Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: OT - anal(ly) retentive...

Why don't you guys just get married?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>


You regularly chastise people for using inaccurate or incomplete terms.
  Shall we discuss "depth of FIELD" versus "depth of FILM" as an
example, in spite of the fact that EVERYONE knew what the people were
referring to? Yet you found it necessary to "parrot" out of some obscure
book not once, but on two separate occasions.

On the other hand, the term "anal" as you used it, in the Freudian
sense, is actually half a term, as it only refers in that context to a
psychosexual stage, which can refer to two very opposite personality
"defects".  A bit like saying dMAX and dMIN are the same thing.

Your excuse that it is "common" use is irrelevant, well, at least it is
when you are trying to make some arcane point about someone else's
posting, so I see no reason to let you escape your own hell this time.

Being that you have, on many occasions (I could quote them if you like)
given me (and others) a load of "anally retentive motivated crap" over
the years for my/our apparent "misuse" or inaccurate use of terms, or
that I was not of your profession (an engineer), I thought I give you
just a "wee taste" of your own medicine.  You see, I have my degree in
Pre-medical and Psychology, and studied Freud, and others in some
detail, and your use of the term is sloppy, incomplete, confusing and
inaccurate, something, admittedly very out of character for someone as
anally retentive as you tend to be.

Don't like how it feels then, do you?

So, now you know exactly what my point was.

And apparently, I made it.

And with this, I will depart from this subject, without further comment.


Austin Franklin wrote:

>>>T-Max 100 has a resolution rating of around 200 line pair/mm,
>>that's over
>>>10k samples per inch, and would be a file of APPROXIMATELY FOR
>>>(since you are being anal about arithmetic ;-) ~10k x ~15k or
>>~150M pixels.
>>The term Austin is looking for is "anally retentive"
> Er, Arthur, I wasn't "looking" for any term.  I used the "term" I wanted.
> The common understanding, except for those who ARE really anal, is that
> someone says "anal" they are "abbreviating" the term "anal(ly) retentive".
> What was your supposed point, BTW?
> Austin

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.