Google| Subject | Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 04/20/2014 12:13 (04/20/2014 22:13) |
| Message-ID | <6j67l9t6rnhs03u94fak8kr2ip6ml2c2tf@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (1h & 49m) > Eric Stevens |
On 20 Apr 2014 07:15:03 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanYou left this bit out:
In article <ji66l91ojri86traih712j3lsvjks5lr00@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
This line: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.
... is a new insertion by you with quote marks added to make it seem older.
It is when the basis for the alleged claim is a cloud of nebulous stateents by another person.SandmanExactly. 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
It's also a troll trick to ask for a cite for a direct quote of what that person never actually said.
No it isn't. Asking for substantiations for explicit claims is not a troll tactic, Eric.
To the contrary, you have just said my conclusion (which is not an accurate description, by the way) is " based on nothing specific".SandmanEric StevensEric StevensSandman
Well of course he didn't actually say that. The particular meaning congealed from with a cloud of diffuse verbiage.
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.
Do you really mean that you think that nospam used all those words to no effect whatever?
Classic troll diversion. It is obvious that I have said nothing about the purpose of nospam's "words" at all.
You can't have it both ways. On the one hand you have said "You have yet to point to a quote from nospam saying his previous workflow was ineffective" while on the other you have said that nospam's use of "diffuse verbiage" has led to to "a specific conclusion based on nothing specific". If you are truly correct and the conclusion is based on nothing specific then you can't justify asking for a specific citation.
I am merely correctly pointing out that you just confirmed that nospam had said nothing specific and that the troll in question had drawn a specific conclusion from it nonetheless.Your idea of 'nothing specific' is to 'specific' as 'ineffective' is to 'effective'.
I suggest you reread the thread.Eric StevensSandman
Certainly he conveyed a meaning which could be extracted from what he had said.
You are free to interprete as you please, but when you make explicit claims based on no explicit statements from someone else, then you will have to support your claim.
--SandmanBoth 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.Eric Stevens
Then nospam has the opportunity to say 'no' to both postulates. But you didn't wait for that: you immediately assumed the worst and attacked Tony on that basis.
Haha!
Regards,
Eric Stevens
04/05/2014-
