Best tweak utility for R300 based boards?-All fixed

Which is further cut down to:

Once one takes away the game bugs that arent ATI's fault (IE, every card has stencil shadow problems in Q3 games, and as i said earlier, someone didnt update their SS:FE).

Ben, the major issue here has been your tone and attitude. And as for your 2.5 year old conflict with Rage3d, give it up man! Your inability to give anyone a second chance is highlighted by your posting style and melodrama.
Maybe if you gave fairness a chance...


OpenGL guy - You are right, it wasnt zbias in morrowind. Damn, what was i thinking of? I recall a big stink over morrowind by chalnoth, and someone pointing out that the errors werent of the type he claimed. Oh well.

 

Ben, if I were as honestly upset at a piece of electronics/hardware as you apparently are, it would've been long gone from my life by now. Period. Put a GF4 back in or buy a FX board.

 

Wow, keeping pace with your misinformation is a full time job. Let me correct the new errors, as I don't think the old errors are hard for others to see. I'm still waiting for someone to give an indication of that not being true, so maybe I can feel like I'm making some progress.

Hmm...no, that is demonstrably not true, you are quite successful in not hearing. If anyone at all besides Ben thinks this hasn't been clearly illustrated, please say so and I'll quote some small portion of the text illustrating this.

Are you really still clinging to this? Will you still be clinging to it until "twenty different posters" point out exactly the same thing I have? We're at...what...4 now? 5? You still wonder why I'm not repeating myself another time?

Hmm? Who said anything about it being "untrue for (you) to get upset"? What I said was that you were stating things that were clearly and easily demonstrated to be untrue, being emotional, irrational, and were exaggerating and I then proceeded to quote you and clearly state the reasons I had for these assertions, after stating that I was being inspired to point this out by your demonstration that the lengths you were willing to go through to justify this to yourself included ignoring basic ideas like words applying to your posts because of what the words meant instead of whether you wanted them to apply or not. No, you do not have to post like "Ben Stein on valium" to avoid behaving in that fashion.

It is rather amazing that you are attempting to criticize me for defining melodrama.

Take a gander as to the depths of irrelevancy of the issues you are raising. Defining "melodrama" doesn't seem so like it was an error, does it?

Perhaps it would be instructive to direct other readers to the post in question to evalute the discussion and definition you are criticizing,and perhaps someone will succeed in seeing merit in your comments where I fail to see any.

Is the highlighting of the word "melodrama" in your post and mine sufficient to draw your attention to the relevant parts?

"I feel this statement is truly remarkable."

BTW, "not psychic" is not synoymous with "blind".

Follow the link above. Maybe take a look at this post again and see if you can spot which assertions in opposition to it have been addressed. Heck, if you have any ability of objectivity at all, maybe go back to my initial post in the thread, and notice each of the issues you ignore as we progress in discussion, or for which your replies have been shown by myself and others to be in error. It is quite a bit of text to repeat. Question: does anyone besides Ben find it non-trivial to see that these links answer his request, and have been there the other times I referred to my "prior posts"?
The first time through, we ended up here where you acknowledge no error on your part regarding the points I raised in my initial post. Others have said they don't agree with you in your belief that this is so, and have clearly illustrated why, and you've ignored the issues they've raised or in which they agreed with me as you've ignored me when I provided support for those issues.
I happen to see a pattern there.

What I am waiting for is someone who does agree with you to provide an example of text they agree with that they think I am criticizing, so I can usefully address it, as I do not think it is useful to point things that are completely obvious if you don't happen to be wedded to, for example, the idea that "BenSkywalker is not exaggerating" regardless of the support given for stating that he is. Heck, they don't even have to go so far as to agree with you, just think I haven't given your statements a proper reply, and to then point out which statement so that I can show that I have, or correct the deficieny.

It seems to me that your request seems to be dependent on believing anything I've said in the above paragraphs was not stated before, which would then strike me as illustrating the root problem with having a discussion with you. It also seems to me that you might not know what that root problem is, despite various techniques of bolding, and correcting statements of yours where you said I was saying something else was the problem I had with your posts. The root problem begins to take on a recursive nature...

Wow, a demonstration that you "do not know" what the root problem is.

You said something resembling this before. I began my reply directly afterwords with "No", which to me is sufficient clue that maybe I do not agree, and that the description that followed might hold some clue as to why. You seem to think the validation you provide for your proposition (I do not see any effort on your part to correlate your assertion to my text) of what I mean outweighs my own (for which I know I've provided quite a bit of explanation). Thus, we are back to the recursive properties of the root problem.

 

Ben's request

...

...

 

The reasoning Ben seems eager to avoid

Ben, when I quote you and then state I consider what you said in that quote to be wrong...and then give reasons...you can consider the words I quoted as being an example of misinformation, and the reasons I gave...the reasons I think so.

With me still? If so, then perhaps you can begin to understand that if you are asking me to provide a complete list, you are asking me to repeat my posts verbatim. If you are asking me to isolate specific sentiments of yours and restate it without my reasons for criticisms included, you are asking me to repeat your posts.

My question to you, then, is what exactly would repeating the quote without my reasoning provide, except an opportunity for you to either 1) ignore the reasoning, which you've managed to do even when it was there, which would be facilitated by its absence 2) subsequently ask me to provide the reasoning, which I've already done when I quoted it originally?

It is pretty surreal that you are asking me to mimic the practice of misinformation I'm complaining about in your posts.

If you want another opportunity to quote or restate your belief and ignore my reasons for criticism, you can take the bits of text I quoted and criticized, snip my support for the criticism, and restate them yourself...why are you asking me to do it?! The basic problem with moving forward with that approach, Ben, is I can't do your reading comprehension for you.

But, I don't want to deny you an opportunity...if all this is "noise" to you, ignore it and go ahead and reply to the quote above as if was the only thing I said. I'll quote a bit out of all the text you posted that ignores statements I've made, and I've clearly explained is false, and you still maintain is true regardless of the support I've given. Let's see if there is a another possibility besides the two I list above, or the improbable event of you recognizing there is something wrong with your approach to posting.

 

BTW, did you actually read the rest of my post where I quoted your words, then explained why I found fault with them? If you want a "bullet list without commentary"...just go ahead and read the quotes and ignore the commentary...

 

Ben,

once th CS issues get fixed are the other issues that bad were a replacement is needed?

 

A side note....As of my intrest in staying updated on this thread, my family is quite taken aback by my recently aquired vernacular prowess, but are presently viewing it as a reprehensible demonstration of my own incoherant irresponsability'.....heh, thanks Demalion...

 

Ben, I've provided my opinion, and then support, exactly because I'm quite conscious it is my opinion and needs support. You've provided your opinion, and not provided support, and then ignored the support I've provided...and this is because you think your opinion is fact.
My final contribution to clarity, and this only seems to be required for you since I can't seem to find anyone who shares your misconceptions, will be to discuss this idea of "fact" that you maintain.

Well, I'm well aware that you believe this as I've recognized a few times. I feel it interesting that you did not address your text I quoted as per your request for an example of misinformation...I suspect because you did not feel comfortable with trying to propose how it represents fact. I don't think there is anyone else who shares your appraisal that it expresses any facts beyond what is factually your opinion...though perhaps you could get some mileage out of trying to start a dispute stating that I was disagreeing that it was actually your opinion.

No, I continue to maintain that what I've criticized on your part are not "points of fact". I also happen to think you are rather unique in laboring under the misconception that they are.

EDIT:

Just realized you slipped in this misconception ...your mistake is that my defense has not been "emotion based". I suggest you take another look at the basis for some of the attacks that I was defending against. As I said, above, I can't do your reading for you. I'm sorry, but do you really think that being reduced to such pretexts for dispute does you credit?

Anyways...


Let's see what your posts consist of:

Fact:

• a list of actual observations of issues

Strangely enough, your only facts are the one thing I didn't criticize...but discussed separately from my criticism. You don't even have to take my word for it, just bother to read what I said...first post, criticism...second post, discussion about the facts. I guess I split the discussion there just to increase my post count?
Perhaps you regard disagreement with your interpretation of them as disputing facts...but that is a strange belief to have since you subsequently admitted that what I (and others) said in such disagreement was actually true.

Let's discuss your opinion and interpretations that followed from the actual facts, since that is what I actually did criticize:

Not Fact:

• listing one issue with one application and representing it as several...doing this in answer to an assertion concerning the magnitude of the number of bugs would be the very definition of "misinformation"...though I despair of actually getting you to agree on the meaning of the word.
• saying that the issues are all due to bugs in ATi drivers (this is easily demonstrated by the simple fact that you yourself have admitted that some of the items you proposed factually as being ATi specific driver bugs have turned out not to be!)
• statements such as "Hard to believe a product this poor could be spoken of so highly by so many people" and all your other emotionally fueled labels that accompany your discussion of the few facts you did present
• every assertion you've made about me and my posts

I know you don't recognize that these are not facts. I know you don't consider my support for my criticism of them valid since you do view them as facts. I also know that this is the root problem I've described in about each and every post to you in this thread, and has resulted with my opinions having support, your opinions that I've disputed having none, and you considering this as proof that all your opinions are more valid than mine.

The only thing I'm left with in a discussion with someone so unable to conduct communication on such a basic level as they can quote the definition of exaggeration and say it does not fit his actions at the same time as proposing the first item in the "Not Fact" list as "Fact"... is the comfort of observing that he is apparently completely alone in his delusion.

I'll let your further rantings stand...it serves no other purpose to continue a discussion with you except for you to maintain your track record of ignoring the rather basic and plainly stated assertions summarized in the list above, and for you to seek opportunities selectively address the individual sentences and statements you take comfort in simply stating are incorrect because you want them to be.

Do you think you make anyone else besides yourself look foolish by being reduced to stating that "My statements can't be a melodrama because these forums are not an actual physical stage in a theatre"? Do you think people are as incapable of reading comprehension as yourself as to believe that statement holds any merit?

You even fail to comprehend that what I was calling on others to do was jump in and defend you because I am completely unable to find any semblence of rational discourse in your posts! You seem to have...umm...overlooked... that others have already "jumped in" to share my criticism of you, and that it would be silly for me to ask for something that had already occurred!

But my hope is that you have actually done the forum a service, in the long run. It is my hope that people who might be lured into defending themself along the lines that you have might be able to look back at this thread and turn back in disgust from your example...I'm not sure there has been a clearer example of irrationality and argument without merit demonstrated in the technical forums as you've managed here. That is, however, just my opinion.

Hopefully, you can't or won't emulate that journalist of note, Steve Spence, and attempt to expunge this record of your behavior, as I hope pointing people to our conversation will save me a lot of time in the future.

Continue your "defense" as you see fit...I no longer see a point in a one sided attempt at conversation with you, as I believe the issues have been clarified quite well.

My offer for continued discussion with anyone who sees merit in your statements I've criticized (so easy to confuse that request with me asking for help to support my own statements... ) still stands.

EDIT: clarity

 

I think someone is in luvvvvvvvv...

 

Ben,

fair enough then. If I had one game that I play that often that did not run, then I would feel the same.

BTW Did not want to go though all 6 pages of this thread but did you try to submit a driver bug report on the Sac issues?

 

Unless it is actually submitted Ben then it probably won't go on any type of priority listing. I'll wager that for the smaller games the catalyst submission system is their main way of gauging its priority. Unless its submitted I don't think you can expect it do be fixed.

 

Sure, I always wanted to try Sac, obvioulsy I cant at the moment. I'm sure JR has submiited a Cat bug report. Describe briefly in detail the issues that's go in the report and I'll make one as well (I am not deciphering this thread BTW)

 

Actually, I didn't. I did, however, submit one for DAoC:SI (which I'm no longer playing. . .go figure).

 

I sthat an ATI specific issue with DAoC:SI? I still haven't bought it to experience it.