Digital BW, The Print

Greg,

> > Well, Greg, nothing I've said is at all bordering on any legal edge.
> > I merely stated facts, and will gladly stand behind any of my claims.
> > You can't bring suit against someone for simply stating well known
> > facts.
>
> I really don't want to get a p'ssin match started here

Then why did you start one, and insist on continuing it?  YOU are the one
making accusations of me, when I have made none of you.  You question my
integrity, and even go so far as to make false claims about that it is I
have said.  You make clearly erroneous statements trying to refute my
background and make no attempt to actually dispute ANY of my statements on
any technical merit at all.  You obviously have an agenda, and it isn't
about finding out the truth.

> but I'm
> still waiting to hear your "well known
> facts".

Well, then, go back with a clear head and read what I wrote in the first
place.  I stated my facts very simply, and they are there.  I don't believe
that will help you though, since you don't want to hear them.

> All I remember reading was a bunch of accusations and
> unfounded slams

State what I said that you believe was unfounded.  I do not believe you are
able to.  If you think something I said was unfounded, then you probably
just did not understand it.  Everything I said was merely fact, and it's
really funny that you want to make claims otherwise.

> over a chip that I
> don't recall you saying you have even seen, let alone taken an
> image with.

Obviously you didn't read what I really wrote, because I was NOT commenting
on the chip (except about noise), but what the Foveon web site showed FOR a
comparison.  I do not NEED to see, much less use, the chip to know that what
they showed on their web site was bogus.

> That's what I remember
> reading and that's what my reply addressed.

Then you have a reading and/or remembering deficit.  Aside from  my ONE
speculation that the noise in it may not be near as good as people
speculate, everything else I said had NOTHING to do with the sensor.  What I
disputed were their claims and examples on their web site, as well as the
claim by Carver Mead that they make 48" prints from images from the sensor.
It's a FACT, everything I pointed out was misinformation, except my one
speculation on noise.  Claiming a problem exists that was solved some 10
years ago, IS misleading, and if you just aren't able to understand that,
then that's your problem.

> I just
> couldn't sit back and watch somebody make such outrageous
> accusations, slams and name calling.

But that's NOT what I did, but appears to be what YOU are doing to me.
Obviously you aren't able to discuss or dispute ANY of my statements, so you
must resort to these kind of foolish statements.  Your claims are equally as
erroneous as theirs!  I made NO "outrageous" accusations, no "slams" and I
didn't call ANYONE "names".  That's pure fiction.

This is what is outrageous.  You have to make things up, instead of debate
the issues on the technical merits.

> Just like everyone else, (including you) we will have to sit back
> and wait for the production models
> to make their way into our hands. Then we will all KNOW for sure
> if their claims are the bare face
> lies you say they are.

Well, NO.  I KNOW that the claims already made that I refuted are erroneous.
It is obvious YOU just don't want to hear the truth, and for some reason,
are blindly following their misleading claims like some cult religion...or
have some other agenda going on here.

You aren't even big enough to apologize for your foolish accusation and
insult that I was somehow lying about my 25 years of digital imaging
experience.  I do not lie, Greg.  I may be mistaken about some things, but
that is an entirely different issue.

Austin