Hickory Dickory Mouselook

Okay, you made me check to see how mouselook actually works on a poseball with a moving animation (as opposed to a moving object such as a vehicle), to see what could possibly be the point inasmuch as the cam positions that can be obtained in Mouselook are a tiny proper subset of those available with regular cam controls. I think I figured out what you like about it:

In Mouselook, the viewer tries to move the cam's position (*not* it's rotation) according to the movement of the animated avatar. (Based on the animated position of the avatar's head, I suppose.) It does set the cam rotation according to llSitTarget, but doesn't update rotation to correspond with animation movement--which makes some sense because rotation is the only thing about the cam you can control manually in Mouselook without a control()-responsive script.

So, while Mouselook affords a much restricted range of cam movement, it does a little movement automatically.

(Mouselook seems to do some of this even when the agent isn't seated. If you turn off the AO and play some wildly gyrating dance, the cam bounces up and down a bit.)

so sorry, having trouble keeping up? =) according to your quote (those would be the "experts" you cited), "location" (that'd be the "where" is more important (that'd be "matters" than raw quantity (that'd be "overall size". your source, your quote, your claim, I just pointed it out.

au contrare, I said so-called IQ tests do a poor job of it, effectively testing rote socially biased information, and not reasoning capacity. and I know that you aren't seriously suggesting that height, local culture, social position, muscle mass, or propensity for violence are indicative of superior intellect. they can be advantages sure, but they do not represent mental capacity.


Chinese tea costs how much?

(and damn Nika for spoiling my coup de grace... oh well more fun for all)

Thanks for explaining your poor presentation. It reaffirms my point that poor presentation makes even weak arguments weaker. If I can summarise, you are suggesting the experts are saying that women are good at finding lots of shoe shops, but are not smart enough to know that purchasing eleven pairs of shoes at one go is not a great use of scarce resources.
Please, if you are going to attempt to look clever by using foreign phrases, you might at least make sure you get them correct, so you don't look even more stupid.
Effective use of available resources is a significant indicator of intelligence, I would strongly argue.

Pep (Do you have an alternative measure of intelligence? Perhaps the number of shoes you own?)

come on pep, it's not like you to bow out of an intellectual debate with cheap attempts at being insulting. to summarize, you might want to make sure that the things you quote actually support your case... better luck next time.



you are going to fault me for missing an "i", seriously? my spell check doesn't run in french, so I'm afraid you'll just have to live with loss.


if, and only if, the same resources I mentioned are available to both parties being compared. Not applicable in your source I'm afraid.


Rote learning is a matter of access and availability, therefore a poor measure, never mind being highly regional in application. Inductive and deductive reasoning skills are a much better measure along with the ability to abstract one concept to another.

FWIW since you seem to have a shoe fetish, I own exactly 2 pairs of shoes, one casual, one for work. Also, a pair of sandals, a pair of snow boots, and a pair of hiking boots. I trust we have that out of the way now?

So, this is going to be your new roundabout, eh, the thing you bring up in every thread for awhile, so that someone else (me, this time) will feel small. Must me my turn, as the person you have a go at for a bit. If you are going to quote, or summarize, do so correctly, because, I never said I had scarce resources. I said I was remorseful and I also laughed after I said that. Just that 11 pairs of shoes in one go was probably not a good thing. Brenda had mentioned a certain shoe store and I shared my one and only memory of that store.

The shoe thing isn't directed to you, it's my turn apparantly to be run out of the forum by multi thread references to a post I made in the undying thread about buying 11 pairs of shoes once. I am apparantly the new Rhonda, his focus is now on me, and we'll get the shoe reference everywhere until I tire of it and move along too.

oh I know, I was just being purposely obtuse since he inserted into our discussion

FWIW 11 pairs of shoes that you believed you wouldn't find where you live isn't horrendous, just call it an investment in the future =) (Imelda Marcos, you are not)

Actually, it is not only very much "like" Pep to do this, it is actually one of his more common tactics. I used to say things like this to him, in the hope that it might shame him into actually engaging with the topic at hand, and cease the cheap shots. Take it from me: it doesn't work.

Don't waste your breath, Treasure. It isn't worth it. Best just to tell the troll to go fuck itself.

*I know you have too much class for that.

Ok, this isn't telling you anything that you don't already know, but it makes me feel better to say it.

Pep is a bully. And like all bullies, he'd far rather target people and characteristics that are "safe," than take people on in a venue or form that might actually endanger him. So, he'll run away from real intellectual debate, and focus instead upon personal ridicule. Ridicule is always easier to manage than real engagement in a discussion.

Another point -- and I confess to feeling especially stupid about not having really "got" this earlier.

Pep targets women.

He does so because he is an inveterate misogynist, but also because our culture has provided him with a ready-made set of tools with which to do so. The basis for all of his attacks on women -- that they are irrational, over emotional, not sexual enough, have too many shoes, etc. -- are all plucked virtually unaltered from a cultural glossographia of antifeminist sentiment that dates back centuries.

You mention Rhonda, who will be back, but she is not the first woman that Pep has targetted by any stretch. And if you look to places like SLU and SCII, you will find many others who have fled this forum because of his treatement. Pep will no doubt suggest that it is the women who leave because they are "weak." This is more than a bit like the accusation of the abuser who ridicules his victim for "weakness" because she is too battered to fight back.

Don't leave, Treasure; we've lost too many good women here to this bully, and can ill afford to lose you.

(Nothing like the zeal of a recent convert eh?}

ETA: What Brenda said. She's soooooo smart!

I don't feel zealous, just tired. It's not the first time Pep has singled me out, just been awhile is all. In fairness, I am often one trying to see all sides and often see his points too, which I freely say, when that is the case. That is no reason I shouldn't be zeroed in on though, and now, it's my turn for awhile apparantly. It's too confusing for me to think about. I don't understand him, because he has been kind to me in the past, and even seemed to respect my opinions (at times). Thanks for your insight though.

I can help you with that. He's an asshole.

Exactly. So please do not misquote RL researchers in the course of your badinage. I can guarantee you that this team would not be pleased to see the misuse you've made of their research.

Yeah, "It's a forum, no one dies." But real people read it, and some actually have respect for "Pep", and might believe him. Why take a chance on damaging someone's RL reputation?

If you need technobabble to support some point you are currently espousing, do what I did in high school debate team: just make it up.

I just keep scrolling without reading much these days.

So Phil is a woman?

Pep (Maybe it's just because most men are sufficiently rational that my criticisms don't apply to them?)

I didn't misquote them.

Pep (I selected the elements of their findings relevant to the discussion here; sorry if they were the ones that were embarrassing for you girls.)

I would like to submit that the problem isn't a failure of rationality on your targets part, but a failure of abstraction and imagination on your part. And really, what's the point of running around proclaiming yourself superior. it serves no rational purpose, and at best it's emotional masturbation, and at worst provides ample opportunity to damage your ego with proof to the contrary.


how very disingenuous of you. no, you didn't misquote (I'll grant that much), instead what you did is arguably worse; taking the quote out of context, cherry picking what you thought was helpful to you, and ignoring what was detrimental. it reminds me of certain "religious experts". bad form.

I have waited 55 years for such proof; a little longer won't stretch my patience too much, I suppose.
Changed your mind when confronted with the truth, eh? Woman, thy name is "fickle".
On that basis you might argue that I should quote the full text of research studies. These are forums, not journals as I have previously pointed out.
Oh dear! Very bad form! Comparing me with one of the Prophets might be seen as blasphemous . . .

Pep ( . . . and much as I am flattered, I really don't deserve such praise. )

we both know you wouldn't accept it if it bit you.


I didn't make the claim, so how could I change my mind about it?


ad incommodum, to excuse your cherry picking. one half of a comparative statement is not proper context. furthermore you didn't cite the actual source, only the school that it occurred at (which leads a person to believe you knew that the remainder of the study was damaging to your position, and you sought to obfuscate the source). but it really doesn't matter in the least, since even the minimally quoted portion you supplied, supported my position better than your own. you claimed size, they say location overrides that. Einstein, QED


well we can be certain about the size of your ego at least, what with the presumption that "religious experts" meant "prophet". but just so there's no confusion, if I were to compare you to a prophet, it'd the the homeless guy wearing a sign for the last 50 years reading "The End Is Nigh".

Almost always for fighting, which I do daily. Always for riding my horse, which I do as often as possible. Sometimes for looking around. Never for making love.

My basic swordsmanship teacher said to try being in mouselook as much as possible for a week, but not while making love. *smiles*