Coppertop,
OK. Have it your own way.
I'm sorry you feel unable to take up my offer, and choose to finish
on such a sour note.
I will certainly stay out of your way in future.
Good bye, and Good Luck,
Baz
Too bad you had to get just a few more licks in as the thread came
to a close.
Jim,
As may be expected, I take a different view. I think I tried as hard as anyone might be expected to, bearing in mind what had passed before.
Most of coppertop's responses to me had been a series of personal attacks, and offered no proper explanation of the enlarging matter at hand. I 'specially chose to ignore those attacks, and also carefully refrained from doing any such thing in return. Perhaps, if you re-read, you might notice that.
Indeed, I have myself carefully checked back across the thread and read every part of it.....
Even allowing for the differences in the use of language that exist between Britain and America, I think it was me that stayed on the point of what could, or could not, be done with the enlarger, and coppertop that failed to do so. It was Vegard that noticed that. Furthermore, I was not the only one that took serious exception to the claim that coppertop made. Joe (sometime/never) felt the same way.
Neither was the main thrust of coppertop's enquiry sidetracked by me. I answered his query, to the full extent of my knowledge, in the first post that I made.
This is not to say, with the benefit of hindsight, that I wouldn't have done things differently. My correction of coppertop's spelling was a CHEAP SHOT, and I very much regret making it, particularly as it is against forum rules. However, I did apologise, and acknowledged that it had caused unnecessary resentment.
In other respects I stand by what I wrote. Despite being blunt, and very much to the point, I stated not a single thing which was not true.
The matter of enlarger DoF has not been resolved, of course, and is left dangling. I would have wished for a better outcome, considering that I was never wrong, and it was coppertop that was mistaken.
As to "sour" notes, please remember that, in an effort to restore relations, I had posted.....
"The offer is made without prejudice, and in a spirit of reconciliation. Please post again if you wish to take it up."
Naturally I was choosing my words with care, and (in England, at least) the term "without prejudice" is meant to imply a kind of "truce" or "cease-fire", each party remaining with their position intact. Just in case something different is understood in the States, I also added the "spirit of reconciliation" reference, so that my intentions were entirely clear.
Well, coppertop did post again, but NOT to build bridges, despite my having used "without prejudice". Instead, he chose to take yet another swipe at me, and any new information that I might bring to the table, no matter how helpful it might have been in clearing the air.
What's more, Coppertop went on to suggest that I had implied he was lying. This is a cruel and spiteful slur, and I very much resent it. At no time did I do any such thing! On the contrary, I was at pains to state that I DID NOT DOUBT coppertop's earnest belief in his own findings. My precise words on this are a matter of record and may be found up thread.
At the conclusion of this bruising experience, you may understand why it is me that is feeling aggrieved. Indeed, I have been shocked by the turn that matters took, the general tenor of opinion seeming to be much more concerned with personalities than facts. This is why, although I was never wrong on the issue of contention, I feel that I have been wronged by events. All the more so after I had tried to bring about a happier conclusion.
So, I feel I might have been justified in being somewhat 'sour'. But, I don't think I was, all things considered.
(What I wrote is at the top of this post, which will be my last to this thread.)
Baz (aka Barrie Davis)
