Despite your attempt to insist on the last word, I will not leave
this with an open question. No, I am NOT an academic. I am a
scientist by training and profession. I make my living by evaluating
data and drawing conclusions based on observation and analysis of
scientific data collected in the *real* world. I question your
"wider view based upon facts and logic". For example: Recently,
Stephen asked about stains he was getting on his platinum prints
using Platine paper. You made a few suggestions, but then stated you
had never used the paper, so could provide no definitive answer.
Subsequent to that, in another discussion you stated that you didn't
use papers designed for platinum printing because fine watercolor
papers were "better". What "facts and logic" did you use to draw
this conclusion? You seem to be very satisfied with the prints you
make using your suite of techniques and materials. That is fine and
congratulations to you. I would agree that if it ain't broke, don't
try to fix it. However, that is a far cry from a conclusion about
the relative quality of materials or the usefulness of various
techniques which is based on facts and logic.
And now I agree; this has gone on long enough.
Kerik