Re: Help/advice - basic image processing question

In article <4eda1cbfc7invalid-email-address@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <4eda04cc79john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John Cartmell <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <4eda006d58invalid-email-address@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Paul Vigay <invalid-email-address@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <4ed9d139eajohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
John Cartmell <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The original enquiry was about e-mailing pics to people and use on
websites. The enquiry was simply about reducing the storage/mailing
size of photo images. Paul didn't mention web display.

Why don't you take a bit more time in reading things through before you
post replies? - and then take a little more time to read your reply
before you click the 'send' button. I presume you've missed a "not"
from your reply above, which completely changes the entire meaning, and
contradicts yourself. Rather unfortunate in this particular example.

There is no need for a 'not'. I don't contradict myself. I'm afraid that
you are completely up the creek here.

[Snipped ad hominem argument that leaves you wide open to a very nasty
response. Good job I'm not, isn't it! ;-) ]

[Snip]

So you can't even remember what you wrote previously now. Let me remind
you....

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:21:21 you wrote, "The enquiry wasn't about web
display specifically but about reducing the size of the files - eg....."

Then, on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:16:08 you said, "The original enquiry was
about e-mailing pics to people and use on website. The enquiry was simply
about reducing the storage/mailing size of photo images. Paul didn't
mention web display."

Those two comments definitely contradict each other because in one you say
the original enquiry wasn't about web display, then in the second you claim
it /was/ about using on a website.

Bloody hell Paul - read the English! It wasn't *specifically* about web
display but about reducing storage space. It was also about sending (by
e-mail) pictures to others and also about using on a website. If it was
specifically or only about use on a website then you might have an argument.
It wasn't. If you're sending a picture to someone else they are not going to
want a web-quality photo.

I then queried this on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:51:41, because I suspected that
you meant to write "The original enquiry was NOT about e-mailing pics to
people....", hence my comment about presuming you missed a 'not' out from
your comment, otherwise you'd be in danger of contradicting yourself.

You now claim that you didn't require a 'not' in your sentence, thus you
DID contradict yourself.

I didn't. I wrote exactly what I meant. It was about e-mailing pictures - and
using JPEGs set at 50% to produce those pictures would produce results that
may well disappoint because it would reduce quality.

Elementary logic my dear Watson. Now, are you going to admit your defeat or
are you still going to argue about things. If so, I might as well finally
kill-file you because these silly word games really are a waste of
everyone's time.

You're wasting the time. What I said is correct - and even if it wasn't you're
still wrong with your comment about JPEG quality. It's no use me ending the
discussion by saying there has been a misunderstanding - I'm happy to accept
that; but you're 100% wrong about your fundamental claim. *You* may not be
able to discern the difference in the copies but I can assure you that plenty
of people can discern far less of a difference! ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

.