Floyd L. Davidson
PeterN <peter@verizon.net>wrote:

PeterN
On 9/18/2014 6:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
On 18 Sep 2014 15:47:22 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <p38l1ahdn5d4hqj2f23g3poskolprrir91@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

nospam
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.

nospam
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.

Sandman
No, the argument is due to Floyd making incorrect claims, and Eric Stevens stepping in to support those incorrect claims.

Eric Stevens
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.

PeterN
I think he understands those matters, quite well. You are simply being trolled.

Floyd L. Davidson
I 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.

Trolling a topic like this requires a bit of intelligence. Look at how these three guys have been strung along, one step at a time, in a way that gets them to deny all manner of well known science and philosophy because they can't relate to anything more sophisticated that what I've been referring to "Abode for Dummies". None of them understand how their two Adobe programs, Photoshop and Lightroom, work internally, and at least two just love to repeat that fact by pointing out how users don't need to know how, and just want let it do it.

Suffice to say that Eric is just having no end of fun getting kicks out of leading them around by their noses. He knew the relationship between entropy in photographic images and thermodynamics long before this thread. The other three still don't!

Not only does entropy relate to non-reversible vs reversible editing tools, it is the basis for the Rule of Thirds and many other guidelines for good image composition. And that is the same entropy discussed in thermodynamics that makes unsharp non-reversible.