just got bryce ^__^

[Squeek]

http://www.youhavebadtasteinmusic.com/

'Nuff said.

I call it nitpicking. I replied without a quote, can't he?

~Squeek

PS - thanks for finding my one and only menial error and pointing it out for me.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Mwerp

This is odd because if you asked over half of pop artists/musicians today if they knew anything about music theory, they'd tell you no. But they still sound good and they're popular groups and make tons of money.

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring. This is not related to what we are discussing. You can't analogize two forms of art because they are totally different. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

woohoo random generalization

Reductio Ad Absurdium.

By that it sounds like you're saying that I'm trying to appeal to a set level of skill. Why exactly would you say that?

No, you're trying to appeal to an 'industry standard' in art of which none exists.

Geez you people must really suck at Bryce :/

Yeah, I suck at Bryce. I suck at MSPaint too. No big loss there, because the graphics world doesn't give a shit about either.

Do you need to know any of that to make your work look nice? No. Do you need to know any of that for people to like it? No. It's just knowledge that helps you if what you're trying to accomplish with your art is to stimulate an art professor's mind in hopes of getting a good review or whatever similar case scenario.

Actually, you do need to know that to make your work look nice. And if you understood the above things I pointed out your images would look a lot better. But I guess ignorance is bliss in your case.

That's an odd thing to say when I've seen artists that use Bryce who are of far greater skill than people who use 3DSM, etc.

Show me one individual in the professional graphics industry who uses Bryce. Do you see cubadust and chaptereleven using Bryce? No. They're using Maya or 3dsmax.

Is this about why Bryce sucks or has your main topic become a fit of anger directed towards myself?

Oh wow, I pointed out faults in your work it must be ad hominem. So are you going to rebut my arguments or just burst into fits of anger directed towards me?

Oh right so I don't know anything about theory because of the program I use and it has nothing to do with whether or not I ever bothered to research art theory yes? By that logic it's not possible for someone to use Bryce and have a fine grasp on art theory.

You need to take logic101, badly.
Furthermore, when I worked with 3dstudiomax many of the tutorials I followed referenced many pieces of design theory on which the tutorials were built. When you learn about one of the professional programs, you will definitely learn about many theories of design at the same time because of the manner in which the programs work.

ty4heads^

ty4more red herring.





Oh by the way, I have used Bryce, I know what I'm talking about: http://www.deviantart.com/view/721641/ There's one of my pieces with it.

[Mwerp]

aperson is my new hero. and, mwerp... feel free to quote that and go on a mini-rant

ha, someone just got clowned. Nicely stated aperson. Mwerp looks like you "lose"!!

That's so cute. Tasselfoot and Porgy cheer their hero on because they couldn't do it themselves.

Frankly Mwerp, making an analogy to today's music is making your debate worse.

95% of modern bands suck. They make money because of stupid people that don't notice how bad they are.

You're just one of those pissy anime kids who hates everything that's popular in the mainstream so basically you calling people who like popular bands today idiots is totally senseless. Especially considering music professors love pop music as well as renaissance and whatever else. I relate things to music to help people get a better understanding of what I'm saying. Thus, it helps.

I think aperson said perfectly what needed to be said.

That's because you are opposing me, so anything anyone else says that conflicts with what I say you're automatically going to worship because you didn't have the wit/intelligence to say it yourself.

I'm sure he's used Bryce enough to realize that the other three he gave examples of were better. I'm sure he made fine art with Bryce but realized that the other programs could do more.

You must have some supernatural telekinetic powers to make you so sure about something that you couldn't possibly have any idea about.
Ironically enough, according to his last post, he has.

And your argument about people that are better with Bryce than some of those that use 3DSM or Maya... What if I just picked it up today and threw out something? Your Bryce render would PROBABLY be better than mine. Just maybe. That's likely because a) I suck at all aspects of art and b) I'd only been using it for 2 hours.

What I'm talking about is comparing people who are skilled at Bryce to people who are skilled with 3DSM. Why would I compare an awesome Bryce user to a poor quality 3DSM user? Porgy was foolish enough to make that error, but you know since I'm a genius and all I think about things before saying them.

However, when it comes to Flash, I own. Maybe not as good as soccr, but that's only because I'm still waiting for the software for christmas. I had it in school and managed a few great projects. If you were to pick it up for the first time and just mess around with it, I'm sure you could make a simple little movie. Nothing as advanced as my projects, however.

k

PS - DO NOT NITPICK THIS POST.

ps no

EDIT - OR "ISOLATE COMMENTS

psps no

Why would you not want me to "nitpick" anyway? Fear?

Originally Posted by aperson

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring. This is not related to what we are discussing. You can't analogize two forms of art because they are totally different. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

The only ways they are different is in that one is audible and one is visible, and they have different theories and components related. Appreciability is a common issue between both, thus it's no logical fallacy to relate art to music in that way. Now, if I were trying to relate the way you make a piece of art to the way you make music, that would indeed be foolish.

Reductio Ad Absurdium.

I find your statement a false generalization of capability. I have made tons of things that aren't simple slap and show torus jobs that many Bryce users pump out. Or, by saying reductio ad absurdium, are you implying that actually want proof that I do something other than what you stated?

No, you're trying to appeal to an 'industry standard' in art of which none exists.

Not at all. I'm not trying to get my art sold, and why would I? Abstract has pretty much no place in the marketing world save prints or scarce oddjob magazine sections or cd covers. Unless you mean that the "industry" here is the 3DSM modeler(example: Porgy) is the audience I'm trying to make my art appeal to, in which case you'd still be wrong. The actuality there would be that I'm trying to argue that Bryce is capable of creating works that are on par with what 3DSM can pump out.

Yeah, I suck at Bryce. I suck at MSPaint too. No big loss there, because the graphics world doesn't give a (#$% about either.

Hah. The validity of you not being skilled with Bryce is that you're making statements about what your typical Bryce beginner would be doing, and not considering the fact that it has so many more capabilities than just that. You just can't get off the fact that toruses is pretty much all that your average beginner will ever think about doing because it's the easiest thing that pleases them. Then you go and base your arguments off of that.

[quote]

Do you need to know any of that to make your work look nice? No. Do you need to know any of that for people to like it? No. It's just knowledge that helps you if what you're trying to accomplish with your art is to stimulate an art professor's mind in hopes of getting a good review or whatever similar case scenario.

Actually, you do need to know that to make your work look nice*.

*better than it did before
If you would have said that, sure, I'd agree with it. Why would I not agree with what you actually said? You don't need to know anything about that to make your work look pretty. Like I said, if you want to get into stimulation of the mind and make people think about your work, then sure, art theory comes great in hand.

And if you understood the above things I pointed out your images would look a lot better. But I guess ignorance is bliss in your case.

If bliss means people can look at it and think it looks nice, I'm not asking for more at the moment. I'm actually more into music, as you may have guessed, but that's pretty irrelevant.

Show me one individual in the professional graphics industry who uses Bryce. Do you see cubadust and chaptereleven using Bryce? No. They're using Maya or 3dsmax.

It doesn't matter what people in the marketing industry use. What you should be trying to prove is that people who use Bryce cannot possibly be better than people who use 3DSM, not that Bryce isn't used in the professional art world. There are plenty of artists not in the graphics industry that definitely should belong in it.

Oh wow, I pointed out faults in your work it must be ad hominem. So are you going to rebut my arguments or just burst into fits of anger directed towards me?

What anger?
Sure, I'll make rebuttals to that.
You were saying before that when you picked up 3DSM, you researched art theory. Just because you have that program doesn't mean you have to understand art theory to make it function. You just have to know it if you want to apply it.
EDIT: I just read a later part of your post that stated one of the tutorials continually referenced art theory. Okay that's great and all, if you want to understand what that particular tutorial is teaching you then I'd say that's perfectly valid. But you don't need to know art theory just to use the program. Sure, it definitely helps if you want to do stuff related to what the tutorial teaches you.
Want proof?

i sh0ot fiar: Do you know anything about art theory?
SSJ997: can't say i do

People LOVE what Reach does. Heck, I'm pretty fond of it myself. He's a great artist, and he uses 3DSM.
:END EDIT

In that sense, just by using Bryce doesn't mean that you cannot apply art theory to your work. If my work has stagnated(and I wouldn't argue that it hasn't, because I don't think it's getting any more intellectual, it just looks nicer), it isn't because I'm using Bryce; it's because I haven't bothered to study theory and apply it to how I use Bryce.

You need to take logic101, badly.

Well, let's see here.

"By using these fake tools you are learning nothing, and your work will simply stagnate... and that's just what your work has done, it's stagnated."

Because I use a tool that you consider to be lesser than 3DSM, my art stagnates. Not because I don't understand theory, but because of the tool I use.

"You don't really understand anything important about a piece of art. Why is this? Because you use Bryce."

So what you're saying is that Bryce is what prevents me from looking into art theory? That once I ditch Bryce, this physical block that prevents me from researching anything about it is suddenly gone?
You said I had the logic problem.

Furthermore, when I worked with 3dstudiomax many of the tutorials I followed referenced many pieces of design theory on which the tutorials were built. When you learn about one of the professional programs, you will definitely learn about many theories of design at the same time because of the manner in which the programs work.

So 3DSM gives you the incent to research art theory. Okay. That does not prove in any way that you can't study theory because you use Bryce. Yes, you have less incentive to, considering(well, moreso assuming because I never looked at a Bryce tutorial before; I'm more of a kinetic learner than a 'watch someone else do it' type) the tutorials don't have anything that a knowledge of art theory would benefit you to know in.

ty4more red herring.

If anything the red herring here would be you telling me that you'll laugh if I try to compare something of mine to your Seovine because it's random and does not really contribute to the core argument in any way. It's more of a demeaning "hardy har u suk i rok" statement.

Oh by the way, I have used Bryce, I know what I'm talking about: http://www.deviantart.com/view/721641/ There's one of my pieces with it.

Yeah man, you're right. All you really learned how to do is make toruses and crap. I honestly don't get why people on deviantart go nuts for such trendwhore shit that we've all seen a thousand times before. Know what I mean? Not that I'm demeaning you in anyway, I really like your stuff now, but I mean when people take a moderately close shot on a torus and apply a blurred up or gradient background and brushjob the heck out of it people fall in love with it.
Anyway, just how long did you stay with Bryce? There's so much more that you can do than just shiny toruses that you apparently didn't learn when using it.
EDIT: You didn't even make the render there, you just did the Photoshop. Are you trying to BS me or were you just using that as an example of something you could have done in Bryce?

[Tasselfoot]

i'm getting kind of sick of this.... i know nothing of art. i have basically stayed out of this debate. i think i might have a solution.....

why doesn't Mwerp show us a small portfolio of his Bryce work, and Aperson and/or Porgy can also show us a small portfolio of their work using Maya or 3DSM. and from there, the art community here can vote on which they like the best. this doesn't really solve the debate about which program is better, but you all feel that you are good with the program you use, so this would be better than just continuing this debate forward endlessly.

[Mwerp]

That's stupid. You can't really compare what program is the supreme end-of-story program if you don't have the best of the best from each category. Not only that but we all have pretty different styles. All that would settle is whose art is better, and that's not what the argument is about.

[jewpinthethird]

You guys are hilarious.

Art isnt about whose is better, it is about who can bullshit the best.

[Omeganitros]

Man I wish I could argue that well...

[Mwerp]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

You guys are hilarious.

Art isnt about whose is better, it is about who can bullshit the best.

what

[Squeek]

Right. I hate everything in the mainstream. Thanks for keeping more information on myself than I know about.

Though I admit I enjoy anime more than others, I am not against mainstream. I'm against crap. Bands that copy other bands that copy other bands...it's an endless loop of crap.

Hate me if you want, but I still like Linkin Park. Yes, I DID like them before stupid 10-year olds ruined it for me. Want me to name other bands of whom I have purchased their every CD due to the fact that I liked their music on the radio?

Also note that when I talk about somebody else, I use might, maybe, "I'm sure", etc. I found out later that Aperson did not use Bryce that much. Oh well. I made a guess.

I would appreciate you not nitpicking because my posts are generally one idea flowing into the next into the next for the entirety. Taking out peices ruins the flow of the post.

I'm dropping out of this argument. Here's why.

a) Aperson's got it covered.
b) I honestly can say I know less about creating art than anybody here.
c) I've never used Bryce, 3DSM, Maya, Photoshop, etc.
d) There's no point in arguing something with a person that does not want to listen to keywords within the post that change the meaning COMPLETELY. Such as "opinion", "view", etc.
e) Jewpin already spoke twice in which I would ditto his statements. He said what I intended to say. With that said, there's no need to continue.

~Squeek

PS - Seeing as I am now out of the "circle of debate" on whatever it is we're talking about, try not to take this one apart as easily as you think you can.

[Mwerp]

Originally Posted by MrESqueek

Right. I hate everything in the mainstream. Thanks for keeping more information on myself than I know about.

Sorry but that's basically the case with every child of your type.

Though I admit I enjoy anime more than others, I am not against mainstream. I'm against crap. Bands that copy other bands that copy other bands...it's an endless loop of crap.

Like people who remake Beatles songs? They're still good. You don't like them because your pissy attitude makes you instantly hate anything that has been remixed/remade/whatever. They're still good songs, and they sound more contemporary.

Hate me if you want, but I still like Linkin Park.

That's okay they're a cool group(if anyone starts anything up about emo shit then you're gay and can't get past the lyrics okay bye).

Yes, I DID like them before stupid 10-year olds ruined it for me. Want me to name other bands of whom I have purchased their every CD due to the fact that I liked their music on the radio?

Funny thing about Linkin Park is that they aren't like every other band on the radio. They're mainly digital. And hey maybe their dark lyrics express you in some way who knows.

Also note that when I talk about somebody else, I use might, maybe, "I'm sure", etc. I found out later that Aperson did not use Bryce that much. Oh well. I made a guess.

..what? Might and maybe are completely different from "I'm sure".

I would appreciate you not nitpicking because my posts are generally one idea flowing into the next into the next for the entirety. Taking out peices ruins the flow of the post.

Your posts are not one flowing idea.
In the beginning you're talking about music. In the end you're talking about Bryce.
You're just being overly pissy about the fact that quoting is such a superior method to organizing thoughts, ideas, and points, and thereafter making your rebuttals regarding each. Perhaps you feel intimidated by this method that you apparently cannot adapt to?

I'm dropping out of this argument. Here's why.

a) Aperson's got it covered.
b) I honestly can say I know less about creating art than anybody here.
c) I've never used Bryce, 3DSM, Maya, Photoshop, etc.

(c.5 I'm not capable of continuing this on my own)

d) There's no point in arguing something with a person that does not want to listen to keywords within the post that change the meaning COMPLETELY. Such as "opinion", "view", etc.

Hahaha. You are such a fool I can't even believe it.
Okay, you said that abstract art is not art(however contradictory that is).
Then you said that it's your opinion that abstract art is not art. That's okay, I'll accept that you believe that as I had stated before. However, I also stated before that I'd try and change your opinion.
Then you said that the definition of art is "opinion". I cannot even BEGIN to tell you how ridiculous that is.
I pay attention to every part of your posts and reply to them accordingly. One spot where you lose is that you cannot do the same for me.

e) Jewpin already spoke twice in which I would ditto his statements. He said what I intended to say. With that said, there's no need to continue.

And I totally annhilated it. Move on.

PS - Seeing as I am now out of the "circle of debate" on whatever it is we're talking about, try not to take this one apart as easily as you think* you can.

*know
You have NO IDEA how easy it is to pick out focal point of your posts and completely destroy what you've said about your opinions and points and whatever else. Why should I limit myself in overkill of such an easy target? It's funny.
As long as you keep replying, you're still in whatever "circle" you thought you were in.

[Squeek]

Just to make it clear, I'm not a child.

I'm an adult. By law.

Older than 98% of the people on FFR.

That's all.

~Squeek

[Mwerp]

Just to make it clear, I'm not a child.

I'm an adult. By law.

Oh my goodness. From what I've seen of your mental capacity, I would have guessed 13ish.

[Moogy]

my name is drama

hi mr. topic

[Omeganitros]

Originally Posted by Mwerp

Like people who remake Beatles songs? They're still good. You don't like them because they're not as good as the originals.

Now look at what you've done. You got me involved, the guy who sucks at arguing.

Basically, all I wanna say is, "If it works, don't fix it." I wish people would stop touching the classics that are fine the way they are. Making the song into something...How do I explain this...different in mood or style or something is fine, but when all you do is speed it up and give it a louder bass, or mix it in with rap and have the chorus repeat in the background(see: Long Train Runnin' by The Doobie Brothers)...That's crap.

[Porgy]

I'm dropping out of this argument. Here's why.

a) Aperson's got it covered.
b) I honestly can say I know less about creating art than anybody here.
c) I've never used Bryce, 3DSM, Maya, Photoshop, etc.
d) There's no point in arguing something with a person that does not want to listen to keywords within the post that change the meaning COMPLETELY. Such as "opinion", "view", etc.
e) Jewpin already spoke twice in which I would ditto his statements. He said what I intended to say. With that said, there's no need to continue.

for lack of better words, ditto. Especially on point d. I don't feel the need to keep rehashing the point i was originally trying to make by a serious of pointless reworded posts. I believe those that are unbiased to the argument understand the point I was originally trying to make. As for Tasselfoot's suggestion... well seeing as my portfolio work is as completely unabstract as it gets it would be comparing a classical concerto to a top 40 rap song. I work solely on stuff that I can use in my profession. I barely have time as it is to create random art pieces for my own shits and giggles. When i begin work at Sony in December I will have no time at all period.

Oh yeah, and i don't work in 3dsm. I did like 2 years ago but I enjoy maya more now. I have to use it for my business anyways (i do architectural visualisation for a few developers in Santa Barbara where Im originally from). I do suggest 3dsm as a good program to learn with though and i don't knock it whatsoever, its only problem is that as a stock package it doesnt have as much features integrated into it as say maya or softimage. You can get plugins though that provide for some very cool features. Oh and for all you flash animators out there you might like to know that maya exports to swf files. Here is a forum sig i did for my friend a long time ago in maya and then exported to flash. It's really simple and the quality is poor as i had to reduce the quality to keep the sig below http://soma.sbcc.edu/mccaskey/rave.html

but yeah, real handy for more advanced flash integration for websites. It can also render to vector.

Peace

[QreepyBORIS]

HERE ENTERS ANOTHER BIASED THIRD PARTY UH OH UH OH.

So , I have used Bryce for almost a year. I stopped somewhat recently, though. There is a reason why, in fact. It's because in Bryce, there is hardly any room for expansion. When I say that, I mean it is an INCREDIBLY limited program. The most advanced things it can do are Booleans (that's pretty damn simple), and it has an okay texture editor. It would be good if the Bryce engine didn't make almost everything look like plastic. It does good metals, some fun volumetrics, and that's it. When I see about 90% of all bryce renders, I either think: "Hi, mister incredibly high specular coefficient!", "Hi, mister transparent metal texture!", "Hi, mister torus (x1000)!", "Hi, mister thats alot of random diffuse and ambient light that has nothing to do with the environment!", or finally "Hi, mister default full-entity lighting which is completely useless and makes things ugly!".

So naturally, having used bryce for many moons, I am guilty of most of those (actually, some are unpreventable due to poor programming, but some are reversible by the user telling it what to do). I am not a wonderful 3d artist. I do not know much about art theory. And yet, I can say all of this because I have used the program, extensively. Bryce is far from wonderful. Hell, it even makes things take long to render. Its the most messed up type of rendering I have seen. Ever.

Bryce took me only about a month to get familiar with. Easy learning interface, easy user interface. those are nice. But its so easy, that you soon find out that it is impossible to do things such as specific polygon editing/manipulation (EVERY OTHER PROGRAM can do that), it does not do NURBS (not that I use these...ever...but every other program can do these, too), has nothing that can confuse or thwart a new graphical artist. This is not good, because with the marked LACK of options, there is a marked LACK of possible variety. Only a couple of people I have ever seen have conquered the lack of options. RJ is one--kind of--he only manages to surpass others because of his Photoshop skills. That's what it seems for the most part. Also, a rather clever guy who could use terrain and lattices to render damned ANYTHING. And finally this other guy--not famous, no name I can recall. He rendered an AWESOME motorcycle in Bryce--I have no idea how he managed it. He did know art theory, I recall from his site. I think it was his major. But wow, that was good for the program's capabilities.

So, for about 5-10 people, Bryce is a very good program. It is an okay program for perhaps a couple hundred people. Perhaps. For the rest, it is largely mediocre. Mwerp, this includes you. Most of your work was mediocre. Some, sure I liked. Then I saw it over and over an over again in all of your other renders. Please branch out in your style.

Wait, you can't, because Bryce doesn't LET you.
I have the same problem. The best I can do is multireplicate shitloads of spheres, apply a funky texture, photoshop, and call it art. Is it art? Sure. Is it good? Not really. Is it original? I haven't seen things like it before, but probably not.

I think, overall, that Bryce might be good for beginners. Maybe about 2 weeks of instruction from a person will do you good, then you just regress and regress and regress into bad 3d habits. They are difficult to break when you try newer, better, more difficult programs.

Trust me on that.

I have used 3dsm6 quite a bit, with no help files, tutorials, or anything. It was fucking tricky. I hardly had a chance to experiment, but I had already realized how strong the program was. Features, features, and more features. Good ones. Very importantly, speedy rendering. Speedier than Bryce, in any case. Lightwave is even more so. It was used for the 3d parts of the Mars Lander documentary. High quality. It was used in several motion pictures, such as the Iron Giant, if I recall. But Maya is even more prominent than THAT. If you are used to 3d model Tekken figures, you know you're good right there. Even if you ignore the rest of its extensive and impressive resume. Bam, one item I picked off a list, and you can see that beautiful things can be made with it.

Another thing, Bryce looks crappy without secondary production (more editing of pictures in a different program), almost always. It needs it. With all of these other, better programs, much less so. Though almost everything looks better after secondary production, I must admit.

Bryce is largely unimpressive. Nobody has used it professionally since maybe the Mid 1990's. And we all know how good the 3d looked back then, Mmmm, MMM!

However, if you don't mind wallowing in your 3d filth, Bryce is fine for you. If you use it for fun and not in seriousness (i.e. "My Bryce stuff is deeper than your Maya stuff because I am deep and abstract and all people who do abstract are are more intelligent than you"), it will amuse you sufficiently for some time.

If you ARE serious and use Bryce, I sure hope it's because you can't afford anything else. By saying that I mean I hope you WILL be able to afford something else, so you can stop using Bryce. If you use it and are serious about it and think it is better than all the other programs without trying them, then you are ignorant. If you use it, are serious about it, and are GOOD (in my opinion), then you are one of about 5-10 people (as I said before). If you are reading this, you probably don't fall under this category.

Even so. Compare the BEST Brycer with the BEST Maya-er. No motherfucking contest. Bryce simply can't do some of the things Maya, Lightwave, 3ds, Softimage, etcetera can do. And besides, the best Brycers wisened up and started using other programs instead. The best Brycers are not the best at 3d. Period.


I know that was not written well, but it was written in chunks, and I did not stop to edit any of it along the way. But the content should be pretty clear. If it is not, you are either stupid, I mistyped, or in denial.

[Mwerp]

for lack of better words, ditto. Especially on point d. I don't feel the need to keep rehashing the point i was originally trying to make by a serious of pointless reworded posts. I believe those that are unbiased to the argument understand the point I was originally trying to make.

I don't know if there's something wrong with you or what, but you never had to keep restating your points. Each time you did, I slammed on them, and you never gave yourself any retribution to them.

As for Tasselfoot's suggestion... well seeing as my portfolio work is as completely unabstract as it gets it would be comparing a classical concerto to a top 40 rap song.

That has to be the first thing you've said in this thread I agree with.

Oh yeah, and i don't work in 3dsm.

k my bad, from the way you praised it I figured you still used it. Doesn't matter, it's not important anyway.

Now look at what you've done. You got me involved, the guy who sucks at arguing.

Basically, all I wanna say is, "If it works, don't fix it."

It's not "fixing it", it's replicating it.
Lawyers do this with precedent cases in courts. They take previous cases that somehow tie in with the one they are working on and use it in their case. They basically replicate the argument or topic or whatever.

I wish people would stop touching the classics that are fine the way they are.

Do you like No. 13, M, Beethoven's Virus, Speed Over Beethoven, V, Classical Insanity, Classic Party Triathlon, Classic 8, or ANYTHING similar to those?

Making the song into something...How do I explain this...different in mood or style or something is fine, but when all you do is speed it up and give it a louder bass, or mix it in with rap and have the chorus repeat in the background(see: Long Train Runnin' by The Doobie Brothers)...That's crap.

No kidding. If it's done well, then it's good. If not, it's not. Hi logic?

[Porgy]

I don't know if there's something wrong with you or what, but you never had to keep restating your points. Each time you did, I slammed on them, and you never gave yourself any retribution to them.

really? because i felt like i was repeatedly saying "bad dog! No!" over and over and over again. Yet the dog keeps coming out and shitting on the carpet.

[tnyhwk900]

This is so out of hand. A 4-5 person flame war? I swear I wish I had mod powers so I could fucking LOCK this insane piece of shit because the mods aren't doing their job.

Here's my opinion: Mwerp, AP, and Porgy all have their own opinions that they are enforcing like hell. I respect this, but the drama that their arguments create is SO THICK, YOU COULDN'T CUT IT WITH A TWO FOOT OBSIDIAN SCALPEL.

You each have given the points of each of your arguments, so now all that is left to do is run each other into the ground. All that is meant to happen in this forum is CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. It's obvious that isn't happening anytime soon between these few.

Locked. (I wish.)

[QreepyBORIS]

Originally Posted by tnyhwk900

This is so out of hand. A 4-5 person flame war? I swear I wish I had mod powers so I could fucking LOCK this insane piece of shit because the mods aren't doing their job.

Locked. (I wish.)

Sounds like a cry for moderatorship. Whiner.


Anyways, I love how nobody wanted to comment on my post.