If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#771
|
|||
|
|||
An Apology - Was converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Sandman: Incorrect. The conclusion that you are lying is based on your inability to provide substantiation, period. Well, when you ask for the engineering certificates of racing drivers I know you are not seriously looking for evidence of their technical competence: either that or you think that all skills can engrained by training. Either way, there is no point in trying to satisfy you. You'd have a point if you had provided another, equally viable, support. Which of course you didn't. I even told you that I just wanted to share in on the source of your intel, the information you used when you made the explicit claim of *ALL* "successful" drivers. You weren't able to provide *ANY* support for this claim. This was an *assumption* on your part and should have been phrased as such. However, when you first started telling me I was lying you never even asked for evidence or gave me the chance to produce it. Incorrect. I spent some two weeks asking you to back up your claims. You failed. Sandman: Which would be a viable option, if what you said was true. Since what you said concerned knowledge on my part, I knew for a fact from the outset that your claim was untrue, so there was no possible scenario where you said something true and then were unable to support it. So, from the beginning, you prejudged my veracity. No, I knew you were wrong, I didn't "prejudge" you. You made a claim about me that was false, full stop. I asked you to support the claim in a vain attempt to show you that you CAN'T support it because it is false, and a normal person would have promptly admitted to his error. But you're no normal person. This was obvious and I am glad you have made it unnecessary for me to go round and round in circles to establish the point. Maybe that's why you never asked me for supporting evidence. Apart from the multitude of times I explicitly told you to support your claim, that is. Sandman: And even if we hypothetically say that your claim WAS true and you couldn't support it, an honest person would retract his claim nonetheless. If you can't support it, don't make the claim. It's as easy as that. That's not how the real world works. If I know my claim is right I'm not going to withdraw it, even if I can't come up with supporting evidence at this instant. This is exactly how the world works. If you make statements as facts, you will be asked to support them. Failure to do so doesn't make them false, but it means they're not facts. Facts need proof, full stop. Without proof they are not facts, then they are assumptions, theories and guesses and should always be presented as such. Eric Stevens: What you are saying is that the reality of any part of the universe stands or falls with my ability to substantiate it. Things can be true even if you cannot prove it at the time. Sandman: They can - but one should not state them as facts if one cannot substantiate them. You may make claims about your opinions and guesses and assumptions as much as you like and no one would hold you to prove them. But when you continually make explicit claims and state them as facts, whilst failing to support them with anything, that makes you an idiot or a liar. Take your pick. If only that was an accurate statement of the situation ... It is. You made a statement as a fact, and failed to support it, and then failed to retract or reword your statement. Eric Stevens: I thought that at the very least that was worth at least a wry grin. Sandman: I thought it was you needlessly dragging up old arguments in an effort to spite me - i.e. troll. Eric Stevens: You are unduly sensitive. Sandman: How so? You are a troll and a proven liar. Why would I give you ANY leeway? I'd say I was *duly* sensitive towards your game playing, trolling and lying and you utter inability to read and comprehend written English. Humph! I will pit my understanding of English against yours at any time, but not with you as the judge. Haha, of course not. You'd enlist the help of your illiterate troll buddy Andreas Skitsnack. Perhaps Peter will join you to misrepresent the English language as well? -- Sandman[.net] |
#772
|
|||
|
|||
An Apology - Was converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
On 20 Dec 2013 09:45:51 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Sandman: Incorrect. The conclusion that you are lying is based on your inability to provide substantiation, period. Well, when you ask for the engineering certificates of racing drivers I know you are not seriously looking for evidence of their technical competence: either that or you think that all skills can engrained by training. Either way, there is no point in trying to satisfy you. You'd have a point if you had provided another, equally viable, support. Which of course you didn't. I even told you that I just wanted to share in on the source of your intel, the information you used when you made the explicit claim of *ALL* "successful" drivers. You weren't able to provide *ANY* support for this claim. This was an *assumption* on your part and should have been phrased as such. However, when you first started telling me I was lying you never even asked for evidence or gave me the chance to produce it. Incorrect. I spent some two weeks asking you to back up your claims. You failed. Rubbish. On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 21:09:19 +1200 in Message-ID: I wrote "I've used operating systems that worked with magnetic drum storage right through virtually the entire range of both floppy and hard discs. I bought and used a microcomputer system with one of the first such hard discs in captivity. I've set up and written databases using Cromemco DBR (SQL), Informix (SQL), Basic, C, dBXL, Paradox and one or two others I can't remember. I've used file systems including Cromix, Unix, CP/M, PC-DOS and all flavours of NTFS since version 3.5 (except 8)." You responded to this saying: "This I can't believe. *EVERYTHING* you've said leads to the logical conclusion that you know NOTHING about databases. So I am assuming that this is just a plain out lie." See. No request for me to back up my claims. Just an immediate denial of the truth of my claim and the labeling of it as a lie. You've gone on from there, disputing everything I say and calling me a liar at every opportunity. Had you given me the benefit of the least amount of doubt I could have given you https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC6945.jpg which is a link to a corner of my book shelves. You will see *nine* Paradox manuals covering two generations. In fact the Word Perfect Office 2002 manual describes Paradox 10. I haven't been collecting these as a hobby. Subscribers to this news group will know that I have several times mentioned the use of a Cromemco computer. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...co%20dBase.jpg is a screen clip of a most unfortunately coloured catalogue of Cromemco software. (The original file can be found on page 11 of the 28 slow loading pages at http://www.thecomputerarchive.com/ar...20Software.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/m9w8ct4 ) This page describes the Data Base Management System. At the bottom there is mention of the 'DBR report writing package'. Although it was not described as such, this was basically SQL, some time around 1980. The Cromemco data base software was written by Roger Sippl and Laura King who previously worked at Cromemco and were responsible for their database software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informix_Corporation So, when I later bought an AT&T 3B2-700 (?) it was natural that I should buy the Informix package which came with it. It was shortly after that, that Informix introduced their SQL version which, of course, I bought. I'm not going any further along this line. I don't now really care whether you believe me or not, but please stop pretending you are virtuous in this matter. --- snip --- -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#773
|
|||
|
|||
An Apology - Was converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Eric Stevens: However, when you first started telling me I was lying you never even asked for evidence or gave me the chance to produce it. Sandman: Incorrect. I spent some two weeks asking you to back up your claims. You failed. Rubbish. 100% true. Message-ID: I wrote "I've used operating systems that worked with magnetic drum storage right through virtually the entire range of both floppy and hard discs. I bought and used a microcomputer system with one of the first such hard discs in captivity. I've set up and written databases using Cromemco DBR (SQL), Informix (SQL), Basic, C, dBXL, Paradox and one or two others I can't remember. I've used file systems including Cromix, Unix, CP/M, PC-DOS and all flavours of NTFS since version 3.5 (except 8)." This has nothing to do with the weeks I spent asking you to back up your claim about me not understanding the word "Protocol". You are using a common troll technique called diversion. You responded to this saying: "This I can't believe. *EVERYTHING* you've said leads to the logical conclusion that you know NOTHING about databases. So I am assuming that this is just a plain out lie." Indeed. I didn't trust you. Never will trust anything you say at face value. See. No request for me to back up my claims. Just an immediate denial of the truth of my claim and the labeling of it as a lie. Indeed - this has nothing to do with the FACT that I spent weeks asking you to back your incorrect claim about me not understanding the word "protocol", troll boy. You've gone on from there, disputing everything I say and calling me a liar at every opportunity. Incorrect, lie boy. Had you given me the benefit of the least amount of doubt I could have given you https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC6945.jpg which is a link to a corner of my book shelves. You will see *nine* Paradox manuals covering two generations. In fact the Word Perfect Office 2002 manual describes Paradox 10. I haven't been collecting these as a hobby. I didn't click the link, nor do I care about what you claim about anything. You are a proven liar and every single claim you ever make will be assumed to be a lie. I will no longer ask you to support your claims since I know most of them are lies. Neither am I intrested in this attempt at you dragging up subjects in your normal troll-fashion from months ago. -- Sandman[.net] |
#774
|
|||
|
|||
An Apology - Was converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
On 21 Dec 2013 15:00:34 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Eric Stevens: However, when you first started telling me I was lying you never even asked for evidence or gave me the chance to produce it. Sandman: Incorrect. I spent some two weeks asking you to back up your claims. You failed. Rubbish. 100% true. Message-ID: I wrote "I've used operating systems that worked with magnetic drum storage right through virtually the entire range of both floppy and hard discs. I bought and used a microcomputer system with one of the first such hard discs in captivity. I've set up and written databases using Cromemco DBR (SQL), Informix (SQL), Basic, C, dBXL, Paradox and one or two others I can't remember. I've used file systems including Cromix, Unix, CP/M, PC-DOS and all flavours of NTFS since version 3.5 (except 8)." This has nothing to do with the weeks I spent asking you to back up your claim about me not understanding the word "Protocol". You are using a common troll technique called diversion. You responded to this saying: "This I can't believe. *EVERYTHING* you've said leads to the logical conclusion that you know NOTHING about databases. So I am assuming that this is just a plain out lie." Indeed. I didn't trust you. Never will trust anything you say at face value. See. No request for me to back up my claims. Just an immediate denial of the truth of my claim and the labeling of it as a lie. Indeed - this has nothing to do with the FACT that I spent weeks asking you to back your incorrect claim about me not understanding the word "protocol", troll boy. You've gone on from there, disputing everything I say and calling me a liar at every opportunity. Incorrect, lie boy. Had you given me the benefit of the least amount of doubt I could have given you https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC6945.jpg which is a link to a corner of my book shelves. You will see *nine* Paradox manuals covering two generations. In fact the Word Perfect Office 2002 manual describes Paradox 10. I haven't been collecting these as a hobby. I didn't click the link, nor do I care about what you claim about anything. You are a proven liar and every single claim you ever make will be assumed to be a lie. I will no longer ask you to support your claims since I know most of them are lies. Neither am I intrested in this attempt at you dragging up subjects in your normal troll-fashion from months ago. ... from where it all started. You are no doubt technically more than competent but in your personal relationships you leave a great deal to be desired. I've had enough of you. Into the 'kill' file you go. I hope you enjoy the company of people such as 'Legally insane', 'Matt Giwer' (holocaust-denier extraordinaire), and Archimedes Plutonium. Look them up if you want to know your proper place. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#775
|
|||
|
|||
An Apology - Was converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Sandman: I didn't click the link, nor do I care about what you claim about anything. You are a proven liar and every single claim you ever make will be assumed to be a lie. I will no longer ask you to support your claims since I know most of them are lies. Neither am I intrested in this attempt at you dragging up subjects in your normal troll-fashion from months ago. ... from where it all started. That's not where it all started. You are no doubt technically more than competent but in your personal relationships you leave a great deal to be desired. That's nothing buit a compliment coming from the groups biggest troll and liar. -- Sandman[.net] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
converting 35 mm slides to digital images | LeighWillaston | Digital Photography | 30 | June 18th 07 10:46 AM |
Converting 35mm Slides to Digital Images | Jim[_9_] | Digital Photography | 0 | June 2nd 07 02:18 PM |
Are you converting your RAW images to DNG? | JC Dill | Digital Photography | 140 | November 10th 06 04:07 PM |
QuickTake 150 images - Converting on PC | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 5 | April 21st 06 03:00 PM |
Tool for converting 12-bit TIFF images to 16-bit TIFF-images? | Peter Frank | Digital Photography | 23 | December 13th 04 02:41 AM |