[MPlayer-users] Re: divx 6

[Ivan Kowalenko]

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

On May 2, 2006, at 20.49, Rich Felker wrote:

> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 06:09:06PM -0500, Ivan Kowalenko wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Not when the spec is ill-defined and plenty of other obviously-wrong
> things are technically legal. Whiners just want this abomination to be
> legal to let them save a small amount of overhead at the price of the
> file becoming more fragile than a house made out of cards.

Two replies.
First: The answer was right, as far as the spec is concerned. Try to  
clarify your answer.

>
>>> 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!
>
> WAAAH HEE STARTED IT!!!

But YOU kept it going! You perpetuated it.

> Seriously though, trolling, distorting history to claim that it backs
> up your viewpoint, etc. are misbehaving in my book.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -- Ghandi

In this case, two wrongs don't make a right. Flaming the flamer isn't  
going to  do anything.

>> 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
>
> Yes this is true. These days there are more developers who help, but
> at one point a long time ago, believe it or not, I was almost the only
> developer with patience to subscribe to and reply on the "lusers"
> mailing list as it was called.

You've never subscribed to the Matroska mailing list, apparently.

>> 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.
>
> This thread abandoned all hope of being taken seriously a long time
> ago.

Ahh, we agree.

>> IF you have a problem with "lusers" who have "ignorant viewpoints,"
>> then educate them politely.
>
> I do this whenever they don't have an attitude. Why not look and
> compare my responses to different threads?

"search the archives" when speaking about certain cases isn't the  
best idea. And citing outside sources isn't bad either.

>> 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
>
> Like citing the archives? Oh I already did that and he was too fucking
> ignorant to read them, instead claiming that they back up his
> viewpoint. I know quite well that all of the developers involved in
> that discussion had serious doubts about the validity of doom9's
> testing and the way he handled the situation.

And if his ignorance bothers you, ignore him/her! Their loss!  
Ignoring people who bother you is one of the first thing that they  
teach students in elementary school.

BTW: Why are you swearing at me?

>
>> you processed at 120 FPS, if the output make h.263 look sharp). And
>
> H.263 is a very good codec, basically the same as mpeg4 and better in
> some respects (while worse in others). Statements like this don't show
> any technical credibility on your part.

Depending on how it's used. Under the right situations, yes, H.263 is  
pretty good, but under other situations, it's awful. H.263 was never  
known for it's sharp images. This has been *my* experience. The usual  
phrase here is "your milage may vary," so you might be able to tweak  
H.263 to spit out better quality than I have in the past.

>
>> 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).
>
> Who said I wanted to debate? Debate is an honor given either to people
> who have a legitimate viewpoint, or to people with sufficient power
> that you're unfortunately forced to debate with them in order to win
> public approval. Quite simply this bastard pissed me off with his
> trolling and I wanted to flame.

Fine, but you don't need to subject the rest of the mailing list to it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFEWCEA187keuSyQSQRAtwRAKCJrkTMnmzC3H6JRgg5jhqBQuu3VgCeIM5u
1quUEQEHY+YpZWa3NA1wz2c=
=SVBe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----