Skip to main content
news

Re: Lenses and sharpening

nospam
Google Google
SubjectRe: Lenses and sharpening
Fromnospam
Date09/24/2014 00:20 (09/23/2014 18:20)
Message-ID<230920141820129643%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsPeterN
In article <lvsqq902u6m@news4.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter@verizon.net> wrote:

PeterN
Since you htink I am hat dumb, in the interesting of communicationg, restate your "proof."

nospam
read the link eric provided.

either it's over your head or you'd rather argue.

<https://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-LAB-dama ge.htm>

PeterN
Typical error 404

nospam
it worked for you the first time.

either that or you're lying.

Eric Stevens
He probably didn't notice that the tail of the URL had wrapped.

https://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-LAB-damage.h tm or http://tinyurl.com/kuub8ad

PeterN
I noticed and was hoping nosense would have conducted his own exeriments.

i have, many times.

I went back and forth and saw no change in output.

then you didn't do the procedure as described. no surprise there.

it's clear you didn't read the link and are talking out your ass.

Proof of a concept includes statement of the methodology, together with a display of the results, in such manner that anyone can reproduce the results. When the claiment resorts to name calling, there can be little realistic hope of proof.

once again, you dig yourself a deeper hole, and it's *you* who resorts to name calling before anyone else does.

the proof is in the link you keep claiming you read, along with the steps required to reproduce it.

with every post you make, it becomes clearer and clearer that not only did you not read the link (making you a liar), but you only want to argue, especially about things about which you know nothing.