1  ...  10  11  12  13  |   Order by default

Jul 7, 2003, 12:43pm

[View Quote] You are most gracious.

> xenaphobia cannot be used as a trait someone embodies online. Xenophobic
> people, by definition, would not use the internet, beacuse the internet in
> itself presents so much foreign material.

Not necessarily. Groups of people can quite effectively isolate their communities on the Internet and keep themselves free of outside contamination. You must also keep in mind that there are various levels of xenophobia. Obviously, a complete xenophobe would most likely not use the Internet.

> I know you were not implying that I was a troll, if you were, I know you
> would have been more up front about it. You sarcasm and symbolism was not
> wasted, I go every sentence of it. Apparently you did not pick up on mine.

I might pick up on it if it was expressed more clearly. You have to remember that on the Internet there is no added benefit of voice tones and bodily gestures. On a text-based medium, you have to carefully reference your pronouns with antecedents, and make sure your word-usage is descriptive and concise.

> I am not easily offended, or else I would been in a screaming fit at your
> posts by now ;) I can obviously "stand the heat" by being able to respond to
> yours and other posts, which apparently the rest of my "faction" cannot.

Erm... but you just said that you were offended by Richard's post, which strikes me as being pretty non-offensive to anyone with a decent self-esteem rating. And responding to my posts has nothing to do with "standing the heat". Standing the heat has to do with not being easily offended in the first place, which you seem to be undecided about...

> No one said the newsgoups should be like this. The one fact remains that the
> newsgroups are like this though.

And your point is... what? I know what the newsgroups are like. You don't have to tell me. I'm simply saying that things could (and should) be changed around here.

> By the by, I was calling myself an infidel. I would have thought you would
> notice the irony in the comment.

Here's what you said:

"You contradict your own method by responding to a post by a proposed "infidel"".

Unfortunately, there is no reference in there as to who was proposing your infidelity. If you had said 'self-proclaimed infidel', then it would have made sense.

Jul 7, 2003, 4:27pm

[View Quote] Your definition of nit-picking is a little different than mine. Nit-picking, for me, is along the lines of pointing out spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. Or something else equally trivial. I wasn't nit-picking, I was downright arguing :P

Jul 7, 2003, 5:06pm

[View Quote] No. Nit-picking and arguing are two entirely different things. Nit-picking is frivolous bullcorn spewed by people who don't have a reason to say anything but want to make an appearance in the thread anyhow. An argument (or its more civil sibling, debate) *usually* involves some kind of logical stance presented by all involved parties, or, at the very least, something more solid than having a heart attack over a spelling error.

I criticized the posters of this thread for obsessing over something as silly as spelling just because they had nothing else to say. They did this simply to be cruel when it really wasn't called for. If it *was* called for, then they could have been more creative than going on about a spelling mistake for about eight posts.

There is a time and place to step forward and boldly proclaim your opinions, and there is a time and place for holding your tongue. I felt the need to speak up about something that's been going on for too a long time now, and voila - I did. That's whole different story from posting one-liners to every other thread with the sole intention of either starting a fight or bruising someone's ego.

Jul 7, 2003, 5:12pm

[View Quote] You thoroughly missed the point. Or maybe you didn't, and you just don't care. Given the way that you romp around the newsgroups like a cock in the barnyard, I'd say the latter is more likely.

Anyhow, since you are obviously only interesting in getting into another of your bar-room brawls, I'm not going to waste my time with you.

You may post any number of thoughtless, vapid one-liners in response to my posts, and you will now find them to be summarily ignored.

Jul 7, 2003, 5:52pm

[View Quote] Erm, Goob... it wasn't me who decided to split up the posts and start going into a battle of semantics. And in defense of LF, he *did* address different parts of my post when he split it.

Jul 8, 2003, 1:00am

[View Quote] Sometimes a long winded, thorough rebuttal is appropriate, and sometimes it isn't. When your audience isn't listening anymore and is busy throwing rocks at you, then the time is not come. Likewise when you're out of breath from the previous three tries.

If someone's determined to ignore my posting but reply anyway, there isn't much I can do about it. Sure, I can keep rewriting a post in different ways and reiterate what I said in the first place, but there's a limit to how many times I'll say something that's falling on deaf ears :P

Granted, I shouldn't have taken the bait and simply gone with the punches as the posting progressed. Once again I will beat myself with a wooden spoon. Everyone makes mistakes - even saintly Goobers with a long history of silly arguments under his belt.

Jul 8, 2003, 3:50pm

[View Quote] Medicinal research is out there, but it isn't as visible as recreational technology. There's good reason for that - fun stuff needs attention to survive, whereas most serious research organizations get funding from the government or from very large corporations with thick pocketbooks. They can afford to avoid the public eye and get some real work done.

Something else you need to remember is that hospitals are scared of adopting new technology, even when it's available. You can give your thanks to the abuse of the United States legal system. These days people will sue over anything, and more frighteningly, win. Medical practitioners have always been one of the prime targets of lawsuits, and they aren't anxious to try out experimental technology unless the patient signs enough paperwork to legally enslave himself. Usually those cases are terminal, where the patient is going to die anyway and so agrees to an experimental procedure.

Secondly, there is a very good reason that medical technology moves slower than the rest of the technology market. The human body is hideously complex, and there's no way to predict long term side effects of new treatments without waiting a few years to see what happens. Even drugs that go through the rigors of FDA approval sometimes get put onto the market and end up killing a few people. That's when the lawsuits fly, and again one of the reasons it takes so long to get new medical procedures/drugs out onto the market. This extreme caution ensures that very few new treatments are dangerous, but it also slows down development tremendously.

Give it some time, and we might even see some fresh new legislation issued to protect research and development in the future. Democracy is slow, but it gets things done. Eventually.

Jul 9, 2003, 1:19am

I just stopped by, and it looks great so far.

Turning the entire world into one huge game board is a snazzy idea. It looks something like SimCity on steroids.

Anyway, it's nice to see a strategy RPG entering the scene. Adventure RPGs are nice and all, but some variety is needed. Good luck.

[View Quote]

Jul 16, 2003, 6:01pm

According to Calpentara's post, he only meant to ask Count Dracula not to try getting into private universes hosted by AW. ("All I was doing was asking in a rather stern manner "Don't go into private universes" that is all.")

I'm betting that if Cal had asked CD in polite terms (minus the threats) to stop universe-browsing, CD would have been much more willing to comply. Instead, Cal grabs the EULA and spews off something that is completely false to try and enforce his position legally. Could be that Cal was simply having a bad day (he's usually very polite and responsive), but there's no reason to take it out on customers.

Do:
1) Treat (your few and precious remaining) customers with respect
2) Provide real reasoning rather than invented bull that is convenient at the time

Do not:

1) Threaten users with citizenship revocation on a first offense
2) Act like a bully

Now if Cal or another AWI staffer had contacted CD on a previous offense exactly like this one, then matters might be different. But for a first time, this is close to the worst customer relation skill I've ever seen - especially for something which isn't clearly expressed in the EULA. My guess is that there's a hidden clause in the EULA that says "By accepting this EULA, you hereby agree that AWI or its nominal equivalent may do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, wherever it wants."

PS: Making the thread off-limits made AWI's position considerably weaker. By closing the thread, you basically proved the point that you were caught in the wrong and didn't feel up to taking any criticism over it. Way to go! :P

[View Quote]

Jul 17, 2003, 4:07am

[View Quote] No, the analogy isn't even in the same ballpark. Spamming is a far more serious offense than modifying the aworld.ini file to connect to other universes. Spamming is also expressly forbidden in the terms of usage agreement in most, if not all, major ISPs. Whereas modifying the aworld.ini file is *not* expressly forbidden in the AW EULA, and it's even promoted by AWI in the help files to fix problems. Unless the EULA gives AWI the right to do anything it wants, then Count Dracula wasn't actually breaking any EULA rules.

Speaking of the EULA, take note that modifying the aworld.ini file does not constitute as altering the software. INI files are simply configuration files meant to store settings for software. Unless I'm mistaken, modifying Windows' registry doesn't mean that I'm altering the software or breaking the EULA.

What I was trying to get through here is this: a response must be appropriate for a given situation. Comparing spamming and modifying INI files is like comparing murder and shoplifting. You don't shoot someone for shoplifting, and you certainly don't threaten a paying citizen with universal banning over something as harmless as port surfing. CD should have been politely asked to stop and the whole thing probably would've ended then and there. If it hadn't, then AWI could have taken further action as necessary. What's the harm in trying the polite route first? You'd be surprised what it does for customer relations.

Aug 5, 2003, 10:52pm

Posts such as these will only encourage The Lady and others like her to continue attention-seeking here in the newsgroups. At this point it's pretty obvious that The Lady sees anybody 'rallying' against her newest crusade as a reason to stick with it to the bitter death.

One of the nice things about the Internet is that you can easily ignore people that you don't like. Even if you don't have the willpower required to ignore The Lady, you can simply filter her so that you don't have to see her posts at all. Or, if you think the problem is more severe, e-mail someone who can do something about it (read: Bill) rather than trying to humiliate her. Punishment will only strengthen the virtual martyr's resolve to be as irritating as possible.

[View Quote]

Aug 12, 2003, 5:26pm

Banning Jacob the Hero from the newsgroups isn't a solution to the problem. There will simply be someone else equally ignorant of security hazards to post potentially dangerous material to the newsgroups. Do you suggest banning each and every one of them as they come along?

A more sensible action for Bill to take would be to disallow posting of executables on the newsgroups - especially in Community and G.D, where no one should be posting executables anyway. The case might be different in Bots and SDK, where there is a semi-legitimate use for posting executable files, but the people inhabiting those groups generally know how to deal with them.

[View Quote]

Feb 22, 2005, 3:40am

http://zion.mb.brutus.homeunix.org/shred/really.png

[View Quote]

Feb 22, 2005, 4:30pm

My point was that someone concerned with memory shouldn't be using
Thunderbird in the first place.

And in any case:

http://zion.mb.brutus.homeunix.org/shred/yeahreally.png

Try tacking less crap onto your browser.

[View Quote]

Aug 16, 2005, 7:43pm

You never told me that you're expiring! I want a divorce.

[View Quote]

Aug 22, 2005, 1:49pm

Fools, the both of you. Any simpleton knows that the world is a
rectangular prism resting atop a turtle's back.

[View Quote]

Sep 12, 2005, 10:18pm

You guys should hold it in Dallas.

This has *nothing* to do with the fact that I happen to live in the
immediate area of the Emerald City.

Nothing at all.

[View Quote]

Sep 14, 2005, 9:27am

Probably just because the pollution gives the sky a greenish color.

I've heard Seattle called the Emerald City, too, so one of these days
the two are going to have to duke it out. I'm betting on Seattle. People
who have to deal with such shitty weather on a daily basis are not the
kind of people with whom one wants to pick a fight.

[View Quote]

Oct 20, 2005, 9:24pm

Trojans on computers?

I don't know what these people are thinking, but that isn't where
Trojans go.

[View Quote]

Jun 3, 2006, 8:09pm

This isn't exactly a bug, but it's definitely an issue that needs to be
quickly addressed. The web interface which allows Active Worlds
customers to purchase or renew worlds on-line is broken. It appears that
the development team has failed to update the SDK application that reads
and alters universe attributes so that worlds may be added, deleted, or
modified.

[View Quote]

Jun 3, 2006, 9:32pm

Just FYI, I bcc'ed my previous to AWI and received the following response:

We are aware of this problem, world renewals and purchases are currently
not available and will be active early next week.

Regards,

Activeworlds Inc.
95 Parker Street
Newburyport, MA 01950
978-499-0222
www.activeworlds.com


[View Quote]

Jun 3, 2006, 7:08pm

[View Quote] Even if it was his idea, Chris is ultimately *not* the person in charge
of the SDK's usage limits. The SDK is intellectual property fully owned
by AWI, and because of this, the company itself has to authorize and
approve of any changes made to the SDK code. If you want to complain
about the debugger issue, then I suggest you complain to the head and
not to the hands. You can bet that I will.

Jun 4, 2006, 3:16am

Ignoring the Orwellian overtones of the new policy, it's a little unfair
of AWI to change the rules without telling us. It used to be that users
had to abide by the world rules within the 200 meter chat range around
ground zero. Outside of this range, they were free to say what they wished.

I suspect that the new Customs Aide will simply drive AlphaWorld
downward a little faster on its ongoing fall to the bottom of the
populated worlds list. I'm not being pessimistic, though. I think that
if enough of us send polite, reasonable complaints to AWI, they will
remove or modify the new CA. They did scrap those horrid weather bots
after enough users expressed their displeasure with them.

[View Quote]

Jul 26, 2006, 3:22am

Houston.

[View Quote]

1  ...  10  11  12  13  |   Order by default