Sandman
In article <qok8l9ppi5178buss7qmuqt26bec1ahlgi@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? 04/17/2014 <cp5uk95is28j3v1v36o09vsa8qn61b987e@4ax.com>

"That nospam claims this is evident from his writings."

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.

Sandman
No.

No, it's the other way around - you can't base your specific conclusion on unspecific words. That's the entire point. I am asking you to support something that you clearly can't support in an effort to make you realize that you can't support it and thus should retract your claim.

Eric Stevens
If you think I'm wrong you should falsify my statement. Simple denial will not do.

Sandman
This is the statement:

Eric Stevens Re: Any Minolta/Sony users using UFRaw and GIMP? 04/19/2014 <fha3l99et3as32rfbvqin8h82rdfc5i8v2@4ax.com>

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

Just how do I go about falsifying that statement, Eric? My inability to falsify a vague statement based on an unknown number of vague sources does not mean that the statement is correct.

You made the claim, thus the burden of proof lies upon your shoulders. Claims doesn't become facts just because others can't disprove them.

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.

Eric Stevens
I suggest you reread the thread.

Sandman
You should, yes.

Eric Stevens
Message-ID: <slrnlkt1oi.743.mr@irc.sandman.net>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

Message-ID: <3attk9hudds5e8c1ke59ms77omm28gpqfh@4ax.com>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.

Sandman
Indeed. I'm waiting.