In the meantime: 

"I only read a little bit of what you said ... So much is wrong... Why did you post all that?"

If you only read a little, why be so aggressive?  If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. Why post? I don't know, why are you posting? Kind of a pointless and merely aggressive question.

"[Radiosity]...has sort of been discredited."  I understand that you're saying that most programs aren't as concerned with radiosity...but, gee, my 3-yr old C4D is loaded with GI-radiosity features. Radiosity has NOT been discredited. Radiosity theory is what drives all the other radiosity techniques. I repeat, AO/IBL/global light techniques are primarily radiosity fakers - their first job is to "fill in" all that ambient light - anything else they do(which is, often, better reflectance simulation) is gravy. "Reflectance," btw, is still a part of radiosity theory.

If you read about making IBL photos for example or if you actually make them...you will discover that IBLs are used to provide detail for both things in shadows and things in light washed-out areas. I.e., IBLs are radiosity fakers.

And so it goes...

AO is ambient occlusion...it's in the name, it's an attempt to fake the impact of ambient lighting. I.e., it's a radiosity faker.

Radiosity itself is a formula but is done to SIMULATE RL lighting. "Simulate" as is laboratory recreate RL lighting. The study of radiosity is the study of ambient light. Saying it's discredited is like saying archaeology has been discredited. It has never been discredited...but it's slow ...really really slooooooooow. Therefore, it's lousy for real-time games, and lousy for filmmakers. But it's just great for faking photographs...if you have the time.

"Poser doesn't do radiosity. " Correct. But if you don't understand what "radiosity" is then how can you ever understand what the others are faking? And many are like me...and often don't render in Poser...so we need to understand the principles so we can take them to Bryce, Vue, C4D, 3DS, tS...wherever...  And, unlike D/S, there is no Adobe Bridge atm w Poser - so we may have to composite with pictures from different sources. We have to understand radiosity concepts and how these various pieces of software simulate radiosity so that we may integrate them freely.

I have to know more than Poser. That doesn't make me better, it means I have to work that much harder and I can be wrong about a greater range of things. I have time to learn. If I am ignorant, I don't have time to be angry about it. What a waste...

If I have made broad statements, I will be glad to amend them as we talk. I made several in what I wrote, but in terms of teaching those new to the software or radiosity ideas, I will let them be atm.

I wrote that renderer rays only stop with external controls...i.e., fall-off and range limits. And that, in the meantime, they will light every forward-looking face they hit. That is not wrong. You're saying that doesn't make it wrong. Please be so kind as to provide your explanations.

There are many fall-off formulas, btw, inverse, squared, and inverse square are a few and they have been with 3D for some time. Poser is getting to them very late. They were in use in 90s when, according to you, radiosity was in its heyday. Calculating light fall-off is, in fact, part of any radiosity solution - these formulas were developed for use in the so-called discredited radiosity calculations to achieve a radiosity solution that could then be applied to a render.

Doesn't our ability to plug in different formulas suggest anything to you? As in, everything here is fake? Nothing is "real" or "accurate" in 3D. It's all simulation. And if you can adjust, like light range and light fall off, then you must realize that you may make it "appear" more realistic but it's not realistic. "Realism" is simply a term of convenience replacing the awkward "make it look more real." Ray trace lighting is NOT RL based light ray lighting - everything we do here is a fake...in exactly the same arbitrary way that painting and drawing and photography are fakes.
There is nothing wrong with faking, to make that clear - but it's art, it ain't science. I like art. I like science, too. They help each other.

"...so I won't be online much if at all."  I'm not going anywhere. As long you're civil and stop assuming things, I'll be happy to stay. Please lead us.