RE: filmscanners: real value?

["Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

You are right on both accounts.  As written it makes no sense at all; but a
relatively non acrobatic leap to the assumption you suggest would be in
order.

I sure wish all you editors were around before I actually transmitted the
posts rather than after I put my foot in my mouth or in another orifice. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 6:12 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value?




cjcronin@erols.com wrote:

> At 11:53 AM 02-02-01, Laurie Solomon wrote:
>
>> (3)  Inkjets have reached the level where there quality and other
features
>> come very close to those, if not in some instances surpass those, of
>> inkjets.
>
>
> ??????
> Am I reading this wrong, it doesn't make sense to me.

I think this is called a "senior's moment" regardless of the age of the
person involved.  I do this all the time.  It is the fingers auto-typing
another word than the one in one's mind.

A little bit of logic and creativity would probably allow you to make
the assumption that the second reference was supposed to be dye sub,
rather than inkjet.

Art