J3 - ENOUGH!!!

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:50:11 -0400, Alan Erskine wrote
(in article ):

"hielan' laddie" wrote in message
...
He didn't do a damn thing other than post a few .rars. Precisely because
you
have an inadequate newsreader, you saw _each separate part_ as a different
post. Precisely because _I_ have a real newsreader, _I_ saw the posts as
one.
Instead of 35 parts of a .rar, I saw a .rar. Those who had real
newsreaders
simply did not see the 'clutter' that those who have crippled newsreaders
saw. The problem is not J3. The problem is your crippled newsreader.

No, the problem was J3; he intentionally disrupted the majority of the users
of this forum, with images that aren't even his, and posting them in a
format that isn't known by most of the users of this forum. He could have
respected the majority of the users of this forum by simply posting links
for such a large group of images, or setting up his own website. Or, he
could have simply done as I suggested - post a few at a time (I suggested
between 4 and 40).

I don't think that you realise quite how many pix where in that collection.


Oh and the vast majority of users of this forum use the same "crippled
newsreader" that I use.

Popularity doesn't make it any less crippled.

It's not just me, or a small number of people who
were inconvenienced by J3, it was the overwhelming majority.

Tough. If you used a real newsreader you would have had no problems.


As for my question about video players; you still have to have the codecs.

For some formats. Not all. Standard .mpgs play just fine without any codecs
using Hogwasher and MTNW. I've never tried with Agent, so I don't know about
that app. Other video formats, especially some varieties of .avis, require
codecs.

Pix do not. I say again, pix do not.

If someone uploads a vid to a newsgroup, I can still click on it and play
it, as long as I have the right player (RealPlayer plays all but QT as far
as I have found).

I don't even need the player.


And I didn't say I didn't like J3's stuff; it was the quantity that bugs me,
not the format. Most people come here expecting to see pictures (that's the
name of the group, afterall - quite specific about it, really); .rar's
aren't pictures, they are a method of posting a large store of individual
images in one folder-like package.

Yes, they do. They make it convenient to upload, and, if you have a real
newsreader, download a large amount of data. That is precisely the point
behind using .rars.

Mitchell does quite will just with
.jpg/jpeg format and so have all previous posters.

I repeat: you don't seem to realise just how many pix there were in that
collection. At 40/day it would have taken nearly four months to upload
them... and, as many of them would be sufficiently large that they'd have to
be split up to upload anyway, the screams of 'clutter' would have been
deafening.

Considering the number
of parts, he could have just as easily posted individual images, just like
Mitchell does; there are methods of multiple posts, but I've never had a
need to use them.

Actually, no, not really. And, again, if you had a real newsreader _you would
not have seen the individual parts, you would have seen just one file... and
would have easily been able to download or kill that one file at will_.

Your problem is your crippled newsreader.


I don't have any delusions of any kind.

You have delusions that your newsreader isn't crippled.

The group name includes "pictures"
in its title; there is a multi-media group as well, if someone wishes to
post video or audio.

These are individual pix. They're not audio or video.


As I said before, I can control exactly what I see (you support that view
also), so why do you mention this again ("One reason why _I_ use a real
newsreader is _precisely_ so that I have _complete_ control over what _I_
see in the newsgroup. If I don't want to see something, that something is
_gone_. Unlike some, I _don't care if anyone else sees it_. I only care that
_I_ don't.")?

Then killfilter the files. Problem done.


As for yEnc, it's used by porno posters for the very reason that it's not
very popular - most people, again the vast majority, won't be able to decode
it.

Bull****. Anyone who uses a real newsreader can decode it.