Missing parts for NASA HiRes Shuttle Pics - NASA HiRes Shuttle Pics.part140.rar (01/35)

"Lee" wrote

J3... You are now officially the man of the year. PLEASE post
the Mercury and Gemini stuff first!!! Pictures of those projects
are my own personal porn. I get off on the early stuff.

So why not go directly to the NASA site, and get them all first hand, in the
order that you want them?

J3- Please don't act out in reaction to the criticism, by posting all the
space stuff, like you just announced. You don't have to try and prove
anything.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
news

So why not go directly to the NASA site, and get them all first hand,
in the order that you want them?


Once again, for *at least* the fifth time that I'm aware of...

Not all of the pictures collected and posted by J3 are NASA PIO stuff!!
Many are from private collections, affiliated contractors, universities,
et al, etc., ad nasueum.

If he posts them as he says (for those who pay attention) when and where
possible, the projects will be separated into groups of Mercury, Gemini,
Apollo... et al, etc., ad naseum.

I would suggest you kill-file J3 for a few months, if not, please refrain
from ****ing and moaning... you were warned.

And for those fearing that other posts will be knocked off, get a premium
service that has retention. I have NewsGuy. It may not be the big dog,
but in many newsgroups, I can go back about 6 months.

Lee" wrote in message
.82...

And for those fearing that other posts will be knocked off, get a premium
service that has retention. I have NewsGuy. It may not be the big dog,
but in many newsgroups, I can go back about 6 months.

Why should we wait for six months to download an image that was posted
yesterday?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:25:55 -0400, Alan Erskine wrote
(in article ):

Lee" wrote in message
.82...

And for those fearing that other posts will be knocked off, get a premium
service that has retention. I have NewsGuy. It may not be the big dog,
but in many newsgroups, I can go back about 6 months.

Why should we wait for six months to download an image that was posted
yesterday?



You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Newsguy will _retain
binaries_ for _at least 90 days, often as long as 180 days_. That means that
_anything posted_, by _anyone_, to _any binary group that Newsguy carries_,
including _this one_, will be available for a minimum of _90 days_. Anyone
who says that J3's stuff 'knocks off' other posts is either vastly ignorant
or merely lying. Newsguy, and other newsfeeds such as Giganews, routinely
keep binaries for _months_.

To make it clear enough even for those who have room temperature IQs: _every
single binary posted on this newsgroup for the last 90 to 180 days is
available on Newsguy right now_. Giganews will store at least 200 days worth
of binaries. You do NOT have to wait six months, you can get them today...
but if you missed one, you have up to six months to go and search for it!

Of course, that is a rather large number of posts to search through. You
might need a, ahem, _real newsreader_ with _real filtering_ and _automation_
to go through all those posts and find the one you want, unless you want to
sped an inordinate amount of time doing it by hand. Hmm. You're using MSOE.
Oops. Sucks to be you. Guess you do it by hand... assuming that MSOE can even
handle that number of posts, which is something I don't know and simply don't
care about.

"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
To make it clear enough even for those who have room temperature IQs:

Actually, junior; I've got an IQ of 151 (WAIS III, November 17, 2001).

"Alan Erskine" wrote in news:OJDpk.28882
:

"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
To make it clear enough even for those who have room temperature IQs:

Actually, junior; I've got an IQ of 151 (WAIS III, November 17, 2001).



And I've known *many* folks with as high or higher IQ's than your arbitrary
"everything's relative" quotient, who couldn't tie their own shoes...
junior. I've read many of your follow-up postings in this group. You
might consider a re-test. Just a suggestion, hon.

Without checking, I think it was Will Rogers who said, "Everyone is
ignorant about something." Welcome to splits, PARs and RARs.

"Lee" wrote in message
.93...

Without checking, I think it was Will Rogers who said, "Everyone is
ignorant about something." Welcome to splits, PARs and RARs.

Technology changes; the technology concerning the internet has changed
radically, with all sorts of different formats coming and going. Only a few
have stood the test of time - .rar and .par are only recent and are only
used to post large numbers of files in one piece.

Oh, and I was one of the people who helped explain .rar to those on this
group who didn't know. So, what am I ignorant of?

One of the things that hasn't been mentioned is that there are different
..rar decompressors for different operating systems. That is not a problem
with conventional files like .jpg etc which are recognised by all current
operating systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.rar explains the various
versions. Now, if it were that good, why don't all the OS companies simply
incorporate it into their software?

Just like with yEnc - welcome to the world of fad software.

"Lee" wrote in message
.93...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in news:OJDpk.28882
:

"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
To make it clear enough even for those who have room temperature IQs:

Actually, junior; I've got an IQ of 151 (WAIS III, November 17, 2001).



And I've known *many* folks with as high or higher IQ's than your
arbitrary
"everything's relative" quotient, who couldn't tie their own shoes...
junior. I've read many of your follow-up postings in this group. You
might consider a re-test. Just a suggestion, hon.

And for your information, there are different IQ tests; each with a
different rating (one one test, I might be 185; but on another I might be
137); the really significant value is the percentage - I'm in the 99th
percentile for my age group - that's the top 1 percent. People in that
range don't have trouble tying their own shoes. I doubt very strongly that
you know anyone in my range of IQ, let alone someone in that range who has
trouble with their shoe laces.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:20:47 -0400, Lee wrote
(in article ):

"Alan Erskine" wrote in news:OJDpk.28882
:

"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
To make it clear enough even for those who have room temperature IQs:

Actually, junior; I've got an IQ of 151 (WAIS III, November 17, 2001).



And I've known *many* folks with as high or higher IQ's than your arbitrary
"everything's relative" quotient, who couldn't tie their own shoes...
junior.

I suspect that he _thinks_ (if what he does can be called thought...) that I
am considerably younger than I am. Clue for the clueless: I've been on USENET
since 1994, and before that I had spent years on various BBSes.

I've read many of your follow-up postings in this group. You
might consider a re-test. Just a suggestion, hon.

I doubt very much that he's ever had an IQ test.


Without checking, I think it was Will Rogers who said, "Everyone is
ignorant about something." Welcome to splits, PARs and RARs.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:01:34 -0400, Alan Erskine wrote
(in article ):

"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
To make it clear enough even for those who have room temperature IQs:

Actually, junior; I've got an IQ of 151 (WAIS III, November 17, 2001).



I doubt that very much. If you did, you'd not have made such a truly idiotic
post.