Re: Vuescan - new features
- From: Evo2Me <Evo2Me@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:33:03 +0100
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 19:26:31 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>That's why I assume he's reading, and he is obviously not sharing his
>knowledge any longer.
Actually it doesn't matter at all what we assume or if it would be a
good idea to monitor what happens here.
We can be relatively certain he is not posting here because
a) his name is not one of the featured posters
b) his style is very sparse, to the point and sometimes even harsh;
not seen here since he officially went
c) he wrote he won't participate anymore.
Does he read here? Well, Bart, your assumptions are good and I share
them, but since we are talking about a fact that either can be or
cannot be a logical conclusion cannot be reached, only an empirical
one. Everything else is probability, stochastic and conjecture (not
even of the better kind).
Question arises: Why is it so important to ELIZA - sorry, Marjolein -
to take you up on this topic?
.
- References:
- Re: Vuescan - new features
- From: Don
- Re: Vuescan - new features
- From: Philip Homburg
- Re: Vuescan - new features
- From: Wilfred
- Re: Vuescan - new features
- From: Evo2Me
- Re: Vuescan - new features
- From: Marjolein Katsma
- Re: Vuescan - new features
- From: Bart van der Wolf
- Re: Vuescan - new features
- From: Robert Feinman
- Re: Vuescan - new features
- From: Bart van der Wolf
- Re: Vuescan - new features
- From: Marjolein Katsma
- Re: Vuescan - new features
- From: Bart van der Wolf
- Re: Vuescan - new features
- Prev by Date: Re: Don and Vuescan
- Next by Date: Re: Vuescan - new features
- Previous by thread: Re: Vuescan - new features
- Next by thread: Re: Vuescan - new features
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|