Had to do the same in some threads with the famous or infamous Puppyite ...... still got the stuff on the hard drive.Q5sys wrote: Still archiving... http://q5sys.info/edited_posts/phatslacko/
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Had to do the same in some threads with the famous or infamous Puppyite ...... still got the stuff on the hard drive.Q5sys wrote: Still archiving... http://q5sys.info/edited_posts/phatslacko/
Yes I currently am doing work with a base of 64bit slackware. So is JamesBond... So is Kirk... So is TazOC. None of that has anything to do with 01Mickos work on his 32bit variants of Slackware. I've built stuff for the 32bit Slackware releases, I've given 01Micko suggestions. Some of which after thinking about he's agreed and implemented.gcmartin wrote:I had not visited this thread since its outset day. Its opening is a clear intention to draw attention to some aspects of the distro that could have been overlooked.
Then looking today, I felt comments here attacks the very good work that 01Micko has presented the community. And, I reacted. Yes, I do find those posts as methods of diminishing his contribution and an attempt to use this thread to achieve such.
I am aware of Q5sys's own Slackware 64bit efforts.
I stand by my claim.
I cant go back and look at the first days post. Because I cant go back in time and see what the post was before you changed it.gcmartin wrote:What is your problem in understanding. Go look at the first day's post to this thread.
No you've changed the opening post to include information it did not have at the time. So yes, now it has that information. Previously it did not.gcmartin wrote:You continue to try to impose some logic contrary to the Opening Thread's post.
I can read the post you've edited. I cannot go back and look at tte post that existed before you changed it.gcmartin wrote:For the last time Q5sys, LOOK AT THE TITLE AND THEN READ THE THEME!
You stand by being a dishonest person and being very deceitful by changing your posts after the fact and then trying to call others liars.gcmartin wrote:This thread is NOT doing what you continue to try to emphasize. It is an announce which does NOT ask for or request bug posting or anything. You are mis-guiding the reality. You comments are aimed as I claim, herein.
I stand by my claim!
So you are calling myself, JamesC and Jamesbond Liars for stating that the information was not there before you edited your post?gcmartin wrote:Look again. None of that information has been changed. The credit to 01Micko has ALWAYS BEEN THERE! I even made it boldly clearer.
I did not attempt to derail any PAE offering. So you're lying there. I made a thread and posted a multitude of tests regarding PAE vs NON-PAE kernels and performance impact. Stating factual tests does not mean Im derailing anything. I have no problem with PAE, it has its place, I do not however feel that PAE should be the default version. 01Micko apparently agrees, since the primary download of versions of Slacko are NON-PAE. The PAE version is an option choice for people. Furthermore I didnt use a beta copy of any of his work. So you're lying there too. I tested offical releases, and posted them for everyone to see. And 01Micko commented in that thread. If he felt I was attacking his work he would have been in his right to state so. He did not, in fact he made the comment that he was going to reference my work so users could decide for themselves. See This thread and this post.gcmartin wrote:But, you have done something in the Slacko community. I can draw attention to, both, this and another dismal effort to derail 01Micko’s contribution in PAE distro offerings by using a beta copy of his and proclaiming no value, when this very community has shown over and over that there is value in both perceived and actual system performance and behavior. That very effort by you appeared to be aimed at diminishing the value of his work there, too.
No I have not created threads about PhatSlacko because I feel the thread that 01Micko created is sufficient to talk about his thread. I see no reason to go create more threads when we already have a thread in place to talk about that release. As such I have made positive comments about Phatslacko and 01Micko's work in this very thread. I guess you're selective reading skill caused you to not read what I said.gcmartin wrote:If you can show us somewhere that you have done something to promote any value to PhatSlacko, it would be worth a reconsideration on my part of whether you are not and did not try to defame his contribution by using this thread to do so.
You're talking about 'Your Legacy'?! I dont even know how to comment on someone who feels they have a 'legacy'... I'm just a simple person.gcmartin wrote:I legitimately feel they deserve credit for the contributions they make to all of us. That is my legacy. It is consistent. And each developer I have worked with, directly or indirectly, will say the same, I'm sure.
If you are the measure of Honesty... The world is doomed.gcmartin wrote:I am about as honest as anyone you'll ever know.
Monsie wrote:Hi all,
I am trying to make sense of this thread, trying to understand the dynamics of the situation.... I am not interested (at this point) in taking sides or casting blame here.
That said, an accusation has been made that gcmartin is editing his post(s) in this thread apparently to alter the content and tone of what he said --in response to feedback from others. Given what others have said about the confusion as to who created the PhatSlacko 5.5 re-mix, this seems to be a valid concern. However, if that is the case, then it seems to me that earlier posts by gcmartin should be stamped as having been edited x number of times...
Is it possible to edit one's posts surreptitiously after others have posted in the thread? What is going on here?
Respectfully,
Monsie
You edited twice yet yet your post doesn't have the edit line? Curious.Q5sys wrote:Monsie wrote:Hi all,
I am trying to make sense of this thread, trying to understand the dynamics of the situation.... I am not interested (at this point) in taking sides or casting blame here.
That said, an accusation has been made that gcmartin is editing his post(s) in this thread apparently to alter the content and tone of what he said --in response to feedback from others. Given what others have said about the confusion as to who created the PhatSlacko 5.5 re-mix, this seems to be a valid concern. However, if that is the case, then it seems to me that earlier posts by gcmartin should be stamped as having been edited x number of times...
Is it possible to edit one's posts surreptitiously after others have posted in the thread? What is going on here?
Respectfully,
Monsie
Yes it is possible to edit your post without that little "edit" line showing up.
That feature of the forum seems to get turned on and off. I'm not sure why. It seems to only get turned on after there has been an issue of threads getting edited after.
I dont know why its not on all the time. I can only guess there is some resource reason.
Example below.
See the difference between these to:
http://q5sys.info/edited_posts/gcpost-edit.png
http://q5sys.info/edited_posts/gcpost-original.png
Here is another example from this thread previously. http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 124#694124
You'll see that I commented about my edit to the post... but the 'edit line' did not show up, even though there was another post after.
It seems however that it was just turned on since my post prior to your post now shows an edit line.
EDIT: added example.
EDIT2: addded 2nd example
I know with PHPBB3 forum the edit line only shows up IF someone else posts after you. But its not on by default board wide. Its an option in the Admin Control Panel which can be turned on and off.James C wrote:
You edited twice yet yet your post doesn't have the edit line? Curious.
I believe the accusation is that gcmartin is saying that he did credit 01Micko in his original post and had a link, and that you, myself and Jamesbond are all lying when he say that he edited his original post to add that.James C wrote:If I'm following along correctly with this thread I'm either too stupid to have read the first post correctly and just missed any mention of 01micko and a link to Phat Slacko...which led to my posting the link to the original Phat Slacko thread or I'm dishonest about the fact that the first post has been edited.I just would like some clarification as to what I'm apparently being accused of.
I'm fairly comfortable in saying that 01micko is not really bother by any criticism of PAE..... since I'm probably the most anti-PAE member of this forum.Remember my favorite quote from Linus Torvalds.......Q5sys wrote:I did not attempt to derail any PAE offering. So you're lying there. I made a thread and posted a multitude of tests regarding PAE vs NON-PAE kernels and performance impact. Stating factual tests does not mean Im derailing anything. I have no problem with PAE, it has its place, I do not however feel that PAE should be the default version. 01Micko apparently agrees, since the primary download of versions of Slacko are NON-PAE. The PAE version is an option choice for people. Furthermore I didnt use a beta copy of any of his work. So you're lying there too. I tested offical releases, and posted them for everyone to see. And 01Micko commented in that thread. If he felt I was attacking his work he would have been in his right to state so. He did not, in fact he made the comment that he was going to reference my work so users could decide for themselves. See This thread and this post.gcmartin wrote:But, you have done something in the Slacko community. I can draw attention to, both, this and another dismal effort to derail 01Micko’s contribution in PAE distro offerings by using a beta copy of his and proclaiming no value, when this very community has shown over and over that there is value in both perceived and actual system performance and behavior. That very effort by you appeared to be aimed at diminishing the value of his work there, too.
http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?thr ... stid=76973PAE really really sucks.
This forum appears to suffer from quite a few glitches......things may be turned on but only work occasionally.Q5sys wrote:I know with PHPBB3 forum the edit line only shows up IF someone else posts after you. But its not on by default board wide. Its an option in the Admin Control Panel which can be turned on and off.James C wrote:
You edited twice yet yet your post doesn't have the edit line? Curious.
I'm unsure of its exact implementation in PHPBB2 forums.
It may need to be turned on for specific threads. I have no idea. All I know is that in the last thread where this became an issue (the PAE thread)... it wasnt on until I made a comment to the mods about posts getting edited... then it suddenly was on for that thread.
It is my belief that it should be turned on board wide as default setting... to prevent this very problem.
Apparently to some people, if you disagree with some application of technology you're not only attacking their work, but you are attacking them personally.James C wrote:People can disagree without things turning personal.