Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Floyd L. Davidson |
Date | 09/18/2014 10:20 (09/18/2014 00:20) |
Message-ID | <87d2atuyp1.fld@barrow.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | nospam |
Followups | Sandman (24m) nospam (7h & 31m) |
nospamAnd off we go again with you using a different definition just to confuse the issue.
In article <87tx45v1px.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:nospamFloyd L. DavidsonEric Stevensnospam
If you want to argue with what he said then you have to use the same meaning that he did.
i used the common meaning of the term reversible.
Look up the common meaning of the term "reversible process", and stop making absurd claims. Your problem is not knowing what we are talking about, even now after all this discussion and effort to explain it.
i didn't say reversible process. you are twisting what i said as well as lying.
i said usm is reversible with a non-destructive workflow.
that is a true statement, and not limited to just usm. again, that's the whole point of a non-destructive workflow.
your problem is you can't admit that you have no idea about how a non-destructive workflow actually works, so you pretend you do and toss out some buzzwords like non-linear undo (which is laughably wrong) and then try to claim it's only for cartoon characters.I am well aware of what a non-destructive workflow is and does, and that is why I'm not doing something as stupid as relating it to a non-reversible process such as the unsharp mask function.
you clearly spewing and also looking like an utter fool.
Kind makes you look less than astute. You did write that... after you *read* a reference to "non-reversible functions". If you want to respond to that you do not have the option of redefining the terms.nospamhe is using his own narrow definition and intentionally dismissing *anything* else.Floyd L. Davidson
Because a typical dictionary may have 14 meanings for a word is not a license for a reader to choose which one to abuse. The *writer* chooses, not the reader.
it seems you cannot discern between reading and writing.
*i'm* the one who said usm is reversible in a non-destructive workflow, which makes *me* the writer. therefore, according to you, i get to choose.
not that i need to choose, since they all apply: <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reversible> : able to be changed back to an earlier or original stateNow look up what a "reversible process" is. The term of art, not the simple term.
yes.
: able to be stopped and not causing permanent damage or changes
yes
: having two sides that can be used
if you consider raw and finished to be sides, then this works too.
definitely 2 out of 3 and arguably 3 out of 3.
it's reversible.