[MPlayer-users] Re: divx 6

[Ivan Kowalenko]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On May 2, 2006, at 09.53, Rich Felker wrote:

> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 11:05:20AM +0200, Alexander Noe' wrote:
>> Matthias Wieser wrote:
>>
>>>> [Rich Felker stuff]
>>> FUD is useless. And your personal problems with doom9 and xvid  
>>> are useless.
>>
>> He doesn't only have problems with those. A few days ago he tried to
>> redefine the AVI format according to his personal feeling in his
>> personal stomach about what is a correct file and what not.
>
> STFU stupid luser.

Holy Christos. Never before have I seen more swearing and rudeness  
than in this thread! Seriously, you're acting like this is a holy  
war! Like we walked into your house, uninvited, started insulting  
your things, and then raped your sister. I have never, in my life,  
ever seen ANYONE act this immaturely on ANY mailing list! The closest  
I saw was a discussion on the MythTV, about ATI versus nVidia versus  
Hauppauge PVR-350, in talking about video output quality and open  
source drivers versus binaries, and it NEVER got nearly this heated.

There have been times in other mailing lists where I've felt like  
answering questions with "n00b, RTFM." But I decided to be polite.  
You might at least consider doing the same. There were one or two  
times when I answered a question, and ended with something like "off- 
topic!" or "RTFM," (not trying to sound rude), and someone (politely)  
reprimanded me. The least you can do is follow the same decorum the  
rest of us try to.

Oh, BTW:

(Rich Felker, April 28)
> They are not correct files since they are unplayable without the index
> and thus hopelessly fragile (and also unplayable before download
> completes). This is idiotic and broken and regardless of whether it's
> within the letter of the spec it's absolutely wrong.

I'd say that if something was within the "letter of the spec," it  
would be right. At least, that's how it works with objective judging  
(Like the I.B.O.).

>> If you do not like flamewars, simply put Rich on your ignore list...

One flaw is that you don't get everyone who replies to him. But at  
least you're trying to come up with a solution! ;)

Sometimes I think this mailing list needs something like a moderation  
system, seen in forums.

> Then you'll also ignore half of the useful help on this list. I help
> people who are asking legitimate questions and behaving themselves.

I find it ironic that you use the words "behaving themselves." I'd  
hardly call firing off every other message with the word "fuck" (or  
"fuck" as part of an acronym) and calling people lusers because they  
disagree with you, behaving!

And saying that we'd be getting rid of half the useful help on the  
list is overstating your influence a little bit. True, you have  
contributed a lot. I'm not disputing that, but I've also seen plenty  
of other users help out, including people like Nico Sabbi, Guillaume  
Poirier, And Reimar Döffinger, just to name a few. At this point, I'm  
more willing to accept help from them, than you, because they've been  
smart enough to not participate in this flame war, and they've  
managed to behave themselves.

> I flame lusers who use this list to advocate ignorant viewpoints about
> multimedia technology which are totally off-topic.

I find it interesting that you're perpetuating the flame war and  
furthering the off-topic discussion (The topic *was* DivX 6, now it's  
doom9?). And "flam[ing] lusers" is hardly a way to convince people  
that their "ignorant viewpoints" are "totally off-topic." Instead, it  
just makes you look like a pompous, self-righteous jerk. You need to  
learn to communicate more clearly, if you want to be taken seriously.

IF you have a problem with "lusers" who have "ignorant viewpoints,"  
then educate them politely. I've made some n00b mistakes where I  
rightfully deserved an "RTFM" answer, but so far, all the help I've  
received was at least phrased nicely.

> The rule is very simple. If I come to your house I'll be polite to you
> and the way you do things there. When you come to mine, you respect
> the way we do things here. If you want to post stupid ideas about
> codecs when you have no clue about the art, go to a forum made for
> this purpose....like doom9!

I have a radical idea! How about we discuss this like adults! Instead  
of ranting, raving, calling names, let's actually call up FACT. How  
about everyone who has an opinion on this goes out and performs some  
benchmarks, and then puts them in their message. While you're at it,  
compare those benchmarks to the quality of the video (who cares if  
you processed at 120 FPS, if the output make h.263 look sharp). And  
instead of just saying that there's a flaw in this statistic, or that  
review, how about pulling up some facts (with links, so we know the  
EXACT PAGE you got that from)?

My God, it's like the House of Commons in here... if the House of  
Commons was run by 13 year olds arguing about {Insert adolescent  
topic relevant to the time period and geographic location here}!  
Seriously, go look up the word "debate" and look at some real debate  
rules (Check out Classic Debate, or Public Forum Debate, those are  
pretty simple).

> Rich

Ivan Kowalenko (A.K.A. Kichigai Mentat)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFEV+aV187keuSyQSQRAsSzAJoDCiW3MazlOJm9Rg1/wrp0LxED/wCfWOjE
loQRoVXCFl4acGBQKMQXbhk=
=Zcqz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----