Sandman
In article <u3b3l9ldmsjekq33ua7vucvs6rj3vmovid@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
Have you not noticed the paen of praise for the enormous effect Light Room has had on his work flow emerging from nospam?

nospam
that doesn't mean what i did before was ineffective. that's nothing but a straw man.

Eric Stevens
'Effectiveness' or 'ineffectiveness' is a matter of relativity.

Sandman
But the troll offered up only two options, that it was either "creaky and useless" or that it was "ineffective".

Plus - "ineffective" isn't as relative as you want it to be. It means that the method was NOT producing any significant or desired results. "Less effective" and "more effective" is relative. Not "ineffective".

nospam
before lightroom, my workflow was the best it could be at the time, given what was available.

Eric Stevens
And compared with your post-Lightroom work flow it was relatively ineffective.

Sandman
No, just less effective.

nospam
after lightroom, my workflow became more productive.

Eric Stevens
I can accept that.

Sandman
So you agree with Tony that his workflow before Lightroom was either "creaky and useless" or "ineffective"