Jump to content
Phil Deakins

Nothing really changes :)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Callum Meriman said:

I think it's great. But you have disproved your own thread title. You have changed!

You see a far greater worth now in copy furniture, up from your 2008 statement about rezzers. They have a real purpose for Landlords so they can do this sort of thing.

And, most importantly you say

And, without disrepect meant, that's a huge change. Normally you can't stop. You need the last word.

Why are you lying, Callum? What are you trying to achieve? If you believe that I expressed an opinion on 2008 that is different to my current opinions, quote the bloody thing. Or shut up with your lies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:
15 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's an interesting topic..

Why do you think people don't change? Or do you think, as I do, that sometimes they do change but are reluctant to admit it....because it's seen as a weakness...?

I didn't say that people don't change. If you think I did, please quote it. What hasn't changed are the arguments haven't changed ;)

Yes but if they did not change their reasons then they did not change, and I'm wondering why that is. Or we can put it in your terms -- why do their arguments not change?
I think there are more universal principles regarding why/how people change their opinions about particular issues, and that these universal principles or common dynamics/psychologies could be applied in this specific case you brought up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the fundamental assertion that the arguments have not changed. Darn, now I have to go read the archived post.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in why people, or their arguments, change or don't change. You can explore it by all means, but I'm not going to explore it with you. I just thought that the arguments that some people put forward recently are exactly the same same arguments that some people put forward in 2008. It made me smile that nothing changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

YCH slap, Love ❤️  

Sorry, forgot. Do you prefer to use the newspaper or spray bottle?

 

D6370175-D51B-439A-879B-B2C6530BA222.jpeg

A25AC246-956E-403C-BEBA-D5B2C3A6ECBF.jpeg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

Why are you lying, Callum? What are you trying to achieve? If you believe that I expressed an opinion on 2008 that is different to my current opinions, quote the bloody thing. Or shut up with your lies.

I'm not lying. I'm stating things factually as I read them. I welcome you to correct me, although then your thread title is true, things havn't changed after all.

The clear perception is you ardently fight against copy, in each and every one of these threads, and there are more of these copy/no copy threads then there are about kid nudity.

To quote you from 2008.

Quote

In the other thread, one person had already mentioned the idea of having room sets in a rezzer (not a temp rezzer) and swapping between them, which is a very good facility to have, but it can't really be done unless the items are copyable. My thinking is that so few people do it that selling copy furniture for it doesn't come close to outweighing the disadvantages of selling copyable furniture.

to quote you 10 years later

5 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I'm letting my imagination wander now, and I'm imagining that a prim, or prims, in the homes will contain the furniture, and the tenant will be able to click to remove or rez it, room by room. When it's rezzed, each piece will be repositionable, and deleteable. That would be a nice system for the homes. Nice for landlords too. I wonder if any do it.

I think you have changed, and you see the worth of Copy/Mod furniture now. You can imagine that Landlords would love it for their rezzer homes (A lot of those, I have them too on my rental regions!)

Or am I simply wrong. You still steadfastly hold the same views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

I'm not interested in why people, or their arguments, change or don't change. You can explore it by all means, but I'm not going to explore it with you. I just thought that the arguments that some people put forward recently are exactly the same same arguments that some people put forward in 2008. It made me smile that nothing changed.

No need for you to explore it with me. It is a perspective I can't understand.....commenting on an observed pattern but not wanting to know the deeper meaning of it.

Maybe somebody else is interested in exploring it...would be a fun topic that you inadvertently launched off...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I scanned the archived thread. Nowhere in that thread did Phil say that landlords wanted "copy items" because of "greed".  So, things do change. Except in that old thread, Phil called out most repliers for not answering his exact question of whether people "should" be able to copy items.  There's that "should" word again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Come on. I'm waiting for the quote, Callum.

You gave me one minute between calling me a liar, then taunting me with this Phil. That was a bit rude and argumentative of you, not just for calling me a liar, but then the taunt.

I'll let you have the last word, I'm off to bed as it's 1am.

'Night everyone.

Edited by Callum Meriman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

I'm not lying. I'm stating things factually as I read them. I welcome you to correct me, although then your thread title is true, things havn't changed after all.

I have corrected you and you argued against it.

The clear perception is you ardently fight against copy, in each and every one of these threads, and there are more of these copy/no copy threads then there are about kid nudity.

If that's your perception then you must read with blinkers on, or you have an agenda here, because it's absolutely untrue. I don't even argue about it, for goodness sakes. I put my point of view as a seller, and that's all I've ever done. Quote me if you think differently. Otherwise, hold your tongue because you've become very offensive.

To quote you from 2008.

In the other thread, one person had already mentioned the idea of having room sets in a rezzer (not a temp rezzer) and swapping between them, which is a very good facility to have, but it can't really be done unless the items are copyable. My thinking is that so few people do it that selling copy furniture for it doesn't come close to outweighing the disadvantages of selling copyable furniture.

You can't see what that is? Good grief! Reading the thread it came from clearly shows that that's my view for myself as a seller. Heck, you don't even need the rest of the thread. It stands up on its own as a seller's point of view. But nowhere does it even hint that copyable items are wrong, and nowhere does it argue against them. It simply says that, as a seller, copy items are not for me.

to quote you 10 years later

I'm letting my imagination wander now, and I'm imagining that a prim, or prims, in the homes will contain the furniture, and the tenant will be able to click to remove or rez it, room by room. When it's rezzed, each piece will be repositionable, and deleteable. That would be a nice system for the homes. Nice for landlords too. I wonder if any do it.

That's right. No change there then.

I think you have changed, and you see the worth of Copy/Mod furniture now. You can imagine that Landlords would love it for their rezzer homes (A lot of those, I have them too on my rental regions!)

Or am I simply wrong. You still steadfastly hold the same views?

You are simply wrong. I still steadfastly hold the same views. Views which you have studiously ignored so that you could spread falsehoods about me for some reason.

In a nutshell, I have never argued against copy items, copy furniture, copy whatever. I have always provided reasons why I never sold it. Choosing not to sell it does not mean that I don't think it should exists. It means that I chose not to sell it. Very very simple, huh? If you don't have an agenda, that is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Ok, I scanned the archived thread. Nowhere in that thread did Phil say that landlords wanted "copy items" because of "greed".  So, things do change. Except in that old thread, Phil called out most repliers for not answering his exact question of whether people "should" be able to copy items.  There's that "should" word again!

You did read the OP didn't you? The thread was all about "should" ;)

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

But nowhere does it even hint that copyable items are wrong,

But the whole point of your 2008 question was to ask if people “should be able to copy items”. Which you argued against as a seller. Wow..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

You gave me one minute between calling me a liar, then taunting me with this Phil. That was a bit rude and argumentative of you, not just for calling me a liar, but then the taunt.

You're right. I didn't wait very long. I was, and still am, offended by you posting untruths about me, especially as there is no apparent reason for you to do it.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

You did read the OP didn't you? The thread was all about "should" ;)

I didn’t have to, you repeated it over and over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

But the whole point of your 2008 question was to ask if people “should be able to copy items”. Which you argued against as a seller. Wow..

No. That wasn't what the thread's op said. Go back and read it again. You might find the difference to be a little subtle, but it's very different

I'll always put the reasons why I as a seller chose not to sell copyable items. That goes without saying, and no change there ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

No. That wasn't what the thread's op said. Go back and read it again. You might find the difference to be a little subtle, but it's very different

I'll always put the reasons why I as a seller chose not to sell copyable items. That goes without saying, and no change there ;)

Nope, I understand perfectly. We disagree on the interpretation. And that’s ok. There’s no right and wrong, remember?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

You're right. I didn't wait very long. I was, and still am, offended by you posting untruths about me, especially as there is no apparent reason for you to do it.

The direct quotes were untruths? How is that possible? Maybe it’s the interpretation of those quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Good for you. Remember, there is no right and wrong, either!

thats the problem with the western world today too many people think there is no such thing as right and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The silliest thing I kept reading in that thread was, “a lot of people think everything should be free”. I’ve never met anyone with that opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the interpretation that was the untruth. I saw it as a lie, though I admit that perhaps it was a mistake rather than a lie. Either way it was an untruth. And it certainly looked like an 'Aha! Here's something I can have a go at Phil with'. The wrong interpretation was that I have different views/opinions now than I had back then.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

The silliest thing I kept reading in that thread was, “a lot of people think everything should be free”. I’ve never met anyone with that opinion.

Perhaps it was more common in the forum back then than it is now. It was certainly quite common, and I believe that there's still a remnant of it these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Perhaps it was more common in the forum back then than it is now. It was certainly quite common, and I believe that there's still a remnant of it these days.

I would assume that it was mostly held by “poor” people, or perhaps what you’ve called “greedy” people. Luckily, there’s a lot of freebies out there for “poor” people..they can’t live or rez them for free though. Perhaps in sandboxes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...