On Mar 31, 2006, at 11:02 AM, TERRYAKING@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 31/3/06 7:30:43 pm, kthayer@pacifier.com writes:
>
>
>> I just don't have any
>> more patience with all this guessing and supposing about how gloy
>> "should" work better than gum to print on these surfaces, simply
>> because it's more "gluey" in quality.
>
>
> .
>
> Perhaps a more appropriate analogy would be that of the duck.
>
> If it looks like a duck.,quacks like a duck and walks like a duck,
> it probably is a duck.
>
> Gloy and gum look and behave in much the same way.
Well, this is certainly my experience, although I only had about 5 ml
of it to test; it seemed in appearance and in its printing
characteristics to look and behave very much the same way. But in
that case the argument that it "should" behave differently on hard
surfaces than gum seems harder to justify. In any case, as I keep
saying, I'm withholding judgment til someone actually reports actual
experience with this, maybe even shows us some prints.
But to suggest that if gloy acts like gum, quacks like gum, and walks
like gum it probably is gum, is of course a nonsensical statement.
Gloy may behave like gum, but gloy is not gum. Let's not get carried
away with our analogies.
Katharine
Received on Sat Apr 1 11:02:40 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/01/06-11:10:23 AM Z CST