Posted by: grc () on Thu Dec 16 07:58:33 2004

>>> Jack,
>
> I don't know why you replied to me with your reply to Walt, BUT...
>
> Your quote (referring to "Frame 1" at the "Swing Mechanics Page":
>
> "It should be obvious to anyone that the hands are closer than 6 to 10 inches away from the shoulder. He could probably extend his thumb and touch it."
>
> is absolutely ridiculous.
>
>
> An animation frame, in which I CAN SEE NEITHER THE HANDS NOR THE SHOULDER.
>
> Please tell me how:
>
> Something "...should be obvious to anyone..." when no one can SEE it?
>
> That "...the hands are closer than 6 to 10 inches away from the shoulder" , when you cannot see them?
>
> That, "He could probably extend his thumb and touch it" , when you cannot see it (the thumb)?
>
> Very unscientific. <<<
>
> Hi Ray
>
> I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. In fact, if you had agreed with me, I would recheck my position for accuracy. What I don't understand is the antagonistic and confrontational attitude of your post. As ssarge alludes to below, your condescending attitude makes having a discussion with you very "uncomfortable," regardless of whether your comments have merit or not.
>
> Jack Mankin
>
>
jack i agree that all discussions should be non-antagonistic and non-confrontational, but it should wprk both ways.....recently, in a response to my well-documented objections to your new theory on glueing the hands to the shoulder (and i might add it was constructive criticism in the spirit of wanting to help, not hurt you)this was your response: "Grc, as I place little value on your opinions, I could care less whether you agree or disagree. I have told you before that I do not agree with, nor wish to discuss, your revised “knob the ball” theories."
it seems like don't want a discussion with anyone who questions you, no matter how polite they are (like me) or how well-founded their objections are (like mine).....