Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 09/20/2014 04:18 (09/20/2014 14:18) |
Message-ID | <iuop1a1n126chcuiud3bu7opvtmikvjlt6@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (9h & 4m) > Eric Stevens |
SandmanI do know your background, remember.
In article <3omm1a9dqemvekn7kidlp49k48qaqbjvdm@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric StevensSandmannospamnospam
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.
I already knew you can make incorrect statements.
--Eric StevensSandman
You are simply denying the existence of what you don't understand.
Yes, you are.