Alpha channel sprites
Rik Griffin
essentially an 8 bit mask if I understand it correctly.
I'm wondering if there's any software to create / edit these sprite files
that will run on RISC OS 5? I assume the Select version of Paint is only
available with Select? Is there anything else I can use?
Thanks
--
Rik Griffin
Tim Powys-Lybbe
I thought there was an exciting, thrilling sequence of events for this:
1. RISC OS Ltd issue the 32-bit neutral version of the OS for RPCs.
This they have now done and the installation issues are receiving
active attention (my installation works well now).
2. RISC OS Ltd then finalise and issue the new 32-bit OS for the A9home.
This is confidently expected sometime in the near future.
3. When 1 and 2 are OK, RISC OS Ltd issue their 32-bit version of Select
for the Iyonix. This might even happen this year.
What more can we ask for?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          t...@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Rik Griffin
Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
>
> 3. When 1 and 2 are OK, RISC OS Ltd issue their 32-bit version of Select
> for the Iyonix. This might even happen this year.
>
> What more can we ask for?
Actually I was hoping not to have to buy a whole new OS just to edit a
couple of sprites :)
--
Rik Griffin
Dave Higton
Steve Fryatt
<a9bcade...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>:
> 3. When 1 and 2 are OK, RISC OS Ltd issue their 32-bit version of
> Select for the Iyonix. This might even happen this year.
And there goes a flying pig. I asked Paul Middleton about this at the
start of May. His eventual answer was that I might as well hang on to my
money than re-join the Select scheme in anticipation.
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
John Cartmell
Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 6 Jun, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote in message
> <a9bcade...@south-frm.demon.co.uk>:
> > 3. When 1 and 2 are OK, RISC OS Ltd issue their 32-bit version of
> > Select for the Iyonix. This might even happen this year.
> And there goes a flying pig. I asked Paul Middleton about this at the
> start of May. His eventual answer was that I might as well hang on to my
> money than re-join the Select scheme in anticipation.
Either:
[Iyonix (Castle) give ROL sufficient details of their OS/hardware for RO6 to
be ported
And:
ROL put resources into RO6 for the Iyonix]
Or:
[Iyonix cooperate with ROL to port RO6 to the Iyonix]
Or:
[ROL put all their resources (& a bit more) into porting RO6 without the
support of Iyonix]
The last (public) statement from ROL was that Castle(Iyonix) had not offered
any details to ROL to help in porting Select(RO6) to the Iyonix - nor had they
indicated that they would be willing to do any work themselves (in case they
wanted to keep details of their Hardware/OS from 3rd parties).
The work that Advantage 6 & ROL have done together allows any third party to
license RO6 for their own hardware and do the work to get RO6 to run on that
hardware - but it's a tougher job to get RO6 to run on hardware that isn't
your own - and do it without the cooperation of the hardware designers.
I'd assume that Paul's hesitation over a timetable might be in weighing up
whether Castle/Iyonix might cooperate or not.
--
John
Ste (news)
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Either:
> [Iyonix (Castle) give ROL sufficient details of their OS/hardware for RO6 to
> be ported
> And:
> ROL put resources into RO6 for the Iyonix]
> Or:
> [Iyonix cooperate with ROL to port RO6 to the Iyonix]
> Or:
> [ROL put all their resources (& a bit more) into porting RO6 without the
> support of Iyonix]
or:
ROL release the alpha channel stuff (SpriteExetend, Paint, etc?) as a
separate component which could either be a source release or a paid-for
add-on for RISC OS 5.
or:
Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and
merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
Steve
--
Steve Revill @ Home
Note: All opinions expressed herein are my own.
David Holden
On 7-Jun-2007, "Ste (news)" <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> ROL release the alpha channel stuff (SpriteExetend, Paint, etc?) as a
> separate component which could either be a source release or a paid-for
> add-on for RISC OS 5.
And how many times has it been said that this CAN'T BE DONE.
The new Paint and Draw depend for their additional features upon many other
components which are elsewhere in the OS. They can't just be 'grafted on' to
another OS without also adding all these parts.
--
David Holden - APDL - <http://www.apdl.co.uk>
Rik Griffin
indulge in the usual RISC OS Ltd vs Castle sniping and bickering we've all
grown to know and love on these groups.
Is there any subject that can't be turned into an "OS fork war"? I would
suggest the RISC OS scene would be in a better state if people just learned
to drop it, once in a while, but I think everyone else has left the
building long ago.
--
Rik Griffin
VinceH (real address)
Rik Griffin <rik.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Is there any subject that can't be turned into an "OS fork war"?
Yes, and the subject is "OS fork war" - because if it goes off topic
as quickly as any other subject, then that's precisely what won't be
discussed. :-)
--
http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://www.riscository.com
http://www.webchange.co.uk
http://www.vinceh.com
Paul Stewart
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On the other hand, ROL could always look at what they have done in the
Select scheme that does not require major rewrites to make them
available for use on RO5. They could then offer this as a Select+
pack for RO5
Regards
--
Paul Stewart - Far Bletchley, Milton Keynes, England.
(msn:sa...@hotmail.com)
Be Bold. Dare To Be Different. Use RISC OS (http://www.riscos.com).
It's blue and from outta town - The A9home
(http://www.advantage6.co.uk/A9hsplash.html).
A9home Compatibility page -
(http://www.phawfaux.co.uk/a9home/compatibility.asp).
John Cartmell
Ste (news) <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
[Snip - OR ...]
> Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and
> merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than to see
you lot working together with the ROL group.
--
John Cartmell jo...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
John Cartmell
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> I have RISC OS Six on my Risc PC and RISC OS 5.13 on the Iyonix, but I
> can't say there's anything I miss when switching from the RPC to the
> Iyonix.
Perhaps you're only using a sub-section of RO6?
charles
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef4da03ds...@revi11.plus.com>,
> Ste (news) <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> [Snip - OR ...]
> > Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and
> > merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
> I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
> to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
Coming from the editor of a magazine that is supposed to appeal to all RISC
OS users, that's a pretty biassed remark.
How about re-phrasing it in a more inclusive way?
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
druck
Rubbish. Any RISC OS programmer knows that all major OS APIs are
designed to be extended or replaced. What do you think SpriteExtend
is? Its a module that hooks in to SpriteV to extend the base fetures
of the OS.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
Ste (news)
David Holden <black...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 7-Jun-2007, "Ste (news)" <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > ROL release the alpha channel stuff (SpriteExetend, Paint, etc?) as a
> > separate component which could either be a source release or a paid-for
> > add-on for RISC OS 5.
>
> And how many times has it been said that this CAN'T BE DONE.
Rubbish. It's never been a question of "CAN'T BE DONE", certainly not on a
technical level; it's about whether anyone feels that there is sufficient
commercial justification to do the work.
> The new Paint and Draw depend for their additional features upon many
> other components which are elsewhere in the OS. They can't just be
> 'grafted on' to another OS without also adding all these parts.
So there are some dependencies - I don't doubt it. For that you have a
choice: ditch the feature in the IYONIX version or port the dependencies.
I'm sure there is lots of good stuff there which doesn't need 5000
additional modules and Kernel changes to make it work, like having a toolbar
in Paint, for example.
If the RO4/6 desktop applications are really just a big spagetti mess where
you can't even extract a desktop application with relative ease, I'd be
astounded - that certainly wouldn't say much for the modularisation.
Dave Symes
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
[Snip]
> I hear of people holding off buying an Iyonix until Select is available
> for it. WHY?????
Because for a variety of reasons it is my choice to do so.
As it was your choice to purchase an Iyonix.
Dave S
--
C J Craig
Dave Symes <d...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> [Snip]
> Dave S
Mad. it's brilliant it works 24hrs, 7 days a week etc,
available now, immediate delivery superb after sales
support.
Can not wait for jb's next triple core processor desk top!
Chris
--
C J Craig
Ch...@skipton.demon.co.uk
Iyonix ARM XScale computer Risc OS 5.11
Dave Symes
C J Craig <Ch...@skipton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4eef61...@ukgateway.net>
> Dave Symes <d...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> > In article <4eef596a48inval...@invalid-domain.co.uk>,
> > Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> > [Snip]
> >> I hear of people holding off buying an Iyonix until Select is
> >> available for it. WHY?????
> > Because for a variety of reasons it is my choice to do so.
> > As it was your choice to purchase an Iyonix.
> > Dave S
> Mad. it's brilliant it works 24hrs, 7 days a week etc,
> available now, immediate delivery superb after sales
> support.
> Can not wait for jb's next triple core processor desk top!
> Chris
One would not deny it is a nice machine...
But I would not be so pejorative as to say *your* choice was "Mad" it was
your choice, as it was my choice not to purchase at the present time.
Not Mad, not recalcitrant, just plain and simply my choice.
Dave S
--
John Cartmell
> indulge in the usual RISC OS Ltd vs Castle sniping and bickering we've all
> grown to know and love on these groups.
AFAIK no-one sniped or bickered.
The truth of the matter was put plainly without any acrimony. Wars are stupid
- so is being afraid to say anything. People do seem to have grown up
sufficiently to slough off some of the stupidity.
John Cartmell
Paul Stewart <pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:
> On the other hand, ROL could always look at what they have done in the
> Select scheme that does not require major rewrites to make them
> available for use on RO5. They could then offer this as a Select+
I seems to be the case that what is really worth while is too deeply part of
the core of RO6 - and the rest might be seen as too little. Being an integral
part of the OS is the strength of many of the improvements - but it does have
knock-on effects.
John Cartmell
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef51a...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4eef4da03ds...@revi11.plus.com>,
> > Ste (news) <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> > [Snip - OR ...]
> > > Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and
> > > merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
> > I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
> > to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
> Coming from the editor of a magazine that is supposed to appeal to all RISC
> OS users, that's a pretty biassed remark.
> How about re-phrasing it in a more inclusive way?
You have to work really hard to find a bias in that. Perhaps you now need to
lie down? ;-)
charles
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef5896...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
> <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4eef51a...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> > <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <4eef4da03ds...@revi11.plus.com>, Ste (news)
> > > <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> > > [Snip - OR ...]
> > > > Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the
> > > > bullet and merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
> > > I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better
> > > than to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
> > Coming from the editor of a magazine that is supposed to appeal to all
> > RISC OS users, that's a pretty biassed remark.
> > How about re-phrasing it in a more inclusive way?
> You have to work really hard to find a bias in that. Perhaps you now need
> to lie down? ;-)
No John, I didn't have to 'work hard' at it. The bias hit me in the face:
"You lot" work with "the ROL group".
How about "all RISC OS users work together"?
Doug Webb
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <c04f56e...@phawfaux.co.uk>,
> Paul Stewart <pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk> wrote:
>> On the other hand, ROL could always look at what they have done in the
>> Select scheme that does not require major rewrites to make them
>> available for use on RO5. They could then offer this as a Select+
>> pack for RO5.
> I seems to be the case that what is really worth while is too deeply part of
> the core of RO6 - and the rest might be seen as too little. Being an integral
> part of the OS is the strength of many of the improvements - but it does have
> knock-on effects.
I agree with Paul, ROL could do a RO5 plus pack with some of the
changes that don't need interaction perhaps like some of the image
renders and the add nice bits to !Boot like the disable function in
"run and look at", as well as the enhanced network configure stuff.
Also surely the added Fonts don't need anything in RO6.
If things are really that integrated then that is a back ward step but
if it is a case of missing or altered API's then a RO5 Select module
might be one answer.
It does take two to sort things out and what to someone is ROL need
Castle to do this,is to others Castle need ROL to do this.
The easiest thing is for ROL/Castle/ROOL to release common Toolbox and
SharedCLibrary components as a start.
I don't think people are asking for the earth here and perhaps the
addons wouldn't be enough to justify the full £99 but if ROL can do a
single user CD for £49 at a show why can't they do a RO5 Plus pack on
Cd for say £25 as a starter. I also think that no one would be grudge
A9 users getting Flash3 and Select4 first but once this is out of the
way then the Plus pack would be a start to bridge the gap.
You have to start somewhere on the road but if you don't even step off
the pavement or get out the front door then you'll not get anywhere.
Just my 2p worth as I do like Selects features and want them on my
Iyonix.
Doug
--
Using a Iyonix PC and RISC OS 5.13, the thinking persons alternative
operating system to Microsoft Windows.
druck
> I don't think people are asking for the earth here and perhaps the
> addons wouldn't be enough to justify the full £99 but if ROL can do a
> single user CD for £49 at a show why can't they do a RO5 Plus pack on
> Cd for say £25 as a starter. I also think that no one would be grudge
> A9 users getting Flash3 and Select4 first but once this is out of the
> way then the Plus pack would be a start to bridge the gap.
Certainly, I'd be first in the queue.
> You have to start somewhere on the road but if you don't even step off
> the pavement or get out the front door then you'll not get anywhere.
Agreed.
> Just my 2p worth as I do like Selects features and want them on my
> Iyonix.
As would just about Iyonix owners.
Kevin Wells
Rik Griffin <rik.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Would another bitmap editing package do this? e.g Photodesk?
--
Kev Wells http://kevsoft.topcities.com
http://kevsoft.co.uk/
ICQ 238580561
Useless Fact 03 You burn 3.5 calories each time you laugh.
druck
> Would another bitmap editing package do this? e.g Photodesk?
Photodesk could do without too much difficulty, but as I only use it
on the Iyonix, I've been lacking the motivation to support them. Now
if ROL where to go for the Select Plus scheme idea, and provide a
version of !Paint and SpriteExtend for the Iyonix, then things will
happen.
John Cartmell
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef666...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4eef5896...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
> > <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <4eef51a...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> > > <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > In article <4eef4da03ds...@revi11.plus.com>, Ste (news)
> > > > <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> > > > [Snip - OR ...]
> > > > > Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the
> > > > > bullet and merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
> > > > I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better
> > > > than to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
> > > Coming from the editor of a magazine that is supposed to appeal to all
> > > RISC OS users, that's a pretty biassed remark.
> > > How about re-phrasing it in a more inclusive way?
> > You have to work really hard to find a bias in that. Perhaps you now need
> > to lie down? ;-)
> No John, I didn't have to 'work hard' at it. The bias hit me in the face:
> "You lot" work with "the ROL group".
It sounds like someone spending their evening putting their pint next to
someone's elbow on the off-chance they can pretend they have an excuse for a
punch-up. Excuse me whilst I move my elbow well away from your pint.
Steven Pampling
<ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2007 David Holden <black...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 7-Jun-2007, "Ste (news)" <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
> >> ROL release the alpha channel stuff (SpriteExetend, Paint, etc?) as a
> >> separate component which could either be a source release or a
> >> paid-for add-on for RISC OS 5.
> > And how many times has it been said that this CAN'T BE DONE.
> > The new Paint and Draw depend for their additional features upon many
> > other components which are elsewhere in the OS. They can't just be
> > 'grafted on' to another OS without also adding all these parts.
> Rubbish. Any RISC OS programmer knows that all major OS APIs are
> designed to be extended or replaced.
With the assumption that the underlying kernel is offering the same hooks
of course.
> What do you think SpriteExtend is?
> Its a module that hooks in to SpriteV to extend the base fetures of the
> OS.
and when the OS author decides to change the hooks that SpriteV uses?
If you have a copy of ROL's latest output check the available hooks. I
suspect they have changed, which is what Dave H was alluding to.
--
Steve Pampling
David Holden
On 8-Jun-2007, Steven Pampling <steve.p...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> If you have a copy of ROL's latest output check the available hooks. I
> suspect they have changed, which is what Dave H was alluding to.
Exactly, and people who claim to have an understanding of programming and
RISC OS should appreciate this perfectly well. The new Draw and Paint
integrate with the new image rendering system and this has now become an
integral part of the OS. It can't just be overlayed onto a completely
different OS.
Anyway, since the sources to Draw and Paint are now available from ROOL if
it's as easy as some people claim I assume we can expect them to provide new
versions with all the features of the RO6 versions sometime soon.
David Holden
On 7-Jun-2007, pauls...@phawfaux.co.uk (Paul Stewart) wrote:
> On the other hand, ROL could always look at what they have done in the
> Select scheme that does not require major rewrites to make them
> available for use on RO5. They could then offer this as a Select+
> pack for RO5
And what makes you think we haven't looked at this option? This was one of
the reasons for producing the 'test' version that many people will have seen
running on an Iyonix. The problem is that some things *could* be made to
work reliably, but the only ones that can without intimate knowledge of the
Iyonix OS and/or source code access are fairly trivial, so it really
wouldn't be a worthwhile exercise.
Chris Hughes
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef5896...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <4eef51a...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <4eef4da03ds...@revi11.plus.com>,
>>> Ste (news) <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
>>> [Snip - OR ...]
>>>> Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and
>>>> merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
>>> I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
>>> to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
>> Coming from the editor of a magazine that is supposed to appeal to all RISC
>> OS users, that's a pretty biassed remark.
>> How about re-phrasing it in a more inclusive way?
> You have to work really hard to find a bias in that. Perhaps you now need to
> lie down? ;-)
Nope, you might not have intended it as a dig/bias, but it appears to
be (as you put in one of your own postings unless I see anything to
the contray, I will consider it as an attack or insult).
You said: "I'd" (as in you John) like nothing better than to see "you
lot" (Castle/Iyonix Lovers and/or certain individuals) working
together with the "ROL group".
It comes across as a bias.
Could have been worded better. 5 out of 10 for effect. :-)
--
Chris Hughes
charles
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef68ab...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > No John, I didn't have to 'work hard' at it. The bias hit me in the
> > face: "You lot" work with "the ROL group".
> It sounds like someone spending their evening putting their pint next to
> someone's elbow on the off-chance they can pretend they have an excuse
> for a punch-up. Excuse me whilst I move my elbow well away from your pint.
Not having had any alcohol for over a week, I object to that remark.
How to win friends and influence people ;-(
My subscription to Qercus is due for renewal. Guess what? I won't be
renewing.
Rob Kendrick
> It can't just be overlayed onto a completely different OS.
Actually, they can, as druck and Steve said. RISC OS is very modular,
and almost any of its APIs can be overridden and replaced at runtime.
Sure, it's not just a "recompile !Paint for the Iyonix" job, it does
require more effort - but that effort should be possible and not that
complex. This is unless one or more of the following is true:
1) whoever did the work on ROL's RISC OS can't design for
toffee,
2) it has been deliberately nobbled to not be possible.
One could, for example, extract ROL's sprite code wholesale and wrap it
up in a SpriteExtend-like module, as per druck's suggestion.
B.
John Cartmell
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eef76d...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4eef68ab...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> > charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > No John, I didn't have to 'work hard' at it. The bias hit me in the
> > > face: "You lot" work with "the ROL group".
> > It sounds like someone spending their evening putting their pint next to
> > someone's elbow on the off-chance they can pretend they have an excuse
> > for a punch-up. Excuse me whilst I move my elbow well away from your pint.
> Not having had any alcohol for over a week, I object to that remark.
Alcohol wasn't mentioned! ;-)
If you took offence at my outlandish scenario then I apologise. There was *no*
bias, *no* offence, - and *no* alcohol. And no argument? Please!! ;-))
John Cartmell
Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School Blackburn obviously taught a different
version of English than Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School Wakefield. In this
case the perception of bias is in the eye of the beholder.
Two groups of people: I'd like to see them working together on the same
project. I phrased it differently because I was addressing one member of one
group.
charles
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eefa02f...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4eef76d...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> > John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <4eef68ab...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> > > charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > No John, I didn't have to 'work hard' at it. The bias hit me in the
> > > > face: "You lot" work with "the ROL group".
> > > It sounds like someone spending their evening putting their pint next
> > > to someone's elbow on the off-chance they can pretend they have an
> > > excuse for a punch-up. Excuse me whilst I move my elbow well away
> > > from your pint.
> > Not having had any alcohol for over a week, I object to that remark.
> Alcohol wasn't mentioned! ;-) If you took offence at my outlandish
> scenario then I apologise. There was *no* bias, *no* offence, - and *no*
> alcohol.
pint of what, then?
> And no argument?
not an argument - just a question
John Cartmell
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eefa95...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4eefa02f...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> > charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <4eef76d...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
> > > John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > In article <4eef68ab...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> > > > charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > No John, I didn't have to 'work hard' at it. The bias hit me in the
> > > > > face: "You lot" work with "the ROL group".
> > > > It sounds like someone spending their evening putting their pint next
> > > > to someone's elbow on the off-chance they can pretend they have an
> > > > excuse for a punch-up. Excuse me whilst I move my elbow well away
> > > > from your pint.
> > > Not having had any alcohol for over a week, I object to that remark.
> > Alcohol wasn't mentioned! ;-) If you took offence at my outlandish
> > scenario then I apologise. There was *no* bias, *no* offence, - and *no*
> > alcohol.
> pint of what, then?
Orange cordial?
Perhaps it's a 'northern thing' that the 'designated driver', or anyone else
not drinking alcohol, may well have a pint glass along with everyone else. It
tends to intimidate barpeople into giving you a reasonable serving for the
vast sums of cash they demand.
Adam
> On 7 Jun 2007 Kevin Wells <kevin...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> > Would another bitmap editing package do this? e.g Photodesk?
>
> Photodesk could do without too much difficulty, but as I only use it
> on the Iyonix, I've been lacking the motivation to support them.
That seems a shame as if it really is simple to support I'm sure others
would find it a worthwhile improvement, even if you personally don't get
much use out of it.
Adam
--
Adam Richardson Carpe Diem
http://www.snowstone.org.uk/riscos/
druck
> In article <1d4058ef...@druck.freeuk.net>, druck
> <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 7 Jun 2007 David Holden <black...@apdl.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 7-Jun-2007, "Ste (news)" <steve....@revi11.plus.com> wrote:
>>>> ROL release the alpha channel stuff (SpriteExetend, Paint, etc?) as a
>>>> separate component which could either be a source release or a
>>>> paid-for add-on for RISC OS 5.
>>> And how many times has it been said that this CAN'T BE DONE.
>>> The new Paint and Draw depend for their additional features upon many
>>> other components which are elsewhere in the OS. They can't just be
>>> 'grafted on' to another OS without also adding all these parts.
>> Rubbish. Any RISC OS programmer knows that all major OS APIs are
>> designed to be extended or replaced.
> With the assumption that the underlying kernel is offering the same hooks
> of course.
All the 'hooks' are there, and given that ROL have spent the last 5
years removing stuff from the kernel in to modules using the very same
hooks, such excuses just don't wash.
We've been through the Select feature list and change logs several
times, and there are no features of any real value which can't be
implemented as extensions a non Select kernel.
Thats from a technical stand point, any lack of willingness to do
things this way are commercial, and I'm afraid political.
Steve Fryatt
<4eefa9f...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>:
> In article <137e9eef...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > It comes across as a bias.
>
> Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School Blackburn obviously taught a different
> version of English than Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School Wakefield. In
> this case the perception of bias is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Two groups of people: I'd like to see them working together on the same
> project. I phrased it differently because I was addressing one member of
> one group.
With the clear implication that the fault lay on one side. Sorry, John,
but there was a clear bias.
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
Steve Fryatt
<977cccef...@snowstone.org.uk>:
> In message <823370ef...@druck.freeuk.net>, druck wrote:
>
> > Photodesk could do without too much difficulty, but as I only use it
> > on the Iyonix, I've been lacking the motivation to support them.
>
> That seems a shame as if it really is simple to support I'm sure others
> would find it a worthwhile improvement, even if you personally don't get
> much use out of it.
Given the number of developers with Iyonixes, this is *precisely* why ROL
need to get Select available for the machine.
John Cartmell
It must be living on the east side of the Pennines that softens the brain...
What bloody fault!!!???!?
I said I'd like to see the ROOL programmers working with the ROL programmers
on the same project or sets of projects.
No fault.
No bias.
But there's a load of !"＃$%^&&*()'s trying to stir things because being
reasonable and complimentary on newsgroups is obviously too boring.
<despair!!>
charles
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3d2ce7ef...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve Fryatt
> <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 8 Jun, John Cartmell wrote in message
> > <4eefa9f...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>:
> > > In article <137e9eef...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hughes
> > > <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It comes across as a bias.
> > >
> > > Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School Blackburn obviously taught a
> > > different version of English than Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School
> > > Wakefield. In this case the perception of bias is in the eye of the
> > > beholder.
> > >
> > > Two groups of people: I'd like to see them working together on the
> > > same project. I phrased it differently because I was addressing one
> > > member of one group.
> > With the clear implication that the fault lay on one side. Sorry, John,
> > but there was a clear bias.
> It must be living on the east side of the Pennines that softens the
> brain...
> What bloody fault!!!???!?
> I said I'd like to see the ROOL programmers working with the ROL
> programmers on the same project or sets of projects.
While you might think you wrote that, you didn't.
> No fault. No bias.
> But there's a load of !"＃$%^&&*()'s trying to stir things because being
> reasonable and complimentary on newsgroups is obviously too boring.
Perhaps those on the west side of the Pennines speak/write a different
language to the rest of us.
> <despair!!>
Yes, I despair because you don't seem to realise how offensive your remark
was.
Simon Willcocks
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3d2ce7ef...@helvellyn.stevefryatt.org.uk>,
> Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 8 Jun, John Cartmell wrote in message
> > <4eefa9f...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>:
>
> > > In article <137e9eef...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk>,
> > > Chris Hughes <ch...@cumbrian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It comes across as a bias.
> > >
> > > [snip] In this case the perception of bias is in the eye of the beholder.
> > >
> > > Two groups of people: I'd like to see them working together on the same
> > > project. I phrased it differently because I was addressing one member of
> > > one group.
>
> > With the clear implication that the fault lay on one side. Sorry, John,
> > but there was a clear bias.
>
> It must be living on the east side of the Pennines that softens the brain...
>
> What bloody fault!!!???!?
>
> I said I'd like to see the ROOL programmers working with the ROL programmers
> on the same project or sets of projects.
OK, I understand now that you didn't mean any bias, but it's clear that your
comment came across as if there was, at least to some readers, including
myself.
Let's have a quick look at the offending comment:
In article <4eef51a...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'd like nothing better than
> to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
The basic problem was the phrase "you lot", which splits the world into two
parts, "us" and "them", in this case, apparently, ROL (and you) against
everyone else (I didn't know Steve Revill is associated with ROOL). Then,
you seemed to say that the rest of the world should work with ROL, which
reads (to me) like they should do what ROL say. Maybe I'm too used to
seeing announcements of company "mergers" where you just know you're never
going to see the smaller one ever again.
Had you said something like "I'd like nothing better than to see ROOL and
ROL working together.", I doubt there would have been a problem.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Simon
--
ROLF - The RISC OS Look and Feel on Linux.
http://stoppers.drobe.co.uk
Adam
Are you kidding? He wrote:
"I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
to see you lot working together with the ROL group."
If you think that's offensive I wonder how you get through an average
day and I sincerely hope you haven't been watching Big Brother! ;)
charles
Adam <ne...@snowstone.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <4eefefcf...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles wrote:
> > In article <4eefec8...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> > <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > <despair!!>
> >
> > Yes, I despair because you don't seem to realise how offensive your
> > remark was.
> Are you kidding? He wrote:
> "I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
> to see you lot working together with the ROL group."
> If you think that's offensive I wonder how you get through an average
> day and I sincerely hope you haven't been watching Big Brother! ;)
It is offensive to "you lot". and no, I don't watch Big Brother, nor have
I any wish to do so.
If the message have come from anyone other than the editor of what is supposed to be an inclusive RISC OS publication, I'd probably have ignored it.
Steve Fryatt
<db4d28f0...@snowstone.org.uk>:
> In message <4eefefcf...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles wrote:
>
> > Yes, I despair because you don't seem to realise how offensive your
> > remark was.
>
> Are you kidding? He wrote:
>
> "I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
> to see you lot working together with the ROL group."
Indeed, and the way that it's worded implies that "you lot" are the ones
to blame. If John had written "...to see you lot and the ROL group
working together" I doubt that Charles would have picked it up.
druck
> It is offensive to "you lot". and no, I don't watch Big Brother, nor have
> I any wish to do so.
> If the message have come from anyone other than the editor of what is
> supposed to be an inclusive RISC OS publication, I'd probably have
> ignored it.
Agreed, but lets just drop it, Cartmell is yet again wasting all of
our time with nonsense such as this, the SVG thread, the PDF thread,
the A9 sound thread, the Castle's plans thread, and god knows how
many others. He might have nothing better to do, but we have.
charles
Adam
> On 9 Jun, Adam wrote in message
> <db4d28f0...@snowstone.org.uk>:
>
> > In message <4eefefcf...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I despair because you don't seem to realise how offensive your
> > > remark was.
> >
> > Are you kidding? He wrote:
> >
> > "I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
> > to see you lot working together with the ROL group."
>
> Indeed, and the way that it's worded implies that "you lot" are the ones
> to blame.
Hmmm, with a bit of reading between the lines perhaps. (Which strikes me
as always a mistake on usenet.)
Anyhow, I appreciate that John's comment was a bit untactful in implying
a "them and us" situation, but that's hard to describe as "offensive" in
itself and it bewilders me that it generated such a responce.
John Cartmell
Let's look at the 'offending comment' in context:
[Steve]
Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and merge
RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
[Me]
I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than to see
you lot working together with the ROL group.
> The basic problem was the phrase "you lot", which splits the world into two
> parts, "us" and "them",
Exactly. As Steve and I agreed (see above) it's split in two - and the two of
us agree that we'd like it not to be split in two. I'd like to see that lot
(ROOL programmers) working together with that other lot (ROL programmers).
> in this case, apparently, ROL (and you) against everyone else (I didn't
> know Steve Revill is associated with ROOL).
ROL (RISC OS Ltd) is owned by the RISC OS community. The only 'everyone else'
is everyone outside the RISC OS community. ROL was set up by the dealers and
developers of RISC OS products in order to continue the development of RISC OS
after Acorn washed their hands of it. ROL are responsible for developing RISC
OS for that community. Us. Inclusive.
> Then, you seemed to say that the rest of the world should work with ROL,
> which reads (to me) like they should do what ROL say. Maybe I'm too used
> to seeing announcements of company "mergers" where you just know you're
> never going to see the smaller one ever again.
You left out a great deal of what makes the RISC OS community and added a
great deal that is irrelevant.
> Had you said something like "I'd like nothing better than to see ROOL and
> ROL working together.", I doubt there would have been a problem.
But I didn't mean that. I wasn't talking about companies but about
individuals. I have a great deal of respect for the individual programmers
that are working within ROOL and with those working for ROL. Outside any of
the stupid bloody arguments that bedevil us I find it a great waste to see
those groups of people not working together on the projects they both want to
produce. At the moment they are, at best, working in parallel. In series we'd
get a damned more decent work done - and those programmers would have more
satisfaction.
[Not for discussion - ie I will *not* respond]:
You talk about 'mergers' being bad. Castle wanted a 'merger' that would
destroy the RISC OS desktop market. That's my opinion and Castle's directors
disagree. I opposed Castle in that and continue to oppose such an idea.
I still want all parts of the RISC OS market to work together - and in
particular I want the RISC OS developers to work together. I'd rather Iyonix
and ROL cooperate to get RO6 ported for the Iyonix and allow the ROOL group of
programmers and the ROL group of programmers to work to produce new
developments for the one OS - rather than the ROOL programmers spend time
adding bits to RO5 that mirror the RO6 work.
> Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I'm very sorry that what was intended solely as a "yes we agree on that point"
has been dragged through the mud.
John Cartmell
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes, I despair because you don't seem to realise how offensive your remark
> was.
What on Earth are you talking about!!!?
The actual exchange of words was:
[Steve from ROOL]
> > Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet and
> > merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
[Me]
> I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
> to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
Perhaps in some alternative universe there are words there that are racially
or sexually abusive - but in this universe they are quite positive in meaning.
John Cartmell
Why?
It's a casual phrase - but then usenet is a casual forum. Where is the
offence? What convoluted meaning are you attaching to the phrase? I could have
said:
"your group" - but that implies that Steve is boss man, and I don't think it
works that way.
"Andrew, Ben and yourself" - but that would have been a touch long-winded.
But whatever. I can assure you that, if you find that comment offensive, there
is very little that anyone says on these groups that is acceptable.
[Snip]
The bits of yours that I've snipped are grossly indecent for a start! ;-))
charles
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4eefefcf...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Yes, I despair because you don't seem to realise how offensive your
> > remark was.
> What on Earth are you talking about!!!?
> The actual exchange of words was:
> [Steve from ROOL]
> > > Everyone decides that it would be best for all if we bite the bullet
> > > and merge RO5 and RO6 back together somehow.
> [Me]
> > I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
> > to see you lot working together with the ROL group.
> Perhaps in some alternative universe there are words there that are
> racially or sexually abusive - but in this universe they are quite
> positive in meaning.
It has already been pointed out by others.
"You lot" as opposed to "the ROL group" is offensive, especially when
coming from the editor of an inclusive RISC OS magazine.
John Cartmell
You have nothing to contribute. No one has questioned your comments. No-one
has falsified your statements and needs correcting. You are off-topic and
following your usual tactic of being obnoxious in order to generate
ill-feeling.
Please read the advice about usenet discussions - and take that good advice.
--
John Cartmell "good manners are the best guide to good rules"
The news.newusers.questions FAQ http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
How to post to uk news groups http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html
Proper quoting style explained http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
John Cartmell
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "You lot" as opposed to "the ROL group" is offensive
You lot have some funny ideas about language. Us lot get it right - but you
lot are up the bloody creek. Thankfully us lot are generally quite relaxed at
the language that you lot come out with even though it sometimes sounds
strange and even offensive - and us lot were wondering whether you lot might
try the same tactic: if in doubt assume that us lot don't mean to insult you
lot. Because usually we don't.
charles
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4ef03fd6...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
> <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > "You lot" as opposed to "the ROL group" is offensive
> You lot have some funny ideas about language. Us lot get it right - but
> you lot are up the bloody creek.
as an owner of 2 RISC PCs both running 4.39, 2 laptops with VA and an
Iyonix, I wonder in which lot I should be?
Rob Kendrick
> In article <0e8731f0...@druck.freeuk.net>,
> druck <ne...@druck.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> He might have nothing better to do, but we have.
>
> You have nothing to contribute. No one has questioned your comments. No-one
> has falsified your statements and needs correcting. You are off-topic and
> following your usual tactic of being obnoxious in order to generate
> ill-feeling.
I read this thinking Dave had written it at John. Then I noticed the
spelling and noticed it was in fact the other way around.
Amazing.
B.
Kevin Wells
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <db4d28f0...@snowstone.org.uk>,
> Adam <ne...@snowstone.org.uk> wrote:
>> In message <4eefefcf...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles wrote:
>
>> > In article <4eefec8...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
>> > <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > > <despair!!>
>> >
>> > Yes, I despair because you don't seem to realise how offensive your
>> > remark was.
>
>> Are you kidding? He wrote:
>
>> "I've been suggesting that for a long time. I'd like nothing better than
>> to see you lot working together with the ROL group."
>
>> If you think that's offensive I wonder how you get through an average
>> day and I sincerely hope you haven't been watching Big Brother! ;)
>
>It is offensive to "you lot". and no, I don't watch Big Brother, nor have
>I any wish to do so.
I use you lot to people often and they are not offended, but I suppose
they don't have thin skin.
>
--
Kev Wells http://kevsoft.topcities.com
http://kevsoft.co.uk/
ICQ 238580561
Work the curse of the drinking class.
Kevin Wells
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It was a reply to some one from the ROOL group, so if it was a reply to
some one from the ROL group then I am sure he would of worded as you lot
and ROOL group working together.
John Cartmell
<cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4ef04e4...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>, John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <4ef03fd6...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
> > <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > "You lot" as opposed to "the ROL group" is offensive
> > You lot have some funny ideas about language. Us lot get it right - but
> > you lot are up the bloody creek.
> as an owner of 2 RISC PCs both running 4.39, 2 laptops with VA and an
> Iyonix, I wonder in which lot I should be?
"if in doubt assume that us lot don't mean to insult you lot.
Because usually we don't."
If you don't mean to insult people then you're with us.
Andrew Wickham
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4ef02aa5...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
> charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It is offensive to "you lot".
>
>Why?
>
>It's a casual phrase - but then usenet is a casual forum. Where is the
>offence? What convoluted meaning are you attaching to the phrase? I could have
>said:
>"your group" - but that implies that Steve is boss man, and I don't think it
>works that way.
>
It's in the difference between "you" simpliciter and "you lot" that the
perceived offence lies. "You lot" may to many readers fall on the dismissive
side of casual.
The group to which you were trying to refer has a name - ROOL. Why not use it
alongside ROL?
I can quite accept that you were not trying to offend. But in being casual,
were you too little trying not to offend? A kitchen-fitter, who did a fine job
in an awkward space, once told me his golden rule: measure three times, cut
once. With adaptation, perhaps an apposite Usenet motto!
Rgds,
Andrew
John Cartmell
<ajw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <4ef02f9...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <4ef02aa5...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
> > <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> It is offensive to "you lot".
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >It's a casual phrase - but then usenet is a casual forum. Where is the
> >offence? What convoluted meaning are you attaching to the phrase? I could
> >have said: "your group" - but that implies that Steve is boss man, and I
> >don't think it works that way.
> >
> It's in the difference between "you" simpliciter and "you lot" that the
> perceived offence lies. "You lot" may to many readers fall on the
> dismissive side of casual.
"You" doesn't make the difference between one and a group. It would have
conveyed the wrong meaning.
> The group to which you were trying to refer has a name - ROOL. Why not use
> it alongside ROL?
No it doesn't. ROOL is a company. I didn't mean the company. I didn't even
mean the people attached to ROOL or ROOL directors. I meant the three people
at ROOL who are programmers and that was clearly indicated by the words used.
> I can quite accept that you were not trying to offend. But in being
> casual, were you too little trying not to offend?
Not with the words that I responded to - no. In context you would have had to
work hard to find offence with what was said. It saddens me that so many
people work so hard to find offence.
> A kitchen-fitter, who did a fine job in an awkward space, once told me his
> golden rule: measure three times, cut once. With adaptation, perhaps an
> apposite Usenet motto!
And with lots of time to consider it not one person has found a form of words
better than those I used originally. Plenty want to change the meaning of what
I said - and everyone wants to ignore the clear statement of Steve and I both
wanting development of a single OS. If my initials were pv I might be
suggesting that there is a conspiracy to destroy any indication of agreement
and understanding.
charles
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Not with the words that I responded to - no. In context you would have
> had to work hard to find offence with what was said. It saddens me that
> so many people work so hard to find offence.
John, as I said before, I didn't have to work hard to take offence. It hit
me in the face.
Perhaps it's a North/South divide.
Simon Willcocks
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <a86ff8f14e%ajw...@yahoo.co.uk>, Andrew Wickham
> <ajw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message <4ef02f9...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> John Cartmell
> > <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > It's in the difference between "you" simpliciter and "you lot" that the
> > perceived offence lies. "You lot" may to many readers fall on the
> > dismissive side of casual.
>
> "You" doesn't make the difference between one and a group. It would have
> conveyed the wrong meaning.
It seems that to several people it didn't convey the right meaning.
> > The group to which you were trying to refer has a name - ROOL. Why not use
> > it alongside ROL?
>
> No it doesn't. ROOL is a company. I didn't mean the company. I didn't even
> mean the people attached to ROOL or ROOL directors. I meant the three people
> at ROOL who are programmers and that was clearly indicated by the words used.
Well, again, no it wasn't "clearly indicated by the words used."
Firstly, if it was clear, it wouldn't have been repeatedly misunderstood.
Secondly, I, at least, didn't know that Steve Revill was one of three
programmers at ROOL (maybe I should be paying more attention, but that's
another matter), so how could I make the connection?
Thirdly, looking back at the commment again, it still seems to me to say
that they should join the "ROL group" (not ROL programmers, mind, and not
the other way around). That is the meaning I take away from your original
comment, and nothing you say will change that. I am, and I expect other
commentators are also, receptive to clarifications!
Perhaps, instead of telling the original responder that he'd worked "really
hard to find a bias in that." and should "lie down", you could have taken
his suggestion and clarified what you meant. e.g. "I didn't mean any bias.
I simply meant that I'd like to see the programmers at ROL and ROOL working
together on a single OS.", or even "Sorry, I don't see any bias in what I
wrote, I certainly didn't mean any. What bias do you mean?".
> > I can quite accept that you were not trying to offend. But in being
> > casual, were you too little trying not to offend?
>
> Not with the words that I responded to - no. In context you would have had to
> work hard to find offence with what was said. It saddens me that so many
> people work so hard to find offence.
What offends me now is that you keep inferring that people who are telling
you how they read your comment are lying about what their first impressions
were. The initial comment was much less offensive than your response to
Charles' comment.
> > A kitchen-fitter, who did a fine job in an awkward space, once told me his
> > golden rule: measure three times, cut once. With adaptation, perhaps an
> > apposite Usenet motto!
>
> And with lots of time to consider it not one person has found a form of words
> better than those I used originally.
Apparently, because we didn't know what you meant and it's taken until now
to make it clear.
> Plenty want to change the meaning of what I said
I've seen no evidence of that, I've just seen people trying to make sense of
what you've said and, apparently, getting it wrong.
> - and everyone wants to ignore the clear statement of Steve and I both
> wanting development of a single OS.
Not that clear, though.
Well, the trouble is that both sides (with some justification) believe that
they are the One True Source of Desktop RISC OS, and that's unlikely to
change any time soon.
How about you and Louie getting together and producing a single RISC OS
magazine? Not going to happen, is it?
Simon Willcocks
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ROL (RISC OS Ltd) is owned by the RISC OS community.
No. It is owned by the shareholders, most of whom are (or at least were,
seven years ago) part of the RISC OS community.
> ROL are responsible for developing RISC OS for that community.
That was the idea, yes.
Steffen Huber
[snip]
> ROL (RISC OS Ltd) is owned by the RISC OS community.
Where does this idea come from? It is owned by the shareholders.
Some of them might also be part of what I currently consider the
RISC OS community. But there is an awful lot of RISC OS community
around that is not owning ROL.
> ROL was set up by the dealers and
> developers of RISC OS products in order to continue the development of RISC OS
> after Acorn washed their hands of it.
By a few dealers and a few developers.
> ROL are responsible for developing RISC
> OS for that community. Us. Inclusive.
Only problem is that they are targeting only small parts of what I
consider the RISC OS community. So should my conclusion be that I
am not part of the RISC OS community? Or that ROL does not take
their responsibility serious?
[snip]
Steffen
--
Steffen Huber
hubersn Software - http://www.hubersn-software.com/
John Cartmell
Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Firstly, if it was clear, it wouldn't have been repeatedly misunderstood.
There are people around who deliberately 'misunderstand' certain comments -
and further discussion may well have been coloured by that.
John Cartmell
> I've seen no evidence of that, I've just seen people trying to make sense of
> what you've said and, apparently, getting it wrong.
No.
I've been told I should have said ROOL instead of 'you lot'. But I didn't mean
ROOL. I said what I meant. No bias, no insults, no carefully crafted words as
a piece of PR. Just a friendly comment offering my real thoughts with no spin
attached.
Rob Kendrick
> In article <1e69c0f24e.s...@home.invalid>,
> Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Firstly, if it was clear, it wouldn't have been repeatedly misunderstood.
>
> There are people around who deliberately 'misunderstand' certain comments -
> and further discussion may well have been coloured by that.
Such as yourself?
B.
John Cartmell
<sp...@huber-net.de> wrote:
> John Cartmell wrote: [snip]
> > ROL (RISC OS Ltd) is owned by the RISC OS community.
> Where does this idea come from? It is owned by the shareholders. Some of
> them might also be part of what I currently consider the RISC OS community.
> But there is an awful lot of RISC OS community around that is not owning
> ROL.
By 'the community' I meant dealers, developers and investors from the RISC OS
community. Whilst the 'community' has changed over the years and shareholdings
don't always change as quickly. Certainly all post-Acorn hardware developers +
VA developers and most current dealers are shareholders.
> > ROL was set up by the dealers and developers of RISC OS products in order
> > to continue the development of RISC OS after Acorn washed their hands of
> > it.
> By a few dealers and a few developers.
I cannot think of many who aren't included.
> > ROL are responsible for developing RISC OS for that community. Us.
> > Inclusive.
> Only problem is that they are targeting only small parts of what I consider
> the RISC OS community. So should my conclusion be that I am not part of the
> RISC OS community? Or that ROL does not take their responsibility serious?
That you are confusing 'target' with 'been enabled to include to date'.
NB I make no comment about priorities or reasons.
Simon Willcocks
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <1e69c0f24e.s...@home.invalid>,
> Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > > Plenty want to change the meaning of what I said
>
> > I've seen no evidence of that, I've just seen people trying to make sense
> > of what you've said and, apparently, getting it wrong.
>
> No.
> I've been told I should have said ROOL instead of 'you lot'.
That's because people thought you meant that, because the original comment
wasn't clear (and, either they didn't read your corrections carefully
enough, or they didn't know there was anyone but programmers in ROOL).
> But I didn't mean ROOL.
Apparently, you meant "the three people at ROOL who are programmers".
> I said what I meant.
No, you said something you intended to be taken as that.
You could easily have said: "I'd like to see the ROOL programmers working
with the ROL programmers on the same project or sets of projects.", as you
did on the 8th, either in the original message, or as a response to Charles'
initial complaint.
As far as I can see, for the rest of the week people have basically been
taking exception to the way you won't accept that what you originally said
didn't convey what you meant and could be taken as a biased view by
reasonable people. Nobody likes being told they are being unreasonable,
even by implication.
I think it was unreasonable of you to expect your readers to know:
* that the person you were talking to is one of the programmers for ROOL.
* that you only wanted to include the programmers, but no-one else from
ROOL, or the Castle/Iyonix camp.
The former could be found out with a bit of research, but the latter wasn't
even hinted at.
Simon
John Cartmell
Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> You could easily have said: "I'd like to see the ROOL programmers working
> with the ROL programmers on the same project or sets of projects.", as you
But not as a friendly reply to Steve.
Now please ask yourself "Why go on and on about something that was
(deliberately) turned from a friendly 'I agree' into a marathon 'Let's stir
things and get some aggro going', when it has all been thoroughly explained?".
I want friendly relationships and a future for RISC OS.
What do you want?
John Cartmell
> Such as yourself?
Occasionally for shared humour. Never in malice.
Rob Kendrick
> In article <467149ac$0$27853$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>> John Cartmell wrote:
>>> In article <1e69c0f24e.s...@home.invalid>,
>>> Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> Firstly, if it was clear, it wouldn't have been repeatedly misunderstood.
>>> There are people around who deliberately 'misunderstand' certain comments -
>>> and further discussion may well have been coloured by that.
>
>> Such as yourself?
>
> Occasionally for shared humour. Never in malice.
I bet if we took a poll, other people would think differently from
yourself. I suggest you make more effort in future to make it clear
that your posts are to be laughed at, rather than taken seriously.
B.
John Cartmell
<nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> John Cartmell wrote:
> > In article <467149ac$0$27853$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, Rob Kendrick
> > <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> >> John Cartmell wrote:
> >>> In article <1e69c0f24e.s...@home.invalid>, Simon Willcocks
> >>> <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> >>>> Firstly, if it was clear, it wouldn't have been repeatedly
> >>>> misunderstood.
> >>> There are people around who deliberately 'misunderstand' certain
> >>> comments - and further discussion may well have been coloured by that.
> >
> >> Such as yourself?
> >
> > Occasionally for shared humour. Never in malice.
[Snipped a load of nasty comments]
Please come back when you are able to say something nice for a change.
Rob Kendrick
> [Snipped a load of nasty comments]
>
> Please come back when you are able to say something nice for a change.
Is this one of the postings that should be laughed at, or taken
seriously? I can never tell with you.
B.
Ams
> In article <a86ff8f14e%ajw9...@yahoo.co.uk>, Andrew Wickham
<snip>
>
> > The group to which you were trying to refer has a name - ROOL. Why not use
> > it alongside ROL?
>
> No it doesn't. ROOL is a company. I didn't mean the company. I didn't even
> mean the people attached to ROOL or ROOL directors. I meant the three people
> at ROOL who are programmers and that was clearly indicated by the words used.
>
As ROOL distribute a shared source version of RISC OS you'd probably
find they have somewhat more than three developers ;-) Indeed
potentially anyone who can program and is interested *could*
contribute to the ongoing development of RISC OS.
<snip>
> I said - and everyone wants to ignore the clear statement of Steve and I both
> wanting development of a single OS.
As would I - and with the opening up of RISC OS in the form of RO5.xx
via the ROOL shared source initiative that is a possibility. I can't,
unfortunately, see that happening with the ROL strand as this is very
unlikely to ever be "opened" even as a shared source project (like
RO5.xx has been).
As to the point at hand Rik quite reasonably asked would it be
possible to support alpha channel sprites - I honestly can't see why
not - with !Paint source being now available from ROOL perhaps that
facility can be added.
This may not be a useful as having a "centralised" bitmap rendering
engine that supports it - but it would represent a good starting
point.
--
> John Cartmell
Regards
Annraoi
Simon Willcocks
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <6f24e2f24e.s...@home.invalid>,
> Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > You could easily have said: "I'd like to see the ROOL programmers
> > working with the ROL programmers on the same project or sets of
> > projects.", as you did on the 8th, either in the original message ...
>
> But not as a friendly reply to Steve.
No, perhaps not. But that would be why I said: "or as a response to
Charles' initial complaint.", which you snipped. ("You three" might have
done in the original message.)
> Now please ask yourself "Why go on and on about something that was
> (deliberately) turned from a friendly 'I agree' into a marathon 'Let's stir
> things and get some aggro going', when it has all been thoroughly
> explained?".
Mostly, I'm going on and on because you keep making statements that appear
to me to be incorrect or misleading.
As far as I can see, nobody tried to turn it into a marathon; a reasonable
person misunderstood something you wrote but, rather than simply recognising
that and clarifying the original message (in which you did not mean what
Charles thought you said, but nor did you say what you meant), you attacked
him and since then repeatedly stated that you had said what you meant and
that everyone should have known what you meant.
Admittedly, Charles could have better phrased his comment that it *seemed to
him* to be a pretty biased remark, but in response you've suggested that he
went out of his way to see bias in it (which I doubt, since Steve Fryatt and
I also saw the same thing, and I *know* I didn't work to see it, and
Charles has repeatedly denied it), and now that he was deliberately
stirring, which he wasn't, he was just suggesting you remove the perceived
bias.
> I want friendly relationships and a future for RISC OS.
I think you'll find that's mostly a problem of the people running the
companies, not the community as a whole who seem to get on reasonably well
with each other.
> What do you want?
Honesty would be nice, so would empathy. Peace would be sufficient.
John Cartmell
It's taken from something my grandmother would have said: "if you don't have
something good to say then don't say it".
Perhaps you should take it seriously.
--
John Cartmell
Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Honesty would be nice, so would empathy. Peace would be sufficient.
You're getting honesty and peace. Empathy is rather tricky on usenet.
John Cartmell
<a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
> > I said - and everyone wants to ignore the clear statement of Steve and I
> > both wanting development of a single OS.
> As would I - and with the opening up of RISC OS in the form of RO5.xx via
> the ROOL shared source initiative that is a possibility. I can't,
> unfortunately, see that happening with the ROL strand as this is very
> unlikely to ever be "opened" even as a shared source project (like RO5.xx
> has been).
Whatever ROL do is bound by their contract. That was seen when they tried to
open up an aspect of Printers and were stopped by Castle.
We still don't know how Castle have managed to get around that same problem as
the legal details haven't been divulged - not even to ROOL.
I think your comparison is off-base though. Apart from peripheral work I'd
imagine programming of the shared source would be done by programmers who
could just as easily work with the ROL programmers on Select / RO6. Just
because it isn't shared source doesn't mean that no-one from 'outside' could
work on it. If anyone has the capability, time, and commitment (which would be
needed to get anywhere with shared or closed source) then they could always
contact ROL.
As in many things RISC OS we seem to have a choice these days! ;-)
Chris Joseph
>Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>> John Cartmell wrote:
>> > In article <467149ac$0$27853$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, Rob Kendrick
>> > <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>> >> John Cartmell wrote:
>> >>> In article <1e69c0f24e.s...@home.invalid>, Simon Willcocks
>> >>> <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >>>> Firstly, if it was clear, it wouldn't have been repeatedly
>> >>>> misunderstood.
>> >>> There are people around who deliberately 'misunderstand' certain
>> >>> comments - and further discussion may well have been coloured by that.
>> >
>> >> Such as yourself?
>> >
>> > Occasionally for shared humour. Never in malice.
>
>[Snipped a load of nasty comments]
>
>Please come back when you are able to say something nice for a change.
A neat case in point. I read Rob's comment as intended to be helpful,
if a little despairing; your (John's) reply comes over as arrogant and
stupid. You insist that everyone (and I do mean *everyone*) wilfully
misinterprets you, but are totally unwilling to consider positive
interpretations of comments made by people you don't like. Or the
possibility that if *everyone* thinks you said something other than
your intended meaning then the fault might just possibly lie in your
phrasing.
Chris.
Rob Kendrick
> In article <4671c4f2$0$5865$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, Rob Kendrick
> <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>> John Cartmell wrote:
>
>>> [Snipped a load of nasty comments]
>>>
>>> Please come back when you are able to say something nice for a change.
>
>> Is this one of the postings that should be laughed at, or taken seriously?
>> I can never tell with you.
>
> It's taken from something my grandmother would have said: "if you don't have
> something good to say then don't say it".
>
> Perhaps you should take it seriously.
Why? Clearly you don't. All I'm saying is that you should make it
clearer if your postings should be laughed at, or taken seriously.
B.
John Cartmell
<chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> You insist that everyone (and I do mean *everyone*) wilfully misinterprets
> you
I don't. They don't. But the ones that do are very noisy about it.
End.
If you're not fed up of something that should never have started - then
everyone else is. You know what I said. You know that I didn't intend all
those insults that were made up by others for whatever reason or
misunderstanding.
--
Ray Dawson
> In article <xMu*uH...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Chris Joseph
> <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > You insist that everyone (and I do mean *everyone*) wilfully
> > misinterprets you
>
> I don't. They don't. But the ones that do are very noisy about it.
>
> End.
Why write 'End' ...
> If you're not fed up of something that should never have started - then
> everyone else is. You know what I said. You know that I didn't intend
> all those insults that were made up by others for whatever reason or
> misunderstanding.
... and then a load of crap after it?
Ray D
Rob Kendrick
> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> End.
>
> Why write 'End' ...
<snip a load of crap?
> ... and then a load of crap after it?
Duh, he wants the last word, doesn't he?
B.
Ams
> In article <1181861945.381773.28...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ams
>
> <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
> > > I said - and everyone wants to ignore the clear statement of Steve and I
> > > both wanting development of a single OS.
> > As would I - and with the opening up of RISC OS in the form of RO5.xx via
> > the ROOL shared source initiative that is a possibility. I can't,
> > unfortunately, see that happening with the ROL strand as this is very
> > unlikely to ever be "opened" even as a shared source project (like RO5.xx
> > has been).
>
> Whatever ROL do is bound by their contract. That was seen when they tried to
> open up an aspect of Printers and were stopped by Castle.
If that's true then that would suggest ROL are under a contractual
arrangement with Castle - and under those terms ROL couldn't release
them.
> We still don't know how Castle have managed to get around that same problem as
> the legal details haven't been divulged - not even to ROOL.
>
Perhaps because Castle have the head license and can divulge those
bits for which they have a license and no external obligation? The
shared source license is the license under which ROOL seem happy
enough to operate and I haven't seen anyone object have you?
> I think your comparison is off-base though. Apart from peripheral work I'd
> imagine programming of the shared source would be done by programmers who
> could just as easily work with the ROL programmers on Select / RO6.
The two are *not* mutually exclusive that's true. So long as source
from one didn't wend it's way into the other that as. The problem,
however, is one of time - and also the sense of "openess". With ROOL's
offerings anyone with an internet connection can download the tarball
- and are trusted to obey the licensing terms (which are pretty
permissive for the most part). With ROL's offering you might have to
go through some hoops I suspect (but I am happy to be corrected on
this).
> Just because it isn't shared source doesn't mean that no-one from 'outside' could
> work on it. If anyone has the capability, time, and commitment (which would be
> needed to get anywhere with shared or closed source) then they could always
> contact ROL.
Well that's something positive then. But the only downside is that the
terms are, I suspect, considerably more restricted and specific. You
couldn't just peruse the ROL Select source and say "I'd fancy
upgrading *that* " and pick some RM or app to have a bash at. I'd say
without having seen the source you'd have to contact ROL and make a
proposal and they could say "Yea" or "Nay" as appropriate. With ROOL
you'd don't have to do diddly squat (other download the source and
then obey the license).
>
> As in many things RISC OS we seem to have a choice these days! ;-)
>
While that's true developers also have to look at what will, with
their limited free time, yield the most benefit. I suspect ROOL's open
RO5.xx is the better choice and it also has the less hoops to go
through. It also works on hardware most developers have (Iyonix).
There's also the potential to port it to *newer* ARM platforms
(ultimately possibly even A9, or even "non-RISC OS" ARM hardware).
What ROL do is commercial, it's their bread and butter. That somewhat
hampers them in what they're free to or what is sensible for them to
do with it. Select and RO5.xx open are not really equivalent. I
suspect we'll just see a continuation of those independant developers
who have the "inside track" with ROL adding features to Select while a
larger number of others will contribute to ROOL's offering.
> John Cartmell
Regards
Annraoi
Simon Willcocks
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <xMu*uH...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Chris Joseph
> <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > You insist that everyone (and I do mean *everyone*) wilfully misinterprets
> > you
>
> I don't. They don't. But the ones that do are very noisy about it.
OK, who *willfully* (i.e. intentionally, purposefully and stubbornly)
misinterpreted you in this thread?
Are you saying I did?
It seems to me that you are willfully failing to accept that people in this
thread genuinely interpreted your comment in the way that they claimed,
which seems to me to be tantamount to calling them (us?) liars.
Why should anyone take that sort of thing quietly?
John Cartmell
<a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 9:18 am, John Cartmell <j...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <1181861945.381773.28...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ams
> >
> > <a...@globalcafe.ie> wrote:
> > > > I said - and everyone wants to ignore the clear statement of Steve
> > > > and I both wanting development of a single OS.
> > > As would I - and with the opening up of RISC OS in the form of RO5.xx
> > > via the ROOL shared source initiative that is a possibility. I can't,
> > > unfortunately, see that happening with the ROL strand as this is very
> > > unlikely to ever be "opened" even as a shared source project (like
> > > RO5.xx has been).
> >
> > Whatever ROL do is bound by their contract. That was seen when they tried
> > to open up an aspect of Printers and were stopped by Castle.
> If that's true then that would suggest ROL are under a contractual
> arrangement with Castle - and under those terms ROL couldn't release them.
There is a contractural agreement between those that Castle inherited from
Pace and Pace from Element 14.
> > We still don't know how Castle have managed to get around that same
> > problem as the legal details haven't been divulged - not even to ROOL.
> Perhaps because Castle have the head license and can divulge those bits for
> which they have a license and no external obligation?
There is the same contractural agreement as above. It limits both sides. The
details are not public knowledge. Your assumption is wrong.
> The shared source license is the license under which ROOL seem happy enough
> to operate and I haven't seen anyone object have you?
There are reasons that ROOL are happy to work to their rules - but that is not
connected to any of the licence conditions above.
> > I think your comparison is off-base though. Apart from peripheral work
> > I'd imagine programming of the shared source would be done by programmers
> > who could just as easily work with the ROL programmers on Select / RO6.
> The two are *not* mutually exclusive that's true. So long as source from
> one didn't wend it's way into the other that as. The problem, however, is
> one of time - and also the sense of "openess". With ROOL's offerings anyone
> with an internet connection can download the tarball - and are trusted to
> obey the licensing terms (which are pretty permissive for the most part).
> With ROL's offering you might have to go through some hoops I suspect (but
> I am happy to be corrected on this).
Neither is open. If anyone is seriously working on development - either for
pay or for the good of the community - then the beta versions on their own
machine is likely to be of secondary importance to the version that goes out
to end users. As a community the versions that get no further than the hard
drive of a tinkerer is irrelevant.
> > Just because it isn't shared source doesn't mean that no-one from
> > 'outside' could work on it. If anyone has the capability, time, and
> > commitment (which would be needed to get anywhere with shared or closed
> > source) then they could always contact ROL.
> Well that's something positive then. But the only downside is that the
> terms are, I suspect, considerably more restricted and specific. You
> couldn't just peruse the ROL Select source and say "I'd fancy upgrading
> *that* " and pick some RM or app to have a bash at. I'd say without having
> seen the source you'd have to contact ROL and make a proposal and they
> could say "Yea" or "Nay" as appropriate. With ROOL you'd don't have to do
> diddly squat (other download the source and then obey the license).
To get anything of value done someone has to work in a disciplined manner. The
more indisciplined the individuals (as you describe) the harder will be the
work for the programmers at ROOL. Although 'getting your hands on source code'
may give a vicarious pleasure to some it's only those that will work on it in
a disciplined way that will produce anything of worth - whether through ROL or
ROOL.
> > As in many things RISC OS we seem to have a choice these days! ;-)
> While that's true developers also have to look at what will, with their
> limited free time, yield the most benefit. I suspect ROOL's open RO5.xx is
> the better choice and it also has the less hoops to go through. It also
> works on hardware most developers have (Iyonix). There's also the potential
> to port it to *newer* ARM platforms (ultimately possibly even A9, or even
> "non-RISC OS" ARM hardware).
You'll need to work hard to convince me of the latter. Were it possible as
easily as you imply it would have been done years ago. At the moment the
likely feedback is to improved applications for Iyonix users. That's a problem
as it could easily make life difficult for third-party programmers unless the
ROOL developers work hard to ensure that potential links are dealt with in the
same way as in Select. It could be very difficult for anyone producing
tutorials if it produces two up to date versions of Draw and two up to date
versions of Paint that aren't the same.
> What ROL do is commercial, it's their bread and butter. That somewhat
> hampers them in what they're free to or what is sensible for them to do
> with it. Select and RO5.xx open are not really equivalent. I suspect we'll
> just see a continuation of those independant developers who have the
> "inside track" with ROL adding features to Select while a larger number of
> others will contribute to ROOL's offering.
Despite the name ROOL won't be working on open sources. They are both
commercial companies and both need to derive income from their work. ROL's
income is straightforward from the RISC OS community to produce a product for
the RISC OS community. ROOL's is less clear and derives from work outside the
RISC OS community.
Alan Griffin
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> <snip a load of crap?
> > ... and then a load of crap after it?
> Duh, he wants the last word, doesn't he?
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Rob: you have been prolonging this argument totally unnecessarily.
It is perfectly obvious that you don't like John because you attack every
single thing he writes, without any real justification.
Give it a rest! We are getting tired of reading your comments!
Alan Griffin
Simon Willcocks
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <1e69c0f24e.s...@home.invalid>,
> Simon Willcocks <simon.w...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Firstly, if it was clear, it wouldn't have been repeatedly misunderstood.
>
> There are people around who deliberately 'misunderstand' certain comments -
> and further discussion may well have been coloured by that.
Are you saying that you initially *assumed* that the misinterpretation was
deliberate, and not to be taken seriously?
Do you now accept that it wasn't deliberate?
Rob Kendrick
> In article <46728aba$0$27851$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>
>> <snip a load of crap?
>>> ... and then a load of crap after it?
>> Duh, he wants the last word, doesn't he?
>
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
>
> Rob: you have been prolonging this argument totally unnecessarily.
> It is perfectly obvious that you don't like John because you attack every
> single thing he writes, without any real justification.
Can you back that statement up? I think you'll find there are dozens of
postings of John's that I've not replied to, just in the past few days,
and in many cases, I've not replied to any posting in the thread.
Perhaps you'd like to turn down the hyperbole?
I don't "attack every single thing he writes", I respond to the postings
that are patently ridiculous.
B.
Alan Griffin
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rob: you have been prolonging this argument totally unnecessarily.
> > It is perfectly obvious that you don't like John because you attack every
> > single thing he writes, without any real justification.
> Can you back that statement up? I think you'll find there are dozens of
> postings of John's that I've not replied to, just in the past few days,
> and in many cases, I've not replied to any posting in the thread.
> Perhaps you'd like to turn down the hyperbole?
Well, in the last 13 items on my screen they go:
Rob, John, Rob, John, Rob, John, Chris, John, Rob, Ray, Rob, Simon.
Where are the postings to which you've not responded?
You go out of your way to find fault with everything John says.
As I said before: Give it (and us) a rest.
Alan Griffin
Rob Kendrick
> In article <4672a12a$0$27852$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
>>> Rob: you have been prolonging this argument totally unnecessarily.
>>> It is perfectly obvious that you don't like John because you attack every
>>> single thing he writes, without any real justification.
>
>> Can you back that statement up? I think you'll find there are dozens of
>> postings of John's that I've not replied to, just in the past few days,
>> and in many cases, I've not replied to any posting in the thread.
>> Perhaps you'd like to turn down the hyperbole?
>
> Well, in the last 13 items on my screen they go:
> Rob, John, Rob, John, Rob, John, Chris, John, Rob, Ray, Rob, Simon.
So, by "every single thing he says" you actually mean "a handful of
things in this specific thread."
> Where are the postings to which you've not responded?
Read what I said again.
> You go out of your way to find fault with everything John says.
Nope - it's usually quite easy.
> As I said before: Give it (and us) a rest.
As I said before: turn down your hyperbole.
B.
Alan Griffin
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
Snip!
> > Where are the postings to which you've not responded?
> Read what I said again.
O.K. done that. It looked much the same as before!
> > You go out of your way to find fault with everything John says.
> Nope - it's usually quite easy.
That's because you're so gifted at finding fault!
> > As I said before: Give it (and us) a rest.
> As I said before: turn down your hyperbole.
What hyperbole? I don't detect any.
Alan Griffin
charles
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <xMu*uH...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Chris Joseph
> <chr...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > You insist that everyone (and I do mean *everyone*) wilfully misinterprets
> > you
> I don't. They don't. But the ones that do are very noisy about it.
No, John, I was not 'noisy'. I simply commented.
> End.
> If you're not fed up of something that should never have started - then
> everyone else is. You know what I said.
> You know that I didn't intend all those insults that were made up by
> others for whatever reason or misunderstanding.
I made up nothing. I only read what you wrote. If it was a
misunderstanding then you should have written more clearly what you
actually meant. After all, a magazine editor is supposed to write
accurately, isn't he/she?
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11