Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | PeterN |
| Date | 09/27/2014 02:17 (09/26/2014 20:17) |
| Message-ID | <m04vm501nuf@news6.newsguy.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (1d, 18h & 12m) > PeterN |
On 9/24/2014 2:34 PM, nospam wrote:
nospamShow me where
In article <lvu11p02s5m@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter@verizon.net> wrote:nospamPeterNI forgot to mention the age of the article,
I noticed and was hoping nosense would have conducted his own exeriments. I went back and forth and saw no change in output. 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.
no you didn't.
you arw the expert at that.PeterNnospam
and that several versions of PS have come and gove.
that does not matter because the math hasn't changed.
you're weaseling.
Based on historic precedent.nospamPeterNPeterNnospam
That article is no proof of anything current.
in other words, you admit that you're full of shit.
ou made the statement, failed to provide any rational proof. Your use of the perjorative is prof that you are nothing but a troll.
projection.
*you* are the one who made the first pejorative remark and proof was provided all along anyway.Atleast I'm not alike you. A real POS.
you're so full of shit.
-- PeterN
09/13/2014-
