Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 09/22/2014 14:11 (09/22/2014 14:11) |
| Message-ID | <slrnm2050q.671.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
In article <rasv1ad465m63qs516oqtfpbjosbc5j5c3@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
So we have a claim you've made that you are unable to substantiate. You then have two options - retract the claim or substantiate it. Trying to claim I've said the above while not being able to find it will not suffice.Eric StevensStill no quote? No admission from you that you were wrong? You know what that makes you, Eric.Eric StevensSandman
You should be aware the Sandman has several times said things to people like "you are not qulified to discuss this. Please step out of the argument".
What, no Message-ID, Eric? Yet another claim from you that you will never ever substantiate. No surprise there.
It means that my archives don't go back far enough (although I could correct that) and the present form of Google is hopeless.
For the record - *my* archives go years back and I *know* I haven't said what you attributed to me. This is just me giving you a chance to redeem yourself by retracting your claim.
I don't "think" that, I know it is. It's hilarious that you don't.Eric StevensBut you have given no indication of any kind that you are equipped to understand what is meant by a 'reversible process' or the application of the concept of entropy to any field of knowledge.Sandman
My onslaught of substantiations and explanations should have given you a clue. You started to talk about... hehe... thermodynamics instead.
... and you think that's a change of subject. :-(
-- Sandman[.net]
09/13/2014-
