Re: gum "curves"

[Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>]

On Oct 27, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Camden Hardy wrote:

> Katherine,
>
>
> > I think there's some misconception at work here; I have an intensely
> > classical mindset, and my objection isn't that the curves thing is
> > too predictable or not romantic enough; it's that as far as I can
> > see, it's not very predictable or repeatable for gum. Otherwise why
> > would you have people using PDN and still adjusting their development
> > or exposures to conditions, and saying things like "my method is
> > predictable until it's not predictable"  which as far as I can see is
> > exactly the situation we're all in, curves or no curves.
> I'm beginning to wonder whether you even bother to read my posts to  
> this
> list any more.
Well, no,  I don't, as a matter of fact.   I just came across this  
this morning, looking for  the quote  that David referred to, which I  
haven't found yet.  But you're right, I don't read your posts as a  
rule any more,   sorry. You're on a short list of three or four  
people whose posts go automatically into my junk mail folder.  Some  
people, like Terry King, were in that group because I found their  
posts not very useful or interesting and a waste of time to read;   
some, because they seem almost wilfully and perversely determined to  
misunderstand me, and it's useless to continue to try to clarify  
one's position to one who is just looking to argue with one no matter  
what;  others, because they have insulted me and I don't care to read  
posts that might contain personal insults.  I don't need the  
aggravation. You got yourself into this group with your nasty comment  
about my sense of humor.  I don't like personal insults,  don't think  
they have a place in a professional forum, and won't continue to read  
the posts of people who indulge in personal insults.   So there you  
are.  If you want me to read your posts, then you need to couch them  
in a more respectful tone.

But since I opened this one, I'll make a couple of brief comments,  
below:


> Just the other day I pointed out that there's a serious flaw going  
> on in
> your argument here.  When used correctly, PDN (and curves in general)
> eliminate any and all guesswork.  Anyone who tells you that their PDN
> curves are unpredictable (no matter what the process) is not using the
> system correctly.
Well, I won't name the names of the people who have said this, but I  
think you might be surprised to find who you're saying this about.   
You can find them in the archives, if you care to look, and I'll  
leave your comment to stand on its own.


> But is it really necessary to bash the method that you don't use?
I'm not bashing any method; I've always said that people should use  
whatever works for them. What I'm objecting to (if you call this  
bashing, you're going to have a hard time getting along here) is the  
idea that curves will provide some sort of magic shortcut around  
learning how to print gum.
Katharine