Jeffrey D. Mathias (jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net)
Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:07:06 -0500
Kerik717@aol.com wrote:
> ... Science (which makes up at least some of what we all do with alt processes)
> progresses through the iterative process of experiment and hypothesis. Andy
> experimented and discoverd that Stonehenge worked well for Van Dyke. This led
> him to the logical hypothesis that it may work similarly for other similar
> processes, such as Pt/Pd.
I do fail to accept this as logical; if so, how about cyanotype or gum,
are all photo processes to behave the same. Just how far can an urge be
stretched into hypothesis. And if hypothesis, or better yet conjecture,
what is so difficult about qualifying one's statements.
> Then, he was kind enough to pass on his
> observations and hypothesis to the list. For that he is ridiculed??...
Not so, not so.
Maybe you should reread my post; as I had thanked Andy for his work and
observations with Van Dyke.
There are enough practitioners on this list that I am confident most
questions will be answered by someone with experience. And each of us
has some unique experience to share. So why not just kick back, enjoy
the ride, and bring forth experience as opportunity permits.
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:09:03