Prim count possibly?

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I am a little surprised at Phil's response.  If I recall correctly he claims to have an expertise in Search Engine Optimization.  Hence I'm surprised that he would underestimate so badly the results that a Google search might return.

You recall correctly. It's like computers. My specialism is in the hardware and programming (more on the nuts and bolts end). Ask me to set up an email address though, or any top level stuff, and I often need help. With search engines, my field is the nuts and bolts of optimising for them and not about actually using them. And it's been 10 years since I had anything to do with that.

But on the other hand I do find the graphics you linked to a bit condescending.

Very

condescending. But it only added to his errors.

---

 

[VaelFaye]

...Egomania doesn't run in your family, does it?

[Derek Torvalar]

 

---

Nalytha wrote:

Oh snap. Phil bringing down the hammer. 

---



 

 

 

[Derek Torvalar]

---

flowersforkain wrote:

...Egomania doesn't run in your family, does it?

---

Self-righteous White Knight syndrome.

Inability to discern that their behaviour is indistinct from that of their target.

Delusional belief that their actions are motivated by defending others but are in reality designed to bolster weak self-esteem and reflect/project an idealized self-image.

Victim mentality when confronted. Often accompanied by displays of narcissistic rage, and then dysfunctional appeals for sympathy.

Lack of empathy.

Engages in argumentum ad populum.

[Phil Deakins]

---

flowersforkain wrote:

...Egomania doesn't run in your family, does it?

---

Why do you ask? Because I criticised someone for treating someone badly?

[Phil Deakins]

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

---

flowersforkain wrote:

...Egomania doesn't run in your family, does it?

---

Self-righteous White Knight syndrome.

Inability to discern that their behaviour is indistinct from that of their target.

Delusional belief that their actions are motivated by defending others but are in reality designed to bolster weak self-esteem and reflect/project an idealized self-image.

Victim mentality when confronted. Often accompanied by displays of narcissistic rage, and then dysfunctional appeals for sympathy.

Lack of empathy.

Engages in argumentum ad populum.

---

If you want to add anything to the discussion plese talk about me or the OP or the Helper. You could start a new thread to talk about someone or something different.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

Ya know what, Phil. I won't take up any more space in this thread than to say:

I don't give a **bleep** what you think, so go **bleep** yourself.

[Phil Deakins]

You'll need to explain how to bleep myself because it's a new one on me. Still, it's good that you are finishing with it. Perhaps you'll be a bit more considerate when someone asks for help in the future. I hope so.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

Yeah. Mmmhmm. Cuz you schooled me.

*plonk*

[Nalytha]

I find the best approach is to lead by example. It's futile to call out people. I speak from experience.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

But that is just my Rum induced opinion at the moment.  Normally I drink Bourbon but I was gifted a bottle of this poison.

---

Oh, rum isn't that bad. As long as it's in a Long Island Iced Tea.

---

You see, I always drink my Bourbon straight or on rare occasions on the rocks.  If a liquor requires mixing in a drink in order to be palatable then it qualifies as gut rot to me.

Like toppings on Cheese Cake.  If it requires a topping such as cherries or strawberries or other ilk then it must be a very cruddy cheesecake.  One does not ruin the succulent and sexy taste and texture of a good cheesecake by covering it with some topping.  A good cheesecake is to be savoured with the same respect one savours a good Bourbon.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I am a little surprised at Phil's response.  If I recall correctly he claims to have an expertise in Search Engine Optimization.  Hence I'm surprised that he would underestimate so badly the results that a Google search might return.

You recall correctly. It's like computers. My specialism is in the hardware and programming (more on the nuts and bolts end). Ask me to set up an email address though, or any top level stuff, and I often need help. With search engines, my field is the nuts and bolts of optimising for them and not about actually using them. And it's been 10 years since I had anything to do with that.

But on the other hand I do find the graphics you linked to a bit condescending.

Very

condescending. But it only added to his errors.

---

 

---

I'm not sure if there is a way to actually measure the degree of condensation, whether it's just a "bit" as I said or "very" as you suggest.  But like ugliness, it may be a thing in the eye of the beholder.

But getting to your other statement I'm slightly perplexed.  How does on become an expert in designing something you lack expertise in using?  That kind of sounds like the problems we have had over the years with Second Life.  Design (GUI) and other programming decisions as well as decisions about priorities (e,g., what to fix) made by people who did not have a Second Life.

[Phil Deakins]

The way to measure the degree of condensation is to take a 1" square of perfectly dry blotting paper and weigh it. Then place it flat on the surface where the condensation is and, when it has absorbed all the water there, weigh it again. Subtract the first weight from the second weight to give you the weight of just the condensation. Knowing what water weighs, you can then calculate the degree of condensation

 

Now to (hopefully) unperplex you:-

Computers: Before I bought my first computer, I'd been trained in electronics - (repair and maintenance of cipher machines in the army), and I'd acquired an inbuilt interest in electronics, so it was right up my street when 'home' computers came out. I got my first one in the mid 80s for the purpose of programming it to do a particular thing for my business. So I learned to write programmes, first in BASIC and then in machine code. After that I opened it up to study its whole circuit and finished up understanding every part of it. My interest and gained specialism was in those areas rather than in anything else. At that time, using computers was very simple compared to what they've become. Nothing needed setting up and email didn't even exist. So it was easy for me to invent, make and market hardware add-ons, which I did a little later. My interest was never in what computers are used for today, or in what anyone else used them for. I use them, of course, but I'm just like a great many people when it comes to setting stuff up that isn't blatantly obvious.

Search engines: It's very similar. I came to the Web relatively late - end of '98. I came to the Internet some years earlier though, when I wrote the 2 online games that I've mentioned before. The Web hadn't taken off at that time. Then I had a few years doing something completely different, and came to the Web after that. I quickly learned that seo looked like a good way of earning a living, so I got into it by learning the ways of improving search engine rankings in the various top engines (Google wasn't out at that time and there were a number of major search engines to cater for. There was a period around the turn of the century when doing well in Inktomi - an engine that not many people have ever heard of - got you ranked well almost everywhere). That is or was my field of expertise concerning search engines, but there's a lot of user stuff concerning them that I never got into. Search engines were never a hobby and never held a deep interest for me like electronics had, so I never made comprehensive user-use of them like some people do. My use of search engines is extremely basic - no modifiers, or anything like that. To use modifiers, I'd need to look it up first.

Summary: Many things have different levels/areas and I specialised in the levels/areas I've described. I've never had comprehensive expertise in either computers or search engines, but I have had expertise/specialisms in certain areas of computers and concerning search engines.

To answer your specific question: I never designed anything that I had no expertise in using. The only things I designed were (1) hardware add-ons for a particular range of computers - late 80s/early 90s - (at that time, using computers was very simple, and no user expertise was needed), and (2) programmes (I had some expertise in using computers for the programmes that I wrote). I didn't design search engines or computers.

[VaelFaye]

I'm the same way. Gotta have a good cheesecake without all the sugary crap on top. Ditto on the bourbon.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

flowersforkain wrote:

...Egomania doesn't run in your family, does it?

---

Why do you ask? Because I criticised someone for treating someone badly?

---

Sorry Phil, but you started a flame war here.. Since you seem to know so much in your 10 years in SL, you should know a few of the rules of the forums, right?

 

• Interpersonal Disputes or Personal Negative Commentary: If you have a personal disagreement, do not post about it on the Second Life community pages. Residents who have personal differences have other channels of communication available to them — private messaging in the forums, IM within Second Life, or chatting within Second Life.

• No Flaming: "Flames" are hostile or disruptive posts, or messages intended to incite an angry response. Spirited discussion and constructive disagreement are welcome, but name-calling and airing of grievances are not appropriate in our discussion areas. We will also not tolerate any post that encourages others to violate any policy of Linden Lab

• Off Topic Content: Please keep your commentary relevant to the discussion and within the format that the forum, board or question and answer area require. (For example, in the Answers section, please follow the Q&A format of the discussion.) Content that is blatantly off topic is not permitted. You may also not post regarding subjects that do not relate to Second Life except in the General forum discussion board.

You like to argue. Plain and simple. You like to make sure everyone knows your thoughts, no matter if they are on topic or not. If you thought Griffs first response was off topic and rude, what should you have actually done? Perhaps flagged it for a moderator? Instead you decided to take it upon yourself to dress him down. A dressing down that failed miserably i might add.

[Phil Deakins]

I'm not aware of any flaming in this thread - not real flaming, anyway. Some atmosphere, yes, but that's all that I'm aware of.

You are about one thing though, but it's no secret as I openly admit to it. That is that I do like a good argument. Not a nasty one, but a good one. Different people have different traits. One of mine is to enjoy a good argument. It's the reason why, of those who found fault with his response to the OP's help request, I am the one who continued to the end - that's the end that came a few posts ago, btw - before you resurected it again - which you are perfectly entitle to do, of course

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm not aware of any flaming in this thread - not real flaming, anyway. Some atmosphere, yes, but that's all that I'm aware of.

You are about one thing though, but it's no secret as I openly admit to it. That is that I do like a good argument. Not a nasty one, but a good one. Different people have different traits. One of mine is to enjoy a good argument. It's the reason why, of those who found fault with his response to the OP's help request, I am the one who continued to the end - that's the end that came a few posts ago, btw - before you resurected it again - which you are perfectly entitle to do, of course

---

I believe if you read over the ending of your little flame war snipe battle, you will find that Griff was the last poster in it. Which means he ended it.

I did not resurrect your war.. I commented on it. That does not bring it back to life unless Griff decides to comment.

You even had a snide response to Perrie over a simple typo. You come across as a very rude snooty prat who looks down on everyone else. I have long believed this and you just keep proving it, day after day.

If you truly felt Griffs first post was rude and not helpful, you could have flagged it as off topic and the mods would have removed it. You chose to attack him. That makes you the loser here.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm not aware of any flaming in this thread - not real flaming, anyway. Some atmosphere, yes, but that's all that I'm aware of.

You are about one thing though, but it's no secret as I openly admit to it. That is that I do like a good argument. Not a nasty one, but a good one. Different people have different traits. One of mine is to enjoy a good argument. It's the reason why, of those who found fault with his response to the OP's help request, I am the one who continued to the end - that's the end that came a few posts ago, btw - before you resurected it again - which you are perfectly entitle to do, of course

---

I believe if you read over the ending of your little flame war snipe battle, you will find that Griff was the last poster in it. Which means he ended it.

He did. Your point?

I did not resurrect your war.. I commented on it. That does not bring it back to life unless Griff decides to comment.

True. But anyone can bring it back to life if they want to. It doesn't need either Griffin or me in it for that to happen. Unless you specifically mean the actual dialogue between him and me, of course.

You even had a snide response to Perrie over a simple typo.

There was nothing snide about my response the Perrie. Perhaps the concept of humour has escaped you in life

  I thought it was humorous, and I have no doubt that Perrie will too when he reads it. Perhaps you are of the opinion that it would be humorous if someone else had written it, such as yourself, for instance, but it must be snide if I write it lol.

You come across as a very rude snooty prat who looks down on everyone else. I have long believed this and you just keep proving it, day after day.

That's alright. I'm happy with that. But I don't look down on everyone - just certain ones

  I look up to certain ones too, but I look at most people as being the same as me. It's interesting to note that you have now entered the realms of name-calling. If I'd called you a prat, no doubt you would have claimed that I was flaming but, presumably, it's not flaming if you do it lol. Or are you allowed to do it but I'm not? Or are you intentionally breaking the rule that you accused me of breaking?

If you truly felt Griffs first post was rude and not helpful, you could have flagged it as off topic and the mods would have removed it. You chose to attack him. That makes you the loser here.

I never RIC anything unless it's either really bad or spam, and I don't recall ever having RICed anything for being really bad. Also, I didn't say that his response was rude or unhelpful. It wasn't rude. It was critical of the OP for even asking something that s/he could have found him/herself, and later he said that s/he was lazy for asking here instead of using Google. It was helpful to the OP inasmuch as it taught him/her that answers can be found in search engines.

And I didn't 'attack' Griffin. I actually said, "

So don't be hard on the OP - be a Helper and post what the prim count is

" To jog your memory, he'd said that he wouldn't post the answer "

on principle

", because the OP had asked here instead of using a search engine. From there, the discussion between us was very mild and the temperature only increased later, but only a bit. No flaming, at least not fom me. And don't forget that I wasn't the only one who found fault with Griffin's reply to the OP.

In a nutshell, I did what you're doing now - finding fault with what someone has written. I found fault with what Griffin had written, you found fault with what I had written. Grffin and I continued it, you and I are continuing it. What's the difference? Perhaps you should take you own advice and report my post(s) to a moderator

---

 

[VaelFaye]

I feel very sad for you.

[Phil Deakins]

Thank you. I appreciate your concern

Oh wait. Someone asks for help. Someone else responds in a mean manner. Then a third person says don't be so mean, and you feel sad for the third person. That makes perfect sense   I was getting confused there for a minute.

[VaelFaye]

That's not why I feel sad for you, phil.

[Phil Deakins]

No? Is it perhaps because a couple of people didn't care for me finidng fault with the mean way that Griffin treated the OP? One of the couple of people being Griffin himself, of course lol. Am I getting warmer?

To be perfectly honest, if you're going to be sad at all, it's those who are on the receiving end of the meanness who merit it. In this case, it's the OP. The ones who are mean deserve something different, and, of course, I'm pleased to say that that's what they often get here

ETA: Go out and get yourself a strawberry cheesecake. That should relieve your sadness

[Derek Torvalar]

---

flowersforkain wrote:

That's not why I feel sad for you, phil.

---

They can't or refuse to accept it

[Griffin Ceawlin]

A brief timeline for anyone just joining us who decides to skip ahead to the end of the thread here:

I did suggest to the person who wanted to know how the OP could have possibly known who the creator of the gacha re-sale item was that they could use Google (never mind that the Marketplace store name is not only in the item listing name but in the graphic that the re-seller lifted from the creator). I further suggested that the OP could have found the answer to their own question, also by using Google.

You, Phil, said that you never would have thought of searching for the answer using a search engine and that I should just answer OP's question and not be "hard" on them.

I then posted a link that went right to a Google search results page that showed the prim count of the item in question on the results page.

You, Phil, said "but sadly not how many prims are used in the" item in question.

I said... hmmmmnope. There's the prim count right there on the first page, while wondering if perhaps you were blind.

You, Phil, said "what searchterm?" and some nonsense about how it has nothing to do with Google and Google knows nothing and blah blah blah.

I then laid out the reasoning that might lead someone to use Google to find the prim count of the item in question (or similar items). In short: people blog crap.

I added that even though I am a "Recognized Helper" (a rank which I could not care less about but, in your and apparently other people's view, Phil, seems to confer some extra responsibility on me, to which I say tosh) I do not have to enable other people's laziness (in which I include your own, Phil), which one poster characterized as "dramatic" and which you later seize upon as an example of how very "mean" I am.

You, Phil, then said that I "talk a load of rubbish" and tried to tell me that I was "wrong" (which I wasn't), that the Google search results page did not show the prim count (which it did).

You, Phil, further stated that the link I posted was "idiotic... stupidity incarnate" and that I "seem to imagine that a search engine is the way to discover how many prims an SL object uses (which it sometimes is, isn't it?) and, therefore, people should use that method" (which I generally do not, but...).

You, Phil, did allow that "on this occasion there was some information to be had but that was just lucky" but that "it's not a method that people can use because it's not a method at all" (but that apparently sometimes is).

You then, Phil, proceeded to tell another poster that "you can't find prim counts through a search engine" but that "you can find lots of stuff through search engines though, so it's always worth trying it."

Next, you describe my "initial post as being intentionally negative, and pretty much accusative, towards the OP" and say that "[my] replies to [you] confirm that view" (when really what they overwhelmingly do is prove how wrong you are) and that "even the link included was extremely patronising - and utterly stupid."

Then you come to the defense of Talligurl, who advocates ignoring posts one doesn't like while seeming to be incapable of doing so herself.

Skip ahead a couple posts and we find that it wasn't the link that I posted that was stupid, it was me that was stupid for posting it and that my "reply to the OP (who I have yet to address) was idiotic."

I'm sorry, Phil, what was that you were saying about being negative? (Not that I give a flying **bleep** what you think of me.)

[VaelFaye]

Of all the things you've got going for you - your personal accomplishments that hard won credentials and years of expertise and references can vouch for - devaluing a persons self worth is (and this is no mean feat) what you are best at.

 

Take a bow. It's rightfully earned.