Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why does Kodakchrome receive special treatment – Summary  (Read 6380 times)
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2011, 04:39:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, do you actually expect me to believe that your references to “some people wear tin foil over their heads” and “Me thinks he doth protest too much (meaning the weight of the baggage must be immense)!” are not references to me, but to Guy?  And, you expect me to believe that such references are not insulting and that you didn’t intend them to be insults?  Your contention is so ludicrous and silly as not to warrant a serious reply.

I see that I should have explained why I wrote that our discussion was sinking into nonsensical, childish outbursts.  I’ll try to rectify that error.

When I accused you of hypocrisy, I set out the factual foundation and explained why I thought your behavior was hypocritical.  You, on the other hand, resorted to name calling and trite phrases. Such tactics, without foundation, are nonsensical, and the type of tactics you’re likely to see on a playground during an argument between six year old girls. 

In my posts I tried to avoid irrelevant accusations, and I endeavored to be truthful. On the other hand, you accused me of not having added “useful content to the discussion”.  Your accusation is nonsensical in three respects: (1) it’s irrelevant, (2) it’s false and (3) it takes just a few seconds to review the posts in these threads to show that your accusation is false. I mean, it’s bad enough to lie to make an irrelevant point, but to do so when the truth is so easily discerned, well … that just don’t make a lick of sense. Such a tactic is something I might expect of a child, not a mature person. 

You wrote “And...you'll notice George actually came and joined LuLa (which I think is a good thing).”  This statement is nonsensical in as much as it’s irrelevant and it’s a complete mystery who is this “George” to whom you refer. 

In my posts I did not mischaracterize what you wrote.  You, on the other hand, as noted previously, intentionally and quite obviously mischaracterized what I wrote.  It is impossible to make sense of such mischaracterizations.  Moreover, intentionally mischaracterizing what someone writes or says is another tactic I might expect on a playground, but not in a debate between mature, sensible adults. 

Let me make another attempt to put this debate on a more productive course.  I’ve already noted where you accused a couple of guys of being shills and calling them “putz”.  I did so for a couple of reasons.  One was to illustrate your inconsistency.  Another reason was that I hoped to awaken some empathy on your part regarding your treatment of others.  Perhaps this second aspect wasn’t as apparent as it could have been, so I’ll try again:

Jeff, how would you have reacted if, after you accused these guys of being shills, someone had posted a comment similar to your “tin foil” post directed at me, but it had been directed at you? 

If you’re honest with yourself, I think we both know that your response would have been a little less restrained than my reaction to your post, to put it mildly. 

Jeff, please indulge me one request:  Please don’t react to this post in haste and anger.  Let it sit for a few days, or however long it takes for your anger to subside, so you can reevaluate this debate with a little detachment. I really think you’re trying to defend the indefensible, but if after such reevaluation you still feel as you do now, then let’s just agree to disagree. 

(By the way, Jeff, my name is “Dean”, not “bud”.  However, if you like, you may call me “bud” or Schlitz, or Old Milwaukee.  Some of my favorite beers, however, are made by Stone Brewery and Dogfish Head Brewery.  Being called ”Stone” might be okay, too, although I’m not so sure about “Dogfish Head”, but it could grow on me.  Wink)

Logged

Dean Erger
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2011, 06:13:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, how would you have reacted if, after you accused these guys of being shills, someone had posted a comment similar to your “tin foil” post directed at me, but it had been directed at you? 

Well "Dean"...

I don't need to wait  few days...

I would have engaged in the exact same manner that I have engaged with you. You seem to keep trying to wiggle off the hook "Dean".

You went WAY overboard with your allegation of there being shills on LuLa. Your apology, at a word count of 19 (compared to the Shills in the House? post word count of 182) seems a lot like a newspaper splashing a headline above the fold to sell newspapers and then printing the retraction the next day buried near the classified ads...

The delicious irony in this recent debate with you "Dean" is you STILL don't know who George is...didn't you bother to READ THE FRIGGIN' THREAD you were referring to? I mean, really. It's not that hard. George Jardine now produces video tutorials (which I wrote positively about in that post) and was the source of the question about the two posters with the same IP address. Later in the thread (which I guess you haven't read yet) George Jardine actually signed up for LuLa and made a post (which I thought was pretty cool).

The statement which you claim is "nonsensical" is actually on point if you had read and understood the whole exchange. You quoted me as responding to two posters who happened to have the same IP address (which was indeed later explained) who had glowing praise for George's videos. Did you read and comprehend my post or did you just click on my screen name to see what I've written lately (which I did with you).

The fact that I pounced about the two posters (after Chris mentioned both posters had the exact same IP address) was, I think, based on a slightly higher technical legitimacy than your allegations in "Shills in the House?" don't ya think? So, you try to forget your transgressions by accusing me of being equally as badly behaved? So, since you claim I did something mean and nasty, so it's ok for you have done something mean and nasty?

I don't need to wait days...let's have a poll of the readers, who wins in the "mean and nasty™" category (I suspect I would) and who wins for the outrageous unfounded by any actual facts allegations category?

I think you would win "Dean".

You've been around LuLa a while "Dean" (a year less than I) but I would have thought you might have gotten a little experience posting to forums. You wanna keep giving me grist for the mill? Really? (cool, I'm having fun!)
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2011, 06:44:18 PM »
ReplyReply

To the other posters in this thread, I apologize for side tracking the useful content of this thread...if "what's his name" quits posting to this thread, I promise to do likewise unless it's actually on topic. Back to you "Dean".
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #43 on: January 21, 2011, 08:34:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, please note my apology to Guy.  

Your belittling, insulting comment, however, was unnecessary ...
Obviously, I was not defending my behavior.  I was merely questioning the appropriateness of your use of demeaning, crude insults.  Surely, you could have registered your disagreement with what I wrote in a more civil manner.  

Jeff, I have not objected to the fact that you criticized my initial post. I have not tried to defend that post.   I objected to the manner in which you criticized my post. I objected to your use of demeaning insults.

The only topic of our debate is whether your use of deeming insults is acceptable.  I contend that your use of such insults is not appropriate.  You contend that your use of such insults is perfectly acceptable.  Moreover, over the course of our debate, you continued to use demeaning language and, as you called it, a "mean and nasty™" tone.

I don’t think that much more need be said.  You have one point of view about what is acceptable behavior, and I have another. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

With regard to the specifics of your preceding post to me, I find it extraordinarily irrelevant, childish, hypocritical, and irrational. I think it is readily apparent why I believe so, and I think it would not serve you well, Jeff, nor would it serve any useful purpose, for me to explain why I find your post so.  I’m willing to explain my reasons, however, if you think it necessary.


« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 10:06:47 AM by dmerger » Logged

Dean Erger
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 21, 2011, 02:06:56 PM »
ReplyReply

The only topic of our debate is whether your use of deeming insults is acceptable.

Uh, you do mean demeaning insults? Right?

Quote
With regard to the specifics of your preceding post to me, I find it extraordinarily irrelevant, childish, hypocritical, and irrational.

Well, at least I'm extraordinary...

:~)

The fact is, you still really haven't atoned for YOUR behavior so I'm not inclined to let you off the hook.

In your Shills in the House post you said: "I’ve had a strong suspicion of shills for a long time, but because it’s virtually impossible to prove I’ve not pursued it."

While you've apologized to Guy (in 19 words), you implied that there are other shills lurking here at LuLa. That's an attack on the integrity of everybody here on LuLa. You went on to mention "we have the usual promoters of Silverfast extolling the wondrous virtues of Silverfast" which points the finger at several people. So, ya see, you not only owe an apology to Guy, but to those guys and the rest of the community whose integrity you impugned...

Do you at least know who George is yet?
Logged
Randevan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2011, 03:37:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I just found this discussion, so I'm very late coming in with my comments. This may have been covered in previous posts, but with 40 years of Kodachrome experience I thought I would share my experiences. The Kodachrome dye set has a much different infrared transmission profile than that of Ektachrome. When making dupes on Ektachrome Dupe film of Kodachrome originals, the use of a 301 hot mirror was suggested by Koday to suppress excess infrared. The assumption was that a tungsten light source was used to make the dupes. A scanner CCD/CMOS sensor, as well as the light source, would have a much different response.

Rand
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #46 on: January 22, 2011, 09:50:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, I use your own words to show that you are an immature, irrational, boorish hypocrite and liar, and your number one complaint is  ..…  I made a typo?

I now realize that I never should have even attempted to engage in a mature, civil discussion with you.  Well, it’s over.  I’ve made my point; or rather I should say you’ve proved my point with your own words.  You can have the last word.  You can continue with your irrational rants, but I’ll no longer reply.  I’ll no longer wallow in your cesspool. Witnessing your depraved indifference to civility, honesty and hypocrisy makes me feel the need for a long, hot shower to wash away the filth, the slime.  So, Jeff, I give you free rein to spew forth your nonsense unchallenged.  I’m done.  I’m off to take that shower.
Logged

Dean Erger
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 22, 2011, 11:30:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, I use your own words to show that you are an immature, irrational, boorish hypocrite and liar, and your number one complaint is  ..…  I made a typo?

Number one in order but far from the top of the list in importance...that would be looking for an apology to the members of LuLa and those people you alleged were shills.

Have a nice shower, you need it.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad