Shoutbox

djnerve: Probably not.

It WOULD be possible to do this, but it would require a DLL which hooks onto WLM and then a script which calls functions from the DLL, AKA, a wrapper script, because the scripting syster doesn't have access to the protocol information.

Until someone, (if they ever do) makes it, MessengerDiscovery Live has this feature.

Cloudy

wow, CookieRevised, you need to read peoples posts more clearly.

"That might be a use for it, but that does not mean that such notifiers actually work as in: "they still do what they are suppose to be doing"... because they don't."

people have said that since post no.2!!!!

We all know its not 100%. we don't even mind if its 20%. Its not up to you to decide that this script is useless. If we want it, even if we know its not reliable, then we want it.
I use LCDStudio for my G15 keyboard lcd screen, and it shows when someone closes or opens a window, no idea how, check the site maybe, but it does. its not reliable, but when a contact closes the window, i get told. and its usually right. same for opening a window.
It tells me when someone has opened a window with me. sometimes its wrong, but sometimes its right, and it gives me some warning. Like segosa mentioned.

But you and your FACT crap is just stubbornness. We all know since the beginning that the FACT is that it doesn't work 100%, but you mustn't have read what everyone else said: "we don't care if its slightly unreliable, or even extremely unreliable, but from our experiences its good enough"

No one said it WORKS. we're just saying it is better than nothing. and u don't have to install it.

really though, i find your behaviour very immature and sad.

I'm sorry. its my opinion, and i don't mean to offend you at all. but from this thread i feel that way. i don't want to start a fight or anything, I'm just saying that your posts were not nice at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by whYeNQue
but the pure ignorance shown by yourself that someone else might wish to use it for various personal reasons and your purely egomaniacal wish to have the end-all and be-all of posts is really insensitive to members of the forum

we all really appreciate your posts and input, but showing your pure frustration and attempts at manipulating of the discussions is unfortunate

you might see this as useless, but others dont. i think wars are useless... but thats just my opinion

---

The whole discussion before Segosa posted was clearly NOT about what Segosa has posted... If you reread my reply to Segosa you would also have seen that I replied very differently; simply because at that point Segosa posted about something different than what was posted before....

Also, I never said such notifiers were useless!! I said they do not work as people believe they do. And I STILL stand by that fact. Rearead my post for what they really state, not for what you think they state...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jiggs
wow, CookieRevised, you need to read peoples posts more clearly.

"That might be a use for it, but that does not mean that such notifiers actually work as in: "they still do what they are suppose to be doing"... because they don't."

people have said that since post no.2!!!!

We all know its not 100%. we don't even mind if its 20%. Its not up to you to decide that this script is useless. If we want it, even if we know its not reliable, then we want it.

---

For starters it is not me who reads stuff which isn't meant.

My VERY first post clearly stated that it didn't work. Yet people start to argue that it DOES work for THEM. It either works or it doesn't, it's as simple as that (in this case).

And the whole discussion went from that point on. And not a single person stated what segosa has stated. Read Segosa's post again, he speaks of an entirly other use than what has been suggested before...

On top of that, If I state a fact, why are all those toher people trying to convince me that that fact is not true???? Again, THAT is what this whole discussion has been about, not what Segosa has stated. In fact, when people actually did some research instead of being the smartass, they shouldn't had to reply to my post at all, but could simply have stated what segosa has stated and that was it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jiggs
But you and your FACT crap is just stubbornness.

---

pick up a dictionnary and look up the word "fact".... a fact is a fact... opinions can be crap, tv programs can be crap, but a fact still stays a fact. A fact which has been stated and known for a couple of years now. Yet the people here constantly whine that it is my 'opinion'??? well excuse me, but then it is not me who is lazy and stuburn....


Oh and in my dictionnary something only works when it is always accurate. If it isn't accurate it doesn't work. period. Go sell a car which only starts half the time as a 'working' car, I bet you would get more than just one complaint....

very untrue. YOU should reread your posts and those of others just before. EVERYONE stated that it works for them reliable enough for them to want it.
Your FACT is a FACT, but we already know that. No one has said other wise. No one has once said it works 100%. We all have experience of how it works now. and it works well enough

Let them go ahead, people will know what to think of them when they message them saying "Ha! i knew you opened a convo" and they were just browsing their files, pathetic

oh and by the way, i dont even mind if this doesnt get made. i was just commenting on CookieReviseds very silly behaviour.
And most people use it to know if someone is about to message them. and it works very well for that. no matter what you say, it does. almost always after it says a window was opened with me from so and so, he or she messages me shortly after.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jiggs
Your FACT is a FACT, but we already know that. No one has said other wise.

---

Excuse me???? if no-one said otherwise, and if everyone would have acknowledged it, I would not be here ranting over and over again.

Again, if people stated what Segosa had stated I woudn't needed to have posted 68716871 times what I posted.

if thats how you feel, ok. but you should reread over this thread and you'll see you are wrong. thats a FACT.
everyone replied to you saying it works well enough for them. that should have been enough. you then could have NICELY mentioned how the connect and disconnect is not reliable anymore and left it at that.

please calm down though. its no big deal. just people exchanging ideas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jiggs
oh and by the way, i dont even mind if this doesnt get made. i was just commenting on CookieReviseds very silly behaviour.

---

You wanna know silly behaviour... start ranting against those people who:
1) started yet another thread about this while there are already 5446541561 threads about it
2) posted off topic posts in this thread
3) even when it was said that there were already other threads explaining this whole issue and that they should read them to know a bit more, simply refuse to do it (or be to lazy?) and call me someone who doesn't know what he's talking about..... I know I'm not always right, but seriously....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jiggs
And most people use it to know if someone is about to message them. and it works very well for that. no matter what you say, it does.

---

There you go again....

ok, read carefully what you just have said (which is the same what all those other people constantly said)...

"They use it to know if someone is about to send something to them"

Now read what Segosa has stated:

"You can use it to MAYBE get a warning that there is a CHANCE that someone is going to message you"

There is a very very big difference between it:

1) "They use it to know if someone is about to send something to them"
=> You can NOT know that as there is no garantuee that the notification is correct or not; it is and always will be a guessing game!!

2) "You can use it to MAYBE get a warning that there is a CHANCE that someone is going to message you"
=> With this sentence it is a whole other purpose and meaning. Here it clearly is stated that the notifs are not usefull to explicitly know if someone messages you. The ONLY thing you would know is that a user did 'something' so that you got a notification. This does NOT mean they are messaging you. If you actuall do look at how the protocol works you would understand that those notification will be send in many circumstances. Hence the MAYBE and CHANCE...

That is totally different than what people have been posting constantly (which is "it works", "it is good", etc)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jiggs
everyone replied to you saying it works well enough for them. that should have been enough. you then could have NICELY mentioned how the connect and disconnect is not reliable anymore and left it at that.

---

in that case see my first post, that should have been enough in the first place also... (in fact, I really thought it would have been enough. and I don't mean to stop the creation of such a tool, but to stop the serious misconception that people have about these notifications....)


I shoudn't have been posting anything anyways, people should've use the search button first btw so they would have seen that there are already 65716514 threads explaining all this.

TBH, not trying to be too blunt here... But does this discussion really have any relavance? It has just turned into flaming and there is no need for it.

Bottom line is, you both have differences in oppinion, and if it doesn't work what is the harm in someone making it anyway?

Cloudy