My own game (Closed)
Around 2 years ago I discoverd Dink Smallwood and finished the main campaign. Then I discovered DMODs and enjoyed them endlessly. I played all the Epic ones and the smaller ones with a high rating.
Then, I stepped over to Linux, and have booted to Windows very rarely since. It's harder to play Dink Smallwood in Linux, and partially because of that I lost interest in the game.
I use my computer mainly to code in C++. As a Linux user with a Windows background, I use only standard C++ and multiplatform libraries to be sure that my projects can compile for any platform.
I've always wanted to code a good game, and started multiple projects, including a Wolfenstein 3D clone and an OpenGL space trading game. But what I really wanted to make was an RPG game, so I started a new project: an engine for a 2D single player RPG game.
As a Dink Smallwood player, the design of my game is influenced by Dink Smallwood. I add in the ability to make mods from the start, by making a map editor built into the game, and making everything gameplay related being read from a script.txt file. I know how great it is to have an RPG game with the ability to make mods, because it extends the gameplay so greatly, and helped make Dink Smallwood so great.
I will post some screenshots here in a later post.
Then, I stepped over to Linux, and have booted to Windows very rarely since. It's harder to play Dink Smallwood in Linux, and partially because of that I lost interest in the game.
I use my computer mainly to code in C++. As a Linux user with a Windows background, I use only standard C++ and multiplatform libraries to be sure that my projects can compile for any platform.
I've always wanted to code a good game, and started multiple projects, including a Wolfenstein 3D clone and an OpenGL space trading game. But what I really wanted to make was an RPG game, so I started a new project: an engine for a 2D single player RPG game.
As a Dink Smallwood player, the design of my game is influenced by Dink Smallwood. I add in the ability to make mods from the start, by making a map editor built into the game, and making everything gameplay related being read from a script.txt file. I know how great it is to have an RPG game with the ability to make mods, because it extends the gameplay so greatly, and helped make Dink Smallwood so great.
I will post some screenshots here in a later post.
If you're using C++ you should try Qt 4. It is a C++ editor that enhances the C++ language by using all of standard C++ and adding it's own code. A lot of things are easier to code using Qt's unique code. Qt code can also allow you to do thimgs that C++ does not.
EDIT: Oh, and the game sounds like it has good potential. Have you decided what the plot will be? And what of gameplay?
EDIT: Oh, and the game sounds like it has good potential. Have you decided what the plot will be? And what of gameplay?
Qt 4 doesn't work like that.
Oh, and I look forward to seeing this game. Hopefully you'll make it farther than I did.
Oh, and I look forward to seeing this game. Hopefully you'll make it farther than I did.
Qt 4 doesn't work like that.
Really? Because I was on the Qt4 website before and it said otherwise. If you mean that it isn't stand alone, that it works through Visual Studio, well, I knew that and that doesn't disprove me since I never said or implied it was stand alone.
Really? Because I was on the Qt4 website before and it said otherwise. If you mean that it isn't stand alone, that it works through Visual Studio, well, I knew that and that doesn't disprove me since I never said or implied it was stand alone.
Wow. Someone's in an argumentative state lately.
Qt4 is a widget library. It is linked into programs and it calls X11 rendering functions or, for windows, Win32 ones (hWnd and such). Qt4 is not an editor and it does not enhance the C++ language. An enhancement to the C++ language would be an update to the language, and the next one due out from Stroustrup and the committee is in 2008. A library adds user-defined callable (for lack of a better word) functions to more easily achieve a specified purpose, and promotes code reusage, and this is what Qt4 does.
Also, depending on who you ask, Qt4 has the messiest code style ever. Strictly speaking, Qt's 'unique' language *IS* C++. Things are no easier to code with Qt's 'unique' code. If anything, it's harder because you have to learn namespaces, functions, and - what's hardest - someone else's style. Someone who's used to coding in a C-based style usually chooses GTK+ as a widget library for this reason.
However, just for making a game, no widget set is needed, so Qt4 or GTK+ or Lesstif or FOX or FLTK or what-have-you isn't necessary at all and would only extend your program footprint to a much larger exectuable size, not to mention making it more difficult to debug.
Qt4 is a widget library. It is linked into programs and it calls X11 rendering functions or, for windows, Win32 ones (hWnd and such). Qt4 is not an editor and it does not enhance the C++ language. An enhancement to the C++ language would be an update to the language, and the next one due out from Stroustrup and the committee is in 2008. A library adds user-defined callable (for lack of a better word) functions to more easily achieve a specified purpose, and promotes code reusage, and this is what Qt4 does.
Also, depending on who you ask, Qt4 has the messiest code style ever. Strictly speaking, Qt's 'unique' language *IS* C++. Things are no easier to code with Qt's 'unique' code. If anything, it's harder because you have to learn namespaces, functions, and - what's hardest - someone else's style. Someone who's used to coding in a C-based style usually chooses GTK+ as a widget library for this reason.
However, just for making a game, no widget set is needed, so Qt4 or GTK+ or Lesstif or FOX or FLTK or what-have-you isn't necessary at all and would only extend your program footprint to a much larger exectuable size, not to mention making it more difficult to debug.
"If you mean that it isn't stand alone, that it works through Visual Studio, well, I knew that and that doesn't disprove me since I never said or implied it was stand alone."
To quote Black Sabbath: Can you help me occupy my brain? Oh yeah!
No seriously, you are paranoid.
To quote Black Sabbath: Can you help me occupy my brain? Oh yeah!
No seriously, you are paranoid.
Qt4 is a widget library. It is linked into programs and it calls X11 rendering functions or, for windows, Win32 ones (hWnd and such). Qt4 is not an editor
Now I think I know where the imusnderstanding is. My "Qt$" I meantthe Qt Designer that comes with QT4. That is a editor.
and it does not enhance the C++ language. An enhancement to the C++ language would be an update to the language
Odd. Because Trolltech, the people who made Qt, say it has code that C++ does not have and that this is achieved through "a growing library of over 400 C++ classes". The word "enhancemenbt" simply mean improvement. QAdding those classes is an improvment. so by definition is an enhancement.
Also, depending on who you ask, Qt4 has the messiest code style ever. Strictly speaking, Qt's 'unique' language *IS* C++.
What? I never said it was unique. I know it's C++. I just said it enhanced C++. As for messy. From my experience it's less messy since you get away with using less code.
Things are no easier to code with Qt's 'unique' code.
My experiences tell me otherwise. For me, the fact that you less less code makes it easier, especially since that code is more powerful than some of the default C++ way of doing things. Also the fact that it IDE based makes it easier to use than some other editors. Admittedly, there other IDE based editors.
If anything, it's harder because you have to learn namespaces, functions, and - what's hardest - someone else's style.
Wrong. If you don't like some of the Qt way of doing things, then you can simply revert to the deafult C++ way. Qt's code/way is fully compatible with the default C++ way. You can pick and choose which part of Qt's way you use.
However, just for making a game, no widget set is needed, so Qt4 or GTK+ or Lesstif or FOX or FLTK or what-have-you isn't necessary at all and would only extend your program footprint to a much larger exectuable size, not to mention making it more difficult to debug.
Extend the foorprint? Larger executable? How the hell does having to do a lot less code equal larger? I would've thought that'd make it smaller. I mean correct if I'm wrong, but I thought that with computers less information saved equaled less space used by that data.
Now I think I know where the imusnderstanding is. My "Qt$" I meantthe Qt Designer that comes with QT4. That is a editor.
and it does not enhance the C++ language. An enhancement to the C++ language would be an update to the language
Odd. Because Trolltech, the people who made Qt, say it has code that C++ does not have and that this is achieved through "a growing library of over 400 C++ classes". The word "enhancemenbt" simply mean improvement. QAdding those classes is an improvment. so by definition is an enhancement.
Also, depending on who you ask, Qt4 has the messiest code style ever. Strictly speaking, Qt's 'unique' language *IS* C++.
What? I never said it was unique. I know it's C++. I just said it enhanced C++. As for messy. From my experience it's less messy since you get away with using less code.
Things are no easier to code with Qt's 'unique' code.
My experiences tell me otherwise. For me, the fact that you less less code makes it easier, especially since that code is more powerful than some of the default C++ way of doing things. Also the fact that it IDE based makes it easier to use than some other editors. Admittedly, there other IDE based editors.
If anything, it's harder because you have to learn namespaces, functions, and - what's hardest - someone else's style.
Wrong. If you don't like some of the Qt way of doing things, then you can simply revert to the deafult C++ way. Qt's code/way is fully compatible with the default C++ way. You can pick and choose which part of Qt's way you use.
However, just for making a game, no widget set is needed, so Qt4 or GTK+ or Lesstif or FOX or FLTK or what-have-you isn't necessary at all and would only extend your program footprint to a much larger exectuable size, not to mention making it more difficult to debug.
Extend the foorprint? Larger executable? How the hell does having to do a lot less code equal larger? I would've thought that'd make it smaller. I mean correct if I'm wrong, but I thought that with computers less information saved equaled less space used by that data.
Paranoid? Huh? 
I'm confused. I can tell you now that my thoughts (my actual ones, not hte ones you are percieving) can in no way be construed as paranoia. Even illogically. Please tell me why you thought it was paranoia, since I am so dang confused.
I'm confused. I can tell you now that my thoughts (my actual ones, not hte ones you are percieving) can in no way be construed as paranoia. Even illogically. Please tell me why you thought it was paranoia, since I am so dang confused. 
"Defensive" is the word we generally use where I'm from... it is somewhat related to (though not quite synonymous with) "paranoid," at least casually.
Anyhow, it sounds like Qt4 is basically a library, from your description.
Edit: reading their website, there seem to be several different components to Qt, one of which is a library.
Anyhow, it sounds like Qt4 is basically a library, from your description.
Edit: reading their website, there seem to be several different components to Qt, one of which is a library.
Defensive? So now you define defensive as further explaining your point of view? Because if so then that's a poor definition, because that's not what the word means.
I think what was being implied is that you were setting up your defenses before the inevitable Draconic Argument ensued.
Your ramblings on Qt4 are not a "point of view". They are, put simply, drivel of a four-year-old. I would suggest you not argue with me on what a C++ library is and isn't, or anything on C++ or linux for that matter. I've used Qt before, and it's great and I like it, but it isn't what you say it is. And don't respond saying "the Qt4 website says so-and-so," because you've already done so. I'll respond to all of what you said, without being an ass about all your spelling and grammar errors:
Now I think I know where the imusnderstanding is. My "Qt$" I meantthe Qt Designer that comes with QT4. That is a editor.
Yes, the Qt Designer is an editor. But all it does is create the source code for you, which you then compile (or it does it for you) into an executable. So, in essence, all it does is make a program that uses the Qt library.
Odd. Because Trolltech, the people who made Qt, say it has code that C++ does not have and that this is achieved through "a growing library of over 400 C++ classes". The word "enhancemenbt" simply mean improvement. QAdding those classes is an improvment. so by definition is an enhancement.
No, it isn't odd. You aren't understanding the distinction between Qt's library functions and C++. The code Qt uses is C++ code at its core; it just adds callable functions into play. It depends how you define "code that C++ does not have." If you define it as language mechanics, then that is downright false else it wouldn't be able to even be used by C/C++ programs. If you define it as external functions or templates, then it's an obvious yes. What else is a library for? But the nature of your worded question led me to believe the former.
What? I never said it was unique. I know it's C++. I just said it enhanced C++. As for messy. From my experience it's less messy since you get away with using less code.
Less code usually never equates to cleanliness. And as for you never calling it unique, well I suggest you scoll up and read this:
Wrong. If you don't like some of the Qt way of doing things, then you can simply revert to the deafult C++ way. Qt's code/way is fully compatible with the default C++ way. You can pick and choose which part of Qt's way you use.
What the hell does "Qt's way" mean? It's the same thing as the "C++ way." Granted, you may be able to pick and choose between the said two (however they differ), but that does not mean I'm wrong. I simply said it meant learning new functions and namespaces, and that is an undoubted truth.
Extend the foorprint? Larger executable? How the hell does having to do a lot less code equal larger? I would've thought that'd make it smaller. I mean correct if I'm wrong, but I thought that with computers less information saved equaled less space used by that data.
You don't seem to understand. Including Qt in your program inclues all of Qt, regardless if you use any of it. True, computers with less information use less space, however you're comparing apples and oranges. You can not equate less code with smaller footprint or executable. Actually, that's never true in regards to what we're discussing here.
--
No scratch that. We're not discussing. I'm talking and you're being a brick wall. You're not always right. Get over it. Thanks. (And I don't mean that just for this post. I mean that for pretty much every post you've made.)
Now I think I know where the imusnderstanding is. My "Qt$" I meantthe Qt Designer that comes with QT4. That is a editor.
Yes, the Qt Designer is an editor. But all it does is create the source code for you, which you then compile (or it does it for you) into an executable. So, in essence, all it does is make a program that uses the Qt library.
Odd. Because Trolltech, the people who made Qt, say it has code that C++ does not have and that this is achieved through "a growing library of over 400 C++ classes". The word "enhancemenbt" simply mean improvement. QAdding those classes is an improvment. so by definition is an enhancement.
No, it isn't odd. You aren't understanding the distinction between Qt's library functions and C++. The code Qt uses is C++ code at its core; it just adds callable functions into play. It depends how you define "code that C++ does not have." If you define it as language mechanics, then that is downright false else it wouldn't be able to even be used by C/C++ programs. If you define it as external functions or templates, then it's an obvious yes. What else is a library for? But the nature of your worded question led me to believe the former.
What? I never said it was unique. I know it's C++. I just said it enhanced C++. As for messy. From my experience it's less messy since you get away with using less code.
Less code usually never equates to cleanliness. And as for you never calling it unique, well I suggest you scoll up and read this:
If you're using C++ you should try Qt 4. It is a C++ editor that enhances the C++ language by using all of standard C++ and adding it's own code. A lot of things are easier to code using Qt's unique code. Qt code can also allow you to do thimgs that C++ does not.
Wrong. If you don't like some of the Qt way of doing things, then you can simply revert to the deafult C++ way. Qt's code/way is fully compatible with the default C++ way. You can pick and choose which part of Qt's way you use.
What the hell does "Qt's way" mean? It's the same thing as the "C++ way." Granted, you may be able to pick and choose between the said two (however they differ), but that does not mean I'm wrong. I simply said it meant learning new functions and namespaces, and that is an undoubted truth.
Extend the foorprint? Larger executable? How the hell does having to do a lot less code equal larger? I would've thought that'd make it smaller. I mean correct if I'm wrong, but I thought that with computers less information saved equaled less space used by that data.
You don't seem to understand. Including Qt in your program inclues all of Qt, regardless if you use any of it. True, computers with less information use less space, however you're comparing apples and oranges. You can not equate less code with smaller footprint or executable. Actually, that's never true in regards to what we're discussing here.
--
No scratch that. We're not discussing. I'm talking and you're being a brick wall. You're not always right. Get over it. Thanks. (And I don't mean that just for this post. I mean that for pretty much every post you've made.)
Your ramblings on Qt4 are not a "point of view". They are, put simply, drivel of a four-year-old.
No need to be offensive.
Yes, the Qt Designer is an editor. But all it does is create the source code for you, which you then compile (or it does it for you) into an executable. So, in essence, all it does is make a program that uses the Qt library.
Create the code for you? Ah, no, actually it has a code editor too, as you would know if you'd really used it as you claim.
No, it isn't odd. You aren't understanding the distinction between Qt's library functions and C++. The code Qt uses is C++ code at its core; it just adds callable functions into play. It depends how you define "code that C++ does not have." If you define it as language mechanics, then that is downright false else it wouldn't be able to even be used by C/C++ programs. If you define it as external functions or templates, then it's an obvious yes. What else is a library for? But the nature of your worded question led me to believe the former.
No, you misunderstand what I said. I did not misunderstand what a library is. I knew all of what you said. I never said it was a lanuage mechanic. I know it isn't. I simply said it was an improvement over not having it.
Less code usually never equates to cleanliness. And as for you never calling it unique, well I suggest you scoll up and read this:
If you're using C++ you should try Qt 4. It is a C++ editor that enhances the C++ language by using all of standard C++ and adding it's own code. A lot of things are easier to code using Qt's unique code. Qt code can also allow you to do thimgs that C++ does not.
Wrong. If you don't like some of the Qt way of doing things, then you can simply revert to the deafult C++ way. Qt's code/way is fully compatible with the default C++ way. You can pick and choose which part of Qt's way you use.
That is not the same as saying it is unique. it is the same as saying a part of it is unique. Also the "...by using all of standard C++" indicates a view that part of it isn't unique therefore that that I don't think that the whole thing is, only a part of it.
What the hell does "Qt's way" mean? It's the same thing as the "C++ way." Granted, you may be able to pick and choose between the said two (however they differ), but that does not mean I'm wrong. I simply said it meant learning new functions and namespaces, and that is an undoubted truth.
the reason you are wrong is that you don't,/i> have to learn the Qt stuff. You can choose not to do so and use the standard C++ way wherever you desire. Or none of it if you want. Although that'd leave the question of why you'd be using Qt.
[i]You don't seem to understand. Including Qt in your program inclues all of Qt, regardless if you use any of it. True, computers with less information use less space, however you're comparing apples and oranges. You can not equate less code with smaller footprint or executable. Actually, that's never true in regards to what we're discussing here.
Actually it only includes things that are mentioned in include commands.
No scratch that. We're not discussing. I'm talking and you're being a brick wall. You're not always right. Get over it. Thanks. (And I don't mean that just for this post. I mean that for pretty much every post you've made.)
how many times do I have to say that I don't think I'm always right. it's just that until someone proves me wrong I think I am right. If someone supplies good enough evidence of my innacuracy I am happy to change my stance. My desire is to realistic (hence the fact that I agree with Objectivism being caleed that - it strives to be realistic and see thing as they are - translation: being objective) not stick to my view stubbonly. Your saying I am wrong is not evidence. Also I do not think that many people here have supplied good enough evidence. The most commonly supplied evidence is Wikipedia, which as I have stated before, is not good enough evidence. It's questonable at best, since anyone can write the articles.
I'm sick of everyone here being either ignorant by ignoring my repeatedly saying so, or saying otherwise, hence acting as if they think they know me better than me (which is impossible).
No need to be offensive.
Yes, the Qt Designer is an editor. But all it does is create the source code for you, which you then compile (or it does it for you) into an executable. So, in essence, all it does is make a program that uses the Qt library.
Create the code for you? Ah, no, actually it has a code editor too, as you would know if you'd really used it as you claim.
No, it isn't odd. You aren't understanding the distinction between Qt's library functions and C++. The code Qt uses is C++ code at its core; it just adds callable functions into play. It depends how you define "code that C++ does not have." If you define it as language mechanics, then that is downright false else it wouldn't be able to even be used by C/C++ programs. If you define it as external functions or templates, then it's an obvious yes. What else is a library for? But the nature of your worded question led me to believe the former.
No, you misunderstand what I said. I did not misunderstand what a library is. I knew all of what you said. I never said it was a lanuage mechanic. I know it isn't. I simply said it was an improvement over not having it.
Less code usually never equates to cleanliness. And as for you never calling it unique, well I suggest you scoll up and read this:
If you're using C++ you should try Qt 4. It is a C++ editor that enhances the C++ language by using all of standard C++ and adding it's own code. A lot of things are easier to code using Qt's unique code. Qt code can also allow you to do thimgs that C++ does not.
Wrong. If you don't like some of the Qt way of doing things, then you can simply revert to the deafult C++ way. Qt's code/way is fully compatible with the default C++ way. You can pick and choose which part of Qt's way you use.
That is not the same as saying it is unique. it is the same as saying a part of it is unique. Also the "...by using all of standard C++" indicates a view that part of it isn't unique therefore that that I don't think that the whole thing is, only a part of it.
What the hell does "Qt's way" mean? It's the same thing as the "C++ way." Granted, you may be able to pick and choose between the said two (however they differ), but that does not mean I'm wrong. I simply said it meant learning new functions and namespaces, and that is an undoubted truth.
the reason you are wrong is that you don't,/i> have to learn the Qt stuff. You can choose not to do so and use the standard C++ way wherever you desire. Or none of it if you want. Although that'd leave the question of why you'd be using Qt.
[i]You don't seem to understand. Including Qt in your program inclues all of Qt, regardless if you use any of it. True, computers with less information use less space, however you're comparing apples and oranges. You can not equate less code with smaller footprint or executable. Actually, that's never true in regards to what we're discussing here.
Actually it only includes things that are mentioned in include commands.
No scratch that. We're not discussing. I'm talking and you're being a brick wall. You're not always right. Get over it. Thanks. (And I don't mean that just for this post. I mean that for pretty much every post you've made.)
how many times do I have to say that I don't think I'm always right. it's just that until someone proves me wrong I think I am right. If someone supplies good enough evidence of my innacuracy I am happy to change my stance. My desire is to realistic (hence the fact that I agree with Objectivism being caleed that - it strives to be realistic and see thing as they are - translation: being objective) not stick to my view stubbonly. Your saying I am wrong is not evidence. Also I do not think that many people here have supplied good enough evidence. The most commonly supplied evidence is Wikipedia, which as I have stated before, is not good enough evidence. It's questonable at best, since anyone can write the articles.
I'm sick of everyone here being either ignorant by ignoring my repeatedly saying so, or saying otherwise, hence acting as if they think they know me better than me (which is impossible).
Well now, this is interesting. I'm going to focus on this and ignore everything else about Qt you said, becasue you obviously can't come to the point that you're not making sense and you're wrong.
how many times do I have to say that I don't think I'm always right.
Obviously a few more, because you certainly don't come off that way.
it's just that until someone proves me wrong I think I am right. If someone supplies good enough evidence of my innacuracy I am happy to change my stance. My desire is to realistic (hence the fact that I agree with Objectivism being caleed that - it strives to be realistic and see thing as they are - translation: being objective) not stick to my view stubbonly.
Haha, you're not the only person in the world. People have proved you wrong in other posts yet you still argue, hence I'm not going to bother with this since I won't get anywhere. I don't care that much if you believe the truth or your own view; whatever. People will just think of you as an donkey in real life, and I can lie back and enjoy that satisfaction. So continue being 'realistic'.
Your saying I am wrong is not evidence.
True, but I'm saying you're wrong so you might get the hint that maybe you are wrong so you might look it up. Most people have that common courtesy.
Also I do not think that many people here have supplied good enough evidence. The most commonly supplied evidence is Wikipedia, which as I have stated before, is not good enough evidence. It's questonable at best, since anyone can write the articles.
It's better than anything you've provided.
I'm sick of everyone here being either ignorant by ignoring my repeatedly saying so, or saying otherwise, hence acting as if they think they know me better than me (which is impossible).
That's a joke, right? Because it's really funny.
--
In conclusion, you're an ass. I don't have the time or willpower to argue with someone with the intellectual capacity of a sock, and neither does the rest of the board.
how many times do I have to say that I don't think I'm always right.
Obviously a few more, because you certainly don't come off that way.
it's just that until someone proves me wrong I think I am right. If someone supplies good enough evidence of my innacuracy I am happy to change my stance. My desire is to realistic (hence the fact that I agree with Objectivism being caleed that - it strives to be realistic and see thing as they are - translation: being objective) not stick to my view stubbonly.
Haha, you're not the only person in the world. People have proved you wrong in other posts yet you still argue, hence I'm not going to bother with this since I won't get anywhere. I don't care that much if you believe the truth or your own view; whatever. People will just think of you as an donkey in real life, and I can lie back and enjoy that satisfaction. So continue being 'realistic'.
Your saying I am wrong is not evidence.
True, but I'm saying you're wrong so you might get the hint that maybe you are wrong so you might look it up. Most people have that common courtesy.
Also I do not think that many people here have supplied good enough evidence. The most commonly supplied evidence is Wikipedia, which as I have stated before, is not good enough evidence. It's questonable at best, since anyone can write the articles.
It's better than anything you've provided.
I'm sick of everyone here being either ignorant by ignoring my repeatedly saying so, or saying otherwise, hence acting as if they think they know me better than me (which is impossible).
That's a joke, right? Because it's really funny.
--
In conclusion, you're an ass. I don't have the time or willpower to argue with someone with the intellectual capacity of a sock, and neither does the rest of the board.
how many times do I have to say that I don't think I'm always right.
Obviously a few more, because you certainly don't come off that way.
What about the fact that I recently admitted that redink1 was right about the GameCube not losing money on unit sales? I said that was due to his evidence beijng good enough. Does that not illustrate that I don't always think I'm right.
Haha, you're not the only person in the world. People have proved you wrong in other posts yet you still argue
Well, I didn't deem their evidence as good enough.
I don't care that much if you believe the truth or your own view; whatever.
The point is that I care that I belief the truth, rather than something that isn't. If someone proves me wrong to my satisfaction then I am happy to change my view, so that I can stick to that care.
People will just think of you as an donkey in real life, and I can lie back and enjoy that satisfaction.
As I've already said, i don't care.
So continue being 'realistic'.
I'll admit here and now that there is a possibility I am wrong. In fact, since I am only human ther will be times when I am definetly wrong. (Is that illustrating a view that I'm always right?
). The point I was making before is that I strive to be realistic, not that I am. I'll admit that no matter how hard I try and no matter how good I am (I'm not saying I am, only an if) I will at times fall to be realistic.
True, but I'm saying you're wrong so you might get the hint that maybe you are wrong so you might look it up. Most people have that common courtesy.
I realise what your intent was. It's just that I felt that point needed to be said.
It's better than anything you've provided.
What better than the Qt website? Besides there have been times before now that I have supplied links. I don't always provide none. Sometimes I actually do want prove myself. It's just that most of the time I don't. The difference between these times? Weither or not I'm actually attempting to convince someone else of my view/stance/what I know/whatever you want to call it.
That's a joke, right? Because it's really funny.
No. I don't joke about my feelings. What is it you find funny about it? I only ask because your comment has got me curious.
In conclusion, you're an ass. I don't have the time or willpower to argue with someone with the intellectual capacity of a sock, and neither does the rest of the board.
It's not a lack of intellectual capacity (if that was true I wouldn't have the creative talent I have and I wouldn't be a fast learner). It's simply a lack of a desire to argue at all. I just don't feel like doing so. Hence my lack of evidence most of the time. If I actually don't feel like arguing, only stating a view/stance/whatever you want to call it, I don't supply evidence. If I felt like actually arguing (as opposed to stating a view/etc, then I would supply the evidence (hence times like the above Qt link). Oh, and let the rest of the board speak for themselves. I long ago lost the desire to argue with you lot, due to my assment that none of you are rational. As far as I'm concerned that arguments with you lot would be a waste of time, since I have no chance of convincing you lot of anything (I've supplied evidence before and good ones at that and it still hasn't had any effect). So why the hell should I do it? The answer: I shouldn't. I should not do something that I consider to be a waste of my time.
In conclusion, leave me be. I'm going to live my own life regardless on what you lot say, so stop wasting everyone's time by trying to convince me to do otherwise.
Oh, and that last message was to everyone here, not just Merlin.
Obviously a few more, because you certainly don't come off that way.
What about the fact that I recently admitted that redink1 was right about the GameCube not losing money on unit sales? I said that was due to his evidence beijng good enough. Does that not illustrate that I don't always think I'm right.
Haha, you're not the only person in the world. People have proved you wrong in other posts yet you still argue
Well, I didn't deem their evidence as good enough.
I don't care that much if you believe the truth or your own view; whatever.
The point is that I care that I belief the truth, rather than something that isn't. If someone proves me wrong to my satisfaction then I am happy to change my view, so that I can stick to that care.
People will just think of you as an donkey in real life, and I can lie back and enjoy that satisfaction.
As I've already said, i don't care.
So continue being 'realistic'.
I'll admit here and now that there is a possibility I am wrong. In fact, since I am only human ther will be times when I am definetly wrong. (Is that illustrating a view that I'm always right?
). The point I was making before is that I strive to be realistic, not that I am. I'll admit that no matter how hard I try and no matter how good I am (I'm not saying I am, only an if) I will at times fall to be realistic.True, but I'm saying you're wrong so you might get the hint that maybe you are wrong so you might look it up. Most people have that common courtesy.
I realise what your intent was. It's just that I felt that point needed to be said.
It's better than anything you've provided.
What better than the Qt website? Besides there have been times before now that I have supplied links. I don't always provide none. Sometimes I actually do want prove myself. It's just that most of the time I don't. The difference between these times? Weither or not I'm actually attempting to convince someone else of my view/stance/what I know/whatever you want to call it.
That's a joke, right? Because it's really funny.
No. I don't joke about my feelings. What is it you find funny about it? I only ask because your comment has got me curious.
In conclusion, you're an ass. I don't have the time or willpower to argue with someone with the intellectual capacity of a sock, and neither does the rest of the board.
It's not a lack of intellectual capacity (if that was true I wouldn't have the creative talent I have and I wouldn't be a fast learner). It's simply a lack of a desire to argue at all. I just don't feel like doing so. Hence my lack of evidence most of the time. If I actually don't feel like arguing, only stating a view/stance/whatever you want to call it, I don't supply evidence. If I felt like actually arguing (as opposed to stating a view/etc, then I would supply the evidence (hence times like the above Qt link). Oh, and let the rest of the board speak for themselves. I long ago lost the desire to argue with you lot, due to my assment that none of you are rational. As far as I'm concerned that arguments with you lot would be a waste of time, since I have no chance of convincing you lot of anything (I've supplied evidence before and good ones at that and it still hasn't had any effect). So why the hell should I do it? The answer: I shouldn't. I should not do something that I consider to be a waste of my time.
In conclusion, leave me be. I'm going to live my own life regardless on what you lot say, so stop wasting everyone's time by trying to convince me to do otherwise.
Oh, and that last message was to everyone here, not just Merlin.
[...] due to my assment that none of you are rational.
OK, Mr. Hypocrite. You shouldn't go tell others (Merlin in this case) not to be offensive, when you're no better yourself.
I'm not going to bother arguing with you, as you obviously are not interested in that kind of thing *snicker* — but I'll just tell you something. You say you strive to be realistic. You say you do this by being extremely defensive about how you perceive things. (I.e. let others convince you that you are wrong, or that they are right.) Now, this would be fine normally. I'm like that myself. You, however, fail to apply common sense and an open mind to things. It's kind of hard to explain exactly what I mean, since, even though I'm quite good at English, English is not my native tongue, and I don't know all the details required to explain subtle things like this correctly.
As far as I'm concerned that arguments with you lot would be a waste of time, since I have no chance of convincing you lot of anything
Right back at ya...
Oh, and one last thing. Telling people that they are ignorant, less rational than you, less intelligent than you or otherwise lesser than you contributes to the fact that "[you] have no chance of convincing [us] of anything". You know why? Because nobody listens to somebody who thinks they are better than them. It's instinctively a repulsive behavior, and people just block you out.
OK, Mr. Hypocrite. You shouldn't go tell others (Merlin in this case) not to be offensive, when you're no better yourself.
I'm not going to bother arguing with you, as you obviously are not interested in that kind of thing *snicker* — but I'll just tell you something. You say you strive to be realistic. You say you do this by being extremely defensive about how you perceive things. (I.e. let others convince you that you are wrong, or that they are right.) Now, this would be fine normally. I'm like that myself. You, however, fail to apply common sense and an open mind to things. It's kind of hard to explain exactly what I mean, since, even though I'm quite good at English, English is not my native tongue, and I don't know all the details required to explain subtle things like this correctly.
As far as I'm concerned that arguments with you lot would be a waste of time, since I have no chance of convincing you lot of anything
Right back at ya...
Oh, and one last thing. Telling people that they are ignorant, less rational than you, less intelligent than you or otherwise lesser than you contributes to the fact that "[you] have no chance of convincing [us] of anything". You know why? Because nobody listens to somebody who thinks they are better than them. It's instinctively a repulsive behavior, and people just block you out.
"the creative talent I have"
You mean the creative talent responsible for names like Elemental Dragons 1: Air Dragon, Elemental Dragons 2: Earth Dragon, and so on?
I could probably tackle a lot more of your statements, but I'm running a bit short on time at the moment, which you often claim to be the reason you can't afford the time to spellcheck, even though you'll happily write paragraph after paragraph about how everyone is irrational and you are just super and you'll laugh at everyone else when it eventually comes down to them being screwed over because they did not live their life in a rational and objective fashion.
You mean the creative talent responsible for names like Elemental Dragons 1: Air Dragon, Elemental Dragons 2: Earth Dragon, and so on?
I could probably tackle a lot more of your statements, but I'm running a bit short on time at the moment, which you often claim to be the reason you can't afford the time to spellcheck, even though you'll happily write paragraph after paragraph about how everyone is irrational and you are just super and you'll laugh at everyone else when it eventually comes down to them being screwed over because they did not live their life in a rational and objective fashion.
I use the libraries SDL and OpenGL, even for the GUI.
OK, Mr. Hypocrite. You shouldn't go tell others (Merlin in this case) not to be offensive, when you're no better yourself.
It's not me being hypoctical or no better. It's just that when people be rude to someone they lose forfeit their right to be treated properly by that person.
You say you do this by being extremely defensive about how you perceive things
I said I'm not being defensive.
You, however, fail to apply common sense and an open mind to things
Common sense? You expect me to think like the common person when I think they're irrational? That's just silly.
Right back at ya...,/i>
Actually redink1 convinced me about the GameCube thing, so evidently it <>i>isn't impossible.
Telling people that they are ignorant, less rational than you, less intelligent than you or otherwise lesser than you contributes to the fact that "[you] have no chance of convincing [us] of anything
I said that you were all ignoring things I've said, not that you are ignorant. Also I never commented on anyone's intelligence. In fact, I actually think some of you are quite intelligent. Evidence of that is some of the impressive things some of you have done with your dmods. Sadly, intelligence and reason do not always go together.
oh, and on that not, rational thinking is more common (in small amounts) among most people than most think, especially it's detractors.
It's not me being hypoctical or no better. It's just that when people be rude to someone they lose forfeit their right to be treated properly by that person.
You say you do this by being extremely defensive about how you perceive things
I said I'm not being defensive.
You, however, fail to apply common sense and an open mind to things
Common sense? You expect me to think like the common person when I think they're irrational? That's just silly.
Right back at ya...,/i>
Actually redink1 convinced me about the GameCube thing, so evidently it <>i>isn't impossible.
Telling people that they are ignorant, less rational than you, less intelligent than you or otherwise lesser than you contributes to the fact that "[you] have no chance of convincing [us] of anything
I said that you were all ignoring things I've said, not that you are ignorant. Also I never commented on anyone's intelligence. In fact, I actually think some of you are quite intelligent. Evidence of that is some of the impressive things some of you have done with your dmods. Sadly, intelligence and reason do not always go together.
oh, and on that not, rational thinking is more common (in small amounts) among most people than most think, especially it's detractors.
You mean the creative talent responsible for names like Elemental Dragons 1: Air Dragon, Elemental Dragons 2: Earth Dragon, and so on?
No I mean the many ideas I've come up with for my books. Remember creative talent is only the talent to come up with original ideas, not the ability to make good ideas. I've literally come up with hundreds of books ideas (most of which were dumped in full or in part). Admittedly not all of tyhem were good. they were, however, original.
but I'm running a bit short on time at the moment, which you often claim to be the reason you can't afford the time to spellcheck
Actually I've never claimed time. I claimed that I'd rather spend the time doing other things in that time than check to see what order I've pressed buttons.
and you are just super and you'll laugh at everyone else when it eventually comes down to them being screwed over because they did not live their life in a rational and objective fashion
Firstly I never said I was super. In fact, I admitted to being imperfect. Secondly that society collapse was mentioned only twice. Also that collapse may not happen in any of our lifetimes , even with nanobots. I even said it may be more than 100 years after I've set it happening in my sci-fi books. So in other words, I was not saying you lot are screwed, or anyone else I know. I was saying that people somewhere down the line are screwed. It could be in a thousand years, but it's definetly going to happen unless society wakes up and starts thinking (note: that isn't menat entirelly literally or at all offensively).
No I mean the many ideas I've come up with for my books. Remember creative talent is only the talent to come up with original ideas, not the ability to make good ideas. I've literally come up with hundreds of books ideas (most of which were dumped in full or in part). Admittedly not all of tyhem were good. they were, however, original.
but I'm running a bit short on time at the moment, which you often claim to be the reason you can't afford the time to spellcheck
Actually I've never claimed time. I claimed that I'd rather spend the time doing other things in that time than check to see what order I've pressed buttons.
and you are just super and you'll laugh at everyone else when it eventually comes down to them being screwed over because they did not live their life in a rational and objective fashion
Firstly I never said I was super. In fact, I admitted to being imperfect. Secondly that society collapse was mentioned only twice. Also that collapse may not happen in any of our lifetimes , even with nanobots. I even said it may be more than 100 years after I've set it happening in my sci-fi books. So in other words, I was not saying you lot are screwed, or anyone else I know. I was saying that people somewhere down the line are screwed. It could be in a thousand years, but it's definetly going to happen unless society wakes up and starts thinking (note: that isn't menat entirelly literally or at all offensively).
If you don't care to argue, then stop responding, because that's exactly what you're doing (and I realize I'm doing that too). Remember the saying, "If you don't bother it, it won't bother you?" Well, it applies here. If you care so little about what people think, then don't try to "bother" people, else those people will slap you in the face with a moldy trout and send you into next week. Confucius said, "He who laughs last laughs best." That applies here, except you're not going to get the pleasure of the last laugh. So either listen to what other people have to say and be courteous or don't say anything at all. It makes you look like a special olympics participator otherwise - even if you win, you're still retarded.
Thanks.
Thanks.
"It makes you look like a special olympics participator otherwise - even if you win, you're still retarded."
I find that offensive.
But I will concur that this would be very dandy if it were kept closed.
I find that offensive.
But I will concur that this would be very dandy if it were kept closed.
