Doug, I've pretty much quit reading them when they say "caveman", just not much content that is interesting or useful.
Bruce Friday, June 20, 2003, 11:44:55 AM, you wrote: DB> You know, it's really too bad that your posts have somehow morphed into bad DB> imitations of Mafudian logic and prose. Next you'll be preaching the word DB> of the Great Yellow Father. DB> At 01:00 PM 6/20/03, throwing caution to the wind, Caveman wrote: >>They don't pass as photographs, they pass as image reproductions (the >>typographically printed form of it). >> >>If you look at those obsolete evil dictionary definitions again, you'll >>notice that they don't differentiate images by their purpose (which is the >>same, no matter if it's a painting or a photograph or a laser print or a >>statue - they convey to you a visual representation of something). They >>differentiate images by the method used to produce them. If this is the >>criterion, then there's no method in saying that an inkjet print is a >>photograph. It denies the reason of existence of the terms used to >>differentiate prints by the method they're produced. Just the term >>"prints" would then be enough. >> >>But then there's nothing glamorous about the term "print". "Photograph" >>sounds more arteestec, and that's why who have people insisting in making >>this confusion of terms. "I'm a photographer too". ROFL. A digital camera >>is nothing but a glorified palm computer with builtin webcam. The very >>first result of the image taking process is a file on a memory card. You >>transfer that file to a bigger computer then print it on a computer >>printer. That's it. It's computing. >> >>com-pute (kuhm pyuet') v. <-put-ed, -put-ing> n. >> v.i. >> 4. to use a computer or calculator. >> >>Just live with it, folks. ;-) >> >>cheers, >>caveman ;-) >>
