You are (sadly) right. On 8/1/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Wilson wrote: > > On 8/1/06, Jesse Nesbitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In light of the recent flaimings in the SL Forums, I'd have to vote > > no. If people want to discuss civily, they can come on the mailing > > list. > > I hope you're prepared to deal with that for a while longer. The SL forum for some reason attracts a lot of idiots. i'm not sure if they're intentionally trying to provoke people, or if they really believe what they're saying. I can't believe the trolling that goes on unchecked in the Sandbox! My opinion is that the reverse-engineering-related topics there are a combination of people who just do not know better and those who wish to spread FUD because they do not want to compete with real-world businesses trying to bridge the gap to Second Life. Some of them are the "Second Life should only be a game" crowd. Some of them just wish to retain a technologically-induced monopoly on their particular industries. Opening up the protocol is akin to opening up Second Life's markets to competition. We can already see the protests at WTO meetings. We need to deal with the same imbeciles in Second Life too. -Sam _______________________________________________ libsecondlife-dev mailing list libsecondlife-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/libsecondlife-dev
-- --Jesse _______________________________________________ libsecondlife-dev mailing list libsecondlife-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/libsecondlife-dev
