[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:How can I "admit" what is not true? You can certainly count pixels... but the hidden presumption is that they actually reflect the view as seen on 11/22/63. IT DOES NOT - AS YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED.

So you beg me to "admit" that what you're measuring had an actual physical existence on 11/22 - but even YOU know that this isn't true - YOU FINALLY ADMITTED THAT JPEGS ARE A LOSSY FORMAT.

You didn't know this... and you clearly got schooled on the topic.

That's a bold statement coming from someone who claimed that it was impossible to count pixels in a JPEG. How can your failure to express yourself accurately ever be my fault? Words have meaning, Ben.

Yes... they do.

You've just lied about what I stated.

YOU'RE A LIAR, Mark Ulrik.

You'll be completely unable to quote me saying that you cannot count pixels.

I corrected you above, YET YOU REPEAT THE SAME LIE.

This shows that you know you're in the wrong, and you have to put up a strawman to fight, since you're forced to agree with what I've schooled you on.

How about this?

Ben Holmes Wrote:You cannot do pixel counts on JPEG's...

Kindly publish the photo you're using.

Or admit that your pixel count is sheer nonsense.

Ben Holmes Wrote:You had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the difference between lossy and lossless compression formats until I schooled you on the topic.

Ha-ha. Now, that's a lie!

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Also, the forum software prohibits uploading of large files, so isn't it a tad hypocritical of you to complain about people compressing their images?

You're LYING AGAIN, Mark Ulrik!

No such statement was ever made by me.

This shows that you realize you've lost...

No, it shows your inability to discuss issues. You'll do anything to derail a discussion when you realize that you have lost.