Google| Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 2013-12-09 07:59 (2013-12-09 07:59) |
| Message-ID | <slrnlaaql6.1tv.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (1h & 49m) > Sandman |
In article <3qo7a9lmda3fn6mt5dqquo89aifqqkml16@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
Then *don't make claims you can't support*Eric StevensEric StevensSandman
That it may require complex graphics which are impractical in a text-only news group is one.
Isn't that a pretty peculiar claim to make in a photography group that share pictures between each other on a daily basis. I'm sure even you could come up with a way to make a "complex graphic" accessible to the person that is asking you to support your claim.
Too much bloody trouble.
I gave you four written examples of the real-world use of the word 'protocol' and you ignored them.My god you're dumb. How many times do I have to tell you that in order for you to substantiate YOUR claim you have to provide quotes of ME using the words INCORRECTLY. That is the *ONLY* way for you to substantiate your claim. Until you do - it remains unsupported and you remain a LIAR.
Why should I expect you to pay any attention to anything else I tell you?I will pay attention to you the moment you support your claims.
Yes - you are free to provide support in the way you deem accurate as well. Since the claim is that they have "engineering skills", you would only know this if you have access to their credentials, so just share with us what you have already seen.Eric StevensThat what has been defined as support is set to an unreasonably high standard is another.Sandman
Support is support, it doesn't have a "standard".
You keep demanding support in your specified form e.g. certificates.
"Tony's partiucular use of 'protocol'" was not support for your claim that *I* don't understand the word protocol.Eric StevensA failure to agree over terminology is yet another.Sandman
No, that's not a reason why one is not ABLE to provide support, it's a source for support to be argued about. You have to actually provide the support to begin with before this is even a problem
I produced support for Tony's particular use of 'protocol' but you would not accept the neccessary usage of the word.
You have to provide an actual *QUOTE* from *ME* where I am using the word *INCORRECTLY* in order to support your claim. Qouting Tony will not support a claim that *I* don't understand the word "protocol".
Indeed it does.Eric StevensNone of these or similar causes requires that somebody is lying.Sandman
But when a person makes a claim and that claim is questioned, if the person fails to support it time after time while also not retracting his claim, the only logical conslusion is that the person knows he can not support it and thus knows it is an untrue claim and since he won't retract it it is a lie.
It might be the only logical conclusion in your eyes but that doesn't make it so.
<snip stuff Eric is too afraid to face>
-- Sandman[.net]
2013-11-30-
-
