Please sign in to comment. Don't have a profile? Join now! Joining is absolutely free and no personal information is required.
A nun??? Oy! is right :)
I really do think that's the way it is with the RC church. It's definitely not a do-it-yourself kind of religion...! I did make my confirmation, and I even had a brief fling with the thought of becoming a nun. (Oy!) Then I reached my mid teens, and reason/rationality took over. I remember reading an article by William F. Buckley, where he talked about how belief in god was a sacrament, a blessing, and he was so grateful that he'd received it. He said it felt just as obvious and strong and logical as the belief that 2 plus 2 equals 4--just as impossible to dispute. I never did get that "blessing".......
Yes, the puzzle was removed. I made a copy, because I expected that to happen--it always does...
Oh, yeah, I can't wait... :-(((((((((((((((((((
I like your take on the RC philosophy. From time to time I've thought I should know more about the bible, and now I know why I don't. I always hated catechism class. In my school (elementary) we had catechism from 3-3:30 while the other kids got to draw or do other fun stuff. When I got to junior high, there were 3 kids in the class (the other kids all had spares) and after a few weeks I refused to go any longer. And that was the end of that, at least for me :)))I see the feed the children puzzle has been removed....Soooo, the new jigidi goes 'live' overnight. I bet you can hardly wait!!!! :P
We RC's aren't big on the bible, actually--and I think it's because we're supposed to be getting our info and direction and knowledge from the Church itself, and not figuring it out ourselves by reading that book on our own. I have always thought that that was a very big difference between RC and all the Protestant factions--the latter stress the bible as the word of god, and encourage the people to read it and learn from it. If I remember my classes from the church, the church told us what it meant, and that was what we were supposed to remember. I can't think of one time I was encouraged to read the bible, rather than my catechism books...
I know your words weren't meant that way, but I couldn't help seeing them that way! :-)))
:)))) My first two words had nothing to do with the puzzle being religious (although they are rather fitting!!). When people quote bible verses, I tend to take them literally. But I know very little about the bible, other than the basics, which is kind of odd, considering my RC background.
Ya think?! She covered everything from the bible to Vietnam to rescue missions to atheism to Ronald Reagan--and I'm sure I left something out.... And I still don't see how that quote "obviously" shows that Jesus wants us to feed people...... And I love your first two words.... :-)))))
Holy crap, that was quite the sermon ms JJ posted. It was rather meandering as well...
I forgot--I was also trying to absorb this, and post an answer that was much calmer than I felt...
No, I wasn't on Jigidi that much today--we got our tree, so I had to move furniture around, and I put the lights on it, which takes me forever, and then I solved Sue's Dot puzzle, which was close to forever as well..... But I do want to try it--and it's good to know that I wasn't so far off with my title! Thanks, whatnauts!
This was great. Did you solve this one??? It solves just like a swirl. (46:37)
I'm sorry if I ever gave the impression that I don't have much appreciation for the complex programs, because I'm in awe of what they will do. And I understand that the people who use them take just as long, if not longer, to create a puzzle as I do, so when I talk about clicking and it's done, that's not a fair characterization. I do understand that it takes a lot of skill and talent and thought and artistic judgment to create those puzzles. I just like doing it my way better, and, in strictly a matter of taste, I like the look of the old school puzzles more, when it comes to solving. I've said so many times how I love Sue's squares, and there aren't any layers or warping or shadows or 3-D effects on them--it's just my own taste in puzzles, really...!
I know you prefer making the puzzles the way you do - sometimes I just get the feeling that you don't have much appreciation for the more complex programs. I wanted to point out that the complex programs require different skills. And the programs I'm referring to are much more complex than what I believe you were working with on the Apple laptop. But I like your last explanation and now have a better understanding.
That's the reason there are so many graphics programs out there - there's something for everybody. And while some are similar, they offer slightly different things - such as LunaaPic and KrazyDad. Everyone can pick the programs they like the best. There are tons of kaleidos that I don't like and I guess much of it has to do with the program they are made from.
Sometimes simple is better and you certainly do make awesome puzzles.
Autocorrect changed "stripings" into "striplings". And I forgot to add one more possibly snobbish or self-serving sounding thing--I think kaleidos look much better and have richer, clearer colors, and look much less artificial, when the original image is a Painting, and not a photo or other image. That's why I like LunaPic better than KrazyDad, because the latter doesn't show off the look of the paint as well--it makes even that kind of image look artificial--at least, to me. I think that the KrazyDad Kaleidos look gorgeous in the thumbnails, but lose a great deal when you look at the pieces... I still love to solve them, but I don't prefer them at all. I know people think LunaPic is a grade school program, and that the other is college level, but I don't stick with it because it's easy (KD is a snap, too); I stick with it because I prefer it!
Okay, enough, Pat--get off the soapbox already...!!!
Oh, whatnauts, I knew I'd end up sounding snobbish--sorry! I understand how difficult those programs are, and how complicated it can be to get just the right effects--in fact, it's just as valid to have someone say to me that what I like about my basic stuff is just a self-serving way of avoiding having to master all the other techniques that could make my work even better...!
And that leads me to your comment, Denise! I sometimes, deep inside, wonder if I am so defensive about things being handmade because I have tried things like GIMP and couldn't make head nor tails of them, so I've decided to consider simplicity a positive, and not a fault...... But then again I remember when I tried to make things on an Apple laptop. It had a whole host of options, from three dimensional figures, to shadows, to the ability to change the degree of projection "into" space of any figure, to hundreds of textures and striplings and dots, and so on and on and on. And I made a few that way without any problem--it was as easy to figure out as Paint or LunaPic. But I stopped, because it felt more like a toy than an art project, and I really didn't care that much for the results. They were clearly much more sophisticated, but they weren't ME, and they were more a composition of manipulations than a design or Painting. I remember writing that it was amazing how quickly I could add stripes to something with just a click, whereas in Paint I had to draw each strip by hand. But then again, in Paint, I could make the stripes as irregularly spaced as I wanted, whereas on the Apple I had a choice of certain regular patterns (many, to be sure, but a fixed set) , and that was it.
Anyway, as I also said below, I do love the puzzles created with lots of techniques, and I enjoy solving them, and they are more likely to end up looking like something I'd hang on a wall. But I also am happy with my own look, and that of your puzzles, Denise, and a few others who clearly use Paint, and I don't feel any pressing need to "modernize" or "improve" what I make with extra layers or warping or such. The results look really cool--I love some of the things that LunaPic does along those lines--but I prefer my own basic look. That's why I rarely post the loonies in three sizes--it may be conceited to say it, but I like my stuff better......!
I agree with you Pat. I am only a novice when it comes to drawing and not super skilled and I use Paint 80% of the time . Foxymoron just asked me what programs I use as she uses Photoshop etc. I was almost embarassed to say the very basic programs I use. Part of it I must admit is laziness - I just haven't really sat down and worked out how to use the more sophisticated programs. But by the same token, I like the individuality of the basic programs and the look it gives to the finished product
Well, you certainly should be proud of all you've accomplished with Paint. You do amazing work. I just don't agree with you about the other programs. It takes time and practice to get all the effects looking good, not to mention some talent in the art department. The more sophisticated programs have to start somewhere and with many of the people here, it's always a hand drawn pic of some kind or another.
Of course--they can do a zillion things that I can't do by hand, unless I'm a supremely talented artist. Someone like Picasso could create anything by hand, and then of course all of those "effects", from shadows to blurs to stretches to kaleidos would be handmade. But I don't have that talent, and I guess that's my point--I'm proud that what I can do with Paint is still worth looking at and solving, and that I don't have to rely on programs to make it so. Yes, there is much more that I could do with other programs, but I would be doing it only because I'm not a Picasso, and I'd rather walk on my own than fly by machine at this point, as long as I still can. And I'll say something that probably won't go over well with all the people who use programs--and that's why I said that its hard to say this without sounding egotistical--but I can always tell when something is machine generated and not drawn, and I like the way the drawn ones look much better. Take the swirls--they come in all sorts of blends and swoops and blurred effects, but they never look like someone actually painted them, at least not to me. Or, rather, I should say, they look as if they could only have been painted by a world-renowned artist, and, since I know that's not who made them, I automatically know that the effects came from a program, and not from someone's hand. My swirls, however simplistic they are, with their drawing lines, always look like MY swirls, and the widths between lines vary from one section to the next, and the mix of circles and ovals varies in the same puzzle and from puzzle to puzzle, and that doesn't seem to happen with the programs. There's more of a uniformity to those effects, in my eyes at least...The other swirls are more "artistic", more likely to look like something you'd hang on a wall, but I don't think they have the individuality, or the personal signature, of mine. So there, I've said it, and people may be annoyed at me, or think I'm belittling their work, even though I love theirs and love to solve them! I just like doing as much as I can by myself, and Paint encourages that--because I can't do it any other way with it!!! LOL!
I know where you're coming from. But many graphics programs have features like blend or stretch or blur or rotate (by any angle desired) or lots of other things that an artist could do when painting with a brush. Then there's also shadows and water effects, none of which a basic program is capable of.
I don't know how to say this without sounding terribly pretentious or egotistical, but I always think that the only reason that Paint is thought of that way is because it doesn't do things for you, for the most part--it just gives you the colors and the ability to draw a certain number of uniform shapes, and then you have to make the images yourself. To me, it's like people saying that oil-paint (or acrylic or water-colors) are so primitive, because they're just THERE, and you have to actually paint with them, and not just click on something and have it make the image for you. I obviously love the way that LunaPic turns one thing into another, creating designs I could never draw, but I never think of the results with as much pride, or fondness, as I do the Paintings I've made, however much more elementary or simplistic they are...
In the scheme of drawing programs, Paint is very nearly at the bottom of the barrel. I am one of those who is constantly amazed by what you have created with the program.
That's really so true, whatnauts. I was told very early on that Paint was a limited program, and that I'd soon find that I had to move on to something with many more features. Then, after a little while, people started saying that they were surprised that I kept discovering new ways to use Paint...! (Of course, then, eventually, I added LunaPic, which is wonderful, but which, at least 90% of the time, I only use for single postings, not for 3-size ones.) And that's really what has kept me going with Paint--constantly finding either new facets of it that I hadn't used (or at least combined) before, or thinking of new patterns and designs to make with it. So you're so right--I am VERY glad that all the good ideas didn't some at once! :-)))
Just as well, you wouldn't want all your good ideas to come at once!!! Good plan on the diagonals - I definitely need practice with those.
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I never even thought of associating it with borders, although, of course, you're absolutely right about that! And it might even involve some diagonal-solving skills as well!
I don't know if you saw what I wrote on the small version, but now I know why this worked better than rectangles, and why it's closer to a swirl--those diagonal lines on the sides are much more like curves than the 90 degree angles on the rectangles are. As usual, I have no idea why it took me so many months to figure that out... :-((( LOL!
Thanks so much, whatnauts!!!
This is absolutely wonderful. Not a swirl, but really quite close. And more interesting than borders. But I would hazard a guess that border lovers will like this as much as swirl lovers!! It satisfies both camps.