"That is not an attack on anyone"

Ye gods there is nothing stupider than denying you did something, when that something is still up there plain for all to read. To remind you:

PeterH: "I don't like to manipulate the truth of the image. YOU (my caps) do, but I don't. Can we not leave it at that?"

Do you see what you did there? Of course you do. But getting you to admit it or apologise is a whole 'nother kettle of rancid fish.

Next, Peter will explain how saying he would never spend spend 16 hrs in a darkroom was 'talking generally and not specifically about me'

It's that *you* word you use, when being 'general and not specific', tends to confuse, along wothe '16 hrs in a digital darkroom' bit that I'm sure you plucked straight out of the air to exemplify excessive manipulation.

Bad boy, no supper.

"I am not at all interested in how you work up your photos or how long it takes you. Why should I be?"

Because I went to the trouble to detail 'how long and how' in defence of your supposition/accusation that sixteen hrs in the digital darkroom is 'proof' of misleading manipulation, when you were, in fact, *wrong* on this occasion. I suppose you 'should be interested' in that if only to realise that you made a false accusation. Any gentleman would be.

If you cannot see that integrity is important enough to defend against false claims, that's your problem. Maybe I shouldn't care about that, but I do.

Or you could just be a wind-up artiste of low calibre. The jury is, er, off to the pub.