Re: Traditional palette vs. modern 589 by Ed on 05/28/01 at 1:22 PM
Re: Traditional palette vs. modern

In Reply to: Re: Traditional palette vs. modern posted by Steve Sauer on 05/27/01 at 11:32 PM:

MY beloved naphthol? That was YOUR pigment my friend, not mine. You brought it up and if you read back you will not see me defend that specific member of this family, not once. Interesting you make no mention of the last two links I provided, did you even bother to check them?

"As for the rest of your contradictions and convenient manipulations, I really don't have the time."
Hahahaha. Hmm, contradictions? Nope, not one. Convenient manipulations? What makes proving the error of your assertion re. Vermillion a manipulation? You stated quite plainly that it is lightfast, I proved that my contrary assertion was correct and provided online evidence to back it up.

You also made quite a number of other incorrect claims (providing no evidence to back them up other than platitudes like "I read this" and "I saw this") that I took the time to counter in each case both for your benefit and for the benefit of any other readers unfamiliar with the issues who might be mislead (with possible dangerous consequences in one case). Hopefully they will not be as happy as yourself to blindly stumble along in error.

Since I made clear mention that I am checking my own palette quite exhaustively you should have made the inference that I don't trust the ASTM blindly...

Even though my few attempts at levity were met with your consistent obstinacy I still find it very sad to see you having to descend into blatant insults but in light of your continued blind defence of your numerous indefensible statements one should not be surprised I suppose.


Follow Ups:


Post a Followup 545,548,555,560,565,566,573,582,583,585,589"> Ed"> ed1177_yahoo.co.ukRe: Traditional palette vs. modern_05/28/01 at 1:22 PM"> "Re: Traditional palette vs. modern"
: MY beloved naphthol? That was YOUR pigment my friend, not mine. You brought it up and if you read back you will not see me defend that specific member of this family, not once. Interesting you make no mention of the last two links I provided, did you even bother to check them? : "As for the rest of your contradictions and convenient manipulations, I really don't have the time." : Hahahaha. Hmm, contradictions? Nope, not one. Convenient manipulations? What makes proving the error of your assertion re. Vermillion a manipulation? You stated quite plainly that it is lightfast, I proved that my contrary assertion was correct and provided online evidence to back it up. : You also made quite a number of other incorrect claims (providing no evidence to back them up other than platitudes like "I read this" and "I saw this") that I took the time to counter in each case both for your benefit and for the benefit of any other readers unfamiliar with the issues who might be mislead (with possible dangerous consequences in one case). Hopefully they will not be as happy as yourself to blindly stumble along in error. : Since I made clear mention that I am checking my own palette quite exhaustively you should have made the inference that I don't trust the ASTM blindly... : Even though my few attempts at levity were met with your consistent obstinacy I still find it very sad to see you having to descend into blatant insults but in light of your continued blind defence of your numerous indefensible statements one should not be surprised I suppose.

 
A. A. Art. This Site designed and maintained by Alexei Antonov
Translation from Russian Copyright (c) 1999 Vladimir Pavlov.
Copyright (c) 1999 Alexei Antonov. All rights reserved.