Astrava_of_Boletaria said: HurrDurr said:

awesomely intelligent and wise shit Why don't you just enjoy the porn or just not look at it if it really incites that much flame. I'm not sure if you're just an angry man or you're genuinely posting constructive criticism. If the latter then fuck man take it easy on the guy.

I am an angry little man with big, angry, unfulfilled dreams living an angry life of anger filled to the full with anger. But nah, I wasn't trying to deliberately express anger on that particular occasion. And I do enjoy the porn, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the comment in question. The problem was possibly that I'd been working on a long doomed academic project since sunday with scarce breaks just to sleep and eat and my crankiness probably seeped into the response. I didn't mean to flame, really, no hostility intended. I guess I was quite harsh in tone, now that I look back at that comment, but I only wanted to show that a superficially cogent demonstration like the one in question might have no basis in reality.

I saw how Mittsieses's'ses' demonstration had gathered such unfairly high regard despite its misleading nature. Moreover, someone noted something about its scientific quality, which—despite possibly written in a not very serious spirit, and Mittsies's demonstration having about as much scientific conduct in it as I have decency—had some effect on me all the same. My inviolable sense of justice just wouldn't allow me to let it pass. Nah, just kidding; I have about as much sense of justice as I have decency. I just needed to take my mind off the wretched research— I mean rationalizing flawed research, and show the world how wrong it was. The argument against alpha blending is still completely valid, by the way, at least as far as realism goes.

But if you are one of those people who spend more time at a computer instead of outside, and I'm now addressing everyone here, particularly those who think the mottling looks like blood, and your idea of blood is the vector (0.4, 0.03, 0.07) in the sRGB space, then so be it. Shading doesn't work like that in reality, but if your reality is a crummy computer graphics simulation, then by all means, dismiss my argument and carry on. Oh, and Mittsies, that's not fur. Horses don't have fur on their dongs; it's blue skin and the discolored part could be mucocutaneous tissue.

And finally, to clarify what might still not be clear, because you know how it is with reading comprehension in most online communities, I am on FruityMilk's side in maintaining the view that it's not blood. Although his view is not a view per se, since he is the creator. A better word would be intention, an unsuccessful one it seems, because SFM's graphics engine apparently does to colors and shades what Mittsies did in his demonstration.

So what's the moral here? The next time you encounter a message of mine raising bafflement and frustration, just tell yourself, "Meh, screw that guy," and move on.