Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 09/18/2014 17:52 (09/18/2014 11:52) |
| Message-ID | <180920141152036200%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Sandman (1h & 47m) > nospam Eric Stevens (6h & 25m) > nospam |
In article <688l1ahc66d6o23k7oh0p7opm0sqpa7cqd@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:
yes he did. like i said, he's twisting things so that he can spew.Eric StevensnospamFloyd L. DavidsonnospamnospamEric Stevens
floyd cannot acknowledge that there are other completely valid meanings.
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.
But Floyd did.
so what?nospamEric Stevens
i said usm is reversible with a non-destructive workflow.
Not in the sense of a reversible process.
this is about a non-destructive workflow, not a thermodynamic process or a specific math transform done on an image.
as i said before, in a non-destructive workflow, a user can do any adjustment they want, including usm, and then at some later point, reverse it.
that's reversible, no matter how much you try to argue it isn't.
i never said 'reversible process'.nospamEric Stevens
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.
you clearly spewing and also looking like an utter fool.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.
It may be for your definition of 'reversible' but it is not so in the sense of the standard meaning of 'reversible process'.
i said usm is reversible in a non-destructive workflow, and it is. period.
09/13/2014-
