Re: Interview with Henry Wilhelm on print permanence

Mr.T wrote:
> "frederick" <lost@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1178340486.585243@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Sure - I agree that because an ink/paper combination gets a 200 year
> DPR
>>>> from Wilhelm doesn't mean it will last 200 years on my dining room
> wall.
>>>>   But you can be highly confident that it will last much longer than
an
>>>> ink/paper combination rated at 10 years.
>>> And that is where you may be mistaken. As others have pointed out
> already,
>>> that would ONLY be the case IF the dominant mode of failure was under
> test,
>>> or at least common to both cases. This CANNOT be assumed to always be
> so. In
>>> fact the Epson case makes that quite obvious.
>>>
>> Of couse I "may" be mistaken.
> 
> Glad you admit it then.
> 
>> Did you read the bit in my original post where I said:
>> "there's nothing better than accelerated testing to go on"
>> If you can suggest a mode of failure that Wilhelm is not aware of and
>> does not allow for, then I'm sure he'd love to hear from you.
>> If not, then you're at risk of being dismissed as a scaremongering
>> conspiracy theorist, or a Luddite.
> 
> Did you read what others have already written? If not then you are at
risk
> of being dismisssed as an "osterich", and unable to read or comprehend
there
> may be other issues besides exposure to light or even heat.
> And the "Luddite" would be you if you think you already know everything
> there possibly is to know about archival permanance of inkjet prints!
> 
> MrT.
> 
Yep - I read it.
I'm waiting for you to suggest a possible mechanism for decay of inkjet 
(or any other form of printed media) that Wilhelm doesn't allow for.