From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/02/03-07:34:23 PM Z
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dave Rose wrote:
> Dear Judy,
>
> I've done it. I have actually added more pigment (with a real print) to the
> point that it stains significantly more. That you've done the same with a
That may have been your particular gum, dave.... one of the points I've
tried to make is that pigment stain is a result of a combination of
materials & process. My gum can as a rule take pigment til it flakes. If
the mix doesn't stain at low levels it won't at high. If the mix shows
stain with a little pigment, then of course more pigment will give more
stain in total, tho not more RELATIVE stain... Still, let's say it was as
you interpret it...
Either way, what I FAIL to understand is what BENEFIT this test confers,
since it MAY be predictive and may not. Since a real test with the actual
materials and process IS definitive, and actually quicker -- what is the
point? Why this emotional attachment to a test which MAY work or not ?
Just to prove I'm wrong?
The other point I'm failing to make is that -- speaking scientifically,
and this from a philosopher of science whose name I forget -- all it takes
to prove that not all swans are white is one black swan. All it takes to
show that this test is useless is one time when it wasn't predictive.
After all, if you have to make the print to see if "the test" was right,
why not just start with a 21-step, that is, a print -- which tells you so
much ELSE as well and is QUICKER ?
Meanwhile, you seem not to have gotten my other point (such
resistance!!!).... if Crawford tested actual gum prints at different
dilutions and found they all have the same staining, that would PROVE it's
the process and the combo (as I've said & said). Since Crawford would have
been using all the same ingredients, the staining would have been the
same.. If not, if the GPR test is valid, then changing the ratio of
liquid to gum would change the stain... unless of course you believe in
magic & figure that SOMEHOW those pigment grains could tell, oh it's ok
that's only sensitizer, and doesn't affect me. That is magical thinking
pure and simple. No other explanation is possible.
> different pigment only to observe flaking (without increased staining) does
> not invalidate the GPR test, as you've argued. Different pigments behave
> differently. Some flake, some stain.
Very possibly.... But, if you don't know which, what is the POINT of that
test? I'd suspect you defend it because you did it, tho there may be
other reasons I know not....
> Your article in P-F #2, page 46, entitled "One Little Test", is just that,
> one little test.....with one pigment.
> IMO, one little test with one pigment is hardly grounds for making broad
> conclusions, yet it was sufficient for you to issue a snide and sarcastic
> dismissal of the GPR test.
Of course one little test is all it takes.... because it only takes one
test to prove that the PRINCIPLE of the GPR "test" is wrong....-- as above
about the one black swan.... As for snide, one person's snide is the next
person's lively, even brilliant. I must add, however, while we're talking
of snide, surely Dave Dear, you have been snider to me than I've ever been
to ANYONE on this list, including you. You've been repeatedly cruel,
scornful, insulting, even mean spirited to me. Yet I remain steadfast, and
kind.
Because I think it's important -- there's so much baloney in the world,
stuff now about global warming and WMD and the like are obfuscated by
actual government fiat. They didn't get to GPR yet, but who knows when
that could happen .... Admittedly, in gum as in politics, logic rarely
beats belief. Tho I can't help wondering why you attach so to this
particular "belief" -- surely you've accepted that "the authority" is
often wrong. Neither you nor the list erupted in flames when Jeffrey said
Crawford is bad on platinum palladium... Or when Joe Smiegel said he
didn't believe in the great GPR either !!!
Does this man, Anderson, who, as far as I can tell, could have made only
14 gum prints in his life become so sacred simply because I'm so devilish?
Yes, alas, it must be moi --- alter all, others have disparaged the GPR
test & you didn't fling nouns at them ! And if I'm an utter fiend, it
still doesn't do to blame the messenger. In which context I recall, your ,
um, "pique," began right after 9/11 when I wrote some words critical of US
politics -- unleashing thereby a torrent of abuse impugning my patriotism
& morals, even my city & life style... I daresay this has been expunged
from the archive, tho whoever is curious, the subject line was "The view
from 1.6 miles." I see that as first cause... And by now it seems
reflexive.... (I would add that there are some interesting quotations on
the subject of patriotism from Goebbels... except that would be off
topic.)
Still, try to pretend the above explanation is from Jeffrey or Joe, not
Judy and see if it gains credence.
best,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST