After writing more than 2000 words in response to the bizarre notions displayed here, I realize that it comes down to a simple reoccurring theme... you don't actually master the facts first. You haven't read anything I've written, and just want to use the pretty pictures.
I've tried in the past to nicely correct you when you misstated my positions... and now I have two full posts of someone who is way out in left field.
What I found, time and again while composing a response was that if you had just read the thread, the details would have been clear. But you made assumptions, and those were how you were going to go forward (mainly because it was easier than researching what was really there).
I'm going to respond specifically to one point because it truly paints you as being way out of the loop on all this...
Well, I'm not the one that stopped you from sharing more recent work. And I understand your time constraints, and am waiting patiently for the final product. But in turn you have to understand that you have put your work out there, and represent it as correct, and are seemingly currently representing it as the only correct public reconstruction despite the fact that its unfinished. Do you honestly think we don't have any right to discuss it? Or criticize it? Even if incorrectly due to a lack of information?
Please quote me representing it as anything like this.
For me, my research is my research. If I thought that I had the only correct public reconstruction
then why would I be spending time and energy making it deconstructable for others to use in their reconstructions? Why would I take the time to do overall deck layouts for a 20 deck ship at about 947', a 24 deck layout for a ship at about 947', a 20 deck layout for a ship at about 1080', and a 24 deck layout for a ship at about 1080'? Why would I take the time to make all of my work open (as in copyright open) for people to copy it for their derivative works?
And most importantly, why are people who don't agree with many of my assertions on where things go waiting for me to finish key aspects of my research?
If I was so certain that my work was the only
correct public reconstruction, then why did I state that I was sure that it wasn't. And state that others will come along later and improve on what I'm doing today. The only thing I can say I've done is not repeat the mistakes of others... but I'm sure I'll introduce all new ones that people will find. I was actually hoping that you would find something useful for me, but instead what I got was that you were mischaracterizing things that were discussed at length and giving me nothing but a massive waste of my time.
To say that I am disappointed in you is an understatement. I was hoping for something new, something better, something helpful... and what I got was that you were working from a CliffNotes
knowledge of the subject and wasting my time having to cover ground that has already been covered before.
You can rant at your imaginary version of me all you want, but if you can't even get the basics right (about my work or how I've presented it), there is no need for me to read anything else you have to say.
Oh, and not that it matters much, but my name is David, not Dave
. Most of my friends know this, and you make my wife cringe when she reads your posts referring to me as Dave