To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.rayOpen lugnet.cad.ray in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Ray-Tracing / 2987
2986  |  2988
Subject: 
Re: L3P Warnings
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.off-topic.debate
Followup-To: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sat, 3 Jul 2010 12:36:56 GMT
Viewed: 
45225 times
  
Well now that we've cleared that up I'll know never to bother with you again.

Don't tease.  In your previous reply you said that you were done with the
thread, yet here you are.  If you're going to wail and gnash your teeth in a
pissy, dramatic exit, at least have the decency to exit.

I know, I know. Fair call. I should have learnt years ago never to claim I'm
taking my bat and ball and going home. That is lame. Please pretend I murfled
both hissy fits. I find it much too difficult to resist attacks against my
person and fictitious constructs rather than my arguments.

You're obviously only interested in hearing your own voice.

Not at all true.  I appreciate what Tore, Lars, Roland, and Don have offered in
this thread, and none of them has been dismissive of others' views.  Likewise,
none has taken the arbitrarily exclusionary stance that "There Can Be Only One."

Maybe you should read my responses rather than just making up things about me.
I've never been dismissive of your views. That's part of your little fictitious
world and I'm afraid I have no power over that.

I've suggested in at least two threads that creating an alternative library with
POV inline code would be cool. I even offered to add my own parts done that way.
In fact I think I started a thread many years ago for using POV and LDraw with
that concept in mind.

I also agree that the meta-command should continue to be supported provided it's
not official. With the new licensing someone could, in principle, make a new
source for LDraw parts which fully allowed the meta commands.

Tim



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: L3P Warnings
 
(...) Nowhere have you presented an argument that differ in any way from the "collective dogma," so I don't see why your argument should be treated any differently. (...) Don't tease. In your previous reply you said that you were done with the (...) (14 years ago, 3-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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR