nospam
In article <87egv9wod0.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson
Sandman and nospam remind me of a kid named Danny that went through grade school with me. In the second grade we did spelling lists every week. The "test" was the teacher read off the words, and we wrote them down, and then we "corrected" our own list. The teacher went down the list and spelled each word in turn.

Every time the teacher spelling it different than Danny, he would excitedly raise his hand and start saying, "Miss Finholm, you made a 'stake." She would, every time, have to convince him that his spelling actually was wrong.

nospam
actually that describes you perfectly.

you hone in on irrelevant details, such as revertible versus reversible versus undo, and worse, you get it *wrong*.

Floyd L. Davidson
Your comment does not support your claim.

nospam
it does, and i can dig up many of your posts to prove it.

however, from memory, you said some things a year or so ago about mac and windows that were totally false and laughably so.

some time before that, maybe two years ago, you said there could never be an internal wifi antenna on an slr because the camera body is metal. that too is wrong. there are over a billion devices with a metal body, including laptops, tablets and smartphones, and work just fine with wifi. all it takes is an antenna aperture or putting the antenna on the outside rather than the inside (and still not visible). it's trivial to do.

more recently, your comments about photoshop are *way* off, as are the ones about lightroom and a non-destructive workflow.

there are many, many others.

to your credit, you do get some stuff right, but the problem is you frequently talk about stuff you know nothing about, such as photoshop, lightroom, mac and windows.

Floyd L. Davidson
Moreover, the reversible nature of sharpen tools vs other types of processes is important to the OP, even if some folks never aspire to a level of photography where it becomes important.

nospam
another one of your insults.

why is it that top photographers worldwide use a non-destructive workflow, if it's only for idiots, or as you put it, for cartoon characters?

why is it that photoshop is used by the vast majority of professional photographers and a significant number of prosumers?

why is it that you can't accept that there are other ways to do things, including ways that offer substantial workflow improvements over your outdated primitive ways? your way is not the *only* way.