T3D Re: Deering spreadsheet

[fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)]

>If Geoorge disagrees with the geometric foundation of the spreadsheet, why
>does he care if it reads millimeters or not?

Geoorge does not disagree with the geometric foundation of the spreadsheet.
He tried one example and most values in the table were 0.1 and 0.2 inches.
This made him think that mm might work better.

>And if he doesn't have any need for my spreadsheet, that I can only wonder
>about his motives for picking it apart here.  

He made some suggestions that thought might improve it.  He did not pick it
apart.  But he certainly does not appreciate the reference to his name (in
the version that he downloaded).  

>Unless, of course, he wants
>to revive our old Photo-3D argument here.  His beligerence in that forum on
>this topic is a reason I left.

The reasons you left photo-3d is not a good topic for discussion in tech-3d.

>If George likes the 1/30 rule for macros, then he should use it.  By the
>same token, if he likes the 1/30 rule for macros, he certainly doesn't need
>my spreadsheet.
>As I have said before, those who are undecided should take their own macro
>photos, comparing the MAOFD formula with the placebo.  Make your own
>judgement.

How many times am I going to tell you that I don't use the 1/30 rule for
macros.  I don't use any rule!  The only thing I did not like from the
very start is your attitude towards the 1/30.  In your pages you are using
the phrase "it does not work".  What does that mean?  Define "it works".
In your graphs you label "1/30 rule" and MAOFD solutions "real math".
1/30 is math too.  Does "real" mean more complicated?  More correct?
Define correct.  Define wrong.  You are misleading people by telling them
that a popular rule of thumb does not work.  Tell them what kind of 
results it generates and let them decide if it works for them or not.  

George Themelis


------------------------------