Can anybody out there in PC Land please tell me how to unencrypt the NASA
pics so I can also enjoy them?

Phil

> Can anybody out there in PC Land please tell me how to unencrypt the NASA
> pics so I can also enjoy them?
>
> Phil

All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses and give it
a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this site
http://gperavguslive.info/.

I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what ever.
Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.

Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever consider
dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't care how good they
are reported to be.

So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned of the
Dark Side.

Good luck.

Les

"ABLE_1" > wrote in
:

>> Can anybody out there in PC Land please tell me how to unencrypt the
>> NASA pics so I can also enjoy them?
>>
>> Phil
>
> All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses and
> give it a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this site
> http://gperavguslive.info/.
>
> I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what ever.
> Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.
>
> Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever consider
> dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't care how good
> they are reported to be.
>
> So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned of
> the Dark Side.
>
> Good luck.



Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
and they will be the universal standard for years to come.

IMHO, that is............

>
> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>
> IMHO, that is............



AMEN!!!!!!!!

Mitchell Holman > wrote in
:

>>
>> All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses and
>> give it a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this site
>> http://gperavguslive.info/.
>>
>> I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what ever.
>> Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.
>>
>> Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever consider
>> dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't care how good
>> they are reported to be.
>>
>> So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned of
>> the Dark Side.
>>
>> Good luck.
>
>
>
> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>
> IMHO, that is............





Mitchell, as one of your biggest fans, it bothers me to have to say this...
but you are yelling "Fire" in the crowded theatre. Shame on you!!

You and the other guy (who "says" he got the virus) are not helping matters
at all, in fact, what you have said in haste regarding RAR is counter-
productive at the very least. What few little rabbits who might have taken
a chance to learn how to work with RARs/PARs have been frightened off, for
no telling how long.

By phrasing your statements as you did, both of you scared the ignorant
away from using an improved way of sending/receiving large amounts of
information over the net.

WinRar was not the reason he got a bug... he got it from a site preying on
the unlearned and unguarded, who wanted to learn. WinRAR was the bait.
The same could happen if someone was searching for information on how to
convert .BMP files to .JPG.

WinRAR had nothing to do with getting a bug, only his ****-poor choice of
sites from which to learn. Lesson learned. Do not to go to some brand X
site for information (or at least keep you prophylactic fresh). There are
plenty of reputable places (e.g. C-Net, PC World) to learn something about
all things digital.

Just 'cause Google places a site in the first few entries, doesn't mean
it's a nice place. Google doesn't give a **** about your virus
protection... but they do care about incoming dollars.

You know yourself how ****y this group can be, Mitchell. Now, for more
years to come, they will all blame the evils of WinRAR for the downfall of
Roman Empire, the Tunguska blast and the reason their pricks don't stay
hard. JeebusGawd, now there is *another* wicked-evil that goes bump in the
night (along with the mere mention of that boogie-man, YEnc).

You also know about the howls of anguish from this lot if a picture does
not match their standards. (Of course those standards are subject to change
at their whim or the day of the week)

These HiRez Shuttle pics would have them screaming bloody murder if they
came over the wire as a JPG. Just imagine the audacity of having to make
one of these guys join a multi-part picture. Better yet, if you could get
such a photo across the wire in one part... then they'd be bitching that
"it takes too long" or "it's too big"

Damned if you do...

Rather than staying perched on this soap box, I'll close by pointing out
that this group, as a whole, would be a perfect comparison to the current
crisis in our public education system.

The ones who learn and are willing to do so, must continually slow down to
the speed of those unwilling or incapable of learning. Rather than having
the slow ones work harder and learn more, we continue to dumb down the
group to the lowest denominator. The real ****er are the calls for a
burning at the stake when anyone shows a little imagination, change or
initiative.

ABPA-holes.

"Lee" > wrote in message
. 89...
> Mitchell Holman > wrote in
> :
>
>>>
>>> All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses and
>>> give it a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this site
>>> http://gperavguslive.info/.
>>>
>>> I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what ever.
>>> Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.
>>>
>>> Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever consider
>>> dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't care how good
>>> they are reported to be.
>>>
>>> So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned of
>>> the Dark Side.
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
>> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
>> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
>> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>>
>> IMHO, that is............
>
>
>
>
>
> Mitchell, as one of your biggest fans, it bothers me to have to say
> this...
> but you are yelling "Fire" in the crowded theatre. Shame on you!!
>
> You and the other guy (who "says" he got the virus) are not helping
> matters
> at all, in fact, what you have said in haste regarding RAR is counter-
> productive at the very least. What few little rabbits who might have
> taken
> a chance to learn how to work with RARs/PARs have been frightened off, for
> no telling how long.
>
> By phrasing your statements as you did, both of you scared the ignorant
> away from using an improved way of sending/receiving large amounts of
> information over the net.
>
> WinRar was not the reason he got a bug... he got it from a site preying on
> the unlearned and unguarded, who wanted to learn. WinRAR was the bait.
> The same could happen if someone was searching for information on how to
> convert .BMP files to .JPG.
>
> WinRAR had nothing to do with getting a bug, only his ****-poor choice of
> sites from which to learn. Lesson learned. Do not to go to some brand X
> site for information (or at least keep you prophylactic fresh). There are
> plenty of reputable places (e.g. C-Net, PC World) to learn something about
> all things digital.
>
> Just 'cause Google places a site in the first few entries, doesn't mean
> it's a nice place. Google doesn't give a **** about your virus
> protection... but they do care about incoming dollars.
>
> You know yourself how ****y this group can be, Mitchell. Now, for more
> years to come, they will all blame the evils of WinRAR for the downfall of
> Roman Empire, the Tunguska blast and the reason their pricks don't stay
> hard. JeebusGawd, now there is *another* wicked-evil that goes bump in the
> night (along with the mere mention of that boogie-man, YEnc).
>
> You also know about the howls of anguish from this lot if a picture does
> not match their standards. (Of course those standards are subject to
> change
> at their whim or the day of the week)
>
> These HiRez Shuttle pics would have them screaming bloody murder if they
> came over the wire as a JPG. Just imagine the audacity of having to make
> one of these guys join a multi-part picture. Better yet, if you could get
> such a photo across the wire in one part... then they'd be bitching that
> "it takes too long" or "it's too big"
>
> Damned if you do...
>
> Rather than staying perched on this soap box, I'll close by pointing out
> that this group, as a whole, would be a perfect comparison to the current
> crisis in our public education system.
>
> The ones who learn and are willing to do so, must continually slow down to
> the speed of those unwilling or incapable of learning. Rather than having
> the slow ones work harder and learn more, we continue to dumb down the
> group to the lowest denominator. The real ****er are the calls for a
> burning at the stake when anyone shows a little imagination, change or
> initiative.
>
> ABPA-holes.

I never thought that my simple request could generate such responses.
To all the nerdy nerdy git farts out there who are obviously very, very
computer literate
I am a simple PC user who wants to enjoy looking at and collecting plane
pics etc.If those of
you who consider that helping others is "dumbing" down to the lowest common
denomitor
then I pity your insolence and wish I was as smart.

So if there is anyone who can assist without insulting me and others I would
be grateful to hear from you.

Phil

"Phil Hoare" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lee" > wrote in message
> . 89...
>> Mitchell Holman > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>>
>>>> All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses and
>>>> give it a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this site
>>>> http://gperavguslive.info/.
>>>>
>>>> I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what
>>>> ever.
>>>> Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.
>>>>
>>>> Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever
>>>> consider
>>>> dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't care how good
>>>> they are reported to be.
>>>>
>>>> So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned of
>>>> the Dark Side.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
>>> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
>>> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
>>> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>>>
>>> IMHO, that is............
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mitchell, as one of your biggest fans, it bothers me to have to say
>> this...
>> but you are yelling "Fire" in the crowded theatre. Shame on you!!
>>
>> You and the other guy (who "says" he got the virus) are not helping
>> matters
>> at all, in fact, what you have said in haste regarding RAR is counter-
>> productive at the very least. What few little rabbits who might have
>> taken
>> a chance to learn how to work with RARs/PARs have been frightened off,
>> for
>> no telling how long.
>>
>> By phrasing your statements as you did, both of you scared the ignorant
>> away from using an improved way of sending/receiving large amounts of
>> information over the net.
>>
>> WinRar was not the reason he got a bug... he got it from a site preying
>> on
>> the unlearned and unguarded, who wanted to learn. WinRAR was the bait.
>> The same could happen if someone was searching for information on how to
>> convert .BMP files to .JPG.
>>
>> WinRAR had nothing to do with getting a bug, only his ****-poor choice of
>> sites from which to learn. Lesson learned. Do not to go to some brand X
>> site for information (or at least keep you prophylactic fresh). There are
>> plenty of reputable places (e.g. C-Net, PC World) to learn something
>> about
>> all things digital.
>>
>> Just 'cause Google places a site in the first few entries, doesn't mean
>> it's a nice place. Google doesn't give a **** about your virus
>> protection... but they do care about incoming dollars.
>>
>> You know yourself how ****y this group can be, Mitchell. Now, for more
>> years to come, they will all blame the evils of WinRAR for the downfall
>> of
>> Roman Empire, the Tunguska blast and the reason their pricks don't stay
>> hard. JeebusGawd, now there is *another* wicked-evil that goes bump in
>> the
>> night (along with the mere mention of that boogie-man, YEnc).
>>
>> You also know about the howls of anguish from this lot if a picture does
>> not match their standards. (Of course those standards are subject to
>> change
>> at their whim or the day of the week)
>>
>> These HiRez Shuttle pics would have them screaming bloody murder if they
>> came over the wire as a JPG. Just imagine the audacity of having to make
>> one of these guys join a multi-part picture. Better yet, if you could
>> get
>> such a photo across the wire in one part... then they'd be bitching that
>> "it takes too long" or "it's too big"
>>
>> Damned if you do...
>>
>> Rather than staying perched on this soap box, I'll close by pointing out
>> that this group, as a whole, would be a perfect comparison to the current
>> crisis in our public education system.
>>
>> The ones who learn and are willing to do so, must continually slow down
>> to
>> the speed of those unwilling or incapable of learning. Rather than having
>> the slow ones work harder and learn more, we continue to dumb down the
>> group to the lowest denominator. The real ****er are the calls for a
>> burning at the stake when anyone shows a little imagination, change or
>> initiative.
>>
>> ABPA-holes.
>
> I never thought that my simple request could generate such responses.
> To all the nerdy nerdy git farts out there who are obviously very, very
> computer literate
> I am a simple PC user who wants to enjoy looking at and collecting plane
> pics etc.If those of
> you who consider that helping others is "dumbing" down to the lowest
> common denomitor
> then I pity your insolence and wish I was as smart.
>
> So if there is anyone who can assist without insulting me and others I
> would
> be grateful to hear from you.
>
> Phil
>And yes I cannot spell "denominator" either!!

FWIW, I was not saying that WINrar was the problem with me getting a the
?Virus?. I was saying that for those that need, want to, or thinking about
doing a DL need to be cautious. I posted the site that hit me so that
others could avoid the same fate. I thought I was doing a service to
others. The fact that I got burned and the aftermath of wasted time told me
that the challenge was not worth my time anymore. So I will not take that
path again. Lesson learned.

The most frustrating thing is that my "Virus Protection" was and is up to
date. I even ran a scan after it happened and it came up that my system was
clean????? Ended up re-loading a full system C:\ backup and all was better.

I have learned thru life that once a problem is corrected it is sometimes
not worth the effort to try to figure out why it happened in the first
place. It is far better to: 1) don't go there again 2) forget about it.

I have used the "Combined and Decode" function of OE for large files that it
will work on and it is not a problem.

I do enjoy the aviation pictures for viewing only (not collecting) and yes I
am a lurker and have not contributed. I think that I am allowed to do that.
Kill file me as you see fit, it is ok. Life goes on.

Thanks to all for the comments of whatever. Sorry, I may have ruffed any
feathers.

I will go back to lurking now so have a nice day.

Les








>>>
>>> All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses and
>>> give it a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this site
>>> http://gperavguslive.info/.
>>>
>>> I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what ever.
>>> Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.
>>>
>>> Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever consider
>>> dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't care how good
>>> they are reported to be.
>>>
>>> So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned of
>>> the Dark Side.
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
>> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
>> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
>> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>>
>> IMHO, that is............
>
>
>
>
>
> Mitchell, as one of your biggest fans, it bothers me to have to say
> this...
> but you are yelling "Fire" in the crowded theatre. Shame on you!!
>
> You and the other guy (who "says" he got the virus) are not helping
> matters
> at all, in fact, what you have said in haste regarding RAR is counter-
> productive at the very least. What few little rabbits who might have
> taken
> a chance to learn how to work with RARs/PARs have been frightened off, for
> no telling how long.
>
> By phrasing your statements as you did, both of you scared the ignorant
> away from using an improved way of sending/receiving large amounts of
> information over the net.
>
> WinRar was not the reason he got a bug... he got it from a site preying on
> the unlearned and unguarded, who wanted to learn. WinRAR was the bait.
> The same could happen if someone was searching for information on how to
> convert .BMP files to .JPG.
>
> WinRAR had nothing to do with getting a bug, only his ****-poor choice of
> sites from which to learn. Lesson learned. Do not to go to some brand X
> site for information (or at least keep you prophylactic fresh). There are
> plenty of reputable places (e.g. C-Net, PC World) to learn something about
> all things digital.
>
> Just 'cause Google places a site in the first few entries, doesn't mean
> it's a nice place. Google doesn't give a **** about your virus
> protection... but they do care about incoming dollars.
>
> You know yourself how ****y this group can be, Mitchell. Now, for more
> years to come, they will all blame the evils of WinRAR for the downfall of
> Roman Empire, the Tunguska blast and the reason their pricks don't stay
> hard. JeebusGawd, now there is *another* wicked-evil that goes bump in the
> night (along with the mere mention of that boogie-man, YEnc).
>
> You also know about the howls of anguish from this lot if a picture does
> not match their standards. (Of course those standards are subject to
> change
> at their whim or the day of the week)
>
> These HiRez Shuttle pics would have them screaming bloody murder if they
> came over the wire as a JPG. Just imagine the audacity of having to make
> one of these guys join a multi-part picture. Better yet, if you could get
> such a photo across the wire in one part... then they'd be bitching that
> "it takes too long" or "it's too big"
>
> Damned if you do...
>
> Rather than staying perched on this soap box, I'll close by pointing out
> that this group, as a whole, would be a perfect comparison to the current
> crisis in our public education system.
>
> The ones who learn and are willing to do so, must continually slow down to
> the speed of those unwilling or incapable of learning. Rather than having
> the slow ones work harder and learn more, we continue to dumb down the
> group to the lowest denominator. The real ****er are the calls for a
> burning at the stake when anyone shows a little imagination, change or
> initiative.
>
> ABPA-holes.

"ABLE_1" > wrote

> The most frustrating thing is that my "Virus Protection" was and is up to
> date. I even ran a scan after it happened and it came up that my system
> was clean????? Ended up re-loading a full system C:\ backup and all was
> better.
>
A friend got a virus, and it was a smart one.

He could not revert to an earlier time, to get rid of it. He could restore
the system only to the day he got the virus. He has not cleaned his system,
using all the online resources he could find.

I have a feeling that only a re-format is going to do the job, but he has
software that he will not be able to get again, after a format.

Frustrating; some people have nothing better to do than to sit around and
write nasty virus code.
--
Jim in NC

JS3 is a ****ing ****head, he floods the newsgroup with hundreds of
posts in complete disregard of the wishes of the members of the
newsgroup. He could post jpg's 10 day and have compassion for the
older members of the newsgroup who don't have the time to learn new
ways of opening photos in formats they have no idea of what they are.
Joe.
On 12 Aug 2008 15:58:05 GMT, Lee >
wrote:

>Mitchell Holman > wrote in
:
>
>>>
>>> All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses and
>>> give it a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this site
>>> http://gperavguslive.info/.
>>>
>>> I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what ever.
>>> Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.
>>>
>>> Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever consider
>>> dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't care how good
>>> they are reported to be.
>>>
>>> So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned of
>>> the Dark Side.
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
>> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
>> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
>> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>>
>> IMHO, that is............
>
>
>
>
>
>Mitchell, as one of your biggest fans, it bothers me to have to say this...
>but you are yelling "Fire" in the crowded theatre. Shame on you!!
>
>You and the other guy (who "says" he got the virus) are not helping matters
>at all, in fact, what you have said in haste regarding RAR is counter-
>productive at the very least. What few little rabbits who might have taken
>a chance to learn how to work with RARs/PARs have been frightened off, for
>no telling how long.
>
>By phrasing your statements as you did, both of you scared the ignorant
>away from using an improved way of sending/receiving large amounts of
>information over the net.
>
>WinRar was not the reason he got a bug... he got it from a site preying on
>the unlearned and unguarded, who wanted to learn. WinRAR was the bait.
>The same could happen if someone was searching for information on how to
>convert .BMP files to .JPG.
>
>WinRAR had nothing to do with getting a bug, only his ****-poor choice of
>sites from which to learn. Lesson learned. Do not to go to some brand X
>site for information (or at least keep you prophylactic fresh). There are
>plenty of reputable places (e.g. C-Net, PC World) to learn something about
>all things digital.
>
>Just 'cause Google places a site in the first few entries, doesn't mean
>it's a nice place. Google doesn't give a **** about your virus
>protection... but they do care about incoming dollars.
>
>You know yourself how ****y this group can be, Mitchell. Now, for more
>years to come, they will all blame the evils of WinRAR for the downfall of
>Roman Empire, the Tunguska blast and the reason their pricks don't stay
>hard. JeebusGawd, now there is *another* wicked-evil that goes bump in the
>night (along with the mere mention of that boogie-man, YEnc).
>
>You also know about the howls of anguish from this lot if a picture does
>not match their standards. (Of course those standards are subject to change
>at their whim or the day of the week)
>
>These HiRez Shuttle pics would have them screaming bloody murder if they
>came over the wire as a JPG. Just imagine the audacity of having to make
>one of these guys join a multi-part picture. Better yet, if you could get
>such a photo across the wire in one part... then they'd be bitching that
>"it takes too long" or "it's too big"
>
>Damned if you do...
>
>Rather than staying perched on this soap box, I'll close by pointing out
>that this group, as a whole, would be a perfect comparison to the current
>crisis in our public education system.
>
>The ones who learn and are willing to do so, must continually slow down to
>the speed of those unwilling or incapable of learning. Rather than having
>the slow ones work harder and learn more, we continue to dumb down the
>group to the lowest denominator. The real ****er are the calls for a
>burning at the stake when anyone shows a little imagination, change or
>initiative.
>
>ABPA-holes.

Gentlemen, gentlemen I never intended to nor did I want to set off an
internal war of words over who
is or is not right. I simply wanted some direction as to how I could
unencrypt the NASA pics.

Joe you are right, I am an older member of the group and thou fairly pc
literate I am simply not
familiar with the various files and formats that JS3 has posted re the NASA
pics. So I have no
idea of even how to go about opening them. Hence my original question to the
group.
At the end of the day I would have thought that we are all subscribers to
the aviation newsgroup
as we have a love of planes and associated issues (with the odd hangar queen
thrown in for good measure)
- see I do have a sense of humour!!. So intrenal bickering solves nothing!!

So I will say bye bye to the nasa pics and watch with interest for the next
installments of good pics re planes etc.
Phil


"Joseph Testagrose" > wrote in message
...
> JS3 is a ****ing ****head, he floods the newsgroup with hundreds of
> posts in complete disregard of the wishes of the members of the
> newsgroup. He could post jpg's 10 day and have compassion for the
> older members of the newsgroup who don't have the time to learn new
> ways of opening photos in formats they have no idea of what they are.
> Joe.
> On 12 Aug 2008 15:58:05 GMT, Lee >
> wrote:
>
>>Mitchell Holman > wrote in
:
>>
>>>>
>>>> All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses and
>>>> give it a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this site
>>>> http://gperavguslive.info/.
>>>>
>>>> I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what
>>>> ever.
>>>> Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.
>>>>
>>>> Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever
>>>> consider
>>>> dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't care how good
>>>> they are reported to be.
>>>>
>>>> So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned of
>>>> the Dark Side.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
>>> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
>>> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
>>> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>>>
>>> IMHO, that is............
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Mitchell, as one of your biggest fans, it bothers me to have to say
>>this...
>>but you are yelling "Fire" in the crowded theatre. Shame on you!!
>>
>>You and the other guy (who "says" he got the virus) are not helping
>>matters
>>at all, in fact, what you have said in haste regarding RAR is counter-
>>productive at the very least. What few little rabbits who might have
>>taken
>>a chance to learn how to work with RARs/PARs have been frightened off, for
>>no telling how long.
>>
>>By phrasing your statements as you did, both of you scared the ignorant
>>away from using an improved way of sending/receiving large amounts of
>>information over the net.
>>
>>WinRar was not the reason he got a bug... he got it from a site preying on
>>the unlearned and unguarded, who wanted to learn. WinRAR was the bait.
>>The same could happen if someone was searching for information on how to
>>convert .BMP files to .JPG.
>>
>>WinRAR had nothing to do with getting a bug, only his ****-poor choice of
>>sites from which to learn. Lesson learned. Do not to go to some brand X
>>site for information (or at least keep you prophylactic fresh). There are
>>plenty of reputable places (e.g. C-Net, PC World) to learn something about
>>all things digital.
>>
>>Just 'cause Google places a site in the first few entries, doesn't mean
>>it's a nice place. Google doesn't give a **** about your virus
>>protection... but they do care about incoming dollars.
>>
>>You know yourself how ****y this group can be, Mitchell. Now, for more
>>years to come, they will all blame the evils of WinRAR for the downfall of
>>Roman Empire, the Tunguska blast and the reason their pricks don't stay
>>hard. JeebusGawd, now there is *another* wicked-evil that goes bump in the
>>night (along with the mere mention of that boogie-man, YEnc).
>>
>>You also know about the howls of anguish from this lot if a picture does
>>not match their standards. (Of course those standards are subject to
>>change
>>at their whim or the day of the week)
>>
>>These HiRez Shuttle pics would have them screaming bloody murder if they
>>came over the wire as a JPG. Just imagine the audacity of having to make
>>one of these guys join a multi-part picture. Better yet, if you could get
>>such a photo across the wire in one part... then they'd be bitching that
>>"it takes too long" or "it's too big"
>>
>>Damned if you do...
>>
>>Rather than staying perched on this soap box, I'll close by pointing out
>>that this group, as a whole, would be a perfect comparison to the current
>>crisis in our public education system.
>>
>>The ones who learn and are willing to do so, must continually slow down to
>>the speed of those unwilling or incapable of learning. Rather than having
>>the slow ones work harder and learn more, we continue to dumb down the
>>group to the lowest denominator. The real ****er are the calls for a
>>burning at the stake when anyone shows a little imagination, change or
>>initiative.
>>
>>ABPA-holes.
>

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:36:13 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"ABLE_1" > wrote
>
>> The most frustrating thing is that my "Virus Protection" was and is up to
>> date. I even ran a scan after it happened and it came up that my system
>> was clean????? Ended up re-loading a full system C:\ backup and all was
>> better.
>>
> A friend got a virus, and it was a smart one.
>
>He could not revert to an earlier time, to get rid of it. He could restore
>the system only to the day he got the virus. He has not cleaned his system,
>using all the online resources he could find.
>
>I have a feeling that only a re-format is going to do the job, but he has
>software that he will not be able to get again, after a format.
>
>Frustrating; some people have nothing better to do than to sit around and
>write nasty virus code.

Worst one I saw was a machine where the virus had dsabled the ability
to copy files!
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A waiter brings the customer the steak he ordered with his thumb over the meat.
"Are you crazy?" yelled the customer, "with your hand on my steak?"
"What" answers the waiter, "You want it to fall on the floor again?"

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:04:13 -0400, "ABLE_1"
> wrote:

>All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses and give it
>a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this site
>http://gperavguslive.info/.
>
>I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what ever.
>Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.
>
>Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever consider
>dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't care how good they
>are reported to be.
>
>So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned of the
>Dark Side.

Well, Les -since you used google- if you had clicked on the FIRST
non-ad link to http://www.rarlab.com/, you would have found the home
of WinRAR. I'm guessing you focused on the word FREE for the link you
cited. Yep, I'm sure they'll let you download the trial version for
FREE, just like rarlab.com will. By the way, the most recent (Aug 2)
announced version is 3.80 beta, so I would be sceptical of
gperavguslive's advertisement of a version 3.82.

I purchased a liscense several years ago, and have had precisely ZERO
issues with virii, trojans, or anything else.

Sorry. This thread is starting to go off-topic, but for those who are
honestly thinking of trying WinRAR, I felt obliged to debunk the above
bilge. WinRAR is a well-known, reliable archive utility. To repeat,
I've used it for years and can assure you it's trustworthy.

Of course, it helps if you try the company website first, no?

"ABLE_1" > schreef in bericht
...
> >
>> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
>> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
>> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
>> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>>
>> IMHO, that is............
>
>
>
> AMEN!!!!!!!!
>

So there are still sane people around.
Almost makes you believe there is still hope

Regards,
Herman

"Lee" > schreef in bericht
. 89...
> Mitchell Holman > wrote in
> :
>
>>>
>>> All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses and
>>> give it a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this site
>>> http://gperavguslive.info/.
>>>
>>> I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what ever.
>>> Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.
>>>
>>> Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever consider
>>> dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't care how good
>>> they are reported to be.
>>>
>>> So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned of
>>> the Dark Side.
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
>> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
>> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
>> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>>
>> IMHO, that is............
>
>
>
>
>
> Mitchell, as one of your biggest fans, it bothers me to have to say
> this...
> but you are yelling "Fire" in the crowded theatre. Shame on you!!
>
> You and the other guy (who "says" he got the virus) are not helping
> matters
> at all, in fact, what you have said in haste regarding RAR is counter-
> productive at the very least. What few little rabbits who might have
> taken
> a chance to learn how to work with RARs/PARs have been frightened off, for
> no telling how long.
>
> By phrasing your statements as you did, both of you scared the ignorant
> away from using an improved way of sending/receiving large amounts of
> information over the net.
>
> WinRar was not the reason he got a bug... he got it from a site preying on
> the unlearned and unguarded, who wanted to learn. WinRAR was the bait.
> The same could happen if someone was searching for information on how to
> convert .BMP files to .JPG.
>
> WinRAR had nothing to do with getting a bug, only his ****-poor choice of
> sites from which to learn. Lesson learned. Do not to go to some brand X
> site for information (or at least keep you prophylactic fresh). There are
> plenty of reputable places (e.g. C-Net, PC World) to learn something about
> all things digital.
>
> Just 'cause Google places a site in the first few entries, doesn't mean
> it's a nice place. Google doesn't give a **** about your virus
> protection... but they do care about incoming dollars.
>
> You know yourself how ****y this group can be, Mitchell. Now, for more
> years to come, they will all blame the evils of WinRAR for the downfall of
> Roman Empire, the Tunguska blast and the reason their pricks don't stay
> hard. JeebusGawd, now there is *another* wicked-evil that goes bump in the
> night (along with the mere mention of that boogie-man, YEnc).
>
> You also know about the howls of anguish from this lot if a picture does
> not match their standards. (Of course those standards are subject to
> change
> at their whim or the day of the week)
>
> These HiRez Shuttle pics would have them screaming bloody murder if they
> came over the wire as a JPG. Just imagine the audacity of having to make
> one of these guys join a multi-part picture. Better yet, if you could get
> such a photo across the wire in one part... then they'd be bitching that
> "it takes too long" or "it's too big"
>
> Damned if you do...
>
> Rather than staying perched on this soap box, I'll close by pointing out
> that this group, as a whole, would be a perfect comparison to the current
> crisis in our public education system.
>
> The ones who learn and are willing to do so, must continually slow down to
> the speed of those unwilling or incapable of learning. Rather than having
> the slow ones work harder and learn more, we continue to dumb down the
> group to the lowest denominator. The real ****er are the calls for a
> burning at the stake when anyone shows a little imagination, change or
> initiative.
>
> ABPA-holes.

That was not his point.
He merely pointed out his personal view that he saw no reason to stray from
JPEG. What is wrong with that?
If anybody else wants to do differently, go right ahead.

The problem at this point is that J3 is choking the NG with thousands of
posts.
It would be mucht better and less irritating if he opened a website with his
pictures and merely posted a link.

Regards,
Herman

"Herman" > wrote in
b.home.nl:

>
> "Lee" > schreef in bericht
> . 89...
>> Mitchell Holman > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>>
>>>> All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses
>>>> and give it a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this
>>>> site http://gperavguslive.info/.
>>>>
>>>> I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what
>>>> ever. Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.
>>>>
>>>> Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever
>>>> consider dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't
>>>> care how good they are reported to be.
>>>>
>>>> So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned
>>>> of the Dark Side.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
>>> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
>>> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
>>> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>>>
>>> IMHO, that is............
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mitchell, as one of your biggest fans, it bothers me to have to say
>> this...
>> but you are yelling "Fire" in the crowded theatre. Shame on you!!
>>
>> You and the other guy (who "says" he got the virus) are not helping
>> matters
>> at all, in fact, what you have said in haste regarding RAR is
>> counter- productive at the very least. What few little rabbits who
>> might have taken
>> a chance to learn how to work with RARs/PARs have been frightened
>> off, for no telling how long.
>>
>> By phrasing your statements as you did, both of you scared the
>> ignorant away from using an improved way of sending/receiving large
>> amounts of information over the net.
>>
>> WinRar was not the reason he got a bug... he got it from a site
>> preying on the unlearned and unguarded, who wanted to learn. WinRAR
>> was the bait. The same could happen if someone was searching for
>> information on how to convert .BMP files to .JPG.
>>
>> WinRAR had nothing to do with getting a bug, only his ****-poor
>> choice of sites from which to learn. Lesson learned. Do not to go to
>> some brand X site for information (or at least keep you prophylactic
>> fresh). There are plenty of reputable places (e.g. C-Net, PC World)
>> to learn something about all things digital.
>>
>> Just 'cause Google places a site in the first few entries, doesn't
>> mean it's a nice place. Google doesn't give a **** about your virus
>> protection... but they do care about incoming dollars.
>>
>> You know yourself how ****y this group can be, Mitchell. Now, for
>> more years to come, they will all blame the evils of WinRAR for the
>> downfall of Roman Empire, the Tunguska blast and the reason their
>> pricks don't stay hard. JeebusGawd, now there is *another*
>> wicked-evil that goes bump in the night (along with the mere mention
>> of that boogie-man, YEnc).
>>
>> You also know about the howls of anguish from this lot if a picture
>> does not match their standards. (Of course those standards are
>> subject to change
>> at their whim or the day of the week)
>>
>> These HiRez Shuttle pics would have them screaming bloody murder if
>> they came over the wire as a JPG. Just imagine the audacity of having
>> to make one of these guys join a multi-part picture. Better yet, if
>> you could get such a photo across the wire in one part... then they'd
>> be bitching that "it takes too long" or "it's too big"
>>
>> Damned if you do...
>>
>> Rather than staying perched on this soap box, I'll close by pointing
>> out that this group, as a whole, would be a perfect comparison to the
>> current crisis in our public education system.
>>
>> The ones who learn and are willing to do so, must continually slow
>> down to the speed of those unwilling or incapable of learning. Rather
>> than having the slow ones work harder and learn more, we continue to
>> dumb down the group to the lowest denominator. The real ****er are
>> the calls for a burning at the stake when anyone shows a little
>> imagination, change or initiative.
>>
>> ABPA-holes.
>
> That was not his point.
> He merely pointed out his personal view that he saw no reason to stray
> from JPEG. What is wrong with that?
> If anybody else wants to do differently, go right ahead.

(snip)

Herman, sir, J3 did not "stray" from JPGS. I have about 5 gigs of great
shots that (with the exception of one Power-Point file) prove it.

It is the delivery mode of the JPGS that everyone is jumping threw their
asses about.

Most of the gripes are about not having the inclination to learn how to
utilize this mode of delivery of JPGs. Some of the remaining gripes are
about the sheer number of them. Either way, I am inclined to quote the
first black President, and the favorite of many...

"Better put some ice on that."

"Herman" > wrote in message
b.home.nl...
>
> "ABLE_1" > schreef in bericht
> ...
>> >
>>> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
>>> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
>>> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
>>> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>>>
>>> IMHO, that is............
>>
>>
>>
>> AMEN!!!!!!!!
>>
>
> So there are still sane people around.
> Almost makes you believe there is still hope
>
> Regards,
> Herman
>Worry no further about the merits or otherwise of this whole affair, I have
>received assistance and an answer to my
original question, which has been totally lost in the ensuing melee of
comments. I now know how to open these files
thanks to another user of this site who took the time to undertsand what my
issues were and then has given me the answers.

Phil

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote

> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.

And although it is probably not said enough, thanks for your picture
selections that you post, and thanks for posting them in the manner that you
do.
--
Jim in NC

"Herman" > wrote

> The problem at this point is that J3 is choking the NG with thousands of
> posts.

He isn't chocking _my_ NG. <g> Not any more, anyway.

> It would be mucht better and less irritating if he opened a website with
> his pictures and merely posted a link.

Yep, anything would have been better.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote
>
>> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
>> They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
>> known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
>> and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>
> And although it is probably not said enough, thanks for your picture
> selections that you post, and thanks for posting them in the manner that
> you do.



Thanks for the feedback. I have been posting since the
dial-up days of the last century, when anything more than a
dozen images was "flooding" and would take so long that your
ISP was likely to cut out on you in mid-post. Ergo the indexes.
They aren't as popular as they used to be, when people really
needed to choose what images to download because of the time
involved. Old habits die hard with some of us............;)

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote

> Ergo the indexes.
> They aren't as popular as they used to be, when people really
> needed to choose what images to download because of the time
> involved. Old habits die hard with some of us............;)

Well, keep the index habit going strong! <g>

I have to admit that I do not download all of the bodies of your pictures.
Some subjects do not interest me, so much.

But, that said, I do download the index, and will often find a picture or
two (from subjects that I do not normally find interesting) that I want to
check out more closely.

Again, thanks to you (and to people that post like you) for making this
group one worth visiting daily.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Well, keep the index habit going strong! <g>
>
> I have to admit that I do not download all of the bodies of your pictures.
> Some subjects do not interest me, so much.
>
> But, that said, I do download the index, and will often find a picture or
> two (from subjects that I do not normally find interesting) that I want to
> check out more closely.

Which is precisely the idea behind the index - you can pick and choose what
you want. I concur that not all of Mitchell's posts interest me either, but
checking the indexes is an easy way of finding out what has been posted;
something that cannot be done with a .rar file.

I've been coming to this group since early 1999 and have seen all sorts of
things, including rants; abuse; spam; floods and even some very disgusting
images (one guy from what was Yugoslavia was posting images from the actual
server - they were images purported to be those of dead soldiers and pilots;
and another was an image of a man who had been litterally blown inside out
by the rupture of a high-pressure aircraft tire). Nothing surprises me
anymore, but some things still annoy the living .... heck .... out of me.

"Alan Erskine" > wrote

> and another was an image of a man who had been litterally blown inside out
> by the rupture of a high-pressure aircraft tire).

Yuck! Sounds truly tasteless.

Just how much pressure does a high pressure aircraft tire go up to?
--
Jim in NC

"B. Hedd" > wrote in
:


> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
> so?
>
> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?



Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?

The reason I think J3 did a good thing is that his stuff was high
resolution. This provides all kinds of answers to detail questions.

These pictures were also from sources other than the standard NASA PIO
stuff. He did a wonderful job putting this all together. If his flood was
too much for some, all they gotta do is ignore, or improve their computer
skills and subscription services. Before you give the usual response, I too
am on a fixed income.

99% of the aircraft pictures that populate this group are about the half
the size of the monitor screen before they pixelate.

Haven't you seen the bandwidth used in asking/answering numerous follow-up
detail questions? How about the number of questions requesting alternate
angle shots? J3's efforts provide angles/alternate views out the wazoo.

As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information.

So, you go ahead and admire for a fleeting moment the postings from this
group. I study them. Again, sorry to hurt your sensibilities.

"Lee" > schreef in bericht
.92...
> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
>> so?
>>
>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>
>
>
> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>
> The reason I think J3 did a good thing is that his stuff was high
> resolution. This provides all kinds of answers to detail questions.
>
> These pictures were also from sources other than the standard NASA PIO
> stuff. He did a wonderful job putting this all together. If his flood was
> too much for some, all they gotta do is ignore, or improve their computer
> skills and subscription services. Before you give the usual response, I
> too
> am on a fixed income.
>
> 99% of the aircraft pictures that populate this group are about the half
> the size of the monitor screen before they pixelate.
>
> Haven't you seen the bandwidth used in asking/answering numerous follow-up
> detail questions? How about the number of questions requesting alternate
> angle shots? J3's efforts provide angles/alternate views out the wazoo.
>
> As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
> since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information.
>
> So, you go ahead and admire for a fleeting moment the postings from this
> group. I study them. Again, sorry to hurt your sensibilities.

If you want high-res pictures of the earth, why not try Google Earth?
I have very detailed pictures of the Pentagon, just out of curiosity of
course :-)

Many places on earth can be viewed in astonishing detail.
No NG flooding, no mud-throwing, no name calling.

And one last thought on the subject: the name of the NG is
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation. IMHO this would indicate pictures of
aircraft in various shapes and attitudes. The space shuttle is firmly in the
realm of spaceflight.
Should there be no separate NG for shuttle pictures?

Regards,
Herman

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:04:12 +0200, "Herman"
> wrote:

>
>"Lee" > schreef in bericht
.92...
>> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
>>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
>>> so?
>>>
>>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
>> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>>
>> The reason I think J3 did a good thing is that his stuff was high
>> resolution. This provides all kinds of answers to detail questions.
>>
>> These pictures were also from sources other than the standard NASA PIO
>> stuff. He did a wonderful job putting this all together. If his flood was
>> too much for some, all they gotta do is ignore, or improve their computer
>> skills and subscription services. Before you give the usual response, I
>> too
>> am on a fixed income.
>>
>> 99% of the aircraft pictures that populate this group are about the half
>> the size of the monitor screen before they pixelate.
>>
>> Haven't you seen the bandwidth used in asking/answering numerous follow-up
>> detail questions? How about the number of questions requesting alternate
>> angle shots? J3's efforts provide angles/alternate views out the wazoo.
>>
>> As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
>> since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information.
>>
>> So, you go ahead and admire for a fleeting moment the postings from this
>> group. I study them. Again, sorry to hurt your sensibilities.
>
>If you want high-res pictures of the earth, why not try Google Earth?
>I have very detailed pictures of the Pentagon, just out of curiosity of
>course :-)
>
>Many places on earth can be viewed in astonishing detail.
>No NG flooding, no mud-throwing, no name calling.
>
>And one last thought on the subject: the name of the NG is
>alt.binaries.pictures.aviation. IMHO this would indicate pictures of
>aircraft in various shapes and attitudes. The space shuttle is firmly in the
>realm of spaceflight.
>Should there be no separate NG for shuttle pictures?

Just do what I do. If you don't like or want a particular post or
posts, skip past them.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Why was the "pap smear" called that?
If it'd been called the "**** Scrape," no one would ever have it done.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:58:51 -0500, "B. Hedd" > wrote:

>Lee wrote:
>
>> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
>>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
>>> so?
>>>
>>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
>> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>
>It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.
>
>I'm just curious as to what you do with them.

What he does in the privacy of his own home.... :-)
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

It was discovered on a space mission that a frog can throw
up. The frog throws up its stomach first, so the stomach is dangling out of
it’s mouth. Then the frog uses its forearms to dig out all of the
stomach’s contents and then swallows the stomach back down again.

I've been using Winrar for years - never had a problem.

Here is the website for Winrar - the REAL product.

http://www.rarlab.com/

Walter

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:03:51 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> wrote:

>"ABLE_1" > wrote in
:
>
>>> Can anybody out there in PC Land please tell me how to unencrypt the
>>> NASA pics so I can also enjoy them?
>>>
>>> Phil
>>
>> All I can offer is caution. I thought I would follow the masses and
>> give it a try. I did a Google on WINrar and then picked this site
>> http://gperavguslive.info/.
>>
>> I agree my stupid error. Ended up with a virus - trogon - or what ever.
>> Spent 9 hours of my present life getting rid of the POS.
>>
>> Life and computer is back to normal again and doubt I will ever consider
>> dealing with RAR or PAR files ever again. I really don't care how good
>> they are reported to be.
>>
>> So what ever you decide for your fate be aware you have been warned of
>> the Dark Side.
>>
>> Good luck.
>
>
>
> Personally I have never seen a reason to stray from jpegs.
>They don't carry viruses, they are read by every image viewer
>known to man, they can be resized and enhanced by even more,
>and they will be the universal standard for years to come.
>
> IMHO, that is............
>
>

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
(in article >):

> Lee wrote:
>
>> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
>>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
>>> so?
>>>
>>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
>> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>
> It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.
>
> I'm just curious as to what you do with them.
>
>

I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the way
he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.

"As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."

Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
particular systems in particular.

I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them to
make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and other
hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products, instead
of nekkid girls... sue me.)

J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through and
sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to find
any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.

But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough to
me.

It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going through
400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to look
at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos, and
then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for other
subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in your
snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill. You
have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything out.

And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
flood. It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly? how
many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so, I
guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for everyone
else.

It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for themselves,
they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
"whining".

So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.


"hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Lee wrote:
>>
>>> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>>>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
>>>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
>>>> so?
>>>>
>>>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
>>> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>>
>> It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.
>>
>> I'm just curious as to what you do with them.
>>
>>
>
> I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the
> way
> he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.
>
> "As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
> since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."
>
> Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
> particular systems in particular.
>
> I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them
> to
> make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
> other
> hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
> latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
> instead
> of nekkid girls... sue me.)
>
> J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
> and
> sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
> find
> any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.
>
> But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough
> to
> me.
>

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:07:38 -0400, Ron Monroe wrote
(in article >):

> It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going through
> 400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to look
> at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos, and
> then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for other
> subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in your
> snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill. You
> have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything out.

It's not 400-500 _posts_. It may be 400-500 _parts of posts_, and those who
have inadequate newsreaders see them as 400-500 posts, but that's their
problem. Get an adequate newsreader.

>
> And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
> flood.

Nope. You're right. Now, if you look really, really, REALLY closely, you
might be able to detect exactly how much I care.

> It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
> give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
> people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly? how
> many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so, I
> guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for everyone
> else.

It's more than that, and email is _really_ inconvenient. But you know that.
Given a choice between inconveniencing me and inconveniencing you, I pick
you. You no like? Me no care.

>
> It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for themselves,
> they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
> "whining".

You are.

>
> So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
> have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.

I think that you whingers are _funny_. I read your stuff 'cause it amuses me.
I reply for the same reason. My system automatically downloads the files I
want to download; I only have to scan through the newsgroup to see if there
was anything I hadn't set the system to download that I may have wanted. When
I do that, if I see some posts from a pack of whingers, I read 'em to see
what idiocy they've come up with this time. When you lot stop being funny,
I'll add an additional filter to my filter list, and killfilter each and
every text-only post from someone using MSOE that infests this group. Y'all
can then natter away to your heart's content, affecting me even less than you
do now.

>
>
> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>>>>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
>>>>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
>>>>> so?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
>>>> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>>>
>>> It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.
>>>
>>> I'm just curious as to what you do with them.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the
>> way
>> he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.
>>
>> "As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
>> since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."
>>
>> Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
>> particular systems in particular.
>>
>> I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them
>> to
>> make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
>> other
>> hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
>> latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
>> instead
>> of nekkid girls... sue me.)
>>
>> J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
>> and
>> sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
>> find
>> any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.
>>
>> But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough
>> to
>> me.
>>
>
>

Ron Monroe wrote:
> It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going through
> 400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to look
> at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos, and
> then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for other
> subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in your
> snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill. You
> have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything out.
>
> And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
> flood. It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
> give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
> people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly? how
> many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so, I
> guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for everyone
> else.
>
> It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for themselves,
> they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
> "whining".
>
> So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
> have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.
>
>
> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>> Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>>>>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
>>>>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
>>>>> so?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
>>>> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>>>>
>>> It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.
>>>
>>> I'm just curious as to what you do with them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the
>> way
>> he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.
>>
>> "As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
>> since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."
>>
>> Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
>> particular systems in particular.
>>
>> I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them
>> to
>> make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
>> other
>> hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
>> latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
>> instead
>> of nekkid girls... sue me.)
>>
>> J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
>> and
>> sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
>> find
>> any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.
>>
>> But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough
>> to
>> me.
>>
>>
>
>
>
I offered the suggestion he post them in alt.binaries.pictures.misc
It's an underused newsgroup and he can post to his hearts content there
and satisfy both those that want and those that do not.
Since "pictures newsgroups" do not have a "floods" group this is a
simple solution and he is still posting "on subject" in the misc group.
:o))
Win-Win situation.
All that he would need to do is tell us here in the group that he's
posting there.
A newsgroup is a newsgroup, what's the difference if he just posts them
in the misc group.

JRW

hielan' laddie wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:07:38 -0400, Ron Monroe wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>> It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going through
>> 400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to look
>> at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos, and
>> then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for other
>> subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in your
>> snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill. You
>> have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything out.
>>
>
> It's not 400-500 _posts_. It may be 400-500 _parts of posts_, and those who
> have inadequate newsreaders see them as 400-500 posts, but that's their
> problem. Get an adequate newsreader.
>
For someone that tells others not to tell others what to do, you sure do
a good job yourself. Look in the window McBeth.
>
>> And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
>> flood.
>>
>
> Nope. You're right. Now, if you look really, really, REALLY closely, you
> might be able to detect exactly how much I care.
>
And with that attitude you reveal yourself as a very selfish person. No
doubt you have few friends with an attitude like yours.
Maybe a whisky bottle as a friend aye matey.....
>
>> It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
>> give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
>> people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly? how
>> many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so, I
>> guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for everyone
>> else.
>>
>
> It's more than that, and email is _really_ inconvenient. But you know that.
> Given a choice between inconveniencing me and inconveniencing you, I pick
> you. You no like? Me no care.
>
Maybe the next highland storm will knock out your service forever. We
can only hope.
>
>> It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for themselves,
>> they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
>> "whining".
>>
>
> You are.
>
You don't whine. You just go on and on with your inconsiderate selfishness.
>
>> So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
>> have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.
>>
>
> I think that you whingers are _funny_. I read your stuff 'cause it amuses me.
> I reply for the same reason. My system automatically downloads the files I
> want to download; I only have to scan through the newsgroup to see if there
> was anything I hadn't set the system to download that I may have wanted. When
> I do that, if I see some posts from a pack of whingers, I read 'em to see
> what idiocy they've come up with this time. When you lot stop being funny,
> I'll add an additional filter to my filter list, and killfilter each and
> every text-only post from someone using MSOE that infests this group. Y'all
> can then natter away to your heart's content, affecting me even less than you
> do now.
>
>
>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>
>>>> Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>>>>>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
>>>>>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
>>>>>> so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
>>>>> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>>>>>
>>>> It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.
>>>>
>>>> I'm just curious as to what you do with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the
>>> way
>>> he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.
>>>
>>> "As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
>>> since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."
>>>
>>> Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
>>> particular systems in particular.
>>>
>>> I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them
>>> to
>>> make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
>>> other
>>> hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
>>> latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
>>> instead
>>> of nekkid girls... sue me.)
>>>
>>> J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
>>> and
>>> sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
>>> find
>>> any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.
>>>
>>> But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough
>>> to
>>> me.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 06:16:21 -0400, JRW wrote
(in article >):

> hielan' laddie wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:07:38 -0400, Ron Monroe wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>
>>> It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going
>>> through
>>> 400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to look
>>> at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos,
>>> and
>>> then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for
>>> other
>>> subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in your
>>> snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill. You
>>> have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything out.
>>>
>>
>> It's not 400-500 _posts_. It may be 400-500 _parts of posts_, and those who
>> have inadequate newsreaders see them as 400-500 posts, but that's their
>> problem. Get an adequate newsreader.
>>
> For someone that tells others not to tell others what to do, you sure do
> a good job yourself. Look in the window McBeth.

So don't get an adequate newsreader. You'll get sympathy, and assistance,
from me if you have a problem and a proper newsreader. You get no sympathy if
you don't have an adequate newsreader, and the assistance will be limited to
advice to get an adequate newsreader. You no like? Me no care.

>>
>>> And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
>>> flood.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. You're right. Now, if you look really, really, REALLY closely, you
>> might be able to detect exactly how much I care.
>>
> And with that attitude you reveal yourself as a very selfish person. No
> doubt you have few friends with an attitude like yours.
> Maybe a whisky bottle as a friend aye matey.....

Perhaps I hadn't made clear the exact depth of my contempt for those who
_willingly_ stick to MSOE when there are so many better alternatives, and who
further insist that the rest of the world remain at their level.

All you need do is add one line to your killfilters. If you are incapable of
doing that, then you are even more contemptible.

>>
>>> It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
>>> give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
>>> people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly? how
>>> many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so, I
>>> guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for
>>> everyone
>>> else.
>>>
>>
>> It's more than that, and email is _really_ inconvenient. But you know that.
>> Given a choice between inconveniencing me and inconveniencing you, I pick
>> you. You no like? Me no care.
>>
> Maybe the next highland storm will knock out your service forever. We
> can only hope.

Not at all likely.

>>
>>> It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for themselves,
>>> they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
>>> "whining".
>>>
>>
>> You are.
>>
> You don't whine. You just go on and on with your inconsiderate selfishness.

Cry me a river.

>>
>>> So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
>>> have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.
>>>
>>
>> I think that you whingers are _funny_. I read your stuff 'cause it amuses
>> me.
>> I reply for the same reason. My system automatically downloads the files I
>> want to download; I only have to scan through the newsgroup to see if there
>> was anything I hadn't set the system to download that I may have wanted.
>> When
>> I do that, if I see some posts from a pack of whingers, I read 'em to see
>> what idiocy they've come up with this time. When you lot stop being funny,
>> I'll add an additional filter to my filter list, and killfilter each and
>> every text-only post from someone using MSOE that infests this group. Y'all
>> can then natter away to your heart's content, affecting me even less than
>> you
>> do now.
>>
>>
>>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>>>>>>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
>>>>>>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
>>>>>>> so?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
>>>>>> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just curious as to what you do with them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the
>>>> way
>>>> he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.
>>>>
>>>> "As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
>>>> since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."
>>>>
>>>> Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
>>>> particular systems in particular.
>>>>
>>>> I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them
>>>> to
>>>> make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
>>>> other
>>>> hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
>>>> latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
>>>> instead
>>>> of nekkid girls... sue me.)
>>>>
>>>> J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
>>>> and
>>>> sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
>>>> find
>>>> any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.
>>>>
>>>> But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough
>>>> to
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:11:23 +0200, JRW > wrote:

>Ron Monroe wrote:
>> It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going through
>> 400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to look
>> at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos, and
>> then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for other
>> subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in your
>> snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill. You
>> have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything out.
>>
>> And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
>> flood. It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
>> give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
>> people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly? how
>> many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so, I
>> guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for everyone
>> else.
>>
>> It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for themselves,
>> they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
>> "whining".
>>
>> So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
>> have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.
>>
>>
>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>
>>>> Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>>>>>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them? Or
>>>>>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month or
>>>>>> so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
>>>>> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>>>>>
>>>> It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.
>>>>
>>>> I'm just curious as to what you do with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know, the
>>> way
>>> he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.
>>>
>>> "As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle cockpit
>>> since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."
>>>
>>> Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
>>> particular systems in particular.
>>>
>>> I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use them
>>> to
>>> make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
>>> other
>>> hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings, the
>>> latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
>>> instead
>>> of nekkid girls... sue me.)
>>>
>>> J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
>>> and
>>> sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
>>> find
>>> any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.
>>>
>>> But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple enough
>>> to
>>> me.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>I offered the suggestion he post them in alt.binaries.pictures.misc
>It's an underused newsgroup and he can post to his hearts content there
>and satisfy both those that want and those that do not.
>Since "pictures newsgroups" do not have a "floods" group this is a
>simple solution and he is still posting "on subject" in the misc group.
>:o))
>Win-Win situation.
>All that he would need to do is tell us here in the group that he's
>posting there.
>A newsgroup is a newsgroup, what's the difference if he just posts them
>in the misc group.

What's the ****ing difference? If you don't want them, don't download
them. NOBODY IS ASKING YOU TO!
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A man was sipping a drink in a bar when he noticed an attractive woman seated beside him. His interest must have been obvious because the bartender suddenly loomed over him and said, "Don't get any ideas about that girl, bud. That's
my wife."
The fellow replied, "Who's getting ideas? I just came in for a piece of beer."

Ive stayed out of this as long as I can... Pete, Not all of us have great
access to newsgroups. Some of us are on fixed incomes and cannot afford
access thru pay usenet sites... Most of us probaly get our usenet thru our
isps which usualy do not have more then 24 hours retention or so many
posts...... I know these floods keep knocking a lot of the other great
posts off my server as I see the replies to them but the original posts got
flooded out..... It is not a matter of just not downloading..... It is
just plain inconsiderate.......

Dallas

"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:11:23 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>
>>Ron Monroe wrote:
>>> It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going
>>> through
>>> 400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to
>>> look
>>> at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos,
>>> and
>>> then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for
>>> other
>>> subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in
>>> your
>>> snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill.
>>> You
>>> have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything
>>> out.
>>>
>>> And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
>>> flood. It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
>>> give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
>>> people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly?
>>> how
>>> many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so,
>>> I
>>> guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for
>>> everyone
>>> else.
>>>
>>> It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for
>>> themselves,
>>> they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
>>> "whining".
>>>
>>> So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
>>> have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.
>>>
>>>
>>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>>>>>>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them?
>>>>>>> Or
>>>>>>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> so?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
>>>>>> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just curious as to what you do with them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know,
>>>> the
>>>> way
>>>> he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.
>>>>
>>>> "As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle
>>>> cockpit
>>>> since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."
>>>>
>>>> Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
>>>> particular systems in particular.
>>>>
>>>> I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use
>>>> them
>>>> to
>>>> make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
>>>> other
>>>> hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings,
>>>> the
>>>> latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
>>>> instead
>>>> of nekkid girls... sue me.)
>>>>
>>>> J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
>>>> and
>>>> sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
>>>> find
>>>> any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.
>>>>
>>>> But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple
>>>> enough
>>>> to
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I offered the suggestion he post them in alt.binaries.pictures.misc
>>It's an underused newsgroup and he can post to his hearts content there
>>and satisfy both those that want and those that do not.
>>Since "pictures newsgroups" do not have a "floods" group this is a
>>simple solution and he is still posting "on subject" in the misc group.
>>:o))
>>Win-Win situation.
>>All that he would need to do is tell us here in the group that he's
>>posting there.
>>A newsgroup is a newsgroup, what's the difference if he just posts them
>>in the misc group.
>
> What's the ****ing difference? If you don't want them, don't download
> them. NOBODY IS ASKING YOU TO!
> --
> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
> http://www.petersphotos.com
>
> A man was sipping a drink in a bar when he noticed an attractive woman
> seated beside him. His interest must have been obvious because the
> bartender suddenly loomed over him and said, "Don't get any ideas about
> that girl, bud. That's
> my wife."
> The fellow replied, "Who's getting ideas? I just came in for a piece of
> beer."

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:30:47 -0400, Dallas wrote
(in article <r95qk.247840$TT4.77816@attbi_s22>):

> Ive stayed out of this as long as I can... Pete, Not all of us have great
> access to newsgroups. Some of us are on fixed incomes and cannot afford
> access thru pay usenet sites... Most of us probaly get our usenet thru our
> isps which usualy do not have more then 24 hours retention or so many
> posts...... I know these floods keep knocking a lot of the other great
> posts off my server as I see the replies to them but the original posts got
> flooded out..... It is not a matter of just not downloading..... It is
> just plain inconsiderate.......

You might want to have a word with some of the laddies on your side. They
seem to think that the best way to get co-operation is to lie about and
insult those of us on the other side. In my experience this tends to harden
attitudes. Certainly it has hardened mine.

A good feed costs as little as $8/month. A good newsreader costs under $30,
and may even be _free_. (Forte Agent is $30, Forte Free Agent and MTNW are
_free_.) And, news flash for those who depend on their ISPs for a newsfeed...
thanks to that idiot in New York, many American ISPs are going to be dropping
USENET feeds Real Soon Now. Y'all had best find a cheap feed which is
independent of your ISP, and be quick about it, or you may lose access to
USENET... period.

hielan' laddie > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:30:47 -0400, Dallas wrote
> (in article <r95qk.247840$TT4.77816@attbi_s22>):
>
>> Ive stayed out of this as long as I can... Pete, Not all of us have
>> great access to newsgroups. Some of us are on fixed incomes and
>> cannot afford access thru pay usenet sites... Most of us probaly get
>> our usenet thru our isps which usualy do not have more then 24 hours
>> retention or so many posts...... I know these floods keep knocking a
>> lot of the other great posts off my server as I see the replies to
>> them but the original posts got flooded out..... It is not a matter
>> of just not downloading..... It is just plain inconsiderate.......
>
> You might want to have a word with some of the laddies on your side.
> They seem to think that the best way to get co-operation is to lie
> about and insult those of us on the other side. In my experience this
> tends to harden attitudes. Certainly it has hardened mine.
>
> A good feed costs as little as $8/month. A good newsreader costs under
> $30, and may even be _free_. (Forte Agent is $30, Forte Free Agent and
> MTNW are _free_.) And, news flash for those who depend on their ISPs
> for a newsfeed... thanks to that idiot in New York, many American ISPs
> are going to be dropping USENET feeds Real Soon Now. Y'all had best
> find a cheap feed which is independent of your ISP, and be quick about
> it, or you may lose access to USENET... period.
>
>

Thanks laddie. BTW, that New Yawk asshole is Andrew Cuomo with Upchuck
Shumer as facilitator.

Dallas, I am on a fixed income as well. And FRUGAL (read - "cheap").

Check TeraNews. They have a free account program. Costs three bucks to
set up, tho'. It also limits you to a certain amount per month (I forget
the amount), but again, it is free.

Xnews is the third and last news reader I've used. It does all I want and
need. As well, IT'S FREE!!

Stay the hell (PLEASE!!!) away from MicroSoft Outlook Express. You are
begging for problems. And you'll be pulled over to the dark side. For the
sake of the Empire, USE THE FORCE! Whoops, I digress.

You do this, and you'll have friends here (we aren't going anywhere, much
to the chagrin of many) who'll help you learn how to operate your stuff to
it's full potential... including RARs, PARs, splits, zips, and (shudder)
YEnc!

....or you can compute on the Tandy-64 level like some knuckleheads.
Alan? Alan? Wither thou goest, oh Alan? Busy on the dating sites?

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:59:12 -0400, hielan' laddie
> wrote:

>A good feed costs as little as $8/month. A good newsreader costs under $30,
>and may even be _free_. (Forte Agent is $30, Forte Free Agent and MTNW are
>_free_.) And, news flash for those who depend on their ISPs for a newsfeed...
>thanks to that idiot in New York, many American ISPs are going to be dropping
>USENET feeds Real Soon Now. Y'all had best find a cheap feed which is
>independent of your ISP, and be quick about it, or you may lose access to
>USENET... period.

RoadRunner dropped EVERYTHING at the end of June. They no longer
provide ANY access to usenet. Verizon took out the entire
alt.hierarchy, and other major providers followed.

Thank you New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, you meddling,
nanny-state Nazi.

laddie: what's MTNW? Always ready to check out a new reader.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:26:58 -0400, Casey Tompkins wrote
(in article >):

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:59:12 -0400, hielan' laddie
> > wrote:
>
>> A good feed costs as little as $8/month. A good newsreader costs under $30,
>> and may even be _free_. (Forte Agent is $30, Forte Free Agent and MTNW are
>> _free_.) And, news flash for those who depend on their ISPs for a
>> newsfeed...
>> thanks to that idiot in New York, many American ISPs are going to be
>> dropping
>> USENET feeds Real Soon Now. Y'all had best find a cheap feed which is
>> independent of your ISP, and be quick about it, or you may lose access to
>> USENET... period.
>
> RoadRunner dropped EVERYTHING at the end of June. They no longer
> provide ANY access to usenet. Verizon took out the entire
> alt.hierarchy, and other major providers followed.
>
> Thank you New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, you meddling,
> nanny-state Nazi.
>
> laddie: what's MTNW? Always ready to check out a new reader.
>

MTNW is MT-NewsWatcher. The 'MT' originally stood for 'Multi-Thread'. The
original Newswatcher was one of the first newsreaders for Macs, written by
John Norstad of Northwestern University. He allowed free use of the basic NW
code, so long as anything produced using it was free. Many other programmers
used the NW code to build their own newsreaders; the two best were Brian
Clarke's YA-NW (Yet Another Newswatcher) and Simon Fraser's MTNW. After a
long, involved, bout of politicing which largely revolved around Clarke's
asking for a 'donation' of $20 for YA-NW, YA-NW was withdrawn from
circulation, with Clarke departing the scene, swearing that he didn't have to
take this abuse... and, indeed, just plain swearing. About two years later
Clarke released Thoth, a shareware newsreader which he swore had no NW code
in it, but which looked awfully like YA-NW. He had another hissy-fit and
pulled that from circulation, too. The original Newswatcher, upgraded for OS
X and now called Newswatcher-X, and MTNW, both still free, are still
available. MTNW is the best free newsreader available for the Mac, and
possibly the best free newsreader available, period. It's been in continuous
development for a decade. A really good way to get yourself into serious
trouble would be to go to the comp.sys.mac.* hierarchy and say something bad
about MTNW.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:59:55 -0400, Sj wrote
(in article >):

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:26:58 GMT, Casey Tompkins
> > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:59:12 -0400, hielan' laddie
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> A good feed costs as little as $8/month. A good newsreader costs under
>>> $30,
>>> and may even be _free_. (Forte Agent is $30, Forte Free Agent and MTNW are
>>> _free_.) And, news flash for those who depend on their ISPs for a
>>> newsfeed...
>>> thanks to that idiot in New York, many American ISPs are going to be
>>> dropping
>>> USENET feeds Real Soon Now. Y'all had best find a cheap feed which is
>>> independent of your ISP, and be quick about it, or you may lose access to
>>> USENET... period.
>>
>> RoadRunner dropped EVERYTHING at the end of June. They no longer
>> provide ANY access to usenet. Verizon took out the entire
>> alt.hierarchy, and other major providers followed.
>>
>> Thank you New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, you meddling,
>> nanny-state Nazi.
>>
>> laddie: what's MTNW? Always ready to check out a new reader.
>
> Googling shows it to be this:
>
> http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/
>
> Sj

Yeah, that's it.

We can't all afford decent cars, but we don't go complaining when
someone overtakes us.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:30:47 GMT, "Dallas"
> wrote:

>Ive stayed out of this as long as I can... Pete, Not all of us have great
>access to newsgroups. Some of us are on fixed incomes and cannot afford
>access thru pay usenet sites... Most of us probaly get our usenet thru our
>isps which usualy do not have more then 24 hours retention or so many
>posts...... I know these floods keep knocking a lot of the other great
>posts off my server as I see the replies to them but the original posts got
>flooded out..... It is not a matter of just not downloading..... It is
>just plain inconsiderate.......
>
>Dallas
>
>"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:11:23 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Monroe wrote:
>>>> It's not a question of downloading, or not. It's a question of going
>>>> through
>>>> 400 or 500 posts at a time, looking for something you really want to
>>>> look
>>>> at. I don't want to spend hours, days and weeks putting together photos,
>>>> and
>>>> then sorting them out. I have other things to do. So, I am looking for
>>>> other
>>>> subjects. Think of it like getting a thousand pieces of junk mail in
>>>> your
>>>> snail mail mailbox, but one of the pieces of mail, is actually a bill.
>>>> You
>>>> have to go through all of them to find it, before you throw everything
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> And there is absolutely no consideration for those who are asking not to
>>>> flood. It's like he is saying, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to
>>>> give you what I want, whether you like it or not." I still ask, if a few
>>>> people want them, why doesn't he send them to those people, directly?
>>>> how
>>>> many are there, five? Oh, it might be inconvenient for him, or you, so,
>>>> I
>>>> guess it's alright to do it this way, and make it inconvenient for
>>>> everyone
>>>> else.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that people always want to do what is convenient for
>>>> themselves,
>>>> they don't care how it affects the other guy. Those other guys, are
>>>> "whining".
>>>>
>>>> So, there is now a flood of people that are complaining. Well, you don't
>>>> have to download them, do you? Seems simple enough to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:58:51 -0400, B. Hedd wrote
>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "B. Hedd" > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does one do with 5 gigabytes of shuttle pics? Do you spend a
>>>>>>>> few hours over the course of three or four evenings admiring them?
>>>>>>>> Or
>>>>>>>> do you spread it out to viewing them for 1/2 hour daily for a month
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> so?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you go back a couple of times a year and admire them again?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilities. I also have about
>>>>>>> 10.5 gigs of aircraft pictures. Is that OK?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's absolutely OK... What you put on your computer is your business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just curious as to what you do with them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I go over older pix to look for differences and updates... you know,
>>>>> the
>>>>> way
>>>>> he stated he did but you snipped out without marking the snip.
>>>>>
>>>>> "As example, just how many upgrades have been made to the shuttle
>>>>> cockpit
>>>>> since the early 80's? Well, now I have photographic information."
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of us are interested in the history of aviation in general and of
>>>>> particular systems in particular.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also go over pix looking for a particularly good shot and then use
>>>>> them
>>>>> to
>>>>> make various items, including but not limited to my own calendars and
>>>>> other
>>>>> hardcopy. (so I have pinups of Lancasters and Vulcans and Lightenings,
>>>>> the
>>>>> latter including Lockheed, English Electric, and Mitsubishi products,
>>>>> instead
>>>>> of nekkid girls... sue me.)
>>>>>
>>>>> J3's stuff will give me hours, days, weeks, worth of work to go through
>>>>> and
>>>>> sort out and catalogue and drop onto a DVD. After that, I'll be able to
>>>>> find
>>>>> any one of the pix in a matter of seconds.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, hey, if you don't like 'em, don't download 'em. Seems simple
>>>>> enough
>>>>> to
>>>>> me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I offered the suggestion he post them in alt.binaries.pictures.misc
>>>It's an underused newsgroup and he can post to his hearts content there
>>>and satisfy both those that want and those that do not.
>>>Since "pictures newsgroups" do not have a "floods" group this is a
>>>simple solution and he is still posting "on subject" in the misc group.
>>>:o))
>>>Win-Win situation.
>>>All that he would need to do is tell us here in the group that he's
>>>posting there.
>>>A newsgroup is a newsgroup, what's the difference if he just posts them
>>>in the misc group.
>>
>> What's the ****ing difference? If you don't want them, don't download
>> them. NOBODY IS ASKING YOU TO!
>> --
>> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
>> http://www.petersphotos.com
>>
>> A man was sipping a drink in a bar when he noticed an attractive woman
>> seated beside him. His interest must have been obvious because the
>> bartender suddenly loomed over him and said, "Don't get any ideas about
>> that girl, bud. That's
>> my wife."
>> The fellow replied, "Who's getting ideas? I just came in for a piece of
>> beer."
>
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Join the Navy and feel a man!