From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/13/03-02:46:22 AM Z
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Dave Rose wrote:
> Thank you for admitting that you haven't properly done the GPR test. Is
> that correct? That's how I read the above paragraph.
Dave, I don't think you're listening... but valentines day is coming up &
I send you a valentine anyway...
There is NO WAY to do the GPR "test" "properly," because it's not a test.
A test is done with a control. It's a *ritual.*
> Your article that you refer to, entitled "One Little Test" is just that -
> one little test using one pigment. You're making broad, sweeping
> generalizations and reaching hasty conclusions based on one test of one
> pigment.
EXACTLY !!!.... as noted, it only takes one black swan to prove that not
all swans are white... Perhaps you know in advance which GPR "tests" will
be meaningful... I don't. To see if they apply you have to do them with
the dichromate and all the other variables... So what's the point?
> Using certain pigments, I've observed the same phenomenon seen in your test.
> But, I've also had far different and opposing results using other pigments.
> Not all pigments behave the same way.
EXACTLY !!
> I get nervous when you "think" you remember what I "said". The only reason
> I'm responding to your email is the mention of my name in the above
> paragraph. To set the record straight, yes I have found the GPR test
> helpful. That doesn't mean I consider it the Holy Grail of gum printing. I
> understand its limitations better than you do.
OK, Bob, enough sweet talk...in all seriousness... how could that test be
more "helpful" than doing a test WITH the dichromate ??
And if it isn't.... why do it?
Happy Valentine's Day...
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:09 AM Z CST