nospam
In article <87tx45v1px.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:

Eric Stevens
If you want to argue with what he said then you have to use the same meaning that he did.

nospam
i used the common meaning of the term reversible.

Floyd L. Davidson
Look up the common meaning of the term "reversible process", and stop making absurd claims. Your problem is not knowing what we are talking about, even now after all this discussion and effort to explain it.

nospam
i didn't say reversible process. you are twisting what i said as well as lying.

i said usm is reversible with a non-destructive workflow.

that is a true statement, and not limited to just usm. again, that's the whole point of a non-destructive workflow.

your problem is you can't admit that you have no idea about how a non-destructive workflow actually works, so you pretend you do and toss out some buzzwords like non-linear undo (which is laughably wrong) and then try to claim it's only for cartoon characters.

you clearly spewing and also looking like an utter fool.

he is using his own narrow definition and intentionally dismissing *anything* else.

Floyd L. Davidson
Because a typical dictionary may have 14 meanings for a word is not a license for a reader to choose which one to abuse. The *writer* chooses, not the reader.

nospam
it seems you cannot discern between reading and writing.

*i'm* the one who said usm is reversible in a non-destructive workflow, which makes *me* the writer. therefore, according to you, i get to choose.

not that i need to choose, since they all apply: <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reversible> : able to be changed back to an earlier or original state

yes.

: able to be stopped and not causing permanent damage or changes

yes

: having two sides that can be used

if you consider raw and finished to be sides, then this works too.

definitely 2 out of 3 and arguably 3 out of 3.

it's reversible.