On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:59:07 +0200, JRW wrote:

hielan' laddie wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:56:48 -0400, Morgans wrote
(in article ):


"Wayne Paul" wrote


It is obvious that very few of you care whether I am here or not;

Not the case at all.

All they want is for you (and or others) to post within limitations that
allow non geek people to look at all of the pictures posted.

I believe that would be summarized by:

Not too many pictures per day. 40 has been suggested as a top number.


'Suggested' by you. Not out to control things, eh? Yeah. Right.


Post using formats that the newsreader used by the vast majority of reader
use. That would be jpegs, and OE, respectively.


So those who have real newsreaders must scale back to cater to those who
can't be arsed to get a real newsreader? Not bloody likely.


You have to remember that not everyone has the geek skills to do much more
than that, or the aptitude or desire to learn any higher geek skills.


Then bloody well killfilter the files you don't want to see. Don't tell
others that they can't post 'em.


Post in resolutions that require no more than (my arbitrary limit) of 250
KB. You have to remember that many people do not have broadband
connections, and are not able to, either by limitations of money or distance
from telephone switches for DSL or by the lack of cable systems in their
neighborhoods that offer cable modems.


Tough.


I hope you reconsider, and can continue within the limitations that many on
the group have expressed as deal killers for them.





Have another drink, your post show your soused.

Probably just fed up of twits like yourself.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Intercourse prevents divorce.