oldmangrumpy wrote:
The Warrior - "Snarky much?". What do you mean about my post and what are you inferring, because as far as I understand, the word 'snarky' has quite negative connotations?
If you check my earlier posts I did ask Peter if I was taking the topic too liberally and also if it was OK to do so. Also Leopardo, myself and others have been discussing/submitting (both in this forum and Gimp Learn), ring outcomes based on various methods, one of which was a different approach posted in a tutorial by Gimper66. Both Leopardo and I did the tutorial and posted results and my comment was simply a reference to it.
Again, what do you mean by "Snarky much?".
I apologize, it was a misunderstanding on my part. I don't have any idea about the goings on, on the "other" forum. It seemed to me, wrongly, now that I know, when you posted, "Leopardo - nice job using Gimper's tut", I thought you were insinuating that he was only able to get that result using a tut, and not on his own. My bad. Then, I thought perhaps you were being "snarky" to me, when you posted, "
not sure if I am still in bounds with the 'gold ring' thread title", because I posted the fish, and not a gold ring. Again, I was wrong, and I apologize.
Peter wrote:
[align=center]
@warrior:I did not see anything "snarky" regarding omg's posts and you gave no explanation.
You were very vague. I suggest you review the section on "Giving Critique."
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1318There, I unvagued myself. I don't need to read anything regarding critique. I'm on other forums, that are more"rough" around the edges. We even have snark threads, where it's about being snarky. I forgot about the sensitivity level on this forum, hence why I don't normally even bother logging in and posting anymore.
That said, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and have no problem with saying I'm sorry.