Sandman
In article <fha3l99et3as32rfbvqin8h82rdfc5i8v2@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

You have yet to point to a quote from nospam saying his previous workflow was ineffective. A tool making something more effective does not equate to the former method being ineffective.

Eric Stevens
This a trick which you have tried several times already. Nospam issues a cloud of statements, somebody eventually works out what he is trying to say and summarises it in a single concise statement, you then challenge them to tell you where nospam actually said that.

Sandman
Exactly. And it's not a trick. It's a classic troll tactic to "summarize" someone elses compiled statements to mean something that person never actually said.

Eric Stevens
Well of course he didn't actually say that. The particular meaning congealed from with a cloud of diffuse verbiage.

Sandman
You're basically confirming what I'm saying - the conclusion was made by the troll based on "diffuse verbiage" - i.e. a specific conclusion based on nothing specific.

Eric Stevens
Apart from that, effective vs ineffective is a matter of relativity.

Sandman
And also very objective, and the judge of whether or not nospam's methods were "ineffective" is none other than nospam. Sure, an onlooker may look at hhis method and bring numerous enhancements to his attention, but given the fact that the troll in this occasions has no knowledge about this earlier method, and how effective it was.

What we have is a troll that makes guesses based on the one posting, and thus makes a conclusion and a claim about the poster being ineffective before.

This is just another proof for Tony's agenda - Savageduck has *also* voiced pro-Lightroom opinions about how it has made his workflow better, yet Tony didn't respond to Savageduck and claim his earlier methods were ineffective.

Eric Stevens
Further, the two points which you question are summaries which have been put to nospam as questions. Neither of them has to be true: it's up to nospam to choose.

Sandman
Both points conclude that nospam's earlier workflow was "ineffective", "creaky" and "useless". There is no question or conclusion that postulates that the earlier workflow was very good and that the new one is even better, which is a perfectly valid option.