Re: new subject line about ...... aaaggghhh!!!! ...."consensus'!
hook line sinker On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 3 May 2008, Sandy King wrote: > > > > Ahhhhh, the old gum pigment test. Now that bring back a lot of memories > from the past. > > > > Just wondering, was there ever a consensus as to whether it actually works > or not? > > > > Oh Sandy, you're just saying that to torture me. How could it possibly > "work"? -- you know better than that !!! > > As for "consensus," puleeze !!! Consensus in the time of Galileo was that > the sun revolved around the earth; in the time of the pilgrims, that girls & > women were witches and had intercourse with the devil (hmmmmm); then there > was the "consensus" that if women wore "bloomers" it would interfere with > fertility -- also, if memory serves -- that the earth was flat. > > In fact the whole thing that drove me to distraction, was EXACTLY the > "consensus" among the contemporary books that cut & pasted that nonsense > from each other OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT TESTING IT !!!!!.... Including the > consensus on this list -- from people who dutifully went through the entire > rigamarole, but never "tested" it against anything, just accepted the > "findings." (Great science !) > > grrrr... > > I note, BTW, that my "test" was simplicity itself, but I hope you're happy > now that I've given you the satisfaction of jumping up & down.... Meanwhile, > however, um.... did you READ my critique in P-F # 9? "Engineering Gum > Bichromate," beginning page 48. If not, go stand in the corner... If you're > still trying to torture me, do the tests on page 49... ESPECIALLY "C." (And > for extra credit, send me the strip!) > > Test A shows that the more dichromate, the more stain, nothing to do with > the amount of pigment. Test B shows a related effect with a different color, > & Test C shows that a strip exposed WITH the dichromate makes a very nice > scale and clears well, while the identical (IDENTICAL!) material WITHOUT THE > DICHROMATE simply fogs, that is, doesn't clear at all. (As I said in the > caption, "Need I say more?") > > I'll add, by the way, that another of Paul Anderson's claims (read "wildly > mistaken surmises" also IIRC copied freely & thoughtlessly) is even easier > to debunk. For some reason he decided that the more pigment you had, the > more tones you could get, tho the exact opposite is true: As I showed in an > earlier P-F, the greater density blocks up the shadows, so you get > ***fewer*** steps. > > But maybe you're being nice ? You just want to get folks to say "Judy was > right" ??? > > Well, she was... Thanks !!! > > Judy > > > > > > > At 3:20 PM -0400 5/3/08, Judy Seigel wrote: > > > > > > PS. The "literature" gives a fair sampling of the level of mainstream > publishers' books on "alt", as reviewed in various Post-Factory's -- for > instance Robert Hirsch's chapter on alternative processes has some > world-class idiocies, not from actual testing or printing, but from mental > telepathy while chewing on a color chart. Ditto for John Schaefer's "Ansel > Adams Guide II" -- IMAGINE: in the name of Ansel Adams (tho maybe it serves > him right?) as reviewed in an early P-F by John Rudiak & myself.... And > those are just the two that leap to mind. (Something tells me I may have > mentioned the "gum-pigment ratio test" -- religiously cut and pasted right > down the line -- already.) > > > > > > PS. Chris, who is Sarah Vowell? > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > >
|