nospam
In article <688l1ahc66d6o23k7oh0p7opm0sqpa7cqd@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

floyd cannot acknowledge that there are other completely valid meanings.

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.

Eric Stevens
But Floyd did.

nospam
yes he did. like i said, he's twisting things so that he can spew.

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

Eric Stevens
Not in the sense of a reversible process.

nospam
so what?

this is about a non-destructive workflow, not a thermodynamic process or a specific math transform done on an image.

as i said before, in a non-destructive workflow, a user can do any adjustment they want, including usm, and then at some later point, reverse it.

that's reversible, no matter how much you try to argue it isn't.