nospam
In article <l8es1a53qm4347f24glcoou31mccp6knf5@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Eric Stevens
Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who understand all this.

nospam
i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bullshit being spewed here.

Eric Stevens
I'm sure they do.

nospam
so you finally agree it's reversible. amazing.

Eric Stevens
I've never denied it.

nospam
yes you have.

Eric Stevens
It's just that it's not fully reversible in the strict sense that Floyd used it.

nospam
it is, but in a different way.

two different uses of the term.

the problem is that he won't acknowledge there can be other meanings because he's never used the software in question and is talking out his ass.

Eric Stevens
There is no other meaning which can be applied to the term 'fully reversible' as used in physics.

nospam
this isn't about physics.

it's about a non-destructive workflow.

Eric Stevens
In using those words in that way he was expressing a particular rigorously defined meaning for which there is no substitute.

nospam
however, there are alternate meanings and just as valid.