Re: Adjacency Effects Again

From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Adjacency Effects Again
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 22:46:36 -0400 (EDT)

> Oh my dear Ryuji, please read more carefully : I'm not saying they do
> have anything to do with each other, I'm saying it has been *said* that
> they do -- in fact that they are the same. Which of course *IS*
> ridiculous on the face of it -- but so was the gum pigment ratio test that
> held the field in thrall so many years.

You made another posting earlier in the clear context of adjacency
effect entirely based on your experience, and now making it clear that
you were referring to the Sabatier effect.

In no place in my discussion of adjacency effect or accutance
enhancement is Sabatier effect relevant. Who bought up the Sabatier
brouhaha for what purpose? If you indeed brought it up with full
understanding that Sabatier is unrelated to adjacency effect, it's a
fallacy of ignorance of refutation.

> Perhaps I could have stressed more that I made an analogy -- an
> analogy -- to the conclusions and THEORIES given about adjacency
> effects in film development, to suggest that they could be equally
> inadequate.

And you went on like WRONG, can't trust them, etc. This one is fallacy
of hasty generalization applied to theories and literature in
general...

--
Ryuji Suzuki
"All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie." (Bob Dylan 2000)