Quote Originally Posted by pdh View Post
Couple of points to make.

First, use of the word "indignant" could be inferred as suggesting that the objectors (and I was - remain - one) were nitpicking rather than simply correctly pointing out that, Second, the persistent use of the phrase "direct positive paper" was grossly misleading, as the paper is nothing of the sort.

I wish you luck with your Galaxy paper, and hope it works out for you, but the fact remains that this KS was promoted inaccurately and misleadingly: Witness the number of people in both this thread and a similar one at APUG who were angry and disappointed when the facts were made clear - not by Galaxy, but by forum members.
Ah, debates about ones use of words. But the truth is if I wanted to say folks were 'nitpicking' I would have used that word. And, it so happens I agree with you that the creators of this campaign should have included a paragraph carefully explaining the difference between Ilford's DP paper and the paper they envisioned. I of course, was quite thrilled when I confirmed with the creators that this paper could be used, with regular paper developers, as a negative. I had often wished that Ilford would make a special high speed, low contrast paper specifically designed to be used in camera as a negative. Only time will tell if this paper fills that need.