Digital BW, The Print

I get ya'.  I was simply defending the broader point Shilesh was making and
getting bashed for.  Have fun. (And thanks for all the effort you put in.)


> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:26:20 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Dmax Rating System - was more paper news
> 
> Hello Steve,
> 
>>> But requires one to have at least one of the combinations in hand.
>>> To compare X with Y purely in unquantified qualitative terms...
>> 
>> My terms are not unquantified.  They are clearly explained:
> 
> Just got back awhile ago (had to go to a funeral- a sad one, a 25 year
> old kid killed in a motorcycle wreck) and reread this and realize it
> was a bad choice of words.  I misinterpreted your meaning and missed
> your desperate desire to have hard numbers.  I should have said
> something like "It doesn't matter that there are no hard numbers. For
> the purposes of this review...etc, etc"
> 
> I DO understand your argument and reasoning that a uniform system of
> communication is desirable, and don't really disagree.  It's a worthy
> goal in your area of endeavor.  But what I hope you can come to
> understand is that I'm not playing in the same game.
> 
> You imply that the paper review could be "improved" if only I would
> use a spectro so the results could be "communicated" better.  I know
> this makes perfect sense to you and you are probably shaking your head
> in wonder how I could not understand something so obvious.  Please try
> to grasp that I do understand what you're saying, but that I do not
> agree the communication would be improved by doing that.  Our goals
> are not the same.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
>