Subject:
|
Re: Planes for a new download-tool
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:50:19 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
RUI.MARTINS@LINK.PTnospam
|
Viewed:
|
2341 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > What I have I said to be considered annoying or something else ?
>
> I believe its the use of exclamation points over a lot of your statements.
> It really is considered proper to use a simple period for most of what you
> are saying. The repeated use of the exclamation points gives an appearance
> of shouting, yes.
I didn't know that exclamation points (!) give an appearance of shouting, in my
language (Portuguese) the "!" point, is used at everyones will, meaning only
"exclamation", it's pretty standard here.
> I also understand that English isn't your first language,
> and have been trying to understand what you are saying and be patient. It
> doesn't always work though. The combination of being confused and the
> exclamation points did slightly irritate me, though.
OK, I got it ! (oops I'll try to use always "." from now on)
> > I sincerelly haven't written anything with such pretense !
> Ok, I understand.
I' glade you understood.
> > [FLAME MODE ON]
> >
> > Because if People use the "personal" e-mail to flame or make any comments
> > which they tought weren't correct for the list, then they aren't correct • to
> > send personally also, IMO.
>
> So, you are in essence saying that no one can write an angered email or post
> towards anyone for any reason? That's bull.
NO, they can, but they should do it publicly, that's all (if the original
message was public).
> If what you are saying about others on Lugnet becoming annoyed as well is
> true, then its a communication difference. Not necessarily a problem, but a
> difference in communication styles. That isn't really your fault, and its
> not really the other person's fault. Its a point that both ends need to
> work on being clear and trying to present themselves so the other person can
> understand. And the other person needs to work on being understanding as
> well.
I think I'm a very understanding person ;)
Really, if you check the mails I write, I have never "flamed" anyone !
As far as I recall, but I can get very persistent about something 8)
> > I hope I explained my self right, this time.
>
> I think you did. I'm understanding that you're saying that such a download
> tool can link to download something from anyone's page, provided they have a
> correct URL.
Yep.
> What I'd like to see is such a download tool being used in conjunction with
> www.ldraw.org to get the information from _there_. Not saying that
> ldraw.org cannot get its information from other sites (which it does, and
> currently links to a few other sites for more updated downloads). But I am
> saying that for this system of Lego CAD software, I would like to see stuff
> move to a more central location, rather than diverge.
I agree.
Authors usually go with this, but most of the time, they also have their
personal webpage (usually where it started), in which programs are usually
updated (more) regularly.
> Currently, I'm working on some download and install pages for the site, to
> make it clearer for new users, especially the ones who want to use MLCad. I
> feel that people will like the changes. I won't be able to get a lot of
> work done on this today. I'm recovering from oral surgery right now (wisdom
> teeth pulled this morning).
Now I understand your irritation. 8)
You where having seconds taughts and worrying about your surgery ;)
Hope everything went well.
> > Sorry If that was the impression, but if I really think that it is a • better
> > solution, I'll obviously try to convince others about it, so that we can • all
> > share it (for the better, but I won't force, or try to force my Ideias to
> > others, I will only try to convince others why I think it is a better
> solution.
>
> Right. I agree its a better solution. You have to understand that my first
> misconception was what you were talking about was different than what the
> group was talking about, originally.
Yep, but I taught it was what we were talking about. Maybe I was a little ahead
of others taughts.
> We *can* talk about this though, it is a Good Thing.
I shure think so, but as I said, I'll look into it further.
> > Maybe I get carried away sometimes, but I think this hasn't been the case
> > here.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I'd just like to ask you to try to be clearer on the
> subject matter (to make sure everyone is on the same wavelength) in the
> future.
OK, but if I haven't is because I taught you guys were all on the same wave
lenght as I, I can't know if you aren't unless you say so, has you did.
> > Well, could you please, point out exactly what wasn't so "great".
> > I' really interested in knowing it ! and I'm serious about it.
>
> My thoughts were the mannerisms (or my interpretation of the mannerisms) you
> went about trying to discuss it. I don't know if anyone else had these
> perceptions or not, because they have not replied to it. That's all.
Ok, if I understood that word "Mannerism" correctly.
> I see no need to contact you privately about this, because it really isn't a
> personal matter. If it were a personal matter, I'd feel that discussion of
> that nature is more suited for personal email. No need for others to get
> involved in personal issues between two people, and no need for people to
> show those sides of themselves to the group, especially when it can become
> detrimental.
Agreed ! But what does "detrimental" mean ?
> > Maybe it's just about in the next corner.
> Hopefully it is.
>
> I can say that for the most part, I can put a good effort into the progress
> of the website before I go to college in about a month. I have another
> website project to work on, but that won't take all of the time I have
> either. I just got done with work - but may be called back if another
> operation comes up (US Census). So, I do have time to put forth on this,
> and from what I've done so far, we are making progress.
>
> Thanks for being so concerned, and looking into this matter.
No need to thank me, we are all here for the fun of it.
See ya, Tim
Rui Martins
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Planes for a new download-tool
|
| Rui Martins wrote in message ... (...) post (...) In certain cases, I'd disagree here. I know there are arguments and attacks which aren't meant for a group for multiple reasons, but do need to be said. I hope you are understanding what I said (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Planes for a new download-tool (2)
|
| Rui Martins wrote in message ... (...) the (...) Ok. I'm not saying it would be a problem, but it would be unnecessary. I feel strongly about a central place to download resources for all DAT-compatible software. Just at this moment, the necessary (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
8 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
|
|
|
|
