Subject:
|
Re: L3P Warnings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Jul 2010 00:38:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
34691 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Timothy Gould wrote:
> Wow. You're totally confusing me with someone else. I've never been in the LSC,
> haven't been in the SteerCo for a couple of years, haven't had much at all to do
> with the LDraw header (other than a teensy bit to do with the licensing which,
> from memory, is one or two lines of code and makes what you wish seem to wish
> for possible to distribute legally) and am arguing from no position other than
> my own.
You've been parroting the company line in this thread and that previous one, so
even though you're not literally affiliated with the LSC, you're playing the
part of cheerleader here, so it's pretty much the same thing. Your position is
not materially different from the official stance, so refuting one is the same
as refuting the other.
> You're also confusing two totally different issues as it suits you. Having extra
> header information has nothing whatsoever to do with inlined POVray code. As a
> veteran parts editor you really should know that.
Find me the post in which I claimed that the two were the same. Go ahead, I'll
wait.
Nothing?
If you'd care to go back and read it again, I pointed out that you're curiously
willing to accept one batch of indecipherable gobbledygook that adds nothing but
some legal CYA and some largely irrelevant history, and you somehow insist that
its esoteric coding isn't confusing or off-putting. Yet you're quick to condemn
inlined POV-Ray code which is invisible to the end-user, relatively simple to
learn, and which yields a greatly superior output image. Nowhere did I claim
that the two are the same; in fact, I claimed the opposite.
> Finally you're confusing the fact that I don't want inlined POVray code in the
> library with me not wishing it at all. As I said, I use it. To be fair that
> particular bit of confusion is probably my fault.
Okay, I'll get off that point.
> And if you're really so worried about what the LSC gets up to why don't you run
> for it? You seem to have a lot to say and even accuse others of arguing their
> position from "The Mighty LSC" yet it's an elected body for which you can easily
> run.
Oh, please. Do you seriously think that The Clone Guy stands a chance of
getting elected? I'd venture to say that I've written as many parts as anyone
out there, but only two official LDraw elements. I suspect that Vic Bertrand
stands as much chance of getting hired by LEGO as I do of getting elected to the
LSC.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) --snip-- So pretty much you're saying you think that anyone who disagrees with you does so not from their own reasoned perspective but because of some collective dogma. Well now that we've cleared that up I'll know never to bother with you (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) I'm intrigued - the only point in that last sentence that differentiates the "indecipherable gobbledygook" from the inline POV is that the latter "yields a greatly superior output image". It's certainly no less invisible to the end-user, nor (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) Wow. You're totally confusing me with someone else. I've never been in the LSC, haven't been in the SteerCo for a couple of years, haven't had much at all to do with the LDraw header (other than a teensy bit to do with the licensing which, (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
