Digital BW, The Print

James,

> If you read the forum as often as I and many others do, you would
> know that
> your comment is absurdly ridiculous.

I disagree that the comment was "absurdly ridiculous".  It was, IMO, a valid
"question", whose speculative conclusion appears to not have been true.

> Add to this the fact that Jon has seemed to have a renewed interest in
> participating in the forum and by turns, addressing, justifying and
> dispelling misinformation about his products, his marketing and
> the state of
> the art in general.

Funny how some people see the same thing differently.  You might be missing
some valid history here.  The original Piezo inks were said to not fade,
period.  We were told that "South facing window" tests showed "virtually no
fading" (my words).  Why was anyone to question that?  Many people reported
fading.  IJM said they didn't see this fading, no matter how hard they tried
(again, my words), though they heard many complain about it...they would not
"acknowledge" the fading, because they said they did not "see" the fading.
Well, it appears that now there is admitted fading of the original
inks...but I haven't heard how they could have "missed" that for two years,
and now, all of a sudden, gee, they admit there IS fading.  Is there a
disconnect on what the word "fade" means, or what degree of "fading" means
there IS "fading"?

Now, let me make this clear, I like the product, except for the fading...and
the banding...and the clogs.  I like it a lot, and have been an avid
supporter of this product for years.  IJM's support and knowledge has been
exceptional.  I don't believe the product would be as good without it.  It
doesn't sit well with me to have been told one thing (no fading), then told
I was imagining it (fading), then told gee, it (fading) exists...with no
explanation of how they simply "didn't see it" in their own tests, and now
do.

I am glad Jon has the time to participate in these forums, though I
"disagree" with him at some turns, I can take his vast experience, and
integrate what I want with my knowledge and only come out ahead, as I do
with any participant of these forums.

I believe IJM made some "mistakes", and I believe people are quite willing
to let this live in the past, but it's hard to do when there are still
"issues" lingering.  I know these "issues" aren't important to everyone, and
IJM may be unwilling to simply deal with these issues, and let the cards
fall where they may.

Regards,

Austin