1  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  ...  42  |   Order by default

Feb 23, 2001, 3:08pm

And who's Michael Gardner? He's got as much stock in AWLD as Rick and JP do...

[View Quote] > http://biz.yahoo.com/t/a/awld.html
>
> Perhaps why AWLD is tanking recently? <chuckle>

Feb 23, 2001, 3:38pm

And some nobody named Al Silver with "Director" title (like Rick and JP)? Uh...

[View Quote] > And who's Michael Gardner? He's got as much stock in AWLD as Rick and JP do...
>
[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2001, 7:31pm

Dunno but that page says he has 10% of the shares; perhaps what he traded for the dates listed is not his full amount.

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Feb 25, 2001, 3:44pm

From http://activeworlds.com/help/aw31/avatars.html:

"Avatars are the visual representations of people who are currently inhabiting the Active Worlds virtual environment. Wherever you see an avatar, there is another person using Active Worlds just like yourself."

Bots are avatars that aren't necessarily another REAL person ("just like yourself"--also an incorrect statement since we're all not EXACTLY the same!).

Feb 25, 2001, 5:25pm

But that's just it, Rolu, I AM talking about bots, which Roland (or whoever cluelessly wrote AW's help) didn't (and perhaps still doesn't) understand.

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Feb 25, 2001, 9:06pm

Because I can. I notice things like this...little things...(things that make us go--oh, wait, that's not it)...that most people miss. <shrug>

[View Quote] > I think they left bots out of the equation to make it easier for new users
> to understand. This is a relatively minor problem, what's the point in
> bringing it up in the newgroup?
>
[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2001, 9:09pm

Uh, cheesy? Since when is the truth cheesy? I think lies are cheesier. Simply mention bots and add a link to it. <shrug> If anything it'll make new users MORE interested in AW and what it can do than by making them feel stupid.

[View Quote] > Well, to correct those errors, it would say somthing like
> "Avatars are the visual representations of people and computer programs
> called bots, who are currently inhabiting the Active Worlds virtual
> environment. Wherever you see an avatar, there is most likely another person
> using Active Worlds similar to yourself."
> If you ask me, that sounds purely cheezy and is probably too complex for the
> newbie cits that can't even move yet (Seems more tourists know how to move,
> build, etc. than cits now that Juno has dumped everyone on us)
>
[View Quote]

Feb 26, 2001, 8:53pm

Kid, I've been in AW longer than you and I'm sure finding bugs in software longer than you too (since 1992), so pipe down before you get put in your place...again.

[View Quote] > Uhhh... Eep, I think I sent a good size kindly email to Roland with like
> 7-10 thinks that should be updated that he forgot. So don't think you can
> notice things other people can't. :)
>
[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2001, 2:56am

[View Quote] [View Quote] The kid's young and HAS little to no experience, so he just can't understand what it means to have it.

>
> I believe you're mistaken. Eep has full knowledge of how things run in AW,
> inside and out.

Well, considering I don't actually WORK for AWCI, I don't have FULL knowledge, but I have enough experience with most of them to know how AWCI works overall.

> And it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to fix some of
> the things that Eep points out.

Indeed; Roland calls it "prioritizing"--well, apparently he sucks at it because one of the BASIC tenets in software development is fixing EXISTING bugs before implementing new features.

>
> AW wasn't made for Roland, it was made BY Roland (well, partially made and
> maintained by Roland, I can't lose props to the reast of the AWCOMers) for
> the internet public. Eep can waste as much of his time "complaining", which
> I don't believe he does most of the time.

Obviously not or my website (minus the AW complaints), objects, and world design would not exist.

>
> No, but whatever we or AWCOM doesn't like doesn't get done. Eep understands
> that, I hope. It's quite simple. We kept Eep here because we like what Eep
> likes however, in a general sense of his perfection attitude.

Er, no one KEPT me here; I stayed. Yes I had most of your support in that pathetic "vote", but even Facter realizes it was not the correct thing to do.

> :)
>
> I believe you need to be put in your place also YP. :) I don't think Eep
> will be as civil towards you, and I don't think he has to be. You'll be
> sucking his filter in no time, unfortunately. :/ Just because you email
> Roland and Eep emails the public makes no difference. Roland barely reads
> bug reports through emails anyways. At least Eep is reaching a captivating
> audience. :)

I stopped emailing/telegramming Roland because he ignores me, so I figure if I let enough people know about things they'll start bugging him. He can't ignore EVERYBODY, and if he does eventually more and more AWCIers will get bugged and THEY will try to ignore everyone and, well, we'll be back to that whole "AWCI doesn't listen to its community" (not like they do much anyway) thing. So, the question is, how much deeper can AWCI continue to dig their grave until the sides cave in and bury them? Just look at their ever-dwindling stock (AWLD) for a clue...

Feb 27, 2001, 2:59am

Heh...I just wish the twit would learn how to increment quote properly. I'm not going to respond to him anymore since it's obvious he has no intelligent thought of his own. <shrug>

[View Quote] > YP shut your mouth before eep kills you, your obviously trying to start
> something.
>
[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2001, 9:08pm

I used to have it before the drive it and 4.3GB of other stuff was on it decided to stop working the other day. :/ So if anyone has the splash screens from AW3 beta and anything below, in original BMP format (zip it!), I'd be interested in getting them again.

[View Quote] > I finally noticed the AW3.1 splash screen today (I'm normally doing so many
> other things it finds itself in background). That girl, her knockers look
> moore real than her head. Was the 3.1 beta splash minus a badly drawn 50
> pound female? If not, does anyone still have the 3.0 beta splash handy? I'd
> like somthing more decent and I'll just edit out the beta part and change it
> to 3.1 instead of 3.0. Email it to me at eyemwing at teleport.com or post a URL
> or somthing.

Feb 26, 2001, 8:55pm

Tip: test something at least TWICE before posting a bug report about it. And stop quoting your own sig (and losing it would be nice too since it's unnecessary and only makes more crap to delete in replies).

[View Quote] > Worked this time. Go figure.
>
[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2001, 2:43am

Obviously AW 3.1 can enter AW3 worlds so that part's incorrect.

[View Quote] > 3.0 requires a 3.0+ universe, 3.1 a 3.1+ universe... But I don't think there are still any uniservers out there running 2.2
> universes... or are there?
>
> "ananas" <vha at oct31.de> a écrit dans le message news: 3A9AE806.B2CD243D at oct31.de...

Feb 27, 2001, 6:41pm

That wasn't what I was replying to (which you convienently left out of your quote), Fox. Stop being a twit.

[View Quote] > 3.1 can enter 3.0 worlds, but it can't enter 3.0 universes... :o(
> (I know that because the universe I'm usually in, cyberbrain, has not yet updated to the latest version - they're waiting for AW
> support to send them the latest server version, and it seems to take weeks for them to do that... anyway... - and I can't enter it
> with 3.1 for now)
>
> But Tony is right, 3.0 could enter 2.2 universes until a certain build, which makes me wonder if it was really necessary to check
> for the latest version of the uniserver, or if it was just that Roland wanted to force people to upgrade their uniservers faster...
>
> "eep" <eep at tnlc.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3A9B2F34.BA43025A at tnlc.com...

Feb 28, 2001, 2:38pm

Why? Because, according to Munkuy (who talked to Lucrustia), there weren't enough articles.

[View Quote] > Newsletter was deffered this month, it will be back in March.
>
[View Quote]

Feb 28, 2001, 2:40pm

Well, the AW 3.1 beta is over and note the extreme dropoff point of Roland's posts in the beta newsgroup even though numerous bugs have been posted. I guess he figures AW doesn't need any more work and will yet again implement new features (OpenGL, etc) instead of fixing AW's CURRENT bugs...

Mar 1, 2001, 2:15am

He only JUST went on vacation this week, Facter. The beta was released around 2 weeks ago...

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Mar 1, 2001, 2:28am

First of all, AW doesn't have very many (or all that good) programmers compared to the relatively few startup game developers have (and who actually know something about what they're programming). Even Tomb Raider only has like 3 or 4 programmers and the rest are artists, modellers, producers, TESTERS--in-house and not public beta, etc.

Second, AW doesn't have any real direction. E-commerce has been tried and failed. Virtual education isn't taking off. I've already stated NUMEROUS times where AW's direction should be: gaming. PC Gamer magazine agrees--they even did a blurb about AW in the latest issue. The problem is, Rick and JP STILL (after years of shoving this into their face) have a CLUE about what to do with AW. Can they BE any more clueless? Can they drive their stock any MORE into the dirt (it continues to flirt dangerously close to 0 with each day--last trade is at a pitiful and pathetic $.56)? How long does it take for Rick and JP to get a CLUE as to where AW should be developed and marketed towards? Duhhhhh...I guess it's going to take a bankruptsy or 2 (or 3 or 4) for them to get it--or not.

I don't leave AW because, one, I don't pay for my citizenship (monetarily anyway) and have some worlds to create objects for and build in). I would NOT pay for AW even at it's relatively low price. Second, I see a LOT (a DAMN lot) of potential in AW that is slowly being chipped away at with each new 3D game that's released. The latest being Dungeon Siege and its level editor that makes it even EASIER for people to create 3D environments. Simply read my AW website (http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/) and get a clue about just how lacking AW truly is.

You're new here so I'll give you some leeway, but if you DON'T do the research and DON'T see how AW is YEARS behind the competition, I won't even bother responding to you anymore.

[View Quote] > What is it with you and roland? first you compare AW to 3d games probably
> from companies with 10 million dollar budgets that have hordes of
> programmers working normal hours to make it right, to a small business with
> probably 10 programmers and a budget of less than $500,000, and now this.
> Since you despise AW so much why don't you just leave?
>
[View Quote]

Mar 4, 2001, 7:29am

OK, Roland's back from his little vacation yet the beta newsgroup STILL has no response to him from the NUMEROUS bugs posted in the last week, not to mention since AW 3.1's public release. What's up with him? And it's not like HamFon and Shamus can't respond to posts since they're now AW "programmers". I just don't GET AWCI. They take advantage of its customers/users and then shit on them when they're done.

Roland, HamFon, Shamus, Rick, and JP, instead of adding NEW features to AW, fix all the god damn bugs! http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improve.html in case you "forgot" what those bugs are, too.

Mar 4, 2001, 9:20pm

Roland didn't go on vacation as soon as AW 3.1 was release, brant. He had PLENTY of time to respond to and investigate the NUMEROUS bugs posted to the beta newsgroup, yet didn't. Instead he immediately and mindlessly went on to AW 3.2 development.

[View Quote] > eep, it's the weekend. Roland just got back from his vacation on
> Friday - most people don't work seven days a week.
>
[View Quote]

Mar 4, 2001, 9:21pm

I can do better at prioritizing and focusing on which bugs need to be fixed and when NOT to start on NEW features!

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Mar 4, 2001, 9:21pm

Nope, but not everyone's as consistently incompetent as Roland and AWCI are either!

[View Quote] > ever stop and think...not everybody's perfect?
>
[View Quote]

Mar 5, 2001, 7:59pm

So why don't you FIX bugs like this instead of starting on new features?!? God damn...you really don't understand software development very well, Roland.

[View Quote] > Yes, it can be fixed. It's also true that this problem has existed in all
> browser versions and is not new in 3.1, nor have there been any changes in
> this area in 3.1. The current AW protocol lacks a universe -> browser
> heartbeat message for some reason (I don't remember if this was an accident
> or if we left it out for bandwidth concerns or something like that.). Thus,
> when there is a "soft" break in the connection (such as what occurs when an
> ISP disconnects) the browser doesn't know that it has lost its connection to
> the universe (although the universe does know it lost the browser, after no
> further hearbeats arrive after 2 minutes.) There are currently 3 heartbeats
> going when a browser is running: world -> browser, browser -> world, and
> browser -> universe. Somehow we missed the fourth...anyway, it's on my list
> to fix when I get a chance.
>
[View Quote]

Mar 12, 2001, 10:27am

Um, I've been reporting this bug ever since AW3 was in beta MONTHS ago, people: http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improve.html#fragment

If Criterion can't even fix it do you honestly think Roland will be able to? Nope...and at best he'll be able to get it somewhere even CLOSE to how Criterion has it now.

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Mar 14, 2001, 5:39am

Um, you don't agree with my AW improvements page? How silly...

[View Quote] > Actually, this idea sounds like what Eep was suggesting in his
> webpages (URL omitted because I don't agree with them, except for the
> part about better testing). It would probably be better, though, for
> AW to fix the bugs in its browser first before releasing something
> like that.

Mar 14, 2001, 11:14pm

[View Quote] > Actually, I'm very satisfied with the direction that AW is taking. I d=
on't
> think that AW was ever meant to be a three dimensional game. If people=
want
> to play games, they can visit one of the others you listed on your webs=
ite;
> besides, AW would lose more visitors to these games than they would gai=
n if
> they took a gaming approach.

Ah, yes, yet another person who only thinks in absolute either-or terms. =
Reread the page more carefully and you'll see NOWHERE am I wanting AW to =
ONLY become a game. I simply want more gameLIKE interaction and playabili=
ty. Worlds that don't want to implement gamelike features (jumping, inven=
tory, etc, etc) don't have to. Disabling collision detection bypass (shif=
t) and flying make worlds more gamelike, which world owners have a CHOICE=
of doing, yet you don't seem to complain about them...

> The real reason I don't agree with those pages, though, is that they ma=
ke it
> sound like AW employs thousands of programmers working sixty hours a we=
ek to
> improve its software. Unfortunately, while that would be nice, it's si=
mply
> not true, and the implementation of all the features on Eep's pages wou=
ld
> take until 2010. Therefore, AW is doing the best job that it can with =
the
> resources at its disposal.

Um, nowhere do I claim AW has any more than three (3) programmers, Brant.=
And until recently those "resources" were pretty damn pathetic. AW has =
only had more than one programmer for perhaps around 8 months now since R=
on Britvich (see http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/history.html if unsure who he is)=
left. Now AW has 3 programmers (with the addition of Shamus Young) and h=
opefully that means more old bugs fixed/improved upon instead of complete=
ly new features. A basic tenet in software development is to fix old bugs=
FIRST before creating new ones (through implementing new features). Not =
fixing bugs as soon as possible means they will usually be more difficult=
to fix in the future (especially if new features rely on those bugs). Th=
is is what happened with the "animate me" command ("texture" replaces it =
for the most part, which Roland said should have been there all along), u=
se of the dot (.) to remove textures from on object (which forced me to c=
hange HUNDREDS of objects when it no longer worked in AW3), and the "mask=
me" syntax which basically screwed up EVERYONE'S "animate"-applied maske=
d textures. And this is just all having to do with the "animate" command!=
I could go on and on about MANY other aspects of AW that have bugs that =
are LONG overdue (don't even get me started on the cell database)...

So, please, Brant, get a clue about AW's past development and learn more =
about it before replying.

Mar 15, 2001, 3:47am

First of all, learn to quote.

[View Quote] > I hadn't said you claimed that AW had more than three programmers.

You IMPLIED I made it seem that way.

> My point was that it would take years to implement all those features and
> to take out all the bugs that develop (and are present currently) in
> AW.

I disagree. If AWCI actually focused on bug fixes FIRST, new features could be added later. Some new features would FIX old bugs, which is even better. More bugs are introduced because of bad initial design, and AW 3.1's new action commands are not designed very well, nor are they consistent.

> You have a large section on better debugging, and I don't
> disagree with that - why are you trying to convince me that AW needs
> better testing?

Um, because it does--duh! Better testing would catch more bugs and correct initial bad design!

> My argument about gamelike features was that the most important thing
> on AW's agenda should be the release of a software rendering engine,
> not the development of these "gamelike" additions. The development of
> a software renderer does seem to be the most important effort underway
> at AW development right now, and that's why I agree with AW's current
> direction.

Um, it does? The software renderer is LOW on AWCI's priority list because it's limited by RW3. If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be because I don't keep up-to-date with AW's development as much), AW 3.2 will be focusing more on OpenGL support so AW can run better under WinNT. This is yet another new feature instead of fixing bugs, but at least hardware T&L should be included which should speed up frame rate for compatible vid cards some...we'll see, however.

> I would venture to say that a large majority of AW's
> problems could be eliminated by allowing everyone to use one browser
> (version 3.2). When AW released 3.0 and 3.1 without software
> rendering and was forced to leave 2.2 functional, it created huge
> incompatibility problems for itself, in addition to making most of the
> newer building commands (move, rotate, and light) and SDK commands
> obsolete (For example, the teleport command, which is completely
> useless because one is never assured whether it will work properly or
> not.)

Uh, ever heard of backwards compatibility, Brant? Doesn't seem like it. Considering I haven't seen you around here before, I'll consider you a newbie to AW, who doesn't have much (if any) experience creating RWX objects. Would you have wanted YEARS of work to suddenly become unusable in the new AW? I wouldn't, and neither would AWCI, which is why Roland had to reimplment RWX support into AW3 because Criterion stupidly removed it from RW3! THAT is what took the most time in AW3's development.

And just like rewriting the cell database would cause a lot of problems if it's not backwards compatible, it must eventually be done AND backwards compatible because of initial poor design! Andras has since claimed RW2 did not support floating point precision (only integers) but I find that hard to believe since AW2x RWXes could support floating points just fine. Anyway, part of testing is not just testing the functionality of existing features but also testing the DESIGN and MENTALITY behind such features...at least when *I* test it is.

No, I don't program, but if I get to know how software works well enough I can question why it works the way it does if I feel it could work better (and I usually do). Then it's just a matter of beating that sense into the usually narrow-minded mentality of the programmer(s) until their software becomes more user-friendly and intuitive. Not everyone (in fact most users aren't) programmers yet most programmers continue to create software only programmers can really use or understand. That just doesn't make sense, and software QA (quality assurance) is partly about retaining this "common sense" usability.

> I'm not trying to argue with you on the point of better testing - I
> just believe that your expectations for game-like features are
> somewhat unreasonable in the near future and should not be AW's top
> priority.

<shrug> I disagree. AW has been floundering ever since its inception back in 1995. It's time AW had a product development goal and get focused into actually DOING something well instead of a few things somewhat adequately!

Mar 15, 2001, 9:11pm

You haven't learned to quote yet.

[View Quote] > As for my experience with AW (this is irrelevent to the topic, but you
> brought it up for some reason), I've been active in the community since July
> 1998, have won Cy Awards for programming, and am the current caretaker of
> AWTeen.
>
> If you haven't programmed, then you most likely don't know much about how
> software works. In reality, just making a simple window display in Visual
> C++ is a difficult undertaking. Therefore, you can probably imagine how
> difficult it is to make an intuitive interface that is accessible to users
> with many different levels of experience with computers. Even if you use a
> language (such as Visual Basic) that allows a programmer to place controls
> on a form easily, deciding exactly how features will be visible to the user
> is still a difficult task, and it's hard for programmers to think as
> non-programmers when designing an interface. Furthermore, every program
> I've ever written has required a redesign of the interface as it evolved (my
> AW Utility, for example), simply because it's impossible to predict the
> future. AW's interface was most likely the best solution when it was first
> developed. I doubt that Protagonist had the idea that there would be more
> than 750 worlds in the AW Universe, for example, because programming for the
> possibility would only have consumed extra bandwidth, and was not necessary
> at the time. Much the same is true for other parts of the browser that you
> feel need restructuring.

Then that's a lack of vision on Ron's part. Good designers design for the future, not the present.

> You contradict yourself in saying that AW should try to fix the bugs, and
> then that AW should develop a better user interface.

You seem to have a problem with thinking outside the box, Brant. Some bugs CAN be fixed by developing a better GUI.

> Using an example from
> your webpages, implementing the avatars.dat file as part of the world
> features would require yet another rewrite of some of AW's code. Doing so
> would add further development time and create new bugs, even though the
> current implementation of the avatars.dat file is perfectly functional.

Perfectly functional my ass. In case you hadn't kept up with GUI development over the past few years (and it's obvious you haven't), editing text files is out, and GUI editing is in. The avatars.dat should be configurable from within AW--PERIOD.

> Myself, I feel that AW's software is already losing some of its potential
> value by having bugs that interfere with its uses, such as the recurring bot
> event bug that I describe in the post below. I'm sure that I am not the
> only person to experience this bug (60 other people witnessed it as well
> during the events). Using this bug as an example, events draw large numbers
> of people to AW and many continue to use the program after a big event, but
> are not impressed when bugs interfere with the event or future events are
> canceled (as I've had to do). Therefore, AW is losing its customers already
> to bugs such as these, much more so than to its interface or poor initial
> design.

I doubt it. If what AWCI claims on their universe stats is true, that 1000+ new users (tourists, not citizens) check out AW a day, more people are being lost to a user-unfriendly interface, lack of features, citizenship cost, performance, etc. Bots are used by a VERY VERY VERY small % of CITIZENS (of which there are only around 10,000 UNIQUE, ORIGINAL, UNDUPLICATED accounts at most).

> I'm confused as to what your suggestion for AW's direction actually is.

http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/ and get a clue then.

> First, you said that you disagreed with me (although it sounds like we
> agree) on AW's need for better testing. In your response, however, you say
> that, in addition to better testing, AW should have all or most of the
> additions that you list on your webpages, including a new interface and a
> rewriting of certain key portions of AW's software. It simply can't all be
> accomplished at once.

Duh, but instead of adding features people didn't ask for (like the move and rotate commands), old bugs should be fixed and or circumvented. And I never said AW needs a new interface, but that simply PARTS of it do.

> You've confused me by moving so far off the original topic - that bugs
> should be fixed before new features are implemented. It seems that we agree
> on this statement.

You confused yourself, bub. <shrug> Not my fault you can't keep up...

> What, then, are we arguing about?

I don't know what YOU are arguing about, but I'M questioning your disagreement with my improvements page and how do you don't think AW should become more gamelike.

Mar 16, 2001, 3:43am

[View Quote] > CAN be fixed by developing a better GUI.
>
> Some bugs can, of course, but the vast majority of current bugs (such as the
> recurring sound problems, for example) can't be fixed with a better GUI.

Duh! Which is why I don't advocate ONLY improving AW's GUI! You seem to have a problem with READING carefully, too, Brant. I suggest you reread my AW improvements page more carefully for the NUMEROUS non-GUI-related bugs/features.

> development over the past few years (and it's obvious you haven't), editing
> text files is out, and GUI editing is in. The avatars.dat should be
> configurable from within AW--PERIOD.
>
> Sure it is, but most of these tourists that enter AWGate aren't interested
> in owning worlds - they want to learn how to use the software.

Uh, now YOU switch the topic? We're talking about avatars.dat, which is something worldowners have access too, not tourists. Think, Brant, THINK! My patience is wearing thin with your incompetence.

> 1000+ new users (tourists, not citizens) check out AW a day, more people are
> being lost to a user-unfriendly interface, lack of features, citizenship
> cost, performance, etc. Bots are used by a VERY VERY VERY small % of
> CITIZENS (of which there are only around 10,000 UNIQUE, ORIGINAL,
> UNDUPLICATED accounts at most).
>
> That's not that bad then, if they're getting between 30-60 new users a day
> according to Mauz's webpages - you can't expect everyone to stay aboard.

You've missed the point yet again, Brant. Perhaps you'll be lucky enough for someone else to explain it to you as I tire of you.

>
> You contradict yourself on that page as well (see previous posts).

You simply can't think outside your narrow-minded box of a mind, Brant. I've already rebutted against your supposed "contradictions".

> and rotate commands), old bugs should be fixed and or circumvented. And I
> never said AW needs a new interface, but that simply PARTS of it do.
>
> You don't have any justification to say that people didn't ask for the move
> and rotate commands.

Do you know of anyone who did? I don't and I followed AW's development VERY closely during that time. I knew about multiple lights and DirectSound but it wasn't until a few weeks before AW3.1 beta testing began were the move/rotate commands mentioned. My guess is some "partner" AWCI suckered in requested it so AWCI mindlessly said "Gee, OK! AW has lots of bugs that need fixing but gosh darn it we'll get on our knees and suck you off if you'll be our friend!*$#"

> Everyone I know was complaining profusely when Roland
> disabled the beta version for non-beta users, and since move and rotate
> commands were the main features of AW 3.1, I would guess that they were what
> grabbed those users' attention to complain about wanting the beta version so
> badly.

Um, no. It was simply the fact that non-beta testers were allowed to use the beta and then suddenly NOT allowed to.

>
> These sort of comments add nothing to the debate and only increase load
> times.

So does your incompetence. I'm done dealing with you, twit. Suck filter.

Mar 17, 2001, 6:02pm

So what. Roland, in his usual limited thinking capacity, should have EASILY anticipated this move and either simply ignored all the non-closed-beta test bug reports, or have disabled such users from using the beta in the FIRST place. But, no, as usual, Roland is REACTIVE instead of ACTIVE.

[View Quote] > what
> version so
> the beta and then suddenly NOT allowed to.
>
> They were never allowed to, they just exploited something that Roland never
> thought would be abused.

1  ...  22  23  24  25  26  27  ...  42  |   Order by default