 | | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Heh. Well I think Bram might've been suggesting was more like this: --Jonathan When he said, "the same way you would sign a letter," he meant a written letter, not signing with letters. (I think. :-) --Todd (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Aaah. now I see Like this: JW (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) That shouldn't keep you from signing your messages. When posting from the web interface, I sign by adding "--Bram" to the end. If I'm emailing, I use a complete signature. There's nothing stopping you from typing your name at then end of a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) You might be able to, after all. According to your NNTP headers, You appear to be using Netscape 4.03 for Win95: X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) I'm not too familiar with that version, but I know that 4.5 has sig-file capability: In the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Because of the way I access the internet I am unable to use a signature. (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: POV-RAY orange color
|
|
(...) Try 44 (IIRC) or maybe 48. -Tom McD. when replying, the walls of Jericho crumbled like spamcake. (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: POV-RAY orange color
|
|
I use 462 as orange and it comes out in POV for me. Scott R Dennett wrote in message <199908181802010100....te.net>... (...) <snip> Ryan (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | POV-RAY orange color
|
|
OK, what color number do I use to get orange in POV-RAY?? Color 25 doesn't work for either the orange or that wierd blue. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Ryan "I have confidence in the Lord. He'll put me in whatever situation He wants me in, (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure which library has the most realistic finishes and colors, but you may want to compare the output of Anton's, Lutz's, Paul's, and your own definitions for LEGO colors and finishes. I think Anton's lego_finish and pure colors (ie (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) I like this idea as well. But I think we should wait on the results of the vote first - because he has gone over the edge with his antics (as far as I'm concerned) and I'd like to see a break where I don't have to worry about his posts at all. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting page for 9906
|
|
(...) Yes you're right it should be named 4x4x3.5, my mistake, and the origin is rather obscure. Any opinions, anyone, on where the origin should be located - on the small barrel the origin is at the top to aid placement of a 2x2 round plate as a (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L.A. Times article on Legoland 'masters'
|
|
[cross-posted to lugnet.cad.dev. Followup to the appro ng] (...) Lego (...) Augh! LDraw'ers, get your pixels out. Steve (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
I like this idea, but maybe two messages, one in the morning one in the evening. This way it makes it easier, because you can reply to things that came in during the night, and then to things that came in during the day. I think we ought to hold off (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting page for 9906
|
|
[group snipped to lugnet.cad.dev] (...) That's fine with me. If people would rather have the pannier placed under Minifig (or Minifig Accessories), I'll also rotate & relocate the part, so it will sit on part #973 (minifig torso) by default. Steve (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting page for 9906
|
|
I realize many authors have been away on vacations and may have missed these questions/comments. On some of these, I would like responses before I vote on them (even if the response is "what are you talking about?" 2500c01: I don't think the lights (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Though this last sentenced looks quoted, I assume that you Greg "author of zany sigs :-)" Majewski wrote it. I'm not frustrated like a lot of folks (for obvious reasons) but where the future of an individual with regard to a community is at (...) (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 a 1 post per day limit to the cad.* heirarchy as a probationary condition? This would force Jonathan to more carefully consider what he posts, and would give everyone a break from the deluge of sometimes rude or irritating posts. Is this (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Wow, you must be REALLY frustrated with all this :-| (...) You're missing the entire point of what 80 million people have already told you, "But it WAS posted." You are basically saying, "Well, if I hadn't have posted it, people wouldn't have (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Reverse engineering (Was: Why TLG doesn't have a leg to stand on anymore.)
|
|
(...) You have (as I read the law) been allowed to do that in EU for a few years now. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) The message was posted by me. my newsreader seemed to stuff it up and post to .geek as well as mailing it to tore so the message was posted by me but it should never have been so therefore it should not have been seen by people on this group. (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) According to the NNTP headers in the message, it was posted by you to lugnet.off-topic.geek on Tuesday, August 3, 1999 at 11:16:38 GMT, from studun26.murdoch.edu.au, using Netscape 4.03 for Win95. Still baffled? (...) Apparently you posted it (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) Tore (...) Agreed to all of Eric's above points. (...) Going solely by what Tore posted, no, he was not rude. Mercy triumphs over justice (but each has its place), so let's take these following points one at a time, not as a convoluted lump, (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
|
(...) Both l2p and l3p have their advantages depending on the goal of the user. l3p is great if you want a rendered version of a model, no matter the parts. l2p is great if you want a more detailed/smooth render and the parts are available. Thanks (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) No no no my friend. You cannot say in the least that your post was not rude or that it was cancelled out in effect by Tore's kind reply. Just because Tore himself didn't react at you doesn't mean it was rude. Posting mishaps happen, and (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | I apologize
|
|
I apologize to everyone I have annoyed, flamed, pissed off or offended. I am sorry for saying things like: Where can I get xyz Can someone please make me xyz How do i make xyz Has anyone made xyz I need xyz Here is my attempt at xyz, is there (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) He actually took the time to answer my questions, therefore he does not consider the post rude and since it was meant only for his eyes that means that the opinions of the rest of the group as to the rudeness of the post do not matter as the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) mail folder I did) And that makes it OK? It was still extremely rude whether you sent it to Tore or posted it. It showed no respect for Tore at all. Eric Remove ".nospam" when replying by E-mail. The New England LEGO Users Group (URL) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Please move this discussion to lugnet.admin.general (was: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET)
|
|
(...) Oops! Adam, the 'Followup-To' header needs to be part of the message header, not the body of the message. (...) The above message should have been posted with the 'Followup-To' header set to a lugnet.admin.general. (But don't get mad at Adam; (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) I only sent it to tore himself (at least acording to the message in my sent mail folder I did) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: CFV: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
|
(...) LOL! :o) (...) Heh....that sounds like a good stress relief device :P I wonder if this could go down in the books as 'Wilson Therapy.' ;o) -Tim <>< (URL) timcourtne ICQ: 23951114 Commonwealth Edison: What do you do with OUR power? Get paid to (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
