Re: Pairs
Hi, Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] A pair. A pear. A pple. A perture... A pt. mike
Re: Pairs
There is not such thing as a pple There are People. I'm gonna hit Cotty with a wet sock. Wetted, mind you, with something alcoholic. You gotta tempt the horse to water before you shove his head in for a brew. lol Apple computer was invented by Hippies in the danged 70's. Anyone who uses one has his mind intact. I resent it, Sir. Cotty wrote: On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: A pair. A pear. A pple. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Pairs
Ooooh, yes! I think pairs would be a wonderful theme. Can we have it? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Pairs I smell a pairs theme coming up in PUG. Grin. Bob Blakely wrote: Some pairs are of objects that can also stand alone: Pair of hard boiled eggs. Pair of dancers. Pair of kidneys. Pair of salt pepper shakers. Pair of hunters. Some pairs are of objects that have no meaning alone: Pair of scissors. (Ever heard of one scissor?) Pair of pants. (Ever heard of one pant?) Pair of pliers. (Hand me the plier?) Whee!!! Regards, Bob -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pairs - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't say I have. Am I missing something? keith No you don't... :-) It's just according to one particular writer that they be mentioned in pairs... Cheers Jostein Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Pairs I have also seen a pair of scissors, and a pair of glasses... g keith And dingo's kindneys? (g,d, r) Jostein
Re: Pairs
On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: A pair. A pear. A pple. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Pairs
On 18 Sep 2003 at 8:46, mike wilson wrote: Hi, Tom wrote: However as far as I know line pairs consist of two lines with a space in the middle, when the space disappears you have hit the limit of resolution. grin So this pair consists of three things.. http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_optical_line_pair.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Re: Pairs
Fra: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom wrote: However as far as I know line pairs consist of two lines with a space in the middle, when the space disappears you have hit the limit of resolution. grin So this pair consists of three things.. Imagine a pair of objects with no separation between them. Is this a pair or is it one object? Beyond the resolution limit there you see one line, not two separate lines. :-) DagT
Re: Pairs
A space is not a definable as a 'thing.' keith mike wilson wrote: Hi, Tom wrote: However as far as I know line pairs consist of two lines with a space in the middle, when the space disappears you have hit the limit of resolution. grin So this pair consists of three things.. mike
Re: Pairs
On 18 Sep 2003 at 5:25, Keith Whaley wrote: A space is not a definable as a 'thing.' It's not a space it's a white line and a black line Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pairs
Dag, While I would normally agree with Tom, regarding your following comment, visually there IS no pair, unless you can distinguish between each line. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fra: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom wrote: However as far as I know line pairs consist of two lines with a space in the middle, when the space disappears you have hit the limit of resolution. grin So this pair consists of three things.. No, two 'things,' or two individual items, if you will. One item is a black line. The other item is a white line. Separate the two black lines with a while line in between, and you have a pair of black lines. This assumes all you start with is two black lines on a piece of white paper. If you insist on making one of a pair of lines white, then the background or the sheet of media on which they lie MUST be of a contrasting color, in order to tell that the white line is not merely a space between two black lines. Imagine a pair of objects with no separation between them. Is this a pair or is it one object? Beyond the resolution limit there you see one line, not two separate lines. :-) DagT If, as Rod has most recently exposed us to, you define a line pair as two CONTIGUOUS lines, meaning adjacent to and touching each other, they MUST be of different contrast, or you wouldn't be able to distinguish that there were two of them... In Rod's supplied definition, it can indeed be a white line and a black line, sharing a common border. That's when you need the media upon which they reside to be a third shade or color. Interesting discussion... keith
Re: Pairs
- Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] A pair. A pear. A pple. A perture... Jostein
Re: Pairs
Rob Studdert wrote: On 18 Sep 2003 at 5:25, Keith Whaley wrote: A space is not a definable as a 'thing.' It's not a space it's a white line and a black line Okay, I read you. But, stay with me now, if all you have is a piece of white paper, on which reside some straight black lines, and if you slide two of the lines together so they have a line width's of distance between them, what's in between could be a white line or it could be merely a space. Especially if they're on a white piece of paper. I'm with you, Rod. But, if you're going to define one of a pair of lines as white, and the other black, you must also decree that these line pairs NOT be displayed on a white or black surface... it has to be some other contrasting shade of color. Situation two: you have a boundary that is one millimeter in width. Within that boundary you place equal width black/white line pairs until they fit from side to side. The only parameter you can change is the individual width of each line, in order to fit more lines in the one millimeter boundary. Example: if each line is 1/4 millimeter thick/wide, you can have two line pairs in that one millimeter space. In this case, there is no space separating the lines, it's only the contrast between their shades that provides the boundary definition. So, the question arises, if the one millimeter space is constant, and all that changes is the line widths, when does a pair cease to be distinguishable as a black and white pair? When it turns gray, and you can't distinguish a boundary between black and white? Just curious... keith Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Re: Pairs
Ever see two pertures? Darndest thing you ever DID see! g I once saw a percher on a dirt track, prancing around. Pretty thing it was, too! keith Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] A pair. A pear. A pple. A perture... Jostein
Re: Pairs
Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob Studdert wrote: On 18 Sep 2003 at 5:25, Keith Whaley wrote: A space is not a definable as a 'thing.' It's not a space it's a white line and a black line Okay, I read you. But, stay with me now, if all you have is a piece of white paper, on which reside some straight black lines, and if you slide two of the lines together so they have a line width's of distance between them, what's in between could be a white line or it could be merely a space. Especially if they're on a white piece of paper. I think the reason people are having a problem with this is because they're stuck with the ink/paper analogy. This is *just* an analogy. With light images there's no foreground or background. It isn't white on a black background or black on a white background. It's a white line next to a black line. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pairs
Reminds me of an old joke from the boy scouts: Be Alert! - your country needs lerts! DagT På torsdag, 18. september 2003, kl. 19:49, skrev Keith Whaley: Ever see two pertures? Darndest thing you ever DID see! g I once saw a percher on a dirt track, prancing around. Pretty thing it was, too! keith Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] A pair. A pear. A pple. A perture... Jostein
Re: Pairs
På torsdag, 18. september 2003, kl. 22:04, skrev Jostein: - Original Message - From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ooooh, yes! I think pairs would be a wonderful theme. Can we have it? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Um... Wouldn't that need two galleries? :-) Jostein Of Course! DagT
Re: Pairs
På torsdag, 18. september 2003, kl. 22:05, skrev Jostein: - Original Message - From: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ooooh, yes! I think pairs would be a wonderful theme. Can we have it? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Um... Wouldn't that need two galleries? :-) Jostein Of Course! DagT
Re: Pairs
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if i use gray paper, i have to use white ink and black ink... Same if you use a sheet of clear film. ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pairs
Now you've done it. Keith will be at this for another week. Otis Wright Herb Chong wrote: that's why it took so long for zero as a concept to appear and be accepted. Herb - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Pairs A space is not a definable as a 'thing.' keith
Re: Pairs
Hi Otis! Hah, ha, ha! No he won't! Those of you who were able to understand what I'm saying, already got my point(s), agree with me or not, understand me or not. Those who are still disagreeing and arguing with me about it - didn't. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I know what THEY meant, and whether they know what *I* was trying to say is sort of beside the point. Perhaps I might have tweaked enough folks to actually start thinking about what they read. To read words for sense, and not simply believe something because it's what they've always heard, or what they've always read. Think for yourself Question what you don't understand. If you don't get the answers you want, ask again... Don't accept ambiguous, blurred and overly complicated writing and so-called reasoning, if it doesn't make sense to you. This thread is a perfect example of defending muddled thinking and refusal to accept new ways of thinking about things. Ooops! I didn't mean things. I meant concepts. g I'd be most happy to continue any further discussion of this topic OFF line, but I think Otis has made a very good point...enough is enough. I've already joggled the hide-bound thinking of those capable of determining what I meant -- those who care enough to reason it thru for themselves. But, this tree will take a while to bear any fruit. That the seeds have been planted is enough for now. Off my box, standing down... g keith 'appleseed' whaley * * * * Otis C. Wright, Jr. wrote: Now you've done it. Keith will be at this for another week. Otis Wright Herb Chong wrote: that's why it took so long for zero as a concept to appear and be accepted. Herb - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Pairs A space is not a definable as a 'thing.' keith
RE: Pairs
I prefer peaches over pairs J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
Re: Pairs
I have a peach with a pair... Hmmm. Does that qualify or not? keith J.C. O'Connell wrote: I prefer peaches over pairs
Re: Pairs
Awh. There goes the weekend entertainment. Sure you don't want to tackle infinitiy? Have a great weekend. Otis Keith Whaley wrote: Hi Otis! Hah, ha, ha! No he won't! Those of you who were able to understand what I'm saying, already got my point(s), agree with me or not, understand me or not. Those who are still disagreeing and arguing with me about it - didn't. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I know what THEY meant, and whether they know what *I* was trying to say is sort of beside the point. Perhaps I might have tweaked enough folks to actually start thinking about what they read. To read words for sense, and not simply believe something because it's what they've always heard, or what they've always read. Think for yourself Question what you don't understand. If you don't get the answers you want, ask again... Don't accept ambiguous, blurred and overly complicated writing and so-called reasoning, if it doesn't make sense to you. This thread is a perfect example of defending muddled thinking and refusal to accept new ways of thinking about things. Ooops! I didn't mean things. I meant concepts. g I'd be most happy to continue any further discussion of this topic OFF line, but I think Otis has made a very good point...enough is enough. I've already joggled the hide-bound thinking of those capable of determining what I meant -- those who care enough to reason it thru for themselves. But, this tree will take a while to bear any fruit. That the seeds have been planted is enough for now. Off my box, standing down... g keith 'appleseed' whaley * * * * Otis C. Wright, Jr. wrote: Now you've done it. Keith will be at this for another week. Otis Wright Herb Chong wrote: that's why it took so long for zero as a concept to appear and be accepted. Herb - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Pairs A space is not a definable as a 'thing.' keith
Re: Pairs
Simple. Infinity is that distance beyond which one can focus with a Pentax. keith Otis C. Wright, Jr. wrote: Awh. There goes the weekend entertainment. Sure you don't want to tackle infinitiy? Have a great weekend. Otis Keith Whaley wrote: Hi Otis! Hah, ha, ha! No he won't! Those of you who were able to understand what I'm saying, already got my point(s), agree with me or not, understand me or not. Those who are still disagreeing and arguing with me about it - didn't. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I know what THEY meant, and whether they know what *I* was trying to say is sort of beside the point. Perhaps I might have tweaked enough folks to actually start thinking about what they read. To read words for sense, and not simply believe something because it's what they've always heard, or what they've always read. Think for yourself Question what you don't understand. If you don't get the answers you want, ask again... Don't accept ambiguous, blurred and overly complicated writing and so-called reasoning, if it doesn't make sense to you. This thread is a perfect example of defending muddled thinking and refusal to accept new ways of thinking about things. Ooops! I didn't mean things. I meant concepts. g I'd be most happy to continue any further discussion of this topic OFF line, but I think Otis has made a very good point...enough is enough. I've already joggled the hide-bound thinking of those capable of determining what I meant -- those who care enough to reason it thru for themselves. But, this tree will take a while to bear any fruit. That the seeds have been planted is enough for now. Off my box, standing down... g keith 'appleseed' whaley * * * * Otis C. Wright, Jr. wrote: Now you've done it. Keith will be at this for another week. Otis Wright Herb Chong wrote: that's why it took so long for zero as a concept to appear and be accepted. Herb
Re: Pairs
Boycott shampoo! Demand real poo! Regards, Bob... Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? -Martin Luther From: Dag T [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reminds me of an old joke from the boy scouts: Be Alert! - your country needs lerts!
Re: Pairs
I am not stuck on the ink/paper analogy. I'm stuck on the star/firmament analogy. Regards, Bob... Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? -Martin Luther From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark Roberts wrote: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [all snipped] I think the reason people are having a problem with this is because they're stuck with the ink/paper analogy. This is *just* an analogy. With light images there's no foreground or background. It isn't white on a black background or black on a white background. It's a white line next to a black line. Well, theoretically, that's okay by me. I can do it in my head, but... In order to be useful to anyone, it's got to go past theoretical and be put in physical terms, and recorded. That means it has to be on some sort of media, doesn't it? You can't have a black and a white line pair, just hanging around in free space! Once it's visible, it's got to have a visual reference of some sort. You can't just say, Please imagine this.
Re: Pairs
- Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't say I have. Am I missing something? keith No you don't... :-) It's just according to one particular writer that they be mentioned in pairs... Cheers Jostein Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Pairs I have also seen a pair of scissors, and a pair of glasses... g keith And dingo's kindneys? (g,d, r) Jostein
Re: Pairs
Well pants developed from legging which came in pairs. There are two lenses in a pair of glasses as opposed to one in a glass (monocular). Kidneys do come in pairs. and scissors are basically two knifes on a hinge. However as far as I know line pairs consist of two lines with a space in the middle, when the space disappears you have hit the limit of resolution. grin Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't say I have. Am I missing something? keith No you don't... :-) It's just according to one particular writer that they be mentioned in pairs... Cheers Jostein Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Pairs I have also seen a pair of scissors, and a pair of glasses... g keith And dingo's kindneys? (g,d, r) Jostein -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
RE: Pairs
Some pairs are of objects that can also stand alone: Pair of hard boiled eggs. Pair of dancers. Pair of kidneys. Pair of salt pepper shakers. Pair of hunters. Some pairs are of objects that have no meaning alone: Pair of scissors. (Ever heard of one scissor?) Pair of pants. (Ever heard of one pant?) Pair of pliers. (Hand me the plier?) Whee!!! Regards, Bob -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pairs - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can't say I have. Am I missing something? keith No you don't... :-) It's just according to one particular writer that they be mentioned in pairs... Cheers Jostein Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Pairs I have also seen a pair of scissors, and a pair of glasses... g keith And dingo's kindneys? (g,d, r) Jostein
Re: Pairs
-- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 08:16:38 -0700 From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lens resolution Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Mark, One of anything cannot be a pair. You have lines and spaces to work with. A line pair cannot be construed to be one line one space. It's got to be two lines two spaces. One of each does not constitute a pair; two of each does. So it seems to me. keith Keith, Per your first sentnece, apparently, you've never seen a pair of pants. 8-) Larry
Re: Pairs
Can't say I have. Am I missing something? keith Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Pairs I have also seen a pair of scissors, and a pair of glasses... g keith And dingo's kindneys? (g,d, r) Jostein
Re: Pairs
I don't know, Keith, Hand me that pair of pliers and we'll rip those kidneys out and take a look! g cheers, frank Keith Whaley wrote: Can't say I have. Am I missing something? -- Hell is others -Jean Paul Sartre
