 | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) I like this idea, but I think a self-regulated restriction would be better than a system-imposed limit, for several reasons: 1. Todd doesn't have to develop the solution. 2. It's a simple, measurable way for Jonathan to show (in)compliance. 3. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | RE: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
|
(...) You should try the beta v1.2 Win32 L3P32: (URL) have successfully used it for a 6000 part model. Be sure to try out the new STUDS flag in the POV-file to reduce rendering time during the test renderings. and Bram Lambrecht wrote in another (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
|
(...) Well, I'm pretty sure you didn't, as I was anxious and alert about your reactions to L3P. An "invitation" in the very first L3P announcement of August 27th 1998: (...) and some later on was apparently ignored? But never mind that now. I will (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) He's said he would change before, in other ways, and hasn't. He apologized for his rudeness and said he wouldn't do it anymore a few days ago, then spent the last two days trying to defend a rude message he sent to Tore by arguing that since (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) How about we give Todd a break? Kick him (JW) out or don't - don't ask Todd to spend his very valuable time hacking into his code to come up with something like this. I'm sure Todd COULD do it, but boy, the things he could be doing instead - (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
|
(...) That doesn't follow. The choices aren't mutually exclusive, are they? I thought these were separate, independently voted-upon percentages. If so, then they can't be combined mathematically as described above. Consider: If you had 95% vote for (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Once again, please move this discussion to lugnet.admin.general (was: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET)
|
|
(...) Once again, please do ***NOT*** reply to any message on this thread without making sure that you are posting a reply to lugnet.admin.general *ONLY*. It was an *accident* when Adam posted the original CFV message that the Followup-To field was (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Correct on all above. (Tim grovels at the feet of the great Lar) :P (...) Good point. Though I fully support the current vote, it appears that either way his actions will continue to back himself further into a corner. Personally his actions (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting page for 9906
|
|
Chris Dee <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:FGMLMJ.54o@lugnet.com... (...) when (...) lid) (...) Maybe just make sure that the insertion point is 8*n LDU above the bottom, so that it can be correctly placed in regular movement mode. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
That sounds like a good idea because: 1) Jonathan is Jonathan. No matter how hard he tries, he will not be able to function in a mature manner in LUGNET because *HE IS IMMATURE* That's no crime, he's just young. And a little dense. But who among us (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
