Online since 2002. Over 3300 puzzles, 2600 worldwide members, and 270,000 messages.

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:47 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 pm
Thanks, Konrad, again the issue was not in the definition of the word "make", which can be personal opinion, but in the inconsistency and hypocrisy in its use by the same person, which clearly put down others' approach while putting himself on a pedestal. Totally unacceptable.

In fact I bet Tony couldn't come up with any reasnable definition of the word that could differentiate between his and others' approach...

_________________
If you want something you’ve never had, you’ve got to do something you’ve never done - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Jarrow, England
I have come to this thread a bit late, and it should be allowed to die as it is a little divisive (as are all arguments about word interpretations and semantics) but I must add my halfpennyworth (sorry about the long post, I suppose it should be my Fivepoundsworth).

My first serious puzzle mod was a 3x3x5 from a 3x3x4 following instructions I found on YouTube. This was quite a complex piece of work involving cutting most of the cube pieces in half, gluing, filling, sanding, polishing. To my view, this took a fairly high degree of skill to make a good end product. I used Cubesmith tiles to finish it. Did I make this puzzle? Well, I certainly didn't invent it, as all I did was follow someone else's instructions. And I didn't have anything to do with the original donor puzzles. But I did have to modify the vast majority of the donor puzzle pieces, so I would like to think that I made this 3x3x5, and I think that Tony would agree.

I have made a Hexaphobic. Since there were no instructions on how to do this, I had to work it out myself from pictures. I had to remove the stickers from the 6x6x6, cut and sand 4 corners to within 1mm accuracy and lube and tension it. Although all 152 of the add-on pieces were designed using 3D CAD and were printed by Shapeways, I have to clean them up by sanding and brushing and dye them black. Then I have to glue all 152 pieces onto the donor cube without accidentally glueing the cube pieces together as well. I designed stickers using 3D/2D CAD, and Oliver made them for me. I then carefully applied all 152 stickers with a good degree of accuracy, and voilĂ , I have a Hexaphobic. Did I make this puzzle? This certainly took as much of my time (if not more) than the 3x3x5, but it took a somewhat different set of skills, but I would say that I did make this.

I have "made" both a Ghost Cube and a Hexaminx, which were both designed in 3D CAD, including the mechanism, and the pieces were made by Shapeways. I designed the stickers in CAD, but Oliver "made" them. I cleaned up the pieces, dyed them, assembled the puzzles and applied the stickers. Did I make these puzzles? I certainly had to use my 3D design skills a lot more, but there was less "hands on dirty fingernail" type of work that Tony places so much value on, but I would say that again, these puzzles took as much of my time as the ones above, just applied in a different way, and I am just as proud of the results. I would say that I made these, even though I did not invent them or actually physically create any of the pieces.

I have designed a Decaphobic which, at the moment, only exists as bits in my computer, as I think that nobody else has made a physical puzzle. Have I made this puzzle? Although to this point I have spent some considerable time in the 3D CAD world (learning how to use Inventor) since I have not yet had Shapeways make the pieces (it costs too much!) then I would not claim that I have made this puzzle (but good luck Traiphum).

I am an electronic engineer. I design or "invent" circuits, connect them together, simulate their operation, arrange the parts on a PCB, connect all the parts together, run some more simulations - all of this take place inside a computer, as it is impossible to do it any other way. Finally I send the 8 layer PCB in electronic form to a specialist manufacturer (let's call them PCBways) get the PCB made, and then the whole design is assembled by another specialist manufacturer (let's call them Assembleways) and I finally have the finished product (which hopefully works :wink: ) Did I "make" this device? Although I know how a PCB is made and how the parts are assembled onto it, in principal I could do all this myself, but it would be stupid for me to try, so I just leave it up to third parties who are experts in these fields because they provide a good service and are value for money. To me, they are just a means to an end, a tool for me to use, just like Shapeways.

So, what can we conclude? That old-school puzzle makers look down on these pesky kids using new-fangled design methods :lol: ? Perhaps, but really that is not a surprise. How does a skilled mechanical watch-maker view quartz crystal watches? Even though the quartz watch is the "better" product from a purely functional point of view i.e. it tells the time more accurately, costs less and runs without intervention for years, people still buy and covert Rolexes and Omegas and Patek Philippes.

In conclusion: Vive La Difference!

_________________
My Shapeways Shop: http://www.shapeways.com/shops/gus_shop

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
Dave, Konrad, I have no problem with general terminology or use of the word "make". That was never an issue.
NXTgen, I regret that your post was the centre of my / our attention.

In summary, my comment was triggered by the below statement which is clearly 100% correct (= fact). I have no idea why others can't see that or think I am attacking, demeaning or belittling any of the amazingly talented CADers by mentioning it.
NXTgen wrote:
There are a few that still deny I made the parts, and instead downloaded them, or had someone else make them for me.


Since everything I have said has been completely misunderstood and the context of NXTgen's original comment ignored (deliberately by some) I will withdraw from this discussion.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Tony Fisher on Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:47 am
and how you explain saying this: " I type this with dirty hands and soar fingers from sanding and welding parts of a puzzle I am making"?
For making a mod you are making more of a puzzle that a cad designer?

_________________
Before I was eliasthecollector93... It took too long to log in :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:07 am
Location: Germany, Bavaria
KelvinS wrote:
Thanks, Konrad, again the issue was not in the definition of the word "make", which can be personal opinion, but in the inconsistency and hypocrisy in its use by the same person, which clearly put down others' approach while putting himself on a pedestal. Totally unacceptable.

In fact I bet Tony couldn't come up with any reasnable definition of the word that could differentiate between his and others' approach...
Kelvin, you had obviously not read Dave's post above?
DLitwin wrote:
.....
People need to stop taking things so personal, and stop using any demeaning terms.
Rule #6 wrote:
6. Flames, Derogatory Insults and Sarcasm
Flames and other forms of derogatory insults are strictly against the rules. The use of sarcasm is a dangerous grey area that can often have you inadvertently crossing the line because of the emotionally detached quality of written text. Consider using smilies to ensure your mood is understood. If you disagree with another member's point of view, do so in a mature and civil manner. If you find yourself being insulted by another guest or member, please do not dignify that person with a response. Simply notify a moderator so appropriate action may be taken. If you feel you must respond to that person directly, don't degrade the forum further, do it privately. Better yet, be the better person and let it go. Odds are good that it was a misunderstanding in the first place. A member that shows a pattern of hassling or bullying of any other member for whatever reason, contempt, or rudeness will result in account deactivation.
This is a discussion forum. These topics and definitions can be discussed without any need for comparison or assigning value to anyone's efforts.
....
My limited understanding of English language tells me that you didn't use exactly friendly words.
You obviously took offence, where Tony really discussed the meaning of "make". Some extracts from Tony's post above:
Tony Fisher wrote:
...Not wishing to be nasty but if you use a company like Shapeways to make the parts then you didn't actually make the puzzle, sorry. ...
Tony Fisher wrote:
...I pick this answer since it is the most extreme. Whether I make puzzles or not is irrelevant. That fact remains that if you design a puzzle on computer and get it 3D printed you haven't made a puzzle. If you disagree then please tell me what Shapeways does. ...
Tony Fisher wrote:
...However much work it takes to design a puzzle doesn't mean you have made a puzzle. Regarding the companies it's really just down to what words we use and isn't really relevant. I think we all know that Uwe Meffert doesn't actually make puzzles so it's something taken for granted when we talk about Mefferts new puzzles.
None of this attacks anyone and is simple fact so I have no idea why people are taking offence.
Tony Fisher wrote:
...In my mind this is good natured though it's not always easy to type the words that way as well as making the points. It's a simple fact that if you pay Shapeways to make your puzzle then you haven't made it yourself. How can that not be true? Remember all of this was in reply to an earlier post and not some random attack on CADers
Tony Fisher wrote:
... and never once claimed that my method of making puzzles somehow counts and others don't.
Tony Fisher wrote:
...
Please read my posts! - "Before anyone mentions it I do acknowledge that transforming is not 100% puzzle making either". How many more times? I am not attacking anyone yet you prefer to believe that I am.
Tony Fisher wrote:
....Shapeways makes the puzzles. The person who pays Shapeways doesn't. ....
Tony Fisher wrote:
... They are partly made by me. ...
I totally admit to using the wrong wording for many things as do most puzzlers but the whole point was about that original statement which people have now probably forgotten. There's simply no way that you have made something if you haven't actually made any of it.
You can interpret all of this, that Tony is looking down on other kind of makers . His sentences didn't say this. At least this is my interpretation.

Again: Please all calm down.

_________________
My collection at: http://sites.google.com/site/twistykon/home


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:03 pm
One could define "making" as the non-intelligent part of creation. This is illustrated by the phrase "let's make a baby".

_________________
Oskar's home page, YouTube, Shapeways Shop, Puzzlemaster, and fan club
Image.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
Konrad wrote:
Some extracts from Tony's post above:
Ok... let's look at these:
Tony Fisher wrote:
...Not wishing to be nasty but if you use a company like Shapeways to make the parts then you didn't actually make the puzzle, sorry. ...
Why not? You can't make a statement like that and NOT expect it to be taken as an attack.
Tony Fisher wrote:
...I pick this answer since it is the most extreme. Whether I make puzzles or not is irrelevant. That fact remains that if you design a puzzle on computer and get it 3D printed you haven't made a puzzle. If you disagree then please tell me what Shapeways does. ...
Easy... Shapeways printed the puzzle. Does an author get credit for writing a book if its not written with his own hand. If not please tell me why not?
Tony Fisher wrote:
...However much work it takes to design a puzzle doesn't mean you have made a puzzle.
Ummm... yes you have.
Tony Fisher wrote:
Regarding the companies it's really just down to what words we use and isn't really relevant. I think we all know that Uwe Meffert doesn't actually make puzzles so it's something taken for granted when we talk about Mefferts new puzzles.
Again... this is just wrong. I think we all do know that Mefferts does MAKE puzzles. It's how he makes his living. What exactly is it that you think we pay him money for? Why is it that I've emailed him asking if he'd be interested in MAKING my Bubbloid 122 puzzle? Maybe you know a different Uwe Meffert then the rest of us are talking about.
Tony Fisher wrote:
None of this attacks anyone
Yes it does. Saying it doesn't... doesn't make it so.
Tony Fisher wrote:
and is simple fact
This is a flat lie. Its an opinion. Again stating something as fact doesn't mean that it is a fact.
Tony Fisher wrote:
so I have no idea why people are taking offence.
Really!? Is that a fact? Have your read this thread? I'm NOT the only one telling you why. If its not an attack why did you have the forethought to say "sorry" after you threw the first blow and you even prefaced it with "Not wishing to be nasty but..." so I fail to see how you can plead ignorance.
Tony Fisher wrote:
...In my mind this is good natured though
We clearly differ on the meaning of that term too.
Tony Fisher wrote:
it's not always easy to type the words that way as well as making the points. It's a simple fact that if you pay Shapeways to make your puzzle then you haven't made it yourself. How can that not be true?
Simply because its not. I paid Shapeways to print my puzzle. Just as an author pays someone else to print their works. Just as you pay the electric company to power your Dremel tool so that it can MAKE your puzzles if you prefer.
Tony Fisher wrote:
Remember all of this was in reply to an earlier post and not some random attack on CADers
You told a fellow designer that he didn't make his puzzle because he had it printed by Shapeways. You mean to say that you can not see how that attacks someone? Please explain to me how this is ANY different then using a Dremel tool. Using your definition no one ever makes anything. Even if you chip a knife out of flint and carve the puzzle out of wood there is NO component in here that you have MADE. Mother Earth made flint. The tree made the wood. So clearly you have done nothing. Can you really NOT see the hypocrisy in such a claim?
Tony Fisher wrote:
... and never once claimed that my method of making puzzles somehow counts and others don't.
You apparently have claimed to "make" puzzles. This statement clearly implies such as you state that you have a "method". Please tell us what that method is and how such a method qualifies for your use of this word. At the moment the only method that I see that fits is if you are able to speak and have the puzzle pop into existence. Short of that you have no more sound use to the term then the rest of us.
Tony Fisher wrote:
...Please read my posts!
We have. Have you been reading ours?
Tony Fisher wrote:
How many more times? I am not attacking anyone yet you prefer to believe that I am.
If you attack someone and say that you are not... that doesn't make it ok.
Tony Fisher wrote:
....Shapeways makes the puzzles.
Yes, in the same way your Dremel makes puzzles.
Tony Fisher wrote:
The person who pays Shapeways doesn't. ....
Then clearly the person who uses a Dremel doesn't make puzzles either. Can you not follow this logic and see how this stance is an attack?
Tony Fisher wrote:
... They are partly made by me. ...
Which part is that? Did you make the Dremel? Did you make the plastic? Did you make the screws? I dare say there isn't a single part (not even one atom) in any of your puzzles which was made by you.
Tony Fisher wrote:
I totally admit to using the wrong wording for many things
I hope that includes just about every word you've posted in this thread.
Tony Fisher wrote:
as do most puzzlers but the whole point was about that original statement which people have now probably forgotten. There's simply no way that you have made something if you haven't actually made any of it.
We haven't forgotten. And as long as you apply this standard to yourself I'm ok with it. You just need to realize that you haven't made anything either.
Konrad wrote:
You can interpret all of this, that Tony is looking down on other kind of makers. His sentences didn't say this. At least this is my interpretation.

Again: Please all calm down.
You are too kind. Above you can see what his sentences are telling me and its obvious I have a different interpretation.

There are two other quotes in this thread that bother me:
Tony Fisher wrote:
Since everything I have said has been completely misunderstood and the context of NXTgen's original comment ignored (deliberately by some)...
Tony Fisher wrote:
A true puzzle builder = a cheat and a liar
If the point is to claim there are no builders why then try to play the victim mentality card? The only thing that is being done deliberately here is the defense of puzzle makers from this stance that you want to claim isn't an attack. If it isn't an attack ask yourself why so many feel compelled to defend themselves.

Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:50 pm
Location: Near Las Vegas, NV
Since this has been moved to a new thread...
Tony Fisher's 5x5x5 picture cube wrote:
I created my first proper picture cube.
I believe every puzzle should be made at least once plus I really like [5x5x5 picture cube] which is all that matters at the end of the day.

According to your definitions in this topic, you can no longer say that you made your 5x5x5 picture cube, now can you? :wink:
Again, my point is that no matter how my puzzles are made, I claim ownership to the puzzle and design. It wouldn't have been made had I not designed it, therefore I made it. Perhaps not physically, but I still made it.
However this quote comes across as very rude:
Tony Fisher wrote:
A true puzzle builder = a cheat and a liar

Since you were being sarcastic in this post you are implying that designers are cheats and liars. How rude of you to state this.

_________________
My Youtube channel
My Shapeways Shop


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:09 pm
Location: Missouri
benpuzzles wrote:
I claim ownership to the puzzle and design. It wouldn't have been made had I not designed it, therefore I made it. Perhaps not physically, but I still made it.
I believe most of us agree.
benpuzzles wrote:
However this quote comes across as very rude:
Tony Fisher wrote:
A true puzzle builder = a cheat and a liar

Since you were being sarcastic in this post you are implying that designers are cheats and liars. How rude of you to state this.
I believe you are taking that differently then I did. I didn't take it as rude... or that he was calling us cheats and liars. My reading of that was that Tony was calling himself a "true puzzle builder" and that we were calling him a cheat and liar. Not sure my reading is much better, but despite Tony's definition to the contrary I do consider him a puzzle builder. And I have called his "its a simple fact" statement a lie so despite being sarcastic... its one of the more correct statements he has made. Though I have no idea where the "cheat" portion comes from if I'm reading it as intended.

Carl

_________________
-
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
Sigh.

I don't sense the tone is changing here, yet I had the impression I had kindly requested that it should. Konrad has also subsequently reminded people of this request, even quoting my post again.

How might I rephrase this so as not to resort to locking the thread, warning users and editing posts? Perhaps a bit more blunt and some red:

Re-read rule #6 again. Then re-read my post. Then re-read Konrad's quoting of my quoting of rule #6. If you are still unclear on the concept, PM me and I'm happy to review it with you in private. If you don't have anything nice to say, question why you are posting. For yourself and your personal sense of pride/justice/honor or for the betterment of our community? Realize we might favor one over the other, particularly when a contentious matter has already been re-hashed a number of times.

This is particularly frustrating for me because pretty much all parties are long time acquaintances, many of which I have met in person. I think this same conversation could be had in person (say, at DCD, IPP, etc.) with little to none of the existing tone. It just isn't necessary.
When reading someone's post, try your best to read it with the most favorable light possible, not the least. Assume offense is not meant, and if someone says they meant no offense, accept it.
Accept that sarcasm exists on both sides (although rule #6 cautions to avoid it for just this reason) and consider that sometimes what is meant in humor won't be correctly taken as such. And consider that what you take as insult may have been an attempt at humor to lighten the mood.

Terms like liar (all sides) are really uncalled for. We can do far better than that.

Chill out. Relax. Perhaps it really isn't so important to post about this right now. This whole "hand modders vs. CADers" is not the big deal you think it is, and what you think others are claiming (again, both sides) is probably a lot less than they actually do.

Carrot: Pretty please with sugar and a cherry on top?
Stick: Less polite Admin/Moderator actions are the only other logical next step, and I'd really prefer to avoid that.

Dave

_________________
Image
LitwinPuzzles.com has info on my puzzles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:50 am
Location: The Netherlands
Hi,

I have nothing to say about this topic, but I do want to say the following:

I haven't been a member of this forum for a long time, yet, but when I first came to this forum, I was really happy to see that is was a really friendly environment. I'm really dissapointed that a thread like this was even created on this forum.

What most members here are doing, is telling one another that their opinion is a fact. Fact is: an opinion is not a fact.

Everyone uses their own terminology, and has their own way of thinking about stuff. It's like philosophy. An opinion is never wrong. However: most of the people who comment on this thread, seem driven to prove that their opinion is the right one, and whoever has a different opinion is wrong.

I hope everyone can be tolerant towards each others opinions, no matter what the topic is.

Thank you.

_________________
- Eric


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:07 am
Location: Germany, Bavaria
wwwmwww wrote:
.... You are too kind. Above you can see what his sentences are telling me and its obvious I have a different interpretation.
....Carl
It is obvious that my collection of Tony's quotes can be interpreted differently. This is the case of many human conversations. I'm still deeply convinced that all this fuss is a huge misunderstanding.
Remember where it started?
NXTgen wrote:
My story is usually when I bring a shapeways puzzle I designed (Have to show this one soon...) And They say "YOU did not make that!" I explain I designed it in Solidworks, but say 3D modelling program for better understanding, then say a service 3D printed the parts for me, and occasionally have to explain in simple ways. I pull my laptop out and show the models and each action done to make it "look that way".

There are a few that still deny I made the parts, and instead downloaded them, or had someone else make them for me. I find this funny, but sad sometimes.
Tony's point was obviously that the layman's view isn't so dumb, if you have a close look at the meaning of the word "make". And Tony has quite obviously a more narrow view on what it means to make something than others.

As Tony has withdrawn from this discussion at 2:54pm, I felt compelled to show by the collection of his posts, that the whole debate originated in the different definition of the word "make".

No, I do not think that I'm too kind, but probably some people wake up tomorrow morning recognizing that they were not kind enough.

If you (you in its general meaning) say to me that something is meant as no attack and no offence is intended, I will give you that credit. At least I shall try.

_________________
My collection at: http://sites.google.com/site/twistykon/home


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:18 am
When I show off my Hex Crystal Puzzle to people, I generally say something along the lines of:
I designed it using my computer and had the parts manufactured by Shapeways, an online 3D printshop.

Granted, I might substituted made for manufactured when making such a statement, but I claim no part in turning the virtual design into physical parts, though I did clean any access nylon powder from the parts, assemble and break-in the puzzle, and color the parts(either via dye or sharpie).

That said, I think it fair to say that those who actually sculpt their own parts, whether with an xacto knife or a dremel, whether from blocks of raw material or existing puzzle parts are much more involved in the manufacturing process than those who send their design to Shapeways or an Injection molding factory, and I think this was Tony's original point, even if somewhat poorly stated.

_________________
Just so you know, I am blind.

I pledge allegiance to the whole of humanity, and to the world in which we live: one people under the heavens, indivisible, with Liberty and Equality for all.

My Shapeways Shop


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:22 pm
Though your question is taken offence by some (not me) you do bring up a very interesting point that I think everyone else is yet to pinpoint. In the 3D designing and rapid prototyping (printing) of a puzzle who technically can say they made the puzzle. well no ONE person can say that. Everyone that contributed as a whole can but no one person unless they made every piece by hand can definitively say they made a puzzle. Food for thought I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Puzzle creation terminology
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:03 pm
NathPuzzles wrote:
Though your question is taken offence by some (not me) you do bring up a very interesting point that I think everyone else is yet to pinpoint. In the 3D designing and rapid prototyping (printing) of a puzzle who technically can say they made the puzzle. well no ONE person can say that. Everyone that contributed as a whole can but no one person unless they made every piece by hand can definitively say they made a puzzle. Food for thought I guess.
It all depends of the used definition of the word "making".

This is a definition that Google provides
Google wrote:
the process of making or producing something.
synonyms: manufacture, manufacturing, mass production, building, construction, assembly, production, producing, creation, creating, putting together, modelling, fabrication, invention, forming, formation, moulding, forging, composition
antonyms: destruction
So Google provides a quite wide definition, which includes invention, modelling and assembly.

My definition of "making" is a bit more narrow. I am aware that some people are using an even more narrow definition than I, in the vein of "the act of subtractive manufacturing by manual labor".

As there are already many dictionary definitions of "making", and the discussions in this thread do not seem to provide any sign of consensus towards a better twisty-puzzle-specific definition, I do not see a need for an entry in Twistypedia.

Oskar

_________________
Oskar's home page, YouTube, Shapeways Shop, Puzzlemaster, and fan club
Image.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Forum powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group