Eternl Knight wrote:Again, with due respect, neither of us have "authority" in this field.
I can't confirm nor deny your assertion as to our shared lack of authority, since I don't know what "authority" means.
I, however, have provided proof that the androgynous method works & works well.
That depends on the definition of "well".
You have provided arguments (but not proof) that it does not work as well as your "dual mesh foundation".
Which "dual mesh"? I think you're mixing me up with someone else. If you're still attributing me with a proposal of having female AND male meshes, sorry to break it to you, but you've got Alzheimer's.
You dance around & around the issue, but two facts remain:
The androgynous method is how MH is currently implemented and therefore, keeping it this way is (far) less work than your proposal.
But my proposal, if it works, would be a lot
less work in the long run.
The androgynous method has proven implementations, your method does not.
That much I grant you.
Unless you can come up with proof the androgynous method is worse off (not arguments for why it "should" be) - you are asking others to do extra work above and beyond based on your beliefs.
If I knew enough about MH's code to fork it all by myself, perhaps I'd give it a try; but I'm also very busy with my own open source project. In any case, I didn't "ask" others to do anything; I just happened to come up with an idea and I shared my thoughts on the subject. You're talking like a lawyer: "WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE?", as if I was making legal demands on MH's developers. All the proof in the world would get me nowhere if they were not willing to listen. But if they are open to new ideas, and apparently they are, then I need no more proof than a compelling argument.
I am not asking for arguments nor providing them; arguments go in circles (like you have).
Well, I'm trying my best not to go in circles, but you keep pulling me. It doesn't seem to matter how many times I say I propose a single base mesh being female; you keep insinuating, again and again, that my proposal is for a dual mesh system. It doesn't matter how many times I say your appeals to authority are not and will not be accepted, again and again you keep on appealing to authority. And now you're going to accuse me again and again of going in circles, I'm sure. Anyways, it seems like a sweet deal for you to neither ask for nor offer arguments: You got no arguments whatsoever you CAN offer on the topic, --except for your appeals to authority--; and your not asking for arguments is consistent with what I told you earlier: you're trying to discount mine. I don't care what you're asking for; my arguments stand already offered, whether you like it or not.
During this whole, long discussion, I count ONE valid argument offered against mine; and it wasn't one of yours; it was DAD's anecdodal evidence that he once tried to morph a female face into a male one and found it difficult.
Everything YOU've put on the table so far has been totally worthless; --not that the links aren't good links; I loved them.
I'm asking and have asked for proof "dual foundation" is more efficient & more flexible. You acknowledge you have none.
You'll have to find someone who believes in "dual foundation", I'm afraid. I would not offer proof for something I don't believe in. Remember to get checked for Alzheimer's.
So again, to sum up, are you telling us we...
Hold it right there: Who do you mean by "
us" or "
we"? If there's something I
really hate is slimy posturing... You don't seem to me to be part of MH's developers team, are you? But you're using the terms "us" and "we", pretending that you're an insider and I'm an outsider... Just be glad this is not one of my forums... I'd put you in your place so fast you wouldn't know what hit you...
...have to put in man-months of effort
What do you mean by "have to"? I don't have any kind of legal agreements or commercial deals with MH's team.
to implement a possibly flawed "dual mesh foundation"
Alzheimers; don't forget!
based on your opinion (as without proof that is what the arguments of either side amount to)?
You think our civilization would have reached its present technological advancement if every time someone came up with a new idea everybody had demanded "proof" that it is better? How do you define "proof" anyways?
).