> It's interesting that people took almost no time to read what "Bob > Rosen" had to say. For example, > > "And now we hear that the very lenses we as photographers have placed > our creative trust in have also been digitized. Like the cones in our > eyes, is not the cone of light from our lens also a fundamental fact of > nature? Or have those we trust become so digitized that we lose the > truth of the lens?" Actually Steve, I remeber that one well. I did note that it reflected an apparent change in "Mr Rosen's" view of digital but, in a world where paradigm shifts are the new (un)reality I thought that Bob himself had undegone the transformation and was now (self-)justifying his participation in the same *eloquent* manner as he always had. The bit about rods and conse just made me smile as it showed an apparent total ignorance of how vision works and why the eye is NOT a camera. > "Come now, it's only a coincidence that a few locquacious souls are > named Bob. If I changed my name to Steve, would that make any difference?" Missed that ... > I didn't answer the first because I was sure it would let the cat out of > the bag, and I got accused of being Karl when I spoke about yours :-) > > Karl and I are *very* different people Bob. (So are our headers) yes, I'm aware of that ... any heavily mathematical stuff would have given the game away. I reckon there must be an "aussie humour component" in common. Looking at the message headers, the one that linked you to Steve read: - - - Received: from ruprect ([10.60.10.190] ident=Steve) - - - by Fruitloop with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) - - - id 1CJMYJ-00062y-00 for <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, - - - 18 Oct 2004 09:43:11 +0800 looking back through my archive 10.60.10.190 wa sin the header of a Steve Hodges post ... what I want to know though is "why ruprecht?" Qkano
