- From: "Pavel Mencik" <pmencik@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:47:30 +0100
>>>> Well, another number of them indicated they have no problems with
>>> I'm aware of that. It in no way justifies your ignoring the ones
>>> who either have indicated that they do have a problem or have not
>>> given an opinion.
> You didn't snip this; do you have any comment on it?
Denying permission to use what is freely available on Internet is just plain
stupid, and miserable. You simply cannot deny that. If you don't want your
words reused, simply don't publish on Internet, don't post to newsgroups, at
best throw your computer out of window. I'm sorry for people who think they
can deny usage of something made public.
I respect that other people may have different views, but then I ask them
not publishing freely on Internet. The Internet is free media and I'm
entitled to use anything there made public anyway I like - I won't care who
is the author and what are his wishes. This is a concept of free media, take
it or not.
>>> Additions do not necessarily constitute improvements.
>> You probably can't give concrete examples anyway.
> Indeed not, since the only thing I know about the changes you've made in
> the so-called IGB is your HTML modifications; I decline to give it the
> respect or credit of actually looking at it.
There are 2 types of HTML additions in the IGB
1) purely stylistic, like replacing <b> with <h4>, sniping end tags, ....
2) converting ascii text into HTML tables, compare for example talents
description in original (http://www.andywlms.com/adom/adomgb-0-14.html) with
http://sweb.cz/adomgb/talents.html. There are *many* more examples of this
kind of improvements throughout the entire GB.
3) besides these, there is mediocre amount of completely new information
>> From my view, *all* additions are improvements, and if you think some
>> of them are not, then I'd be very glad to discuss and change those.
> The assertion that all possible additions are improvements is clearly
> ludicrous; adding false information would certainly not constitute an
> improvement, adding unrelated information would not constitute an
> improvement, other examples are possible. I'm not claiming that you've
> done either of those things (I'm not in a position to do so, because as
> I said, I've never looked at the so-called IGB), but the assertion is
> just as incorrect regardless.
My claim was just it. If there is some false or unrelated information, I
like to know about that.
>> I'm afraid your suggestion is *not* reasonable. I would call an
>> alternate guidebook only if I created it from scratch.
> Then you appear to misunderstand the meaning of "alternate", just as you
> misunderstood the meaning of "morally challenged" earlier in this thread.
I have been forced to use another name for my improved (plagiarized) GB.
Initialy I considered the improvements being so small that they dont deserve
new name, and I hoped for them being incorporated on Andy's site, as
happened earlier. As things have changed since, please let me choose a name
which I find most correct.
> And you have not explained in what way my suggestion is unreasonable. I
> don't really expect you to do so, but a better person would.
Improved is simply a better description of what has been done than
alternate. That's why your suggestion is not reasonable. To verify the
former statement, you have compare the two. If you find some part which is
in no way improvement, but just an "alternate" description, I like to know
about that part. Lets describe the talents improvement in detail. The IGB
reader still have the textual description available, but in separate file,
not forcing him to scroll several pages if not interested in that. Also
talents has ben moved to section 0.1 Character creation, since every
character faces talents on creation. So this an improvement, not just
alternate description. Sure you may argue moving talents to section 0.1 from
0.14 is not improvement but alternative, however 99% of users will find
talents more quickly and will agree that 0.1 is more appropriate for talents
than 0.14, so that constitutes an improvement. If you try really hard you
may find some examples which are perhaps more alternatives than
improvements, but these are rare. So that's why I won't follow your
suggestion and won't call it Alternate Guidebook, but Improved Guidebook.
Now, as I explained as hard and as deep as I can, will you call me a better
>> Permission, permission, permission. How is that so important, is
>> beyond my grasp.
> Basic respect and courtesy between people, that's how. If you don't care
> about that, then I don't see how you manage to get by in human society
Well human society and Internet are two *very* different things. In human
society you of course need permissions, on Internet not. Also see above.
> Having permission is at the core of the difference between theft and
> gift, among many other things (I could give examples if I wanted to get
> into various sexual kinks). If you don't grasp that, I honestly have no
> idea how you can even consider yourself a civilized person.
>> Personally, I hate permissions, I love freedom. The troubles to get
>> permissions are superfluous. Grant permissions by default. When I
>> publish something on Internet (like posting to usenet etc), it is
>> implicit anyone can use it anyway he wants, not needing my
> This is a valid and arguable philosophy. It might even be a good idea.
> It is certainly within your rights to choose to put everything you post
> to Usenet in the public domain. However, it is not accepted by everyone,
> and trying to impose it on everyone else by fiat is Not Good; it
> involves denying them *their* choices, to *not* put things in the public
see above, i'm not imposing anything on anyone, instead, people who deny
permission to something freely available on Internet are imposing something
on me, which I won't accept. While it is a valid philosophy to let people
decide whether thay want one's words to be protected, it is *not* valid to
impose that on everyone on Internet. They can apply their philosophy on LAN,
but *not* on global network.
>> I am under strong impression that you are not capable of balanced
>> opinion, but your signature contradicts that.
> For one thing, my signature does not make any claims about balance; it
> merely reminds people that it is possible to argue something without
> supporting it. For another, you haven't seen me argue very many issues;
> in fact, if I'm not mistaken, you've seen me argue exactly one - and one
> about which I care quite a bit. The reason I put that note in my .sig
> was as insurance against times when I step into an ongoing argument
> about which I *don't* necessarily care very much and point something out
> which I think one side or the other has missed; I had gotten tired of
> explaining myself every time I did so, and wanted to preempt the kind of
> attacks I'd been getting.
> For that matter, you don't know what kinds of things I'd be saying if I
> weren't being careful to restrain myself and give you *some* benefit of
> the doubt (if only in the hopeful possibility that you might be amenable
> to persuasion or at least compromise). You've come closer than almost
> anyone else I've ever actually *met* (as opposed to read about) to going
> down in my books as "utterly worthless scum", but I do *not* like
> dismiss people that way, so I keep giving you another chance - and
> another - and another - and another... and you reject every single one.
> Eventually even I'm going to give up on the forlorn hope, but knowing me
> it's going to be a long time yet (and it'll probably hurt quite a bit in
> the meantime).
Ok. Just how do you imagine me accepting your chance. I may like to, but if
it is forfeiting the IGB and apologizing for all I said, then I'm afraid,
sorry, but you demand too much.
- Prev by Date: YASD
- Next by Date: Re: Champion of Neutrality (Was: Talents)
- Previous by thread: Re: Talents
- Next by thread: Re: Talents