Bill reinterated to put into context:
>FACT: "Inconsistency" in coating does NOT equate to inconsistency in
>optical performance.
And then clarified that what he really meant to say was:
>In retrospect, to avoid vicissitudes, I should have been more expansive
>to the effect:
>'Your response appears to equate colors ("colors of the reflections
>from the 1.8 were all over the place...") as equivalent to
>"inconsistency".
>FACT: "inconsistency" as defined by "colors of the
>reflections......all over the place" does NOT equate to inconsistency
>in optical coating or optical performance.'
I agree with the last version, and if that had been what was said to
start with, there would have been no problem. There was no ambiguity
introduced via my cut and paste, however. I accept that Bill intended
to mean the latter version, but the FACT is that the first version and
the second version mean completely different things. There was nothing
in the first version that I cut out that changed its meaning in any way.
At best, the first statement is vague and open to misinterpretation.
And Bill, of course you were included in the apology.
Cheers,
--Lee
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|