|
Re: newbiness (was Re: AW name history) (Community)
Re: newbiness (was Re: AW name history) // Community
Mar 30, 2001, 11:31am
I copied from you? ROFLMAO
[View Quote]
[View Quote]> datedman wrote:
>
>
> Hardly, champ. You (and Grover) copied off my initial RW page. Note that I'm not referring to your (I assume) "Creating your own world" page (http://activeworlds.com/help/creating.html--not the original but it's mostly the same) but this one (http://www.synergycorp.com/temp/makerwx1.htm) in which you added the introduction and basically everything up to "Creating Your First RWX model" (learn how to fully 1st-letter-capitalize correctly, sport) AFTER I put my initial RW page up, ripping stuff off DIRECTLY from it only after you saw that I did a MUCH better job of introducing people to RWXing than you and Grover COMBINED had. Remember that? Didn't think so, champ. Sit down before I knock your ass down some more, pal...
>
>
> Uh huh...that's why I've hardly EVER seen you in AW (as DMs Ghost or Datedman), eh? Shut up.
>
>
> Tell that to the 10s of people (perhaps even 100s) still using it then. Criterion was stupid to just drop their format, but they did. Because Roland spent most of AW3's development reimplementing RWX into RW3 just shows RWX isn't dead. The reason why? It's DAMN easy to create objects compared to dealing with complicated, unintuitive, buggy 3D modellers (3D Studiio et al, trueSpace, Lightwave, Modeler, etc, etc, etc) that can't even do as EXACT, DETAILED modelling as in text (though I wish it was possible to specify EACH vertex and have FULL control over their EXACT (down to 10 decimal points) position. RWX allows beginning modellers who can visualize models enough without the aid of an overpriced, clunky visual modeller that can't even allow the same level of control.
>
>
> Uh huh...shows how much you think of your work, eh?
>
>
> Nah, no need to get physical with you when I can simply (and quite easily actually) bash you down textually. :) You make it so easy...
>
|
|
