Oh Arthur,
> You regularly chastise people for using inaccurate or incomplete terms.
So, any time someone corrects someone that is technically inaccurate, that
is chastising them? Hardly.
> Shall we discuss "depth of FIELD" versus "depth of FILM" as an
> example,
That was depth of FOCUS, not depth of FILM, by the way. I don't believe
there is such a thing as "depth of FILM". ;-)
> in spite of the fact that EVERYONE knew what the people were
> referring to?
I don't believe that most people DID know. Depth of FIELD and depth of
FOCUS are different things. It is a common misunderstanding, or common that
people don't know about, or understand, depth of FOCUS.
> Yet you found it necessary to "parrot" out of some obscure
> book not once, but on two separate occasions.
You not being an engineer, or a scientist, obviously don't understand what
providing corroborating information is, and how it's done. I was not
"parroting", as you do so often, but citing, with clear references to my
source. Unlike you, I was not trying to make others believe that I was the
original source of the information.
> On the other hand, the term "anal" as you used it, in the Freudian
> sense, is actually half a term, as it only refers in that context to a
> psychosexual stage, which can refer to two very opposite personality
> "defects". A bit like saying dMAX and dMIN are the same thing.
But this isn't a psychobabble list, Arthur, it is a filmscanner list. The
term "anal" is commonly used, it is even in the dictionary all by it self.
and according to that reference, it says that "anal" applies to EITHER anal
retentive or anal expulsive, and that my use of it was ENTIRELY correct and
appropriate. And, as I have said, and you very well know, commonly people
using the term do NOT clarify retentive or expulsive, and to make the point,
it is not relevant to clarify.
This IS a filmscanner list and having an accurate understanding of dMax and
dMin is entirely on topic.
> Your excuse that it is "common" use is irrelevant, well, at least it is
> when you are trying to make some arcane point about someone else's
> posting, so I see no reason to let you escape your own hell this time.
Grow up, Arthur. Obviously you have some personal problem here (at least),
and it's inappropriate to bring it to this list. This is a filmscanner
list, and your little hissy fit here has nothing to do with filmscanners.
> Being that you have, on many occasions (I could quote them if you like)
> given me (and others) a load of "anally retentive motivated crap" over
> the years for my/our apparent "misuse" or inaccurate use of terms, or
> that I was not of your profession (an engineer), I thought I give you
> just a "wee taste" of your own medicine.
But you aren't giving me any thing of the such, Arthur. What you have done
is behaved inappropriately, like a scorned and scolded child. My
corrections are technical in nature, and pertinent to THIS discussion list,
yours are purely vindictive, as you have clearly stated they are, and very
inappropriate.
> You see, I have my degree in
> Pre-medical and Psychology, and studied Freud, and others in some
> detail, and your use of the term is sloppy, incomplete, confusing and
> inaccurate, something, admittedly very out of character for someone as
> anally retentive as you tend to be.
That's all well and good, on a psychobabble list, but this is a filmscanner
list, Arthur, and your degree doesn't mean squat here, and your armchair
psychoanalysis here is very inappropriate, as is any personal attack carried
out on this list.
Austin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
