Skip to main content
news

Re: converting raw images f...

Sandman
Google Google
SubjectRe: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
FromSandman
Date12/04/2013 11:52 (12/04/2013 11:52)
Message-ID<slrnl9u2en.e9q.mr@irc.sandman.net>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsEric Stevens
FollowupsEric Stevens (12h & 24m) > Sandman
In article <1ost995u07njpp3c8s60odnv68fcift72q@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
You have a strange definition of 'liar'.

Sandman
Yes, you seem to think that dictionary definitions are "strange".

lie an intentionally false statement

Eric Stevens
So you are calling me a liar. Yet you have no evidence to prove that fact.

Apart, of course, from this:

Sandman
So, when you made this claim:

Eric Stevens 11/28/2013 <s14d99tpigvh1jt1g2idvq17u7j8h16t9q@4ax.com>

"The problem in this case is that neither of you properly understand the meaning of 'protocol'."

It could have been a mistake on your part, and you have two choices here:

1. Support your claim 2. Apologize, or at least admit to having made a mistake

Since 1 is not an actual option since you can't support it, since your claim is false, the only other viable option is number 2, which you also refuse to do.

That means that you are fully aware of the fact that the statement is false and your refusal to admit it means that it is intentional.

Thus, it's a lie.

Eric Stevens
Bullshit. The fact that you won't admit the meaning of 'protocol' in this context does not mean that I am a liar.

The fact that you have YET TO SUPPORT YOUR INITIAL CLAIM makes you a liar.

I don't have to admit to anything, because you have offered NO SUPPORT for your claim. You can't just claim I don't understand something and then expect me to admit to out of trust of your CLAIM, do you?

Support your claims, Eric, or be branded a liar. Those are your choices.

-- Sandman[.net]

Google
Eric Stevens (12h & 24m) > Sandman