Errr, Jwocky, you know as no one that everywhere is danger. So you may be earlier in Walhalla than you expect. From the free half of the world i of course do not wish that, and neither expect that.
Kind regards, Vincent
Responding to Curtis
Re: Responding to Curtis
IAHM-COL wrote:(2) Consider there is no intent, no path, no desire for the leaders of fgmembers to ever see any of their mods flow back into the mainline project.
That is correct. I think this is the meat of the topic.
I consider there is FULL intent, and lots of desire to see our content reach the core (FGADDon and Terrasync) and this is where I have been pushing you, poking you, to hear me [I apologize for being so insisting]. And if possible to open such flowback
Be careful, when you write "That is correct" it's looking like you're saying that his statement is correct, and he said that "there is no intent". You then say "there is FULL intent", and I understand what you mean. But you know by now that some people, like Thorsten and the new moderator, will basically just quote the first sentence of your response and then say that you admit you had no intent to have mods flow back.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Re: Responding to Curtis
Curtis is correct in that there is no intent, no path, no desire.
And he is correct in that being the core of the problem.
But then ... who has not such intent?
He says is FGMEMBERS. I am saying: I do have the intent,
and still I see correct that there is no intent -- no path -- no desire.
(I am Sorry for the sonnet above, but really here the flirt is reaching new romantic heights
)
Per your suggestion I correct as this
About the technique of quoting without context, there's much nothing left to do. It's just trickery.
And he is correct in that being the core of the problem.
But then ... who has not such intent?
He says is FGMEMBERS. I am saying: I do have the intent,
and still I see correct that there is no intent -- no path -- no desire.
(I am Sorry for the sonnet above, but really here the flirt is reaching new romantic heights
)Per your suggestion I correct as this
I consider there is FULL intent, and lots of desire from our side to see
About the technique of quoting without context, there's much nothing left to do. It's just trickery.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Responding to Curtis
I understand what you did to clarify your statement. But my worry was that someone will write something like this:
That's the type of nonsense I'd expect from some. But I understand what you mean, appreciate it, and hope that others will as well. I'll stop talking now since it's sort of beside the point.
So here is proof they don't want cooperate. Just look at the response to Curtis:IAHM-COL wrote:(2) Consider there is no intent, no path, no desire for the leaders of fgmembers to ever see any of their mods flow back into the mainline project.
That is correct.
See? Israel confirms that fgmembers don't want to cooperate!
That's the type of nonsense I'd expect from some. But I understand what you mean, appreciate it, and hope that others will as well. I'll stop talking now since it's sort of beside the point.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Re: Responding to Curtis
yes. They are welcome to try. Just to show more of their own skin.
I mean, by all means, if you read Curtis statement, and you are a purist in grammar and punctuation, you'll notice that there is a big ambiguity on whom lacks the intent and the desire. All it is clear is that there is not intent, path and/or desire.
So... in any case, I still think Curtis stand correct there.
I mean, by all means, if you read Curtis statement, and you are a purist in grammar and punctuation, you'll notice that there is a big ambiguity on whom lacks the intent and the desire. All it is clear is that there is not intent, path and/or desire.
So... in any case, I still think Curtis stand correct there.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Responding to Curtis
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 25#p285534
Hooray.
You have this continued tendency of wanting to tell me what to do.
I suggest you consider putting a sizeable check in my bank account in order to negotiate a boss/employee relationship.
But if not,
I say again, I am not interested in forking FlightGear.
I never said is difficult.
I said, we are as close and as far as anyone else. It is an opensource project, and thus all the tools and code needed to move forward such idea is there. Compiling and distributing binaries is not difficult, Nor weird. Many Linux distributions do these all the time in order to provide binary releases of FG to their users. (in .rpm in .deb, in .emerge, or .otherwise). A fork is nothing different to that, but adding flavors to the code.
BUT -- Regardless of being an easy task. First) you need a motivation. We don't have such motivation. FG as is, works amazing for me, and there is not need for me to release modified binaries to anyone. Second) you need to consider maintenance: While establishing such a fork is a work of a few hours, maintaining the fork updated and compatible with your changes and/or moving forward in an established direction is not such simple task. On that end, basically, I am better off by using the work by Olson C. et al. Doubling on the fact that we don't have a need to fork the binaries, and thus we lack the motivation to jump into this task
On the other hand, you seem insistent in telling me to do such thing. Which I read, as you are looking forward to have an alternative FG to play with. So how about instead of insisting on a recommendation I already told you I am not interested in doing, why, I say, don't you go ahead and proceed with what seems to be in line with your interests? I am not opposed to someone else *(not me)* spinning off FG, as I said one time to Wllbragg: I like options.
(because I doubt I would be accepting your check for a task of this nature, and at the same time, you remain "NOT MY BOSS")
That is kind of more needed indeed. Just because it seems to me this is an area of FG that is left unmaintained for a long time. That is sometimes really buggy, and that the core developers have mentioned the interest to stop support.
I am not doing it for now, but it may need to remain in the radar, specifically if the core decides to pull off a plug... or two... or thousands.
Not I, but Jwocky has this longstanding idea of a Network base -login specific- FG Multiplayer network, that would allow you to track all your flights regarding of callsign, and that could have several advantages over FGMS. Its called "Skynet" and the code is in the JPack if this is something of your interest.
Have a good day.
Hooray wrote: I have previously, long before fgmembers, encouraged people to fork the project if their visions are so/too different from what the FlightGear project feels comfortable doing(as in combat support).
So that was a sincere recommendation, and it speaks volumes about Jabberwocky's own mental state that he interprets everything as some kind of manipulative tactic - but you can refer to the archives, i.e. my posting history, that I have been encouraging people to do their own thing if it's simply too incompatible with the project's current way of conducting business - which, unlike Curt once suggested, is not equivalent with wanting to see a fork, but just means that I realize that at a certain point, it simply makes sense to face the facts.
And like bugman said, there really isn't much of a barrier to entry for people wanting to fork the project and create their own binaries these days, there are plenty of existing patches to be leveraged, and you don't necessarily need to be a C++ expert to apply some of them - it seems that IAHM-COL knows meanwhile enough about using git to apply a few patches.
Hooray.
You have this continued tendency of wanting to tell me what to do.
I suggest you consider putting a sizeable check in my bank account in order to negotiate a boss/employee relationship.
But if not,
I say again, I am not interested in forking FlightGear.
I never said is difficult.
I said, we are as close and as far as anyone else. It is an opensource project, and thus all the tools and code needed to move forward such idea is there. Compiling and distributing binaries is not difficult, Nor weird. Many Linux distributions do these all the time in order to provide binary releases of FG to their users. (in .rpm in .deb, in .emerge, or .otherwise). A fork is nothing different to that, but adding flavors to the code.
BUT -- Regardless of being an easy task. First) you need a motivation. We don't have such motivation. FG as is, works amazing for me, and there is not need for me to release modified binaries to anyone. Second) you need to consider maintenance: While establishing such a fork is a work of a few hours, maintaining the fork updated and compatible with your changes and/or moving forward in an established direction is not such simple task. On that end, basically, I am better off by using the work by Olson C. et al. Doubling on the fact that we don't have a need to fork the binaries, and thus we lack the motivation to jump into this task
On the other hand, you seem insistent in telling me to do such thing. Which I read, as you are looking forward to have an alternative FG to play with. So how about instead of insisting on a recommendation I already told you I am not interested in doing, why, I say, don't you go ahead and proceed with what seems to be in line with your interests? I am not opposed to someone else *(not me)* spinning off FG, as I said one time to Wllbragg: I like options.
(because I doubt I would be accepting your check for a task of this nature, and at the same time, you remain "NOT MY BOSS")
Hooray wrote:And instead of forking FlightGear, people interested in online multiplayer could just as well fork fgms or come up with their own MP environment - you don't need community endorsement to do these sorts of things - and in fact,
That is kind of more needed indeed. Just because it seems to me this is an area of FG that is left unmaintained for a long time. That is sometimes really buggy, and that the core developers have mentioned the interest to stop support.
I am not doing it for now, but it may need to remain in the radar, specifically if the core decides to pull off a plug... or two... or thousands.
Not I, but Jwocky has this longstanding idea of a Network base -login specific- FG Multiplayer network, that would allow you to track all your flights regarding of callsign, and that could have several advantages over FGMS. Its called "Skynet" and the code is in the JPack if this is something of your interest.
Have a good day.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Responding to Curtis
Lydiot wrote:I understand what you did to clarify your statement. But my worry was that someone will write something like this:Curtis wrote:(2) Consider there is no intent, no path, no desire for the leaders of fgmembers to ever see any of their mods flow back into the mainline project.
That is correct.
See? Israel confirms that fgmembers don't want to cooperate!
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 55#p285617
Bugman wrote:Interesting that you bring this old argument back up - the offer by Israel to automatically synchronise the content of FGMEMBERS with FGAddon, an offer that was obviously designed to fail and be used as a victim card. The reasons that this offer was not accepted has been repeated ad nauseam. But I'll repeat it here for the benefit of anyone who missed it:
There you are Lydiot.
You can see clearly how correct Curtis stand in the problem being that we must...
. He basically stands fully correct. Even there is ambiguity in clarifying who is that has no intent or desire, and thus reject any path to make it happen,. It's not about us. This is a mess they created, and one they surely want to persist. Clearly: Who is damaging FG?Curtis wrote:(2) Consider there is no intent, no path, no desire for the leaders of fgmembers to ever see any of their mods flow back into the mainline project.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Responding to Curtis
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 55#p285617
True. It is my first attempt to gain commit access to be able to sync contents. As he prob. missed, I recently offered this solution to Curt again. I firmly believe syncing is the solution to the root of the problem. (I doubt Bugman and Thorsten, who both benefit from this confrontation directly -- gaining influence on the core want the conflict to chill out. )
Cracking my 4$$ off laughing. All I need is commit access, and you'll see changes on FGADDon content raining.
FUD.
No. It is not. Once again, I can shoulder the work, because clearly Bugman has no idea how to get it done. (he says he knows of git-svn tools? seems to me only knows its capacities on the surface)
Policies can be revised. Didn't you go for a big one just recently? FGMEMBERS has no "author managers". That's a figure of speech. As J. put it somewhere, this may be a point that makes no possible to meet. Using Thorsten paraphernalia: Is GPL is GPL is GPL.
And they do awful at it. Mentoring is something we have proven once and again we are great at in FGMEMBERS. We have gotten people that are just beginning to use FG to be outstanding aircraft developers. We mentor them in the use of Git as well. We mentor specialization: As in you are great at graphics, you understand FDM, you got the gist of Nasal. ETC. We don't mentor "This is my plane" non-sense. In the time we have mentor a very large amount of new developers, the FGADDon commiters remain stagnated, with very few new additions. All the new mentors, lamentably, get enclosed in this tiny box of 1 aircraft you are authorized to improve (by the Aircraft maintainer rule), whereas a damocles sword is placed on their heads: The "we revoked commit access per our "opinions" if needed.
Those previous two points only ensure you have an infinite control over content. I am not interested.
Fine by me. Then stop crying that FGMEMBERS diverge, and get with your own thing. In the meantime, over Thorsten's passions, we will keep "recruiting" --- which is more correctly "inviting" collaborators to join an effort to improve FG content. We'll diverge. I know that. In my opinion, we just will get more and better content; due to the advantages of team work (as opposed to single aircraft-kings). In addition, I do, and still keep "hoarding" FGADDon improvements guaranteeing we benefit from that good work. And collecting (hoarding) other 3rd party contents, as well, if they are GPL.
Using Thorsten paraphernalia: Is GPL is GPL is GPL.
Bugman wrote:
- This was Israel's first and last attempt at asking for FGAddon commit access,
True. It is my first attempt to gain commit access to be able to sync contents. As he prob. missed, I recently offered this solution to Curt again. I firmly believe syncing is the solution to the root of the problem. (I doubt Bugman and Thorsten, who both benefit from this confrontation directly -- gaining influence on the core want the conflict to chill out. )
Bugman wrote:
- Because of the repository hook scripts and other settings, this does not merely require ordinary commit access.
Cracking my 4$$ off laughing. All I need is commit access, and you'll see changes on FGADDon content raining.
Bugman wrote:
- Automated synchronisation is not possible. Because of conflicts, manual merging will be required. Scripted synchronisation is impossible.
FUD.
No. It is not. Once again, I can shoulder the work, because clearly Bugman has no idea how to get it done. (he says he knows of git-svn tools? seems to me only knows its capacities on the surface)
Bugman wrote:
- The FlightGear policy is to contact the original author first - we deliberately do not jump on peoples toes!
Policies can be revised. Didn't you go for a big one just recently? FGMEMBERS has no "author managers". That's a figure of speech. As J. put it somewhere, this may be a point that makes no possible to meet. Using Thorsten paraphernalia: Is GPL is GPL is GPL.
Bugman wrote:
- If the original author is not contactable, we have a mentor system.
And they do awful at it. Mentoring is something we have proven once and again we are great at in FGMEMBERS. We have gotten people that are just beginning to use FG to be outstanding aircraft developers. We mentor them in the use of Git as well. We mentor specialization: As in you are great at graphics, you understand FDM, you got the gist of Nasal. ETC. We don't mentor "This is my plane" non-sense. In the time we have mentor a very large amount of new developers, the FGADDon commiters remain stagnated, with very few new additions. All the new mentors, lamentably, get enclosed in this tiny box of 1 aircraft you are authorized to improve (by the Aircraft maintainer rule), whereas a damocles sword is placed on their heads: The "we revoked commit access per our "opinions" if needed.
Bugman wrote:
- The previous two points mean that we have easy to jump over barriers of entry, ensuring quality, conflict avoidance, and avoiding legal issues with illegal content entering the repository. Automated synchronisation eliminates this.
Those previous two points only ensure you have an infinite control over content. I am not interested.
Bugman wrote:
- We do not hoard and we do not want all content to be in FGAddon. Aircraft authors themselves make this choice! We instead encourage 3rd party developments and diversity in the FlightGear ecosystem.
Fine by me. Then stop crying that FGMEMBERS diverge, and get with your own thing. In the meantime, over Thorsten's passions, we will keep "recruiting" --- which is more correctly "inviting" collaborators to join an effort to improve FG content. We'll diverge. I know that. In my opinion, we just will get more and better content; due to the advantages of team work (as opposed to single aircraft-kings). In addition, I do, and still keep "hoarding" FGADDon improvements guaranteeing we benefit from that good work. And collecting (hoarding) other 3rd party contents, as well, if they are GPL.
Using Thorsten paraphernalia: Is GPL is GPL is GPL.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Responding to Curtis
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 70#p285644
Curtis. All you wrote there is just defamatory propaganda.
A few notes:
2 YEARS !!
And going strong.
I do believe we have done a lot of improvement. If you don't then be happy you are safe behind the wall.
No. We do attempt to recruit and mentor and help content developers to distribute their mods in our repository.
1. Exclusively? I want to ask you? Who had we told that they should commit Exclusively To FGMEMBERS? No-one. Bring me one example on which any of us in FGMEMBERS had coerce developers to only commit here not there?
I can point you many examples you court people to ONLY develop in FGADDon instead.
So as usual, you are ill speaking, and with no evidence.
You are wrong again. All the chaos in your house come from insiders, and you suffer it from inside. Our forum is very very peaceful and productive.
Curtis wrote:A trademark of the fgmembers organization is endless arguing by their representatives on the flightgear forum about an endless variation of themes. This endless string of negative verbiage posted here is applauded and encouraged at their other forum. It serves their mission statement of recruiting people they sense have been disaffected here by leveraging and exploiting and prying on any gap through any line of reasoning they can find or dream up. Their words overflow most people's ability to read and digest them. There is a simpler way to understand what is going on: just watch their actions. For the last 2 years fgmembers has imported and modified (improved?) every bit of content they can get their hands on in order to build a competing repository that can be advertised as better and more complete and more current, but it is not vetted in the same way as the official flightgear core repositories. They have attempted to recruit content developers to contribute to their repository exclusively. FGmembers as an organization has cultivated an atmosphere of anger and disdain towards a list of specific flightgear contributors and towards this forum. And in return, their representatives (whether in an official capacity or self-appointed) have exported nothing but chaos and arguments back here to this forum. There is a small number of developers who are good citizens of both groups and contribute to both repositories--who just want everyone to get along ... the positive contributors should get noticed more than they are. Most of the positive contributors I know tend to be quiet and let their actions and work speak for themselves.
Curtis. All you wrote there is just defamatory propaganda.
A few notes:
For the last 2 years fgmembers has imported and modified (improved?) every bit of content they can get their hands on in order to build a competing repository that can be advertised as better and more complete and more current, but it is not vetted in the same way as the official flightgear core repositories.
2 YEARS !!
And going strong.
I do believe we have done a lot of improvement. If you don't then be happy you are safe behind the wall.
They have attempted to recruit content developers to contribute to their repository exclusively
No. We do attempt to recruit and mentor and help content developers to distribute their mods in our repository.
1. Exclusively? I want to ask you? Who had we told that they should commit Exclusively To FGMEMBERS? No-one. Bring me one example on which any of us in FGMEMBERS had coerce developers to only commit here not there?
I can point you many examples you court people to ONLY develop in FGADDon instead.
So as usual, you are ill speaking, and with no evidence.
FGmembers as an organization has cultivated an atmosphere of anger and disdain towards a list of specific flightgear contributors and towards this forum. And in return, their representatives (whether in an official capacity or self-appointed) have exported nothing but chaos and arguments back here to this forum.
You are wrong again. All the chaos in your house come from insiders, and you suffer it from inside. Our forum is very very peaceful and productive.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Responding to Curtis
Okay, lets see reality:
Curtis lies and tries to paint himself the good guy and everybody who doesn't bow to him is evil
Hooray labels user as "leeches"
Bugman uses a never decided on manifesto to make people believe there is some officila paper and uses politically motivated banning
Stuart as the fist of his masters is a willing tool of his masters
Thorsten runs wild, gets caught lied, has others ban everyone who calls him out for lying and starts again
So, lets see, actually your little bunch of hitter has created an atmosphere of political oppression, a culture of those who are allowed to ride any attack and those who have to duck before the shadow of the great leader. And you defend this culture with lies and propaganda tricks, and so do you little helpers. The mechanism is easy to spot, we have seen it in much bigger scale dozens of time over history. You let your clowns even run Stalin style purges on the forum and clean the Wiki in an attempt, people don't hear about FGMEMBERS. Your little propaganda secretary was even thinking aloud to pull the plug on MP because people hear and see too much there. Like every dictator, you have tried to created a bubble in which members of your forum wouldn't get any information that could disturb your and your helpers claims on power. You only never realized, you can't do what Kim does in NKorea, the Internet is a free world, GPL is a free world and thus opposite to Kim, who denies his people Internet, people will hear about it, they do all the time.
Now, here is the rub: We had in the last weeks updates on A310s, A340s, a 777, a BM-2 and more, just in the last two weeks, they are all GPL, you can take them. Now, can you commit, you will take them. Can you publicly state, we can put them into FGADDON? Can you guarantee, they will not be rejected if we send them there? Can you guarantee, those updates are available to the users, the leeches as Hooray calls them? I bet you can't!
The problem you have is, that almost each and every content here was attacked too often by Mr. T to have any trust into FGADDON and the people who run it. Some are banned, some were temporarily banned, all were targets of vicious attacks by your dogs and got their posts deleted over there. Add to this the users (those people who do a lot testing and feed us all the time with new ideas). You seem to think, we are just three people and one of them is not even a content dev. Actually, the number of people, you and your kill squad have pissed off has reached approximately the size of the active core of your own forum. And don't forget, there is an overlap because opposite to your politics, we have here no exclusivity policy.
I can't count the content commits, maybe Israel finds a clever way, they are just too many. Scenery, aircraft, there are on some days easily a hundred commits, if not more. As you said, this exists for almost two years (so your and your attack dog's screaming "don't go there, it will not live longer than three months" is already proven strong) and it still grows.
Now, nobody here has ever told any content dev not to send stuff to FGADDON. Actually Israel encourages to send to both repositories, but many here don't bother anymore to send something to your gatekeepers. I mean, why? You sit there put hours on end in an aircraft, then you have to do the kotau, kiss the feet of people who think, from their rear shines the sun and then, you get a rejection note anyway because you said something "politically incorrect" in the past. Or you press push, make a pull request, any your work is out there with the users, you can go meet with friends, start qa flock of those birds and have a good time. Or go for the next plane, whatever floats your boat. No feet kissing, no bowing to a wannabe-emperor, no rejection notes for political reasons. So you can see why Israel, who enjoys a lot more sympathy and respect here, than you do, can encourage people also to send stuff to FGADDON but fails, because FGADDON is a political mess. So why on Earth would someone who wants nothing but make an aircraft or an airport go there? Why?
Curtis lies and tries to paint himself the good guy and everybody who doesn't bow to him is evil
Hooray labels user as "leeches"
Bugman uses a never decided on manifesto to make people believe there is some officila paper and uses politically motivated banning
Stuart as the fist of his masters is a willing tool of his masters
Thorsten runs wild, gets caught lied, has others ban everyone who calls him out for lying and starts again
FGmembers as an organization has cultivated an atmosphere of anger and disdain towards a list of specific flightgear contributors and towards this forum. And in return, their representatives (whether in an official capacity or self-appointed) have exported nothing but chaos and arguments back here to this forum.
So, lets see, actually your little bunch of hitter has created an atmosphere of political oppression, a culture of those who are allowed to ride any attack and those who have to duck before the shadow of the great leader. And you defend this culture with lies and propaganda tricks, and so do you little helpers. The mechanism is easy to spot, we have seen it in much bigger scale dozens of time over history. You let your clowns even run Stalin style purges on the forum and clean the Wiki in an attempt, people don't hear about FGMEMBERS. Your little propaganda secretary was even thinking aloud to pull the plug on MP because people hear and see too much there. Like every dictator, you have tried to created a bubble in which members of your forum wouldn't get any information that could disturb your and your helpers claims on power. You only never realized, you can't do what Kim does in NKorea, the Internet is a free world, GPL is a free world and thus opposite to Kim, who denies his people Internet, people will hear about it, they do all the time.
Now, here is the rub: We had in the last weeks updates on A310s, A340s, a 777, a BM-2 and more, just in the last two weeks, they are all GPL, you can take them. Now, can you commit, you will take them. Can you publicly state, we can put them into FGADDON? Can you guarantee, they will not be rejected if we send them there? Can you guarantee, those updates are available to the users, the leeches as Hooray calls them? I bet you can't!
The problem you have is, that almost each and every content here was attacked too often by Mr. T to have any trust into FGADDON and the people who run it. Some are banned, some were temporarily banned, all were targets of vicious attacks by your dogs and got their posts deleted over there. Add to this the users (those people who do a lot testing and feed us all the time with new ideas). You seem to think, we are just three people and one of them is not even a content dev. Actually, the number of people, you and your kill squad have pissed off has reached approximately the size of the active core of your own forum. And don't forget, there is an overlap because opposite to your politics, we have here no exclusivity policy.
I can't count the content commits, maybe Israel finds a clever way, they are just too many. Scenery, aircraft, there are on some days easily a hundred commits, if not more. As you said, this exists for almost two years (so your and your attack dog's screaming "don't go there, it will not live longer than three months" is already proven strong) and it still grows.
Now, nobody here has ever told any content dev not to send stuff to FGADDON. Actually Israel encourages to send to both repositories, but many here don't bother anymore to send something to your gatekeepers. I mean, why? You sit there put hours on end in an aircraft, then you have to do the kotau, kiss the feet of people who think, from their rear shines the sun and then, you get a rejection note anyway because you said something "politically incorrect" in the past. Or you press push, make a pull request, any your work is out there with the users, you can go meet with friends, start qa flock of those birds and have a good time. Or go for the next plane, whatever floats your boat. No feet kissing, no bowing to a wannabe-emperor, no rejection notes for political reasons. So you can see why Israel, who enjoys a lot more sympathy and respect here, than you do, can encourage people also to send stuff to FGADDON but fails, because FGADDON is a political mess. So why on Earth would someone who wants nothing but make an aircraft or an airport go there? Why?
Free speech can never be achieved by dictatorial measures!
Return to “Club of the Banned”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests