nospam
In article <qok8l9ppi5178buss7qmuqt26bec1ahlgi@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Sandman
You're saying that it is evident from what nospam has written, that:

1. It has improved his workflow 2. His workflow was previously ineffective

Eric Stevens
No. You are saying it. On checking I find that that is your statement. The first use of these words appears in Message-ID: <slrnlkt1oi.743.mr@irc.sandman.net>when you wrote:

"Classic troll diversion. You have yet to tell us how it is *evident* that:

1. It has improved his workflow 2. His workflow was previously ineffective"

Later on, in Message-ID: <3attk9hudds5e8c1ke59ms77omm28gpqfh@4ax.com> Tony Woods attempted to mollify you by writing:

"OK...just for shits and giggles I'll concede this point and revise my statements:

1. The use of LR has not improved nospam's workflow at all. It's as creaky and useless as it was before.

2. His workflow was not ineffective before, it was simply the best that could be done under the GIGO rule.

I'll let nospam correct whichever one of us that he wants to correct."

I'm not sure whether or not nospam accepted the invitation of the last sentence. In any case you now appear to be arguing with words created by yourself.

nospam
i ignored it because there is no gigo rule. tony is trolling, as usual.

my workflow at the time was the best it could be given what tools were available. when new tools were released, my workflow improved. simple concept.

in the future, there will be even better tools available, with a further improvement in workflow.