Google| Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 12/07/2013 21:02 (12/07/2013 21:02) |
| Message-ID | <slrnla6vqe.sdv.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (7h & 14m) > Sandman |
In article <gg65a918kbvvjuccn5l6fu4epkrmabqikg@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
The most logical reason is that the person in question can not.Eric StevensEric StevensSandman
You also are mistaken if you think that refusing to support is the same as not being able to support.
You are mistaken if you think that claiming that you're able to support it but won't, changes anything. Until you actually support it, the only logical assumption is that you can't. Any claims to the contrary from you are worth nil.
There are lots of reasons why somebody may not be able to offer support for a claim.
That it may require complex graphics which are impractical in a text-only news group is one.Isn't that a pretty peculiar claim to make in a photography group that share pictures between each other on a daily basis. I'm sure even you could come up with a way to make a "complex graphic" accessible to the person that is asking you to support your claim.
That what has been defined as support is set to an unreasonably high standard is another.Support is support, it doesn't have a "standard".
A failure to agree over terminology is yet another.No, that's not a reason why one is not ABLE to provide support, it's a source for support to be argued about. You have to actually provide the support to begin with before this is even a problem
None of these or similar causes requires that somebody is lying.But when a person makes a claim and that claim is questioned, if the person fails to support it time after time while also not retracting his claim, the only logical conslusion is that the person knows he can not support it and thus knows it is an untrue claim and since he won't retract it it is a lie.
You've made many claims that you can't support, and yet haven't retracted due to your immense ego. That makes you a liar.
Not only is that NOT your original claim (still quoted above), but even if that's what you meant - you have still NOT provided ANY support for that claim.Eric StevensSandmanSandman
At first it can be a mistake, or it can actually be correct.When Eric says this:Eric Stevens 11/28/2013 <s14d99tpigvh1jt1g2idvq17u7j8h16t9q@4ax.com>"The problem in this case is that neither of you properly understand the meaning of 'protocol'."He has made a claim about my knowledge about a word. In my followup I stated that his claim was incorrect and his two choices were these:1. Ok, so maybe I don't know whether or not you properly understand it, but it was my assumption you did not based on this:Eric Stevens
You had already had several examples of this and denied every one of them.
No, you have yet to post *a single quote* of me that you claim to have misunderstood. Not a single one!
The whole argument stems from the fact that neither you nor nospam understood the meaning of 'protocol' as used by Tony Cooper.
Why ignore this part yet again, liar?SandmanSandmanEric Stevens
2. You don't, here is a quote from your where you are using the word incorrectly:
Ditto.
Nope, you have yet to post *a single quote* from me where I used the word "protocol" incorrectly. I've asked for such a quote for *DAYS* but you have failed every single time.
No, all you have to do is support your claim. It requires no action on my part. It is your claim and yours to support.Eric StevensSandmanIf he had done 1, then I could have corrected him and told him where he got it wrong.Eric Stevens
That's exactly what you do. It never penetrates your skull that you may have got it wrong.
It would - if you had been able to point to a single quote of me getting it wrong! Merely *CLAIMING* that I got it wrong won't have me admit to anything, you have to actuall *SHOW* it as well!
All you have to do is try thinking of it a slightly different fashion.
No, you didn't. You are lying again. You have not, and can not, show a single quote from me where I am using the word protocol incorrectly. This is a fact which you refuse to admit.Eric StevensYou spent a lot of time trying to show that protocols were not found in software. This was quite true and was only necessary as a result of you determinedly misunderstanding what Tony Cooper had said.Sandman
Incorrect. And see how you DIDN'T show a quote of this in your followup - you know, like I *always* do? Of course you didn't. To you, making a claim is all you need to do for it to become fact.
Not only did I cite and quote but I tried to explain where you were wrong.
Not until you support your claim that I don't understand the word protocol. Still waiting, Eric. What has it been - five days since you made the claim?SandmanEric Stevens
See - PLENTY of quotes from me admitting to mistakes. As opposed to you trolls - I have a *HISTORY* of admitting to mistakes I make. I can point to having done this many times in the past, as opposed to you.
That's fine. Now have a look at your understanding of Tony's application of the word 'protocol'.
-- Sandman[.net]
11/30/2013-
-
