On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:15:52 +0100, Signal  wrote:

> Java Jive  wrote:
> 
> Disingenuous of you to snip this...
> 
> "Unless you're quibbling over "harder to compress"? That was an error
> and I'll take it back.."
> 
> Aside from this non consequential error (which I'm man enough to admit
> to!) that you're getting so hot and bothered over, everything else
> I've said has been consistent.

My objection was that you were actually trying to brush aside a
significant error of understanding, as revealed by the initial attempt
to defend it which led to mutual contradiction between your mails, as
though it were a 'non consequential error' like a typo.

> you claimed these
> areas are *easier* to compress.

They are indeed 'easier' in the sense it should be possible to
compress them more than areas of higher detail.  More exactly, the
level of lossless compression achievable, as in lossless audio
compression, and the level of loss in lossy compression, as here,
depends intimately on what is being compressed.

> Quit being an ass...

Quit trying to cover your own errors of understanding first by
claiming they were mere slips, and then by being insulting.

> That'll teach you for making assumptions.

Perhaps the entire sub-thread above, in which you have been criticised
by others than myself for fundamental errors of understanding, will
teach you for shooting off your mouth, but I am not hopeful.

So unhopeful that I welcome you to my plonk folder ...