While this last post of yours has been a most eloquent statement of your position. I would appreciate, for the standpoint of a further peaceful relationship in this forum, if you would care to elaborate on the basis of your original post to this thread.

I have taken the liberty of copying and posting that post below. Since you made allegations of certain actions and words/statements made in your original post, I would really appreciate it if you would give me/us a place that we can look for that this supposed blasting and statement(s) were made. Had you not broached the subject yourself I would not be asking for a further explanation. I think that this is fair in the interest of maintaining a peaceful and coexistant community. Fair enough?
Since this seems to be a directed question just to me, not from an us but you Don let me go through this again. We are going on a journey now of personal history.

Wayback machine set for fall of 1973:
My first class as a Junior in college (reference must name the college) Sothern Utah State College (now Southern Utah University must keep these facts straight, but I probably will be asked to verify that I went there with transcripts) In a beginning photography class Oh must name a teacher since this is inoccous enough I will name him by name, Professor Rowley told us (this meaning the full class that was in attendance at that time period in that city in that state) of silver rich films. I had no knowledge of most things photographic before taking that class other than an instamatic.

Next jump through history. got married, had child, was able to between children afford a medium format camera. 1983 purchased a mamiya 645. do not know what time of year precisely. Sales person was the first one to tell me there were no silver rich films. This place was "Samy's Camera in LA" I thought no more of it.

Fast forward again. 1990 Tucson Az. Purchsed a few items for my canon f1n again was in discussion about films and the new ones available. I watched as two sales clerks got into fight about silver rich films.

fast forward to present. I had to go back and find the other post directly after starting this thread to see exactly why Don had thought I had singled out what he had said. Nope not the item I talked about. For those who attend the presnt little college I take photography classes at< they will recognize exactly who it was that blasted me in the department. All I have to say is daytime. Anyone who goes to that college and several are here and post regulary, know exactly whom I speak of. It is also know the history of the way that individual talks to me. Since this is not an issue that needs further clarification on this forum with that person name, I will not mention it further.

So Don NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and I can type that more times if need be, it is not in reference to that other thread that I started this thread.

Aggies response to responses to initial post

To discount it out of hand and to say from the orginal thread that it does not exist and is a made up term, was reason for saying yes this term does exist.
now for the above mentioned bit. That came later in this series of posts did it not? I guess everyone who reads this can look over the cronology of what posts came when. By this time that other thread had been drug into this mess that it has become. Yeah by this time I did reference back to the other thread

Let me reference back to still another thread since that is what is becoming the issue here. One that I stumbled upon while trying to find the one Don is so obbsessed about. MikeK sorry about not responding, I did not feel it a major issue that I had to respond in that thread. I have since found the full text of what Gordon Hutchings puts in his jobo to make PMK work better. It was not just metaborate, it was sodium metaborate. If you need the book that this info came out of, it is "The Book Of Pyro" I was remiss in not responding to that when you brought about a differeing view in another thread. I hope going back I do not find more that I did not respond too. My fingers are getting tired.

Nest Lex, yeah I did take a few shots today. Didn't do any developing. If you want to see what a shot with a supposed old emulsion film looks like, go to the non picture gallery and it is the last page. the picture entitled oblivious in Yosemite. that one was shot with forte 200 and developed in PMK. straight un fiddled with scan of the negative. But opps looking back at that I was also asked back then what film and such by someone (darn forgot who already) and I forgot to respond to that thread also. Isn't getting older a bitch?

Now lastly I have a question straight for Don, no couching it with me/us. I want to know, why you feel the need to turn what was a peaceful discussion that had started about emulsions and a simple term into something you veiwed and like a pit bull could not let go of as being directed soley at what you said in another thread? Is there some hidden agenda I should know about? I have stated several times I did not say who or where. I alluded to three different web sites. to which you demanded then the url. But I also eluded to having a life outside of the web to which I associate with photographers. What is the real reason you did this?

And as I have told Don recently in email (not about this darn thread or even the other one) I will not have anything more to do with you. I since blocked his address from my mail account. and just delete any PM's I receive here. If this doesn't put a stop directly to it Don, Happy fighting, with yourself. But be fair to others, now require all people to have to site every last bit of information you do not agree with. Make all have to give url's and other info to back up every last little infatesimal thing. Be fair! to all!

Sean do we have an ignore ability on this forum? Maybe that could be implemented.