Subject:
|
Re: L3P Warnings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 2010 23:26:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
35503 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.ray, Timothy Gould wrote:
>
> > By that argument you dismiss the opposite perspective.
>
> If we were both sitting on a bench somewhere and arguing from equal positions of
> power, then that statement would make sense. However, you are speaking from the
> position of The Mighty LSC, an entity apparently able to make decisions by fiat.
> Therefore, you (collectively) reserve the power to do things "because we say
> so," rendering your position impenetrable to any argument.
>
> My dismissal of your argument doesn't prevent the mighty committee from steering
> LDraw in whatever arbitrary direction it pleases, but your dismissal of mine
> shuts down my argument with what amounts to "cuz I say so." Therefore my
> dismissal of your argument is not equivalent to your dismissal of others'
> arguments, and you can't legitimately tar me with that same brush.
>
> > You call 'facile' on any argument, no matter how strong, that disagrees with
> > your own position.
>
> I call "facile" on a position has the unaccountable power to dismiss opposition
> by fiat and does so.
>
> > I have a very clear argument for my position: POVray is not LDraw and to mix the
> > two in one file is confusing, especially for the novice tinkerer. No that
> > position isn't likely to change until I see a novel and good argument against
> > it. I'm yet to see one.
>
> You've yet to acknowledge one, you mean.
>
> You're the one who insisted that two dozen lines of esoteric header code is "not
> a big deal" for the novice tinkerer, even though it's intimidating and
> off-putting even to veteran parts authors. Therefore you have no trouble making
> LDraw code "confusing" as long as it serves your purpose.
>
> POV-Ray code language is, for a great many functions, far simpler than
> equivalent LDraw code and has always been so. It's a separate language, yes,
> but it's hardly indecipherable, and anyone who can figure out how to generate
> linetype-5 statements can certainly understand how to code in POV-Ray.
>
> You're picking and choosing which "confusion" is acceptable.
>
> > Your main argument seems to stem from some desire to have everything in one
> > place.
>
> Actually, that's not my argument. My argument has been that there's no reason
> why existing--and 100% unobtrusive--support for inlined POV-Ray code should be
> discontinued. Elsewhere in the thread it has been suggested that such support
> is not likely to vanish, even if it's subject to error messaging, and IMO this
> is an acceptable workaround.
>
> Your position seems to be that POV-Ray code is okay as long as it's not inlined
> and is made inconvenient for the end-user.
>
> > There's an easier solution to that than blending two file formats: you
> > can create a POV repository for the POVray parts.
>
> So the simpler solution is for the user to create an entirely new library of
> parts from scratch rather than allowing LDraw applications to continue to
> support inlined POV-Ray code?
>
> Not sure I see how that's simpler.
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'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.
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.
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.
I think I'm done with this. You've clearly made up your mind and nothing is
going to change it. Just don't go round hurling false accusations at people
simply for disagreeing with you.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) 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 (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) If we were both sitting on a bench somewhere and arguing from equal positions of power, then that statement would make sense. However, you are speaking from the position of The Mighty LSC, an entity apparently able to make decisions by fiat. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
