From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 02/07/03-07:51:35 AM Z
Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
I am absolutely amazed at the inconsistencies and wrong information
> published. I know we have talked about this before on this list, in
> specific, related to Scopick's pigment test (let's not rehash that again),
> but really!
No, actually, I think we do need to rehash this again, since it keeps
coming back in these kinds of snide comments ("but really!") even after
the "debunking" of the pigment test was completely discredited by gum
experts on this list as well as by Scopick himself. That horse has
beaten to death, but it seems like some people haven't got the message.
The accusation made was that Scopick couldn't have tested the pigment
test himself, because anyone who tested it would know that it doesn't
work, so he must have just passed it on from Crawford without even
testing it. But I said the test worked for me, Dave Rose said the test
worked for him, and Scopick himself took the time to write a response to
the list saying that he had indeed tested the test and that it worked
for him. To continue the original accusations as if these rebuttals
hadn't been offered is to wilfully distort history and the facts.
The person making the accusation finally said that she hadn't actually
ever tested it herself, because she KNEW that it couldn't work. In other
words, THEORY trumps empirical observation. As I said at the time of
the last rehashing of this business, the question of whether pigment and
gum alone have different staining properties than pigment, gum, and
dichromate, is an EMPIRICAL question and can only be answered by
empirical observation. To say that it can't work because it doesn't seem
like it should work, is like saying that the earth must be flat because
it looks flat from here.
The bottom line on the pigment test is that many people have found it
helpful, though some apparently have not. In other words, honest,
competent, reasonable people do not agree on the usefulness of the
pigment test. This is not unusual in our processes, that people don't
always agree. But the fact that some disagree does not in any way make
Scopick wrong, and I've seen enough of these comments going by the last
few months that I thought someone needed to speak up again and try to
set the record straight.
Katharine Thayer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:08 AM Z CST