it (that is if a hand-coded mesh would be allowed in
this round?).

Great image.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

Frickin' amazing!

> The sorin functions as a lightning rod, and the “water flame” as a
> literal and symbolic ward against fire.

Although the real use may have been to provide wireless data services ;)

Post a reply to this message

"s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote in message 
news:web.520ac61357607c6e483bd97d0@news.povray.org...
>
> Wow! that is a masterpiece, I now feel like I need to purchase a 6ft 
> monitor so
> I can really appreciate all the detail without the need to scroll down. 
> Aside
> from the obvious amount of time/effort that has gone into the pagoda the
> atmospheric effects with the clouds/media really add to the image and are 
> also
> fantastic.

Thank you very much. Time and effort went into those too.

>
> My only criticism is you should have saved it for the CSG sub-round as I 
> don't
> think anything could beat it (that is if a hand-coded mesh would be 
> allowed in
> this round?).

I would hope not, that would allow height-fields. Isosurfaces would allow 
elaborate fractals. Bezier prisms would allow vector art. Blobs would allow 
... blobs.
At least those four should be excluded, I think.

To the best of my knowledge, as long as POV-Ray's been around, TOR is the 
only one to have posted Villarceau circles, and I was only recently the 
first to post something like the recent 'CSG Challenge' shape. I think 
there's still plenty of room to explore "normal" CSG.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Am 14.08.2013 02:01, schrieb Christian Froeschlin:
> Frickin' amazing!
>
>> The sorin functions as a lightning rod, and the “water flame” as a
>> literal and symbolic ward against fire.
>
> Although the real use may have been to provide wireless data services ;)

Indeed. Given that nobody has ever found copper cables dating back to 
those days, it seems reasonable to assume that wireless transmission 
must have already been known by then.

:-)

Post a reply to this message

"Christian Froeschlin"  wrote in message news:520ac8f2@news.povray.org...

> Frickin' amazing!

Frickin' thank you!

>> The sorin functions as a lightning rod, and the “water flame” as a
>> literal and symbolic ward against fire.

> Although the real use may have been to provide wireless data services ;)

Too easy. Smart-assed remarks should be in 19th-Century schoolbook style.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

"s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote:
> "Shay" <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>
> > This is my entry. It's cropped for the tc-rtc. It's meant to be cropped. As
> > a still, it's better cropped. But I'm giving you the full scrollbar-driven
> > animated tour. Hand-coded on my Model(er)-M.
> >
>
> Wow! that is a masterpiece, I now feel like I need to purchase a 6ft monitor so
> I can really appreciate all the detail without the need to scroll down. Aside
> from the obvious amount of time/effort that has gone into the pagoda the
> atmospheric effects with the clouds/media really add to the image and are also
> fantastic.
>
> My only criticism is you should have saved it for the CSG sub-round as I don't
> think anything could beat it (that is if a hand-coded mesh would be allowed in
> this round?).
>
> Great image.
>
> Sean

Yes, I really second Sean, this is a masterpiece. The only drewback is it's
size. For voting I like to have the whole picture at the screen to get an
overall impression. That is why I always use a resolution of 1280*720 since it
should fit into a modern monitor of 1920*1080 resolution without the need of
scrolling (it's simply 3/4 of the monitor size).

A second issue is the meeting of the topic, which you stress here very heavily.
I did the same in the past but not at this scale IMO.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> "s.day" <s.d### [at] uelacuk> wrote in message
> >
> > My only criticism is you should have saved it for the CSG sub-round as I
> > don't
> > think anything could beat it (that is if a hand-coded mesh would be
> > allowed in
> > this round?).
>
> I would hope not, that would allow height-fields. Isosurfaces would allow
> elaborate fractals. Bezier prisms would allow vector art. Blobs would allow
> ... blobs.
> At least those four should be excluded, I think.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, as long as POV-Ray's been around, TOR is the
> only one to have posted Villarceau circles, and I was only recently the
> first to post something like the recent 'CSG Challenge' shape. I think
> there's still plenty of room to explore "normal" CSG.
>
>  -Shay

Maybe 2 rounds are required, a pure CSG featuring only basic primitives (I would
like this one) and a more flexible SDL only round (no external tools). Only
problem is both of these would exclude any non POV competitors but I assume
these would run in parallel to the main competition so it should not be a huge
problem. It also may tempt some of them to try out POV.

I guess it could also have a negative impact on the number/quality of entrants
to the main competition.

Sean

Post a reply to this message

"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote in message
news:web.520bdd6357607c6e15620aa60@news.povray.org...
>
> Yes, I really second Sean, this is a masterpiece.

Thank you.

> The only drewback is it's
> size. For voting I like to have the whole picture at the screen to get an
> overall impression. That is why I always use a resolution of 1280*720
> since it
> should fit into a modern monitor of 1920*1080 resolution without the need
> of
> scrolling (it's simply 3/4 of the monitor size).

Yeah, that was a tough call. This is my first entry (since the pre-round
"Before and After"). I assumed the pictures would resize automatically in a
browser. When I saw this wasn't the case, I figured people could shrink a
large render but not zoom in on a small render. Pity, really, because I'm
very happy with the framing.

>
> A second issue is the meeting of the topic, which you stress here very
> heavily.
> I did the same in the past but not at this scale IMO.

I have a post in irtc.general, "Enough Time? The Right Idea?", and another
on the tc-rtc forum where I encourage others to do the same.

When the irtc first started, the organizers probably thought to themselves,
"We've got to do something to encourage diversity. If we have a 'Golf'
round, we're going to see 30 uploads of clubs, balls, and grass. Let's give
an interpretation score so people will put some real thought into their
topics."

Didn't work. Instead of encouraging diversity, the Topic score merely
allowed those so inclined to police the irtc for non-compliance. My entry
into the "Landscape" round was criticized for inappropriate interpretation.
What won? ... you guessed it ... a landscape: grass, trees, rocks. Not only 
did a plain ol' landscape win*, IT GOT THE HIGHEST CONCEPT SCORE OF THE
ROUND!

When Steve started the tc-rtc, I suggested he go to a single-score system.
Steve chose to keep the three-score system, and, with apologies to my dear,
departed friend, THAT SUCKS. Why does it suck? Well, back when this round
was getting started, I suggested a person in this group use his Dalek model
for a radiation-themed entry; I suggested a second person enter his pigment
exploration since, at least traditionally, pigments are made from elements
of geology; and I suggested to a third turn his multi-multi-pass render
experiment into an exploration of strata. Where are these entries? Well, we
have a few days left for uploads, but I don't think we'll see them. We won't
see them because people have learned that "stressed topics" are instantly
dismissed.

I can't change how people vote--I'm certain I'll be "dinged" for
concept--but I can enter a "losing" entry anyway and at least take part.

-Shay

* It was a great entry. It deserved to win.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/08/2013 10:56 PM, Shay wrote:
> When Steve started the tc-rtc, I suggested he go to a single-score system.
> Steve chose to keep the three-score system, and, with apologies to my dear,
> departed friend, THAT SUCKS. Why does it suck?

I had a few discussions with him too, a few over pints. :-) I thought 
that a weighting system might be more fair. Possibly because I too like 
to push the boundaries and not be obvious. But he wanted to keep it as 
similar to the IRTC competitions as possible. But now that Thomas and I 
have the site developer's attention. The scoring is up for discussion.
Personally, I think that Technical is suspect too. I mean how can you 
tell and why is it important?

> Well, back when this round

[snip]

> We won't see them because people have learned that "stressed topics" are instantly
> dismissed.
>

Shame that. :-(

> I can't change how people vote--I'm certain I'll be "dinged" for
> concept--but I can enter a "losing" entry anyway and at least take part.

My thoughts on all my entries.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

My comment about hitting the topic was more intended as an observation and not
really as criticism.

As for the "golf" topic, my first thought was a car, and not Tiger Woods;-) But
this may be biased being German.

And for the voting. You have only small influence with your work. People does
not ever look at the pictures and try a fair vote. Sometimes they like you,
sometimes they dislike you and vote you down. My lowest voting for my "Ariadnes
Garden" picture was 5,5,5. I didn't missed the topic but I used an image
designed for an earlier round (and admited that), which seems to be an
unforgivable thing to some persons.
In this case I can accept the artistic and concept vote, but not the technical
one, having used occlusion map baking, splines to create the general shape of
the creatian labyrinth and to have the grass down where the ball was moved. And
a lot of other things. More work in this one than in other ones I did. But
technically only 5 for one voter. One has to accept that.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

On 15/08/2013 8:07 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> My comment about hitting the topic was more intended as an observation and not
> really as criticism.
>


I know but it is one of the things that niggle me. I think that the 
voting categories are outdated fine for when the IRTC started but the 
technical one does not make sense to me nowadays.

> As for the "golf" topic, my first thought was a car, and not Tiger Woods;-) But
> this may be biased being German.
>

For me golf is a good walk ruined. ;-)

> And for the voting. You have only small influence with your work. People does
> not ever look at the pictures and try a fair vote. Sometimes they like you,
> sometimes they dislike you and vote you down. My lowest voting for my "Ariadnes
> Garden" picture was 5,5,5. I didn't missed the topic but I used an image
> designed for an earlier round (and admited that), which seems to be an
> unforgivable thing to some persons.

Well you are not alone, I once got 3-3-3.  There is one member, who 
entered the IRTC as well. Often gave those sort of scores to images he 
found displeasing.

> In this case I can accept the artistic and concept vote, but not the technical
> one, having used occlusion map baking, splines to create the general shape of
> the creatian labyrinth and to have the grass down where the ball was moved. And
> a lot of other things.

That is what I mean. Other than detailing what you have done and leaving 
it up to the voter to understand the difficulty. It won't be credited. 
As far as I know, occlusion map baking may be easy to do and a bit of a 
cheat. I've never tried to use it. So how can I, or anyone like me, give 
an informed vote?

> More work in this one than in other ones I did. But
> technically only 5 for one voter. One has to accept that.


Accept what? That he is an idiot or a spoiler?
Long ago I realised that when someone disagreed with me on artistic 
matters. It did not mean that I was wrong and generally meant that they 
only had a superficial understanding of the subject or they were just a 
blowhard. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 15/08/2013 8:07 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> > My comment about hitting the topic was more intended as an observation and not
> > really as criticism.
> >
>
>
> I know but it is one of the things that niggle me. I think that the
> voting categories are outdated fine for when the IRTC started but the
> technical one does not make sense to me nowadays.
>
> > As for the "golf" topic, my first thought was a car, and not Tiger Woods;-) But
> > this may be biased being German.
> >
>
> For me golf is a good walk ruined. ;-)
>
> > And for the voting. You have only small influence with your work. People does
> > not ever look at the pictures and try a fair vote. Sometimes they like you,
> > sometimes they dislike you and vote you down. My lowest voting for my "Ariadnes
> > Garden" picture was 5,5,5. I didn't missed the topic but I used an image
> > designed for an earlier round (and admited that), which seems to be an
> > unforgivable thing to some persons.
>
> Well you are not alone, I once got 3-3-3.  There is one member, who
> entered the IRTC as well. Often gave those sort of scores to images he
> found displeasing.
>
> > In this case I can accept the artistic and concept vote, but not the technical
> > one, having used occlusion map baking, splines to create the general shape of
> > the creatian labyrinth and to have the grass down where the ball was moved. And
> > a lot of other things.
>
> That is what I mean. Other than detailing what you have done and leaving
> it up to the voter to understand the difficulty. It won't be credited.
> As far as I know, occlusion map baking may be easy to do and a bit of a
> cheat. I've never tried to use it. So how can I, or anyone like me, give
> an informed vote?
>
> > More work in this one than in other ones I did. But
> > technically only 5 for one voter. One has to accept that.
>
>
> Accept what? That he is an idiot or a spoiler?
> Long ago I realised that when someone disagreed with me on artistic
> matters. It did not mean that I was wrong and generally meant that they
> only had a superficial understanding of the subject or they were just a
> blowhard. ;-)
>
>
> --
> Regards
>      Stephen

Yes, I know. We had a discussion about the technical score at the TC forum
resulting in that it should not be deleted. My personal opion has not changed.
With TC RTC all other systems to generate CG are accepted and a comparison of
technical difficulties is not possible. Ives uses Autodesk software, Normand has
it's own Java Open GL software and you cannot judge their technical
difficulties. So the technical score should go IMO.

To address the "not meeting the topic" issuue: my rubber duck image contains a
certain element of geologe called "water" ;-) No, I will not have it into the
contest. But my wife will have a cup with the inscription of "Mom is the best"
or something like that. So I may open an account at Zazzle next days.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

On 16/08/2013 6:45 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> Yes, I know. We had a discussion about the technical score at the TC forum
> resulting in that it should not be deleted. My personal opion has not changed.
> With TC RTC all other systems to generate CG are accepted and a comparison of
> technical difficulties is not possible. Ives uses Autodesk software, Normand has
> it's own Java Open GL software and you cannot judge their technical
> difficulties. So the technical score should go IMO.
>

Let's leave that discussion for later. We are testing some changes to 
the site, just now. It looks like we will be able to run two Challenges 
at the same time. And we will be able to set our own start and end 
dates. Nor will we be limited to the list of book titles in the "vote 
for the next topic". Once we have the mechanics sorted out we can look 
t0wards fixing some other things.

> To address the "not meeting the topic" issuue: my rubber duck image contains a
> certain element of geologe called "water";-)  No, I will not have it into the
> contest.

You could upload it to the Animation section to help test. The Animation 
section will soon be the new Challenge 2 Stills section.
Be aware that the section is being tested and may close and reopen as 
another contest.

> But my wife will have a cup with the inscription of "Mom is the best"
> or something like that. So I may open an account at Zazzle next days

It is a great image, a happy image.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> You could upload it to the Animation section to help test. The Animation
> section will soon be the new Challenge 2 Stills section.
> Be aware that the section is being tested and may close and reopen as
> another contest.

What is the deadline for that? I just started a new rendering of my rubber ducks
with focal blur which will take a bit longer I fear. I noticed that only you has
uploaded a test image so far.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

On 17/08/2013 6:32 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> What is the deadline for that? I just started a new rendering of my rubber ducks
> with focal blur which will take a bit longer I fear.

When would you like it to be? I've set the "End of upload" for the end 
of this month.

>I noticed that only you has uploaded a test image so far.

No one else knows about it, that is why. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 17/08/2013 6:32 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> > What is the deadline for that? I just started a new rendering of my rubber ducks
> > with focal blur which will take a bit longer I fear.
>
> When would you like it to be? I've set the "End of upload" for the end
> of this month.
>
That should prove no problem.

Thanks,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> Well you are not alone, I once got 3-3-3.  There is one member, who
> entered the IRTC as well. Often gave those sort of scores to images he
> found displeasing.
>

Care to give a hint who that member is?

I went back and looked at the scores of the past few rounds to get a good idea
of an average score (for what it's worth, 12-12.5). The worst I saw was a Topic
score of 2 for Iron Lady in the Woman round. I assume this was a political
remark.

Maybe you should give every voter an average of what he gave the other images.
Might slow some of that down. Heck, you might be better off just giving the win
to whoever posts the most comments.

As far as Technical, you're right, I don't understand what TDG does with his
many programs, and most current POVvers don't understand what goes in to
hand-coding.

Quickie image creators want to see quickie-image posts, masochists want to see
other masochists' posts, and either group will find justifications for
dismissing the other. No changing that. I expect a 5 or worse for Topic and
(even after >100 hours of work) wouldn't be surprised to receive the same for
Technical.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/08/2013 11:26 PM, Shay wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> Well you are not alone, I once got 3-3-3.  There is one member, who
>> entered the IRTC as well. Often gave those sort of scores to images he
>> found displeasing.
>>
>
> Care to give a hint who that member is?

No, not really. ;-)

It is not, IMO, the right thing to do.

>
> I went back and looked at the scores of the past few rounds to get a good idea
> of an average score (for what it's worth, 12-12.5). The worst I saw was a Topic
> score of 2 for Iron Lady in the Woman round. I assume this was a political
> remark.
>

Well, I started to mirror his scoring to me, to him and I think that 
worked. Especially after I became Admin of the site. :-)

> Maybe you should give every voter an average of what he gave the other images.
> Might slow some of that down. Heck, you might be better off just giving the win
> to whoever posts the most comments.
>

Now that is a very good idea but would be hard to implement, fairly.

> As far as Technical, you're right, I don't understand what TDG does with his
> many programs, and most current POVvers don't understand what goes in to
> hand-coding.
>

Yeah, both Thomas and I agree that a "one score for all" would be 
better. That, I hope, will come soon. First we want to get the second 
Challenge up and running then we can fine tune everything.

> Quickie image creators want to see quickie-image posts, masochists want to see
> other masochists' posts, and either group will find justifications for
> dismissing the other. No changing that.

How true but when we get a second Challenge up and running (which should 
be very soon) we can cater for both.

> I expect a 5 or worse for Topic and
> (even after >100 hours of work) wouldn't be surprised to receive the same for
> Technical.
>
There is no pleasing some folk. I promise that I will give you a bit 
more than 5 for both. Although I'm not sure about "on topic". :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 17/08/2013 7:39 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 17/08/2013 6:32 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
>>> What is the deadline for that? I just started a new rendering of my rubber ducks
>>> with focal blur which will take a bit longer I fear.
>>
>> When would you like it to be? I've set the "End of upload" for the end
>> of this month.
>>
> That should prove no problem.
>

Good! I see that you have uploaded it and very fine it is too.
Thank you for testing.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19-8-2013 21:30, Stephen wrote:

> There is no pleasing some folk. I promise that I will give you a bit
> more than 5 for both. Although I'm not sure about "on topic". :-P
>

Think about the different meanings of /elements/ ....  ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2013 9:20 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 19-8-2013 21:30, Stephen wrote:
>
>> There is no pleasing some folk. I promise that I will give you a bit
>> more than 5 for both. Although I'm not sure about "on topic". :-P
>>
>
> Think about the different meanings of /elements/ ....  ;-)
>

Do you mean Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether?


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 13-08-20 15:26, Stephen a écrit :
> On 20/08/2013 9:20 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 19-8-2013 21:30, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> There is no pleasing some folk. I promise that I will give you a bit
>>> more than 5 for both. Although I'm not sure about "on topic". :-P
>>>
>>
>> Think about the different meanings of /elements/ ....  ;-)
>>
>
> Do you mean Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether?
>
>

That's only one meaning, one of the alchemical interpretation.
Alchemical also have:
earth, water, fire, air
earth, water, fire, air, wood
earth, water, fire, air, metal
earth, ooze, water, ice, air, smoke, fire, magma
and probably several others depending on the author and local traditions.

I've seen: wood, lightning/energy, fire, air and water

Then, there are the chemical elements, then the mathematical 
definitions, then it's found in legal/legislation context, then...

Post a reply to this message

On 20/08/2013 9:30 PM, Alain wrote:
> Then, there are

Element ary.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20-8-2013 21:26, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/08/2013 9:20 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 19-8-2013 21:30, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> There is no pleasing some folk. I promise that I will give you a bit
>>> more than 5 for both. Although I'm not sure about "on topic". :-P
>>>
>>
>> Think about the different meanings of /elements/ ....  ;-)
>>
>
> Do you mean Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether?
>
>

a metal like copper is an /element/

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 20-8-2013 21:26, Stephen wrote:
> > On 20/08/2013 9:20 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >> On 19-8-2013 21:30, Stephen wrote:
> >>
> >>> There is no pleasing some folk. I promise that I will give you a bit
> >>> more than 5 for both. Although I'm not sure about "on topic". :-P
> >>>
> >>
> >> Think about the different meanings of /elements/ ....  ;-)
> >>
> >
> > Do you mean Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether?
> >
> >
>
> a metal like copper is an /element/
>

I'll match your metallic copper and raise you Hydrogen plasma. ;-)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 21-8-2013 12:43, Stephen wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 20-8-2013 21:26, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 20/08/2013 9:20 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> On 19-8-2013 21:30, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is no pleasing some folk. I promise that I will give you a bit
>>>>> more than 5 for both. Although I'm not sure about "on topic". :-P
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Think about the different meanings of /elements/ ....  ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you mean Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> a metal like copper is an /element/
>>
>
> I'll match your metallic copper and raise you Hydrogen plasma. ;-)
>

Hmm... what to do? what to do...?

Two gold nuggets.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 21/08/2013 12:23 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 21-8-2013 12:43, Stephen wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>> On 20-8-2013 21:26, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 20/08/2013 9:20 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>> On 19-8-2013 21:30, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no pleasing some folk. I promise that I will give you a bit
>>>>>> more than 5 for both. Although I'm not sure about "on topic". :-P
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Think about the different meanings of /elements/ ....  ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> a metal like copper is an /element/
>>>
>>
>> I'll match your metallic copper and raise you Hydrogen plasma. ;-)
>>
>
> Hmm... what to do? what to do...?
>
> Two gold nuggets.
>

Okay, I fold and in only 3 dimensions.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 21-8-2013 19:03, Stephen wrote:
> On 21/08/2013 12:23 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 21-8-2013 12:43, Stephen wrote:
>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>> On 20-8-2013 21:26, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On 20/08/2013 9:20 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>> On 19-8-2013 21:30, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no pleasing some folk. I promise that I will give you a bit
>>>>>>> more than 5 for both. Although I'm not sure about "on topic". :-P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think about the different meanings of /elements/ ....  ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> a metal like copper is an /element/
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll match your metallic copper and raise you Hydrogen plasma. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Hmm... what to do? what to do...?
>>
>> Two gold nuggets.
>>
>
> Okay, I fold and in only 3 dimensions.

Nah! That's cheap. You can walk out through the fourth.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 22/08/2013 7:54 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Okay, I fold and in only 3 dimensions.
>
> Nah! That's cheap. You can walk out through the fourth.

Now, would I do that to you when I could step to where I did not have to?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 22-8-2013 21:01, Stephen wrote:
> On 22/08/2013 7:54 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Okay, I fold and in only 3 dimensions.
>>
>> Nah! That's cheap. You can walk out through the fourth.
>
> Now, would I do that to you when I could step to where I did not have to?
>

No, probably not I guess. OK, let's have a shot of hydrogen plasma on 
the house.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 22-8-2013 21:01, Stephen wrote:
> > On 22/08/2013 7:54 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >>> Okay, I fold and in only 3 dimensions.
> >>
> >> Nah! That's cheap. You can walk out through the fourth.
> >
> > Now, would I do that to you when I could step to where I did not have to?
> >
>
> No, probably not I guess. OK, let's have a shot of hydrogen plasma on
> the house.

A small one for me, I'm driving.

Post a reply to this message

On 23-8-2013 12:07, Stephen wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 22-8-2013 21:01, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 22/08/2013 7:54 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>> Okay, I fold and in only 3 dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> Nah! That's cheap. You can walk out through the fourth.
>>>
>>> Now, would I do that to you when I could step to where I did not have to?
>>>
>>
>> No, probably not I guess. OK, let's have a shot of hydrogen plasma on
>> the house.
>
> A small one for me, I'm driving.

No worry. There is very little tungsten in it.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 23-8-2013 12:07, Stephen wrote:
> > Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> >> On 22-8-2013 21:01, Stephen wrote:
> >>> On 22/08/2013 7:54 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> >>>>> Okay, I fold and in only 3 dimensions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nah! That's cheap. You can walk out through the fourth.
> >>>
> >>> Now, would I do that to you when I could step to where I did not have to?
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, probably not I guess. OK, let's have a shot of hydrogen plasma on
> >> the house.
> >
> > A small one for me, I'm driving.
>
> No worry. There is very little tungsten in it.
>

LOL, you hard man ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 23-8-2013 13:52, Stephen wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 23-8-2013 12:07, Stephen wrote:
>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>> On 22-8-2013 21:01, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On 22/08/2013 7:54 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>>> Okay, I fold and in only 3 dimensions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nah! That's cheap. You can walk out through the fourth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, would I do that to you when I could step to where I did not have to?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, probably not I guess. OK, let's have a shot of hydrogen plasma on
>>>> the house.
>>>
>>> A small one for me, I'm driving.
>>
>> No worry. There is very little tungsten in it.
>>
>
> LOL, you hard man ;-)
>

"All the world's a stage"...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 23/08/2013 1:05 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 23-8-2013 13:52, Stephen wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>> On 23-8-2013 12:07, Stephen wrote:
>>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>>> On 22-8-2013 21:01, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/08/2013 7:54 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>>>> Okay, I fold and in only 3 dimensions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nah! That's cheap. You can walk out through the fourth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, would I do that to you when I could step to where I did not
>>>>>> have to?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, probably not I guess. OK, let's have a shot of hydrogen plasma on
>>>>> the house.
>>>>
>>>> A small one for me, I'm driving.
>>>
>>> No worry. There is very little tungsten in it.
>>>
>>
>> LOL, you hard man ;-)
>>
>
> "All the world's a stage"...
>

This is getting too silly.

http://tiny.cc/wwga2w

;-)



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23-8-2013 23:35, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/08/2013 1:05 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 23-8-2013 13:52, Stephen wrote:
>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>> On 23-8-2013 12:07, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>>>> On 22-8-2013 21:01, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/08/2013 7:54 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Okay, I fold and in only 3 dimensions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nah! That's cheap. You can walk out through the fourth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, would I do that to you when I could step to where I did not
>>>>>>> have to?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, probably not I guess. OK, let's have a shot of hydrogen plasma on
>>>>>> the house.
>>>>>
>>>>> A small one for me, I'm driving.
>>>>
>>>> No worry. There is very little tungsten in it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL, you hard man ;-)
>>>
>>
>> "All the world's a stage"...
>>
>
> This is getting too silly.
>
> http://tiny.cc/wwga2w
>

<grin> Amen to that.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Thomas de Groot"  wrote in message news:52185a4e$1@news.povray.org...

On 23-8-2013 23:35, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/08/2013 1:05 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 23-8-2013 13:52, Stephen wrote:
>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>> On 23-8-2013 12:07, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>>>>> On 22-8-2013 21:01, Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/08/2013 7:54 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Okay, I fold and in only 3 dimensions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nah! That's cheap. You can walk out through the fourth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, would I do that to you when I could step to where I did not
>>>>>>> have to?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, probably not I guess. OK, let's have a shot of hydrogen plasma on
>>>>>> the house.
>>>>>
>>>>> A small one for me, I'm driving.
>>>>
>>>> No worry. There is very little tungsten in it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL, you hard man ;-)
>>>
>>
>> "All the world's a stage"...
>>
>
> This is getting too silly.
>
> http://tiny.cc/wwga2w
>

> <grin> Amen to that.
> Thomas

Think of how much fun you'd have had if you'd followed my admonition to keep 
smart-assed remarks in 19th-Century-schoolbook style.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 26/08/2013 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> Think of how much fun you'd have had if you'd followed my admonition to
> keep smart-assed remarks in 19th-Century-schoolbook style.

A bit too modern for me.

"Why this is Hell nor am I out of it." Is more my style. :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message