Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Floyd L. Davidson |
Date | 09/19/2014 14:44 (09/19/2014 04:44) |
Message-ID | <87zjdvu6dh.fld@barrow.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | PeterN |
Followups | nospam (4h & 6m) Eric Stevens (14h & 57m) |
PeterNI kinda doubt that Sandman understands even a small part of what either Eric or I have said. Same goes for nospam and Savageduck. They have all three demonstrated the same inability to cope with ideas and concepts they haven't explored before, and an inability to differentiate between various word meanings, particularly between vernacular and terms of art.
On 9/18/2014 6:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:Eric StevensPeterN
On 18 Sep 2014 15:47:22 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:SandmanEric Stevens
In article <p38l1ahdn5d4hqj2f23g3poskolprrir91@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:Sandmannospamnospam
that's the whole problem.floyd cannot acknowledge that there are other completely valid meanings.Eric Stevens
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.he is using his own narrow definition and intentionally dismissing *anything* else.Eric Stevens
Because the narrow meaning expresses *exactly* what he intends. Your preferred broad meaning encompasses many alternatives. Hence this argument.
No, the argument is due to Floyd making incorrect claims, and Eric Stevens stepping in to support those incorrect claims.
I will make a statement: you don't have the training to know whether we are right or not. You are simply denying the existence of what you don't understand.
I think he understands those matters, quite well. You are simply being trolled.