Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | nospam |
Date | 09/28/2014 20:30 (09/28/2014 14:30) |
Message-ID | <280920141430149493%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | PeterN |
Followups | PeterN (2h & 21m) > nospam |
PeterNone cannot prove a negative.
On 9/24/2014 2:34 PM, nospam wrote:nospamPeterN
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.
Show me where
a distant second to you, who was paid to be a weasel.PeterNand that several versions of PS have come and gove.nospam
that does not matter because the math hasn't changed.
you're weaseling.
you arw the expert at that.
in other words, no facts. why am i not surprised.PeterNnospamPeterNThat article is no proof of anything current.nospam
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.
Based on historic precedent.
correct, you are not like me. you're a pos and i am not. you did get that one right.nospamPeterN
*you* are the one who made the first pejorative remark and proof was provided all along anyway.
you're so full of shit.
Atleast I'm not alike you. A real POS.