OK. Let's assume that you're being justified here. First, cut vs. delete. They both achieve the same thing. EXACTLY the same thing. Unless, of course, you want to keep the background for something else, which is entirely possible. But it's highly unlikely; you're following a tutorial designed to help you GET RID of the background. So, that's your first argument invalidated in that they are doing the same thing.. Next: the wording... where's the problem in the other tutorial's wording? Oh, let me think... there isn't a problem. There can't be a problem, anyway, can there? Because according to you, your wording is perfect, and it is practically identical to the other tutorial's wording. Due to the law of binary relations, this means that there is no problem n the other tutorial, you've just rephrased what the it says.
So, we must now acknowledge that the two tutorials are identical. In every way. I don't care about the title, I don't care about whether the "gaps thing" is "obvious", they're identical. Onto the next thing; in one of your other posts, you clearly stated that you had read the other tutorial before you posted this one in that you were "just skimming the thread". Therefore, it is your own fault you're in this mess; you obviously thought that Simon's tutorial was similar to yours if you took the time to examine it, yet you could only be bothered to skim it? Sounds more to me like you're twisting what you actually did to defend your point of view.
Now, another thing is that instead of politely accepting what is a perfectly valid question and answering it, you have decided to be arrogant. It is very clear you HAVE made an attempt to be polite, however you've really failed. First, you said, and I quote, "as for the images I can easily re-size them, once you decide to lock/not lock this thread.". No. You do NOT say that. It's not up to you to negotiate with the moderators, who, by the way, deserve RESPECT, you do what they ask you to. It is clearly stated in the rules for posting a tutorial that the images must be 800 pixels in their largest dimension, which shows that you didn't actually read those rules.
Finally, the medicine bottle example is a COMPLETELY different situation. Seriously, how is that similar to this?
I'm sorry, I really am. It IS clear that you put effort into this. It shows! The images are good (just, of course, too big) and you have made an effort to write it up well. But when you start talking back to moderators and posting tutorials that only differ slightly from other ones without thinking it through... that's when people start arguing.
Have a nice day!
In case you aren't aware, deleting does not achieve transparency in some image types. It simply "fills the selection". Therefore it is different, and does not achieve the exact same thing as cutting it out. And even if it did, it is STILL a different method, and the moderator asked me to point out how my method is different. I did just that. I did not say my wording was perfect, please point out where I said that? I said it was, in my opinion, better than the other thread's. I also mention some things it doesn't, like how the line tool is easier to use. I never said there was a problem with the other tutorial, I simply stated I prefer my wording to it's wording, there doesn't have to be a problem for me to prefer something. And just because they are alike does not mean this thread deserves a lock, I don't see how that justifies it. This thread has a different way of doing it, better wording in my opinion, and mentions things the other thread doesn't, it well deserves a thread of it's own.
So now we've acknowledged the threads aren't
. As for the skimming, I don't see why it matters. This "mess" wouldn't exist if you didn't fail to see this thread deserves it's own thread, not because I made it. In fact if someone puts hard work into something, despite it being SIMILAR (Notice, I didn't say identical) to another thread, then it shouldn't be locked anyways.
Are you kidding me? I don't see a point in resizing the images if the moderator plans on locking this, which I am not sure if he's going to do so. That was perfectly justified, how was I arrogant in any way? He did not demand I do anything other than respond to his first point before 24 hours so he doesn't lock it. I obeyed. He didn't DEMAND I change the image sizes immediately (For good reasons too, he was probably planning on locking it), so I don't see how I didn't do what a moderator told me to do. And I treated him with respect the whole time, since when can't you negotiate with moderators? And let's assume that we can't. Let's quote his words: "(I'm going to give you 24 hours right of reply to point 1 before I lock this.)". He literally asked for a negotiation. Which I responded to. So please learn to read before you call me out on my "arrogance".
It was an example to the plagiarism he claimed. He stated that both my tutorial and the other one has "leave no gaps" (with different wording). The medicine capsule was to make a point, that it is quite obvious to leave no gaps, and just because I pointed it out does not mean I copied the other tutorial. Just as obvious as it is to print "Keep away from children" warnings on medicine capsules. It does not mean I copied anything.
Thank you. But please understand the moderator told me to "talk back" (as you worded it), here it is again. "(I'm going to give you 24 hours right of reply
to point 1 before I lock this.)" I was not aware that this method was similar enough to cause an argument and to make you feel the need to join in
. If I had noticed the other tutorial earlier I probably would have never gone through the effort of making this tbh, but now that it's made, I really don't think it should be locked. Especially if it isn't the exact same as the other tutorial, they're different, and therefore deserve threads of their own.
Edited by ConfuzzledManiac, 31 August 2010 - 03:00 PM.