From: Dave Rose (cactuscowboy@bresnan.net)
Date: 10/02/03-08:34:12 PM Z
Judy:
It must be nice to be retired and have so much time to rant endlessly on
such a trivial subject. Who really cares about the stupid dot test anyway?
Your rambling, incohesive diatribe is far from a reasoned argument. Shall
just we agree to disagree and give it a rest?
Why do you continually post your political opinions to the list? I (and
certainly many others) find your political views to be off-topic and
inappropriate to this forum.
Dave in Wyoming
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: Testing the Stain Test
>
> 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