Fine Art Ink Jet Printing book

[Roy Sletcher]

Do you know the F in "RTFM"? Reading manuals sometimes is really a pain in the ass... possibly these are written by lawers or engineers, not by writers...
That's why for latest camera models with lots of features (like the A7) I really need a good practical handbook. Manuals are getting too complex for my aging brain.
But sadly there are no such books for printers. So..rtfm..

I have often pondered this point when trying to

That would be a NO to "agree to disagree" this time, Roy.

Explain the following exchange, specifically The Hat's response to you:



Prove I was "cherry picking" to give a false conclusion. Prove I was wrong in my assessment of what The Hat posted.

Are you sure you want to go there?

The nature of this site with replies out of sequence makes it hard to formulate logical responses to specific posts. Not like sites which have responses indented in time sequence and colour coded to identify specific responders.

Further is has been my experience that to parse a sentence clause by clause to prove or disprove a particular point is futile, especially when the written text is informally or poorly structured as most of our posts tend to be.

However, to respond to your points as best I can:

You said: "Prove I was "cherry picking" to give a false conclusion"
My reply: I never said you were.

You said: " Prove I was wrong in my assessment of what The Hat posted."
My Reply: This is irrelevant to my comments that you are objecting to. I repeat my post below which referred to the lack of specifics and wide ranging nature of The Hats comments.

Cherry picking small bits and pieces from an eight paragraph posting of circumlocutory and contradictory piece of text does not make it succinct or clear to me or the reader.


You also pose the question
Explain the following exchange, specifically The Hat's response to you:

The Hats response to me was" Do you know anyone who has learned to ride a bike out of a book ?"

My response: ???


Do you really feel pursuing this is getting us anywhere or serves any purpose?

If you want to be mad at me for any reason that is OK and your choice. Very few of our postings on this forum can with stand microscopic
analysis of the English sentence structure, and heaven knows I am probably the worst culprit.

I also know if you are communicating something and the receiver misunderstands you are at fault, not the receiver.

Shalom

rs

 

[The Hat]

The nature of this site with replies out of sequence makes it hard to formulate logical responses to specific posts. Not like sites which have responses indented in time sequence and colour coded to identify specific responders.

This forum has not changed since its foundation, and its only now you want to find fault with it, (Different) to all other sites !, Rob has done his upmost to keep this forum going, Why ? because of its uniqueness, and that’s your only complaint expressed here... Amazing !

Further is has been my experience that to parse a sentence clause by clause to prove or disprove a particular point is futile, especially when the written text is informally or poorly structured as most of our posts tend to be.
Very few of our postings on this forum can with stand microscopic analysis of the English sentence structure

Wow, hang on a minute here, this forum I reckon does its level best at conveying the most helpful advice to all that come here seeking assistance, just because you have a handle on English, does not mean all our visitors and members have. It’s a big world out there. (Oxford English is DEAD)

Cherry picking small bits and pieces from an eight paragraph posting of circumlocutory and contradictory piece of text does not make it succinct or clear to me or the reader.

O’ Roy, that’s the second time you demeaned me for something you didn’t understand or wish too, Two Quotes come to mind here, Stop digging when the hole is big enough to put your foot in, and Shooting the messenger is the best way of been miss-understood. (CIRCUMLOCUTORY) O’ boy that’s a new one...

Quote"( Using many words where fewer would do, especially in a deliberate attempt to be vague or evasive; long-winded.)" I wont lower myself my responding to this disrespectful remark...

I also know if you are communicating something and the receiver misunderstands you are at fault, not the receiver.

Please stand back a moment from here and pause, it still is possible to participate without the need to cause animosity towards other recipients but if you did, then apologise and move on, you don’t have to like the recipient, just don’t try to put them down to a lower level.

Civil discussion and banter go a long way to making this forum what it is today, so don’t Fubar it out of existence, please try to remember that..

You can still use the little word on the bottom of every post for complaints: - REPORT !

 

[stratman]

Thank you for responding.

You said: "Prove I was "cherry picking" to give a false conclusion"
My reply: I never said you were.

What does "cherry picking" mean to you?

My experience is that when someone throws the charge of cherry picking at you during a disagreement they mean you only quote the things that support either a false or an incomplete conclusion. An incomplete conclusion under these circumstances is essentially a false conclusion. Cherry picking is manipulative and an intentional deception.

In our disagreement, you charged that I presented a false summary conclusion of The Hat's words and that my subsequent supportive quotes were cherry picking. Is there another explanation of your words?

Even if I were to agree with your false premise of obfuscatory cherry picking, The Hat has, for a second time now, posted you are incorrect in your assessment of his words. He did not say my summation of his words was incorrect.

The nature of this site with replies out of sequence makes it hard to formulate logical responses to specific posts.

C'mon, Roy, that is disingenuous. It is hardly difficult to read back through this brief thread and see for yourself whether I was accurate in my quotes. I was both accurate and chronological. Zero sleight of hand. You are an intelligent man. Did you even try reading for yourself?

You also pose the question
Explain the following exchange, specifically The Hat's response to you:

The Hats response to me was" Do you know anyone who has learned to ride a bike out of a book ?"

My response: ???

I do not understand why you wrote that. You make no sense, especially since I unambiguously, accurately, and chronologically quoted a series of responses beginning with my own, then your specific response to my words, and then The Hat's specific response to your words. NOTHING about riding a bike was mentioned or relevant.

Very few of our postings on this forum can with stand microscopic
analysis of the English sentence structure, and heaven knows I am probably the worst culprit.

I believe you express your self well, Roy. I also believe The Hat has as well on this occasion.

Awaiting proof I did not accurately summarize The Hat's words or that I was not accurate or forthright in my argument.

 

[Drjim]

What on earth is this rambling about? Certainty not printing on art paper.

 

[martin0reg]

100% agreed..
..so back to topic: I've read about this as the bible of inkjet printing:
https://www.amazon.com/Fine-Art-Pri...05690264&sr=1-1&keywords=steinmüller+printing
..and I see used paperbacks for 2 usd..?? for the same complete issue?

 

[Roy Sletcher]

I am having difficulty reconciling these posts with the earlier postings and comments I have made. I have reconciled them as best I can in the sequence presented in The Hats post to me.

I do not accept that any of my posts were demeaning or disrespectful.. In fact I go to great lengths to avoid blatant profanity and disrespectful posts. Sometimes slightly risque - yes. We are all adult males so I thought it would pass.

The transcript of the posts The Hat finds objectionable start here and are copied from his message so that I could respond item by item in my defense. My current comments in red:

Roy Sletcher said speaking to STRATMAN Saturday at 10.06pm

The nature of this site with replies out of sequence makes it hard to formulate logical responses to specific posts. Not like sites which have responses indented in time sequence and colour coded to identify specific responders

I submit this was a valid opinion. On my browser the responses copy in a jumble of replies and sometimes it is hard to reconstruct the exact sequence.

The Hat replied
This forum has not changed since its foundation, and its only now you want to find to keep this forum going, Why ? because of its uniqueness, and that’s your only complaint expressed here... Amazing !

Sorry - not sure what I did wrong. No disrespect intended. Everybody has a bad day now and then. I have NEVER expressed negative comments about this site and somewhat resent the comment implying I have.




Roy Sletcher Said replying to statmam Saturday at 10.06pm
Further is has been my experience that to parse a sentence clause by clause to prove or disprove a particular point is futile, especially when the written text is informally or poorly structured as most of our posts tend to be.
Very few of our postings on this forum can with stand microscopic analysis of the English sentence structure

Again I think a valid personal opinion. Not in the least disrespectful or inflammatory in my opinion. The last three lines refer to internet forums in general, and I intentionally use the term WE and OUR which include myself to indicate this is not aimed at a particular person, but internet communications in general.

The hat replied
Wow, hang on a minute here, this forum I reckon does its level best at conveying the most helpful advice to all that come here seeking assistance, just because you have a handle on English, does not mean all our visitors and members have. It’s a big world out there. (Oxford English is DEAD)

What can I reply to this? I am starting to think in terms of a personal vendetta against me. Except that I have some knowledge of the responders and don't think that can possibly be true.


RS Said Saturday to Stratmen Saturday 2.46pm
Cherry picking small bits and pieces from an eight paragraph posting of circumlocutory and contradictory piece of text does not make it succinct or clear to me or the reader.

This was said trying to make a point to Stratman and is totally out of context in this setting. However, I also maintain it is innocuous and falls under reasonable personal opinion without being disrespectful. Note in my browser this is out of sequence with all other replies adding to my confusion



THe hat replied
O’ Roy, that’s the second time you demeaned me for something you didn’t understand or wish too, Two Quotes come to mind here, Stop digging when the hole is big enough to put your foot in, and Shooting the messenger is the best way of been miss-understood. (CIRCUMLOCUTORY) O’ boy that’s a new one...

Quote"( Using many words where fewer would do, especially in a deliberate attempt to be vague or evasive; long-winded.)" I wont lower myself my responding to this disrespectful remark...

Honestly I am now totally lost. Coming from The Hat and accusing me for the second time of demeaning him due to my lack of understanding. I feel the charge is unfair and unwarranted. I am also reluctant to say things in my defense less they be misconstrued. I feel like the aggrieved party after this unwarranted attack on my integrity. Respect goes both ways I think,



Roy Sletcher said to Stratmen 10.06pm:
I also know if you are communicating something and the receiver misunderstands you are at fault, not the receiver.

I feel sure you have misinterpreted this in your rush to tar me as disrespectful or worse. It refers to the well known principle in communications, that the responsibility for the correctly conveyed communication rests with the SENDER not the RECEIVER.

It has nothing to do with causing animosity between participants as you charge below.


THe hat replied
Please stand back a moment from here and pause, it still is possible to participate without the need to cause animosity towards other recipients but if you did, then apologise and move on, you don’t have to like the recipient, just don’t try to put them down to a lower level.

I have made several attempts to put an end to my comments in this thread, but keep getting back what I consider antagonistic posts fanning the flames.

Seriously, I have no skin in this game or dog in the fight. Declare yourself and Stratman the winner if that is your wish. I really want to put an end to this pointless charade. It is after all the internet with all its warts, miscommunications and foibles.

Civil discussion and banter go a long way to making this forum what it is today, so don’t Fubar it out of existence, please try to remember that..


You can still use the little word on the bottom of every post for complaints: - REPORT !

I am willing to take responsibility for everything I have said on this and other sites. It is also why I use my real name and not a psydenom. Unfortunately I just cannot accept responsibility or agree to apologies for something have not done or said. And to be quite frank I have no idea what I am supposed to be apologizing for except expressing an honest opinion in a respectful manner. This is an internet forum where communications tend to be somewhat rough and unsophisticated. Misunderstandings are frequent.

Respecctfully

Roy Sletcher

 

[Roy Sletcher]

Thank you for responding.


What does "cherry picking" mean to you?

My experience is that when someone throws the charge of cherry picking at you during a disagreement they mean you only quote the things that support either a false or an incomplete conclusion. An incomplete conclusion under these circumstances is essentially a false conclusion. Cherry picking is manipulative and an intentional deception.

In our disagreement, you charged that I presented a false summary conclusion of The Hat's words and that my subsequent supportive quotes were cherry picking. Is there another explanation of your words?

Even if I were to agree with your false premise of obfuscatory cherry picking, The Hat has, for a second time now, posted you are incorrect in your assessment of his words. He did not say my summation of his words was incorrect.


C'mon, Roy, that is disingenuous. It is hardly difficult to read back through this brief thread and see for yourself whether I was accurate in my quotes. I was both accurate and chronological. Zero sleight of hand. You are an intelligent man. Did you even try reading for yourself?

I do not understand why you wrote that. You make no sense, especially since I unambiguously, accurately, and chronologically quoted a series of responses beginning with my own, then your specific response to my words, and then The Hat's specific response to your words. NOTHING about riding a bike was mentioned or relevant.


I believe you express your self well, Roy. I also believe The Hat has as well on this occasion.

Awaiting proof I did not accurately summarize The Hat's words or that I was not accurate or forthright in my argument.

I have send a post to The Hat trying to make peace which may or may not be effective.

My previous post to you was in the same vein. Could we agree to disagree
IE: Disagree without being disagreeable.

You obviously found that unpalatable and unacceptable. Your choice.

I have no problem with your opinion informing me I wrote nonsense. Obviously your opinion and I respect that, but strangely seem to feel I should no have the same option.

I have no problem with you disliking my opinions,or me personally, after all only dreamers think every body likes every body.

Please read my response to The Hat and let me know if there is any way we can move forward from here.

Respectfully

Roy Sletcher

 

[The Hat]

I do not accept that any of my posts were demeaning or disrespectful..

@Roy Sletcher, your comments have been noted and excepted, and I see no further comments on my behalf will change your mind, because your entitled to express your own opinion within reason.

But as Moderator your comments were way out of hand and are borderline, so I would respectfully say, continue posting, but tone down your use of flagrant words because they won’t be acceptable here again...
Stay on post guys...