DOL?
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
known as Ophidian Dragon <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> on Sun, 22 Nov 1998
12:38:00 -0600 uttered the following message:
}Well-Dressed wrote:
}
}> Could you point out the insult, i.e. untruth? I seem to be missing it.
}
}If you want to continue your argument, you can do it alone.
And if you want to be on the DOL-team you should subscribe to the
mailing list.
-- F
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon /\
-==(UDIC)==- F / \ F
-==(the UnSPLUTables)==- /\ /____\ /\
Wouldst thou reply, /__\/|\__/|\/__\
Eatest the pie! / || || \
_____________________________/______||__||______\___
d++++ e- N++ T+++ Om- U46!7A!W! u uC++ uF- uG-- uLB-
uA++ nC++ nR nH nP nI++ nPT+ nS+++ nT+ wM---- y a25
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
known as Ophidian Dragon <"zacwbond"@hotmail.c()m> on Sun, 22 Nov 1998
}Well, I'm not joining the mailing list because I can't do much right now
}:-) I don't have any of the documents I was working on (Or, I may, but
}I'll have to peel them out of the broken hard drive, and I don't have
}that kind of tool yet), and my C-compiler has died as well. I'm going
}to get the CD back from my brother, Wednesday, I think. And at some
}point I'll rewrite those documents. That's what I hate about our family
}all using the same software but being in different parts of the
}country.....I can never reinstall anything!
Please join the mailing list now, also become a member of e-groups and
read _all_ the old mails. After you've done that, check the docs that I
and Destie have written (mine is at www.blueturtle.a.se/dol/design.html)
When you have done this (ie after you have informed yourself on the
current status of the project), and not one minute earlier, a new
proposal from you might be welcome. To make things a bit more smooth,
I'd like to suggest that you keep to re-writing parts of the already
existing documents, then we can have a look at the changes say what we
think, and when we reach concensus - we insert them in the existing
docs.
If you act in _any_ way that suggest you have not informed yourself of
the current status of the project before you speak out, either you or I
are leaving the project. I'd sincerely like to continue my own projects
rather than working in a project where someone who doesn't bother what
the working people actually are doing (and who they are!) is writing
design documents etc.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
20:22:29 -0600 uttered the following message:
}I always give people the information I have, and let others who know
}more fill in the gaps. I'm not going to change just for you, especially
}after being insulted.
Well, you couldn't possibly have that information, which is why you
shouldn't give it. WellDressed is the only one who has produced any
source, I'm in the work on a header-file and Destie is currently doing
scoolwork only. Noone has said _anything_ about being near a compilable
app, and noone has said _anything_ else than that WD is the only one
doing any real work. The rest of us has had our asses completely
occupied with other things. You're giving information while not having
any to give away, which really is the same thing as lieing.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}He's just saying what he knew, as he always does. Most people would just
}respond to a post by giving any knowledge they have, unless a request for
}research is specifically made. I usually find out more about something I've
}commented on only _after_ I make the post. Being offline while posting is
}another factor.
Well, I can't imagine what it'll be like if he writes a document about
the game design, without first having checked out the current status of
the project. Besides, had he read _any_ thread on USEnet with DOL in the
title - he'd know pretty well that WD is the one who is doing any
serious work. After all, it's he who has been offering source code for
review, isn't it?
}I've been going through it when I could. I have a few ideas, and some
}comments, but I need more time to think over them, so I'll make them when
}I'm ready.
}
}Anyway, the project is just beginning. We haven't gained any momentum
}yet. Once we have a basic but functional program, tho, things should pick
}up really fast.
I think nothing will ever happen if we wait for the project to pick up.
What we need to do is to get the basic but functional program working
really fast now, before everyone gets so tired they're leaving it (I'm
primarily speaking for myself here).
}I won't be doing much tomorrow, since I have a whole 2 days to study for a
}single paper. I frequent the MOO at about 10-12 at night, GMT +8, so you
}could drop in at that time. If it isn't possible, than I suggest sending me
}mail instead of through Usenet. Posts take time to reach here, and I
}wouldn't want to receive the date a few hours late.
Is that Monday and Tuesday, or Tuesday and Wednesday? I'll be looking
out for you. (I just had a look since it's round about the time you were
speaking of (3 to 5pm here, GMT+1), but no luck.)
BTW, if it's me and WD or 'Phid, who would you rather have on the
project?
Ophidian Dragon
> Well, you couldn't possibly have that information, which is why you
> shouldn't give it. WellDressed is the only one who has produced any
> source, I'm in the work on a header-file and Destie is currently doing
> scoolwork only. Noone has said _anything_ about being near a compilable
> app, and noone has said _anything_ else than that WD is the only one
> doing any real work. The rest of us has had our asses completely
> occupied with other things. You're giving information while not having
> any to give away, which really is the same thing as lieing.
All I recall is that Destrius offered to e-mail me some C source code,
which I declined. I assumed you had something working because of that.
Geez, I still don't see WTF the big deal is; I told what I had thought
was the right answer, and I was wrong, evidently. Being wrong =! lying.
-Ophidian Dragon
Ophidian Dragon
> And if you want to be on the DOL-team you should subscribe to the
> mailing list.
I thought it was rather understood (at least I thought I told Destrius
when he e-mailed me last, with the C source code) that I'm effectively
useless on the team right now. Aside from the information I lost, in
this early programming phase I am effectively a deadweight becuase your
networking protocol discussions fly over my head like an airplane. I
will probably subscribe to the mailing list and keep track of what's
happening, but just don't expect me to do anything for awhile. At the
moment I'm out of my league (at least in terms of the current software).
The only reason I'm not subscribed already is because until a little
while ago I didn't have a working SMTP account anywhere (Netcom's
wouldn't work) besides Hotmail, and I can't recieve large binaries
there. I think everyone is seeing my inability to do anything as a lack
of interest in doing anything, and that's not an accurate picture.
-Ophidian Dragon
Ophidian Dragon
Ophidian Dragon
> IIRC egroups lets you read the mail online - you never even have to
> subscribe. With some luck you may even be able to download the
> attachments right off the site. And it would've only taken you a
> minute to find all that out.
That's kind of like using Dejanews to post to Usenet. Since at the
moment my input wouldn't be very useful (I certainly don't know anything
you don't about networking), posting would not be particularly usefu.
In all honesty, I wasn't totally aware that the mailing list was
functional until yesterday. I knew there was one planned (because I
have a message from Destrius), but there were other things I needed to
do.
-Ophidian Dragon
Ophidian Dragon
>
> You weren't just wrong -- I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But
> whether you were able to read up on the info or not (which you were),
> you shouldn't have said anything without knowing what you were talking
> about.
You're missing the point. I thought I did know what I was talking
about. When Destrius offered to send me that source code, I thought
"Ah! Something that will eventually be a demo!" And hence I said,
"They're working on code for what will be eventually a demo." That was
the impression I got from the message I was given. No, I didn't do
'research' to answer the question, because I knew if my answer was
wrong, someone else would correct it, no big deal. I've been wrong
before, I'm not quite sure why being wrong this time was a big deal.
> That, combined with previous
> 'misunderstandings', makes me very sceptical about ever having you on
> the team. I certainly don't like your attitude.
It's not terribly easy to work with people who are constantly trying to
throw you out the window. You keep finding faults in everything I do
(DOL related or not) and I fail to see how that is productive.
-Ophidian Dragon
Well-Dressed
IIRC egroups lets you read the mail online - you never even have to
subscribe. With some luck you may even be able to download the
attachments right off the site. And it would've only taken you a
minute to find all that out.
I do see it as a lack of interest in doing anything, Phid. It's the
only reason I can think of why you haven't figured out what I said in
the previous paragraph for yourself. I only have Hotmail available to
me at the moment as well, but I certainly didn't let it stop me.
If I were you, I'd think long and hard on whether I really want to be
on the project. People are going to start expecting you to do things.
Well-Dressed Dragon -==UDIC==-
* Holder of one (1) Money Dragon Flame Point *
"La vida total es un porqueria."
- The Pixies
Well-Dressed
You weren't just wrong -- I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But
whether you were able to read up on the info or not (which you were),
you shouldn't have said anything without knowing what you were talking
about. I agree with Ibn that it's the same as lying, and certainly not
helpful, as you claimed it to have been. That, combined with previous
'misunderstandings', makes me very sceptical about ever having you on
the team. I certainly don't like your attitude.
Understand my situation: I have been very (very) busy lately and
haven't had much time to look into DOL, no matter how much I wanted
to. I'm taking a day off from work which I'll spend on writing some
more TCP/IP stuff, because I realize, without disrespect to the
others, that if someone is going to take the first serious programming
steps, it's gonna be me. When I come up with something working and fun
to experiment with, I have all faith the others' enthusiasm will
return. It's ambitious and hard enough to require some serious
motivation, and I don't need you turning it all into a big joke.
Destrius
the entity named Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon (fi...@applepie.blueturtle.a.se)
inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
-clip-
>Well, I can't imagine what it'll be like if he writes a document about
>the game design, without first having checked out the current status of
>the project. Besides, had he read _any_ thread on USEnet with DOL in the
>title - he'd know pretty well that WD is the one who is doing any
>serious work. After all, it's he who has been offering source code for
>review, isn't it?
-clip-
I don't think 'phid's going to do that. As he said, he can't really
contribute at this moment, but when he can, he'll get the info he needs to
do his job.
-clip-
>}Anyway, the project is just beginning. We haven't gained any momentum
>}yet. Once we have a basic but functional program, tho, things should pick
>}up really fast.
>
>I think nothing will ever happen if we wait for the project to pick up.
>What we need to do is to get the basic but functional program working
>really fast now, before everyone gets so tired they're leaving it (I'm
>primarily speaking for myself here).
-clip-
That's quite what I mean. It will take time piecing everything together,
tho, so don't expect binaries to pop up by next week. At this stage of
development, we have to build almost everything from scratch, which is fun,
but nothing interesting to watch.
-clip-
>Is that Monday and Tuesday, or Tuesday and Wednesday? I'll be looking
>out for you. (I just had a look since it's round about the time you were
>speaking of (3 to 5pm here, GMT+1), but no luck.)
-clip-
Tuesday and Wednesday. It's Tuesday today, and I'll be probably be in the
Weyr tonight.
-clip-
>BTW, if it's me and WD or 'Phid, who would you rather have on the
>project?
-clip-
No comment.
--
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Destrius Dragon | |
| Official Mad Mage | "Am I dreaming of the |
| -=*[~UDIC~]*=- -=*[UnSPLUT!]*=- | butterfly, or is the |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com/email.html | butterfly dreaming |
| Follow instructions to email me... | of me...?" |
| Website: | |
| http://destrius.simplenet.com | . o O (...) |
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
UDIC: d+++ e+ N++ T-- Om+ U1234567!8!AWS'! u++ uC++++ uF-
uG++++ uLB+ uA+++ nC+ nR nH+ nP++ nI++ nPT++++
nS++++ nT-- wM wC+ wS wI+ wN+ o- y a16
---| 庄心宇 |--Bait:--| ro...@127.0.0.1 |--| postm...@127.0.0.1 |--
Well-Dressed
>Well-Dressed wrote:
>
>> IIRC egroups lets you read the mail online - you never even have to
>> subscribe. With some luck you may even be able to download the
>> attachments right off the site. And it would've only taken you a
>> minute to find all that out.
>
>That's kind of like using Dejanews to post to Usenet. Since at the
>moment my input wouldn't be very useful (I certainly don't know anything
>you don't about networking), posting would not be particularly usefu.
>In all honesty, I wasn't totally aware that the mailing list was
>functional until yesterday. I knew there was one planned (because I
>have a message from Destrius), but there were other things I needed to
>do.
It's not even that you'd have to give input. Even if you just skim the
headers, you'll be somewhat aware of where we are. And that's
important - for ANYONE in the team.
Well-Dressed
>Well-Dressed wrote:
>
>>
>> You weren't just wrong -- I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But
>> whether you were able to read up on the info or not (which you were),
>> you shouldn't have said anything without knowing what you were talking
>> about.
>
>You're missing the point. I thought I did know what I was talking
>about. When Destrius offered to send me that source code, I thought
>"Ah! Something that will eventually be a demo!" And hence I said,
>"They're working on code for what will be eventually a demo." That was
>the impression I got from the message I was given. No, I didn't do
>'research' to answer the question, because I knew if my answer was
>wrong, someone else would correct it, no big deal. I've been wrong
>before, I'm not quite sure why being wrong this time was a big deal.
I don't think I'll need to answer that yet again. We apparently have
different views on answering questions truthfully.
>> That, combined with previous
>> 'misunderstandings', makes me very sceptical about ever having you on
>> the team. I certainly don't like your attitude.
>
>It's not terribly easy to work with people who are constantly trying to
>throw you out the window. You keep finding faults in everything I do
>(DOL related or not) and I fail to see how that is productive.
I treat you differently when it comes to DOL than otherwise. Outside
of DOL, you are a teenager with a handful of social problems asking
people to help him out. Fine. But when it comes to DOL, you are part
of my team ("my", as in "I participate") and what you do and say
involves me personally. Hence I'll reprimand you ever so gently if
you're being counter-productive. My time is much too valuable to have
to be on the lookout for screw-ups you made and knew how to avoid
making, but thought it'd cost too much effort.
Understand now?
Destrius
the entity named Well-Dressed (well_d...@hotmail.com)
-clip-
>It's not even that you'd have to give input. Even if you just skim the
>headers, you'll be somewhat aware of where we are. And that's
>important - for ANYONE in the team.
-clip-
Although I quite agree with this point and wish that it was always so,
quite a few game designers have never seen a single line of code of the
game they design, because they leave all that for the person in charge of
implementing the plan he lays out.
Of course, the designer would be able to create a better design if he/she
knows how the whole thing is to be implemented, but it isn't strictly
neccessary.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
19:14:27 -0600 uttered the following message:
}Well-Dressed wrote:
}
}>
}> You weren't just wrong -- I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But
}> whether you were able to read up on the info or not (which you were),
}> you shouldn't have said anything without knowing what you were talking
}> about.
}
}You're missing the point. I thought I did know what I was talking
}about. When Destrius offered to send me that source code, I thought
}"Ah! Something that will eventually be a demo!" And hence I said,
}"They're working on code for what will be eventually a demo." That was
}the impression I got from the message I was given. No, I didn't do
}'research' to answer the question, because I knew if my answer was
}wrong, someone else would correct it, no big deal. I've been wrong
}before, I'm not quite sure why being wrong this time was a big deal.
That's simple: We feel that you are still acting like it's your project,
and you haven't done a single thing about it.
When someone is asking something on the NG, they expect an answer from
someone; either a person who knows something about the answer, and has
reason to think people who knows more are not going to answer (in this
case we all know that the entire team is on this NG - so one would
expect the leader/person doing the most work, thus having the best
picture, to answer), or one would expect a netkook answer. Since you
regarded yourself as the leader earlier, we assumed your answer
indicated you still think so, and since the answer was plain wrong on
all accounts, you seemed to think you can be a leader and stay utterly
uninformed at the same time. Naturally we got pissed off. As it is,
there seems to be a much easier way for us to get out of this situation,
to regard you as the netkook and not pay attention... The third
alternative is that both me and Well-Dressed leave the project
immediately, then you can stay on it and do what you want.
}> That, combined with previous
}> 'misunderstandings', makes me very sceptical about ever having you on
}> the team. I certainly don't like your attitude.
}
}It's not terribly easy to work with people who are constantly trying to
}throw you out the window. You keep finding faults in everything I do
}(DOL related or not) and I fail to see how that is productive.
Firstly, you can't mix his attitude towards you on DOL, with his
attitude towards you generally. When you are writing so much on the NG
as you do, you must expect people to have different views about the
aspects of your participation here. For example, if you ask questions
about how to act in your love-life, you'd want honest answers, and not
so honest answers probably wouldn't be worth anything (except telling
you that you're a nice individual, and we all like you; but answering at
all in those threads means just that, otherwise one would kill them
immediately). You shouldn't expect his answers there to have anything at
all to do with his view on your participation in the DOL project. I have
many times found myself angry with you in one thread, but agreeing with
you in another at the same time.
Secondly, we fail to see how you work with us at all. Especially WD has
been consequently ignored by you all along, and he's doing the most
work. Now, either you work, and work hard, or you can't expect us to
give you any positive attention at all inside this project.
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
message:
}I don't think 'phid's going to do that. As he said, he can't really
}contribute at this moment, but when he can, he'll get the info he needs to
}do his job.
He said earlier in this thread that he would do just that.
}That's quite what I mean. It will take time piecing everything together,
}tho, so don't expect binaries to pop up by next week. At this stage of
}development, we have to build almost everything from scratch, which is fun,
}but nothing interesting to watch.
Exactly, and my point is that we need to work hard right now to make
this project take off. Also, we need all the feedback we can get.
}Tuesday and Wednesday. It's Tuesday today, and I'll be probably be in the
}Weyr tonight.
Found you there... ;)
Ibn al-Hazardous Dragon
}Well-Dressed wrote:
}
}> IIRC egroups lets you read the mail online - you never even have to
}> subscribe. With some luck you may even be able to download the
}> attachments right off the site. And it would've only taken you a
}> minute to find all that out.
}
}That's kind of like using Dejanews to post to Usenet. Since at the
}moment my input wouldn't be very useful (I certainly don't know anything
}you don't about networking), posting would not be particularly usefu.
}In all honesty, I wasn't totally aware that the mailing list was
}functional until yesterday. I knew there was one planned (because I
}have a message from Destrius), but there were other things I needed to
}do.
That was interesting, since you originally took it upon yourself to get
us a mailing list at egroups. In fact Destrius didn't create this one
until he heard about your harddrive problems, he then figured you
wouldn't be doing much of anything for a while, and felt it was
justified to take the initiative.
Anyway, using egroups to join the mailing list isn't like using DN since
the amount of posts is _much_ smaller. It actually is a very practical
way to subscribe, all you need is a mailbox to recieve an authenticaion
code in. You then can search among all the old posts (ca 30) and recieve
the new ones, or just read them on the board. No-one's been posting
binaries, so you can feel perfectly safe on that point too. (In fact
we're not anywhere near a binary right now.)
As for network programming, Well-Dressed didn't have a clue about TCP/IP
until a week or two ago, when he picked up a doc on it - now it's
working on his local network. If you want to be on the project, you have
to give it priority in your life. Of course you have schoolwork to do,
and so have all of us (this last month; me and Destie particularly), but
not even bothering reading our posts or joining the mailing list is too
much. If you want to use the game to make fun RPG campaigns later;
you're welcome too, in fact everybody's welcome too, but if you want to
be on the project; you'll have to program.
Well-Dressed
Destrius wrote in message <73gkrv$pta$1...@newton2.pacific.net.sg>...
>...and it was written on the heavens that on Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:01:35 GMT,
> the entity named Well-Dressed (well_d...@hotmail.com)
> inscribed the following words in rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons:
>
>-clip-
>>It's not even that you'd have to give input. Even if you just skim the
>>headers, you'll be somewhat aware of where we are. And that's
>>important - for ANYONE in the team.
>-clip-
>
>Although I quite agree with this point and wish that it was always so,
>quite a few game designers have never seen a single line of code of the
>game they design, because they leave all that for the person in charge of
>implementing the plan he lays out.
They might not look at the actual code, but they'll be aware how far the
team is. That's why I said 'skim the headers'. No, I didn't mean header
files; headers of the posts.
>Of course, the designer would be able to create a better design if he/she
>knows how the whole thing is to be implemented, but it isn't strictly
>neccessary.
And what the team has done, is capable of doing, etc.
WD
Destrius
the entity named Well-Dressed (well_d...@leavethisout.hotmail.com)
-clip-
>They might not look at the actual code, but they'll be aware how far the
>team is. That's why I said 'skim the headers'. No, I didn't mean header
>files; headers of the posts.
-clip-
Oh. Okay then. :)
--
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Destrius Dragon | -=*[UnSPLUT!]*=- |
| Official Mad Mage | Web: http://destrius.simplenet.com |
| -=*[~UDIC~]*=- | Email: d e s t r i u s @ g e o c i t i e s . c o m |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| "Am I dreaming of a butterfly, or is the butterfly dreaming of me...?" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Fortran Dragon
> You weren't just wrong -- I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But
> whether you were able to read up on the info or not (which you were),
> you shouldn't have said anything without knowing what you were talking
> helpful, as you claimed it to have been.
I have a problem with your statement regarding lying. To me, and
I imagine many people, lying is _deliberately_ stating a falsehood.
That is significantly different than accidentally stating a falsehood.
In the past I've passed along information that I thought was
correct only to find out I was wrong. I'd hate to think that people
considered that lying.
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=[MT]=- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Hidalgo Trading Company: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/index.html>
rgcud FAQ: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/faq/rgcudfaq.html>
Well-Dressed
>From the Void comes Well-Dressed bearing this piece of Light...
>> You weren't just wrong -- I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But
>> whether you were able to read up on the info or not (which you were),
>> you shouldn't have said anything without knowing what you were talking
>> about. I agree with Ibn that it's the same as lying, and certainly not
>> helpful, as you claimed it to have been.
>
> I have a problem with your statement regarding lying. To me, and
>I imagine many people, lying is _deliberately_ stating a falsehood.
>That is significantly different than accidentally stating a falsehood.
>
> In the past I've passed along information that I thought was
>correct only to find out I was wrong. I'd hate to think that people
>considered that lying.
And they wouldn't. The point is that you thought the information to be
correct, and had sufficient basis to think that (but maybe the
information available to you was incorrect, or you didn't remember
correctly). At least, that's the impression of you I have formed.
Phid had nothing on which to base an answer. That he came up with one
(randomly, it seems) is a bit ludicrous in itself. Coming from someone
on the team, however, is insulting to the others.
And one of the reasons why I've started to think that DOL's just not
going to happen. After a month of trying to keep people interested,
I'm giving up. Maybe people _would_ rather see it remain a dream.
Fortran Dragon
> And they wouldn't. The point is that you thought the information to be
> correct, and had sufficient basis to think that (but maybe the
> information available to you was incorrect, or you didn't remember
> correctly). At least, that's the impression of you I have formed.
That's basically true. What is fun, though (to take a tangent),
is to make an accidental mistake now and then. I usually learn more
about subject concerning my mistake from the other Dragons than I ever
knew.
> Phid had nothing on which to base an answer. That he came up with one
> (randomly, it seems) is a bit ludicrous in itself. Coming from someone
> on the team, however, is insulting to the others.
Yes, it was a wrong answer, but I think equating it to a lie is a
bit harsh. But that is just me. I've had my own ups and downs with
'Phid, but I've come to respect his tenacity of keeping up with the
adults in the newsgroup, even as I despair of his ever changing. :)
Paraphrasing something Dis pointed out to me once when I was
yelling at 'Phid for doing something I didn't like, "Who's being more
mature?". It certainly brought me up short.
I guess what I'm trying to say is don't let 'Phid rattle you about
DOL. Just keep on enjoying working on the project and let you and
the rest of the team wow us all with your creation.
> And one of the reasons why I've started to think that DOL's just not
> going to happen. After a month of trying to keep people interested,
> I'm giving up. Maybe people _would_ rather see it remain a dream.
I don't know. Sometimes it is tough to get started. I'd just
have fun and learn things on the project with the other contributing
Dragons.
Well-Dressed
>From the Void comes Well-Dressed bearing this piece of Light...
>[Snip]
>> And they wouldn't. The point is that you thought the information to be
>> correct, and had sufficient basis to think that (but maybe the
>> information available to you was incorrect, or you didn't remember
>> correctly). At least, that's the impression of you I have formed.
>
> That's basically true. What is fun, though (to take a tangent),
>is to make an accidental mistake now and then. I usually learn more
>about subject concerning my mistake from the other Dragons than I ever
>knew.
Well, making a mistake is always the most effective way of learning.
You won't learn how to get up without falling down.
>> Phid had nothing on which to base an answer. That he came up with one
>> (randomly, it seems) is a bit ludicrous in itself. Coming from someone
>> on the team, however, is insulting to the others.
>
> Yes, it was a wrong answer, but I think equating it to a lie is a
>bit harsh. But that is just me. I've had my own ups and downs with
>'Phid, but I've come to respect his tenacity of keeping up with the
>adults in the newsgroup, even as I despair of his ever changing. :)
'Lying' is the only term I can think of when someone accepts his
answer has an infinitissimal chance of being correct (I believe the
person asking knew more about DOL than the person answering did) and
not doing any _simple_ research to drastically improve those odds
(five minutes tops, and Phid knew that), and still gives that answer.
Of course, my familiarity with the English vocabulary is somewhat
limited when compared to that of a native speaker. If I had known a
less harsh-sounding synonym for lying, I would've used that.
> Paraphrasing something Dis pointed out to me once when I was
>yelling at 'Phid for doing something I didn't like, "Who's being more
>mature?". It certainly brought me up short.
Oh, I can live with being considered immature :)
> I guess what I'm trying to say is don't let 'Phid rattle you about
>DOL. Just keep on enjoying working on the project and let you and
>the rest of the team wow us all with your creation.
It's just... there hasn't been much confidence WITHIN the team that we
could 'do' DOL, and I've spent a month or a month and a half trying to
get things going, by offering code for review, doing small technical
designs, having discussions on the Weyrmount, suggesting tasks,
emailing the people involved... I have never wanted to assume
'leadership' of the project, and I still don't. After so much time of
trying to motivate and seeing hardly any enthusiasm in return, I'm
giving up. Unless someone gets my hopes up for the project again,
which I frankly don't see happening.
We've always been on shaky ground. Phid's two most recent attitudes
('I am your leader! You obey me!' and 'I am too good to keep myself
informed') have done nothing but worsen it.
Outside of DOL, I treat Phid very differently, as I wrote before. It's
not a personal issue between us.
>> And one of the reasons why I've started to think that DOL's just not
>> going to happen. After a month of trying to keep people interested,
>> I'm giving up. Maybe people _would_ rather see it remain a dream.
>
> I don't know. Sometimes it is tough to get started. I'd just
>have fun and learn things on the project with the other contributing
>Dragons.
I did have fun and I did learn things. But I'm at the point in life
where I'd rather sacrifice my spare time and sleep on attainable (even
if not less ambitious) goals.
Infinitron Dragon
Dragon) wrote:
>
>> And one of the reasons why I've started to think that DOL's just not
>> going to happen. After a month of trying to keep people interested,
>> I'm giving up. Maybe people _would_ rather see it remain a dream.
>
> I don't know. Sometimes it is tough to get started. I'd just
>have fun and learn things on the project with the other contributing
>Dragons.
>
>--
>
>Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
>-=[MT]=- | to quench the light of one small candle."
>Hidalgo Trading Company: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/index.html>
>rgcud FAQ: <http://home.earthlink.net/~fortran/faq/rgcudfaq.html>
I think DOL has to be started by only one dragon, and only later
expanded to OpenSource status. That's the kind of order you need to
start something, IMO.
If there's no one person here who doesn't have the skills to start by
himself, then there won't be a DOL, period.
Infinitron Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
--------------
d++ e+ N+ T+ Om++ U1!24!56!7'!S'!8!KALW!M
u+ uC++ uF++ uG+++ uLB+ uA+ nC+ nR- nH nP+ nI++
nPT nS+++ nT-- wM++ wC+++ wS+ wI-- wN o oA y+ 16
--------------
"Zug!"
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> answer has an infinitissimal chance of being correct (I believe the
> person asking knew more about DOL than the person answering did) and
> not doing any _simple_ research to drastically improve those odds
> (five minutes tops, and Phid knew that), and still gives that answer.
Ah, the "doing any _simple_ research" part of your statement would
then include people that answer incorrectly from what they believe is
right as liars. For example, if I spout off an answer immediately, with
checking up on the answer because I think I'm right, am I lying? Or am I
simply wrong (and looking rather foolish)?
> Of course, my familiarity with the English vocabulary is somewhat
> limited when compared to that of a native speaker. If I had known a
> less harsh-sounding synonym for lying, I would've used that.
I would have probably said something like, "You're wrong. The
facts are so and so.". Being wrong isn't that bad, but being called a
liar impugns on your integrity. The former can be an honest mistake or
just a major brain cramp, but the latter implies malicious intent.
[Snip]
> Oh, I can live with being considered immature :)
<chuckle>
[Snip]
> It's just... there hasn't been much confidence WITHIN the team that we
> could 'do' DOL, and I've spent a month or a month and a half trying to
> get things going, by offering code for review, doing small technical
> designs, having discussions on the Weyrmount, suggesting tasks,
> emailing the people involved... I have never wanted to assume
> 'leadership' of the project, and I still don't. After so much time of
> trying to motivate and seeing hardly any enthusiasm in return, I'm
> giving up. Unless someone gets my hopes up for the project again,
> which I frankly don't see happening.
<sigh> Some projects just don't take off. Perhaps in the future
when the Dragons will have a higher proportion of eager programmers.
> We've always been on shaky ground. Phid's two most recent attitudes
> ('I am your leader! You obey me!' and 'I am too good to keep myself
> informed') have done nothing but worsen it.
You are right. Squabbles don't help anyone.
[Snip]
> I did have fun and I did learn things. But I'm at the point in life
> where I'd rather sacrifice my spare time and sleep on attainable (even
> if not less ambitious) goals.
I hear you.
Well-Dressed
>From the Void comes Well-Dressed bearing this piece of Light...
>[Snip]
>> 'Lying' is the only term I can think of when someone accepts his
>> answer has an infinitissimal chance of being correct (I believe the
>> person asking knew more about DOL than the person answering did) and
>> not doing any _simple_ research to drastically improve those odds
>> (five minutes tops, and Phid knew that), and still gives that answer.
>
> Ah, the "doing any _simple_ research" part of your statement would
>then include people that answer incorrectly from what they believe is
>right as liars. For example, if I spout off an answer immediately, with
>checking up on the answer because I think I'm right, am I lying? Or am I
>simply wrong (and looking rather foolish)?
The way I see it, expressed in Boolean logic:
IF (NOT(DoesResearch) AND (IF NOT(DoesResearch) THEN NOT(KnowsAnswer))
AND KnowsResearchIsRequired AND AnswersQuestion) THEN
IsDeliberatelyLying
That should illustrate the _sufficient_ conditions for lying.
Generalizing it, it would say
IF (KnowsAnswerIsWrong AND AnswersQuestion) THEN IsDeliberatelyLying
with KnowsAnswerIsWrong in this case being
NOT(DoesResearch) AND (IF NOT(DoesResearch) THEN NOT(KnowsAnswer)) AND
KnowsResearchIsRequired.
You can fill in the Boolean values for yourself...
>> Of course, my familiarity with the English vocabulary is somewhat
>> limited when compared to that of a native speaker. If I had known a
>> less harsh-sounding synonym for lying, I would've used that.
>
> I would have probably said something like, "You're wrong. The
>facts are so and so.". Being wrong isn't that bad, but being called a
>liar impugns on your integrity. The former can be an honest mistake or
>just a major brain cramp, but the latter implies malicious intent.
I do think that his integrity was at fault here. I meant what I said,
that's why I asked for a synonym. 'Being deliberately wrong' might
have sounded better.
[SNIP]
>> It's just... there hasn't been much confidence WITHIN the team that we
>> could 'do' DOL, and I've spent a month or a month and a half trying to
>> get things going, by offering code for review, doing small technical
>> designs, having discussions on the Weyrmount, suggesting tasks,
>> emailing the people involved... I have never wanted to assume
>> 'leadership' of the project, and I still don't. After so much time of
>> trying to motivate and seeing hardly any enthusiasm in return, I'm
>> giving up. Unless someone gets my hopes up for the project again,
>> which I frankly don't see happening.
>
> <sigh> Some projects just don't take off. Perhaps in the future
>when the Dragons will have a higher proportion of eager programmers.
It wasn't really lack of people, rather the opposite (being a software
engineer you'll know the phenomenon of 'drowning a project' instead of
'watering it'). We lacked motivation, structure and planning. The
latter two would've called for a lead programmer, which no one was
waiting for (and I wouldn't have been able to contribute consistingly
enough to take that position, even IF).
[SNIP]