Re: "speckling" v "staining " (was New Orleans/glut) SEE SCANS

See, Jack, this was my fear in the beginning, when I said that I think
it's a great idea in theory but I don't see how it could produce the
desired effect of agreement on basic terms, because there's no way gum
printers are ever going to agree on basic terms.

Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
>
>
> The Rives has been brushed and sprayed to death with no budge. Nada. It
> is a throw-out in my book.

Yes, I would agree with that.

>
> Second, the fact that you call it garden variety stain supports my original
> point--that gly sized Rives does this, and that glut sized FAEW doesn't. So
> we actually agree!! But probably I am missing something.

Well, yes, you're missing the point that in my shop, gly sized Rives
doesn't do this at all. So it doesn't make sense to state, as a
categorical fact, that "gly-sized Rives does this" since obviously it
isn't a generally-observed rule.

>
> Third, the "grey" speckles are none other than shadows created from scanning
> bumpy paper. There are no grey speckles in the originals.

I wondered about this, but since you said speckles, and these were the
only things in the scan that I would call speckles, I thought maybe that
was what you were talking about.

>
> My point was that glut was a preferable size to prevent this and so I'm
> happy with it. If your Rives/glyoxal paper never stains--carry on. But you
> don't size, anyway, and don't get stain, so it is a moot point, correct?

Well, not exactly. This would be like saying that since I'm not black,
I shouldn't care about what happens to the black folks in New Orleans.
My interest is not in glyoxal vs glut per se; I don't care one way or
another about that. My interest in this has to do with data
interpretation, with drawing conclusions from data. If you would just
say, "I love glut, I think it's great" you and I would have no
disagreement at all, since no proof is required to state a personal
preference. But when you try to make a case for glut by making
categorical statements about glyoxal, then there is a level of proof
required, and when there are available counter-observations that don't
support your categorical statements, then as a statistician I will feel
compelled to say something.
Katharine
Received on Fri Sep 9 21:41:45 2005