Shuttle pics repost request

[the Legend of LAX[_2_]]

At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.

I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.


--
Dale G Elhardt
Cypress Ca
Any use of this product, in any manner whatsoever, will increase the
amount of disorder in the universe. Although no liability is implied
herein, the consumer is warned that this process will ultimately lead to
the heat death of the universe.
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=7702

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

You should have enough. I had 15 missing. My winrar had never heard
of pars (it's too old). I got "quickpar" which is free, which did the
repair ready for winrar.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A fellow picked up a girl in a bar and took her home with him. After some preliminary drinks and talk, they got undressed, climbed into bed and generally got organized for a leg over. After a few minutes, the girl started laughing.
The fellow asked her what she found so amusing. "Your organ," she replied. "It's a bit on the small side."
Hurt, he replied: "It's not used to playing in cathedrals."

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[J3]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700, the Legend of LAX
> wrote:

>At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
>parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
>199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
>I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the pars
>to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are there? I
>have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

Where's parts 02 and 03; 07-13; 17-22; 24 and 26-30 of part 059?

86 posts, and not even half as many as needed. Each one is about 600kb -
that means you have posted, in a matter of minutes, 50mb or rubbish.

I suggest people should complain to , include the
header of just one post and inform them that this group is being flooded by
their client.

"J3" > wrote in message
...

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

I have more than enough to make the whole rar.

I say again, if you don't want his pics, delete, skip, ignore them.
Stop bloody moaning.

P.S. nobody likes a netkopp. Crawl back into your hole.


On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:47:24 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>Where's parts 02 and 03; 07-13; 17-22; 24 and 26-30 of part 059?
>
>86 posts, and not even half as many as needed. Each one is about 600kb -
>that means you have posted, in a matter of minutes, 50mb or rubbish.
>
>I suggest people should complain to , include the
>header of just one post and inform them that this group is being flooded by
>their client.
>
>"J3" > wrote in message
...
>
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

One famous city in the US has a huge display of the national debt - a while
ago it ran out of digits!

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
>
> I say again, if you don't want his pics, delete, skip, ignore them.
> Stop bloody moaning.

They're not his pics. They are not in picture format (all the parts have to
be downloaded, and then assembled in order, before the images can be seen).
Picture format means files with extensions like .jpg; .jpeg; .bmp; .gif;
..tif etc. That is what this group is for - pictures. If J3 wishes to post
the .rar format, then maybe he should post them in
alt.binaries.mulitmedia.aviation.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:24:51 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I say again, if you don't want his pics, delete, skip, ignore them.
>> Stop bloody moaning.
>
>They're not his pics.

Ths pics he posted then. Pedant.

>They are not in picture format (all the parts have to
>be downloaded, and then assembled in order, before the images can be seen).

I agree jpeg would have been easier. But for that number of photos, I
made the effort to resurrect them.

>Picture format means files with extensions like .jpg; .jpeg; .bmp; .gif;
>.tif etc. That is what this group is for - pictures. If J3 wishes to post
>the .rar format, then maybe he should post them in
>alt.binaries.mulitmedia.aviation.

Multimedia refers to VIDEO, as opposed to PICTURES.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A rushed father is flying through the Toys-R-Us aisles before Christmas looking for a present for his daughter. He spies the display of various Barbie dolls, all in individual boxes. Ever mindful of a volume discount, he approaches a nearby employee and asks her, "Does Barbie come with Ken?"
The employee smiles and tells him, "No, Barbie only comes with G.I Joe. She just fakes it with Ken."

[JRW]

the Legend of LAX wrote:
> At great personal risk, I need to request a repost of the following
> parts that only partially came through: 59, 93, 94, 95, 120, 121, 198,
> 199, 231, 232, 250, 251, 259, 304, 305.
>
> I am using winrar to decode. Is this too much missing data for the
> pars to reconstruct, or do I somehow have to tell winrar they are
> there? I have only gotten about 300 pictures out of this so far.
>
>
Might I suggest that those files be uploaded to www.yousendit.com
Then they can be downloaded, whenever.
Just a suggestion rather than another hug post.

[JRW]

Alan Erskine wrote:
> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I say again, if you don't want his pics, delete, skip, ignore them.
>> Stop bloody moaning.
>>
>
> They're not his pics. They are not in picture format (all the parts have to
> be downloaded, and then assembled in order, before the images can be seen).
> Picture format means files with extensions like .jpg; .jpeg; .bmp; .gif;
> .tif etc. That is what this group is for - pictures. If J3 wishes to post
> the .rar format, then maybe he should post them in
> alt.binaries.mulitmedia.aviation.
>
>
>
Or upload them to Rapidshare or Yousendit *and just post the download
link*. That's just as simple as uploading them to a newsgroup, since he
already has them in .rar files.

I think once is enough. To request multiple reposts, I also feel is a
bit over the top.

That's not moaning and look at your own mail with all the "instructions"
on what to do and not to do. Now who's NET COPPING?

He posted, it's done and that should be the end of it.

You said in a previous mail three or four people said go ahead and post.
Well now it's double that, not to have more of the same.

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
> Multimedia refers to VIDEO, as opposed to PICTURES.

And pictures, by the same token, does not refer to .rar or any similar file
format.

However, on a different subject; do you have any idea what's happened to
a.b.p.animals lately? I've seen just two posts there in the past week.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:44:59 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
>> Multimedia refers to VIDEO, as opposed to PICTURES.
>
>And pictures, by the same token, does not refer to .rar or any similar file
>format.

They are pictures when you decode them.

>However, on a different subject; do you have any idea what's happened to
>a.b.p.animals lately? I've seen just two posts there in the past week.

I see 50. Many may be crossposts, do you have a filter?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

During the Great Depression, there was a man who walked into a bar one day. He went up to the bartender and said, "Bartender, I'd like to buy the house a round of drinks."

The bartender said, "That's fine, but we're in the middle of the Depression, so I'll need to see some money first."

The guy pulled out a huge wad of bills and set them on the bar. The bartender can't believe what he's seeing. "Where did you get all that money?" asked the bartender.

"I'm a professional gambler," replied the man.

The bartender said, "There's no such thing! I mean, your odds are fifty-fifty at best, right?"

"Well, I only bet on sure things," said the guy.

"Like what?" asked the bartender.

"Well, for example, I'll bet you fifty dollars that I can bite my right eye," he said.

The bartender thought about it. "Okay," he said.

So, the guy pulled out his false right eye and bit it. "Aw, you screwed me," said the bartender, and paid the guy his $50.

"I'll give you another chance. I'll bet you another fifty dollars that I can bite my left eye," said the stranger.

The bartender thought again and said, "Well, I know you're not blind, I mean, I watched you walk in here. I'll take that bet." So, the guy pulled out his false teeth and bit his left eye.

"Aw, you screwed me again!" protested the bartender.

"That's how I win so much money, bartender. I'll just take a bottle of your best scotch in lieu of the fifty dollars," said the man.

With that, the guy went to the back room and spent the better part of the night playing cards with some of the locals. After many hours of drinking and card playing, he stumbled up to the bar. Drunk as a skunk, he said, "Bartender, I'll give you one last chance. I'll bet you five hundred dollars that I can stand on this bar on one foot and **** into that whiskey bottle on that shelf behind you without spilling a drop."

The bartender once again pondered the bet. The guy couldn't even stand up straight on two feet, much less one. "Okay, you're on," he said.

The guy climbed up on the bar, stood on one leg, and began ****ing all over the place. He hit the bar, the bartender, himself, but not a drop made it into the whiskey bottle.

The bartender was ecstatic. Laughing, the bartender said, "Hey pal, you owe me five hundred dollars!"

The guy climbed down off the bar and said, "That's okay. I just bet each of the guys in the card room a thousand bucks each that I could **** all over you and the bar and still make you laugh!"

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:42:20 +0200, JRW > wrote:

>Alan Erskine wrote:
>> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I say again, if you don't want his pics, delete, skip, ignore them.
>>> Stop bloody moaning.
>>>
>>
>> They're not his pics. They are not in picture format (all the parts have to
>> be downloaded, and then assembled in order, before the images can be seen).
>> Picture format means files with extensions like .jpg; .jpeg; .bmp; .gif;
>> .tif etc. That is what this group is for - pictures. If J3 wishes to post
>> the .rar format, then maybe he should post them in
>> alt.binaries.mulitmedia.aviation.
>>
>>
>>
>Or upload them to Rapidshare or Yousendit *and just post the download
>link*. That's just as simple as uploading them to a newsgroup, since he
>already has them in .rar files.
>
>I think once is enough. To request multiple reposts, I also feel is a
>bit over the top.

There is no point in people having an incomplete rar. Reposts are
necessary.

>That's not moaning and look at your own mail with all the "instructions"
>on what to do and not to do. Now who's NET COPPING?

What?

>He posted, it's done and that should be the end of it.
>
>You said in a previous mail three or four people said go ahead and post.
>Well now it's double that, not to have more of the same.

that was me what said that, and there are plenty who want them. Just
ignore his posts if you wish.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

^ ^ ^
) '. ) '. ) '. ^
^. / _..;--"""""---..; ) '.
)\ ) ';-"" "-""--.._
)\_/..'-"" ".
__...---""" () "
___...---"" . )
.--"""" . , ) _..-"
(_______________________d"". "d ,db_________..--". /___r".""______
b, \ P ,d' L ( d' ;
Y, \/ p' '. 'P" ,P'
.p / b, <_
_-" <_ "b '-_
.-' . '-_ d" _.._ )
." _.-"d d*-.._ ) d" d\ \ ""
"-" P' d' "" d" ,P P b
d' P" ; d" 'Y, 'b
'_." " 'b._'

[Ron Monroe]

I ignore them too, but other people get buried in the avalanche. I came on
the other day and found seceral thousand posts. I wasn't about to look at
them all, to figure out if there was one to look at. I hate using the kill
file, but, I will if I have too.

If someone asks, and the majority of people say please don't, then why do
it? who is this site for, just for 5 people who say please do? This isn't
sharing, it amounts to a hijacking of the site.

How about he said them directly to the people that say they want them?


"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:42:20 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>
>>Alan Erskine wrote:
>>> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I say again, if you don't want his pics, delete, skip, ignore them.
>>>> Stop bloody moaning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They're not his pics. They are not in picture format (all the parts
>>> have to
>>> be downloaded, and then assembled in order, before the images can be
>>> seen).
>>> Picture format means files with extensions like .jpg; .jpeg; .bmp; .gif;
>>> .tif etc. That is what this group is for - pictures. If J3 wishes to
>>> post
>>> the .rar format, then maybe he should post them in
>>> alt.binaries.mulitmedia.aviation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Or upload them to Rapidshare or Yousendit *and just post the download
>>link*. That's just as simple as uploading them to a newsgroup, since he
>>already has them in .rar files.
>>
>>I think once is enough. To request multiple reposts, I also feel is a
>>bit over the top.
>
> There is no point in people having an incomplete rar. Reposts are
> necessary.
>
>>That's not moaning and look at your own mail with all the "instructions"
>>on what to do and not to do. Now who's NET COPPING?
>
> What?
>
>>He posted, it's done and that should be the end of it.
>>
>>You said in a previous mail three or four people said go ahead and post.
>>Well now it's double that, not to have more of the same.
>
> that was me what said that, and there are plenty who want them. Just
> ignore his posts if you wish.
> --
> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
> http://www.petersphotos.com
>
> ^ ^ ^
> ) '. ) '. ) '. ^
> ^. / _..;--"""""---..; ) '.
> )\ ) ';-"" "-""--.._
> )\_/..'-"" ".
> __...---""" () "
> ___...---"" . )
> .--"""" . , ) _..-"
> (_______________________d"". "d ,db_________..--". /___r".""______
> b, \ P ,d' L ( d' ;
> Y, \/ p' '. 'P" ,P'
> .p / b, <_
> _-" <_ "b '-_
> .-' . '-_ d" _.._ )
> ." _.-"d d*-.._ ) d" d\ \ ""
> "-" P' d' "" d" ,P P b
> d' P" ; d" 'Y, 'b
> '_." " 'b._'

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
>
> I see 50. Many may be crossposts, do you have a filter?
> --
> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
> http://www.petersphotos.com
>
> During the Great Depression, there was a man who walked into a bar one
> day. He went up to the bartender and said, "Bartender, I'd like to buy the
> house a round of drinks."

I thought about that, but no filter - I've just seen 16 posts and replied to
them. All last week, I saw maybe three posts.

By the way, I love this bartender joke - brilliant!

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"JRW" > wrote in message
...
> Or upload them to Rapidshare or Yousendit *and just post the download
> link*. That's just as simple as uploading them to a newsgroup, since he
> already has them in .rar files.
>
> I think once is enough. To request multiple reposts, I also feel is a bit
> over the top.
>

I agree - Rapidshare is a more appropriate venue - it will retain the files
for up to three months without any downloads (if nobody downloads for three
months, RS will delete the files, otherwise, they will stay there) -
unlikely to be that much of a gap.

If J3 posts not only the link, but also a preview image, it would give
people an opportunity to see what he's talking about.

[JRW]

Alan Erskine wrote:
> "JRW" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Or upload them to Rapidshare or Yousendit *and just post the download
>> link*. That's just as simple as uploading them to a newsgroup, since he
>> already has them in .rar files.
>>
>> I think once is enough. To request multiple reposts, I also feel is a bit
>> over the top.
>>
>>
>
> I agree - Rapidshare is a more appropriate venue - it will retain the files
> for up to three months without any downloads (if nobody downloads for three
> months, RS will delete the files, otherwise, they will stay there) -
> unlikely to be that much of a gap.
>
> If J3 posts not only the link, but also a preview image, it would give
> people an opportunity to see what he's talking about.
>
>
>
I've always said that if you are not part of the solution, you are part
of the problem. I think Rapidshare or yousendit are the best way for
these. And you are right, longer retention so more folks can grab them
if they like.
I saw very few posts from others during the flood.....that says enough
for me.

Many have asked for jpg's but I guess he don't want to post them...oh well.

[JRW]

Sj wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:50:43 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> "JRW" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Or upload them to Rapidshare or Yousendit *and just post the download
>>> link*. That's just as simple as uploading them to a newsgroup, since he
>>> already has them in .rar files.
>>>
>>> I think once is enough. To request multiple reposts, I also feel is a bit
>>> over the top.
>>>
>>>
>> I agree - Rapidshare is a more appropriate venue - it will retain the files
>> for up to three months without any downloads (if nobody downloads for three
>> months, RS will delete the files, otherwise, they will stay there) -
>> unlikely to be that much of a gap.
>>
>> If J3 posts not only the link, but also a preview image, it would give
>> people an opportunity to see what he's talking about.
>>
>
> Now you're talking ... good idea ...
>
> I've occasionally used both & it works fine,
> esp. w/ a preview of what's available ...
>
> Sj
>
Well it's up to J3. We'll see. :o))

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

When he initially asked, the first five responses were yes.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:39:05 -0700, "Ron Monroe"
> wrote:

>I ignore them too, but other people get buried in the avalanche. I came on
>the other day and found seceral thousand posts. I wasn't about to look at
>them all, to figure out if there was one to look at. I hate using the kill
>file, but, I will if I have too.
>
>If someone asks, and the majority of people say please don't, then why do
>it? who is this site for, just for 5 people who say please do? This isn't
>sharing, it amounts to a hijacking of the site.
>
>How about he said them directly to the people that say they want them?
>
>
>"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:42:20 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>
>>>Alan Erskine wrote:
>>>> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> I say again, if you don't want his pics, delete, skip, ignore them.
>>>>> Stop bloody moaning.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They're not his pics. They are not in picture format (all the parts
>>>> have to
>>>> be downloaded, and then assembled in order, before the images can be
>>>> seen).
>>>> Picture format means files with extensions like .jpg; .jpeg; .bmp; .gif;
>>>> .tif etc. That is what this group is for - pictures. If J3 wishes to
>>>> post
>>>> the .rar format, then maybe he should post them in
>>>> alt.binaries.mulitmedia.aviation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Or upload them to Rapidshare or Yousendit *and just post the download
>>>link*. That's just as simple as uploading them to a newsgroup, since he
>>>already has them in .rar files.
>>>
>>>I think once is enough. To request multiple reposts, I also feel is a
>>>bit over the top.
>>
>> There is no point in people having an incomplete rar. Reposts are
>> necessary.
>>
>>>That's not moaning and look at your own mail with all the "instructions"
>>>on what to do and not to do. Now who's NET COPPING?
>>
>> What?
>>
>>>He posted, it's done and that should be the end of it.
>>>
>>>You said in a previous mail three or four people said go ahead and post.
>>>Well now it's double that, not to have more of the same.
>>
>> that was me what said that, and there are plenty who want them. Just
>> ignore his posts if you wish.
>> --
>> http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
>> http://www.petersphotos.com
>>
>> ^ ^ ^
>> ) '. ) '. ) '. ^
>> ^. / _..;--"""""---..; ) '.
>> )\ ) ';-"" "-""--.._
>> )\_/..'-"" ".
>> __...---""" () "
>> ___...---"" . )
>> .--"""" . , ) _..-"
>> (_______________________d"". "d ,db_________..--". /___r".""______
>> b, \ P ,d' L ( d' ;
>> Y, \/ p' '. 'P" ,P'
>> .p / b, <_
>> _-" <_ "b '-_
>> .-' . '-_ d" _.._ )
>> ." _.-"d d*-.._ ) d" d\ \ ""
>> "-" P' d' "" d" ,P P b
>> d' P" ; d" 'Y, 'b
>> '_." " 'b._'
>
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

"Beam me aboard, Scotty!" [-] "Will a 2 X 4 do, Captain?"

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
> When he initially asked, the first five responses were yes.

The first five; from then on, it was all people who didn't want J3 to post
in anything other than the normal formats for this group.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:00:15 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
>> When he initially asked, the first five responses were yes.
>
>The first five; from then on, it was all people who didn't want J3 to post
>in anything other than the normal formats for this group.

Then they shouldn't take so bloody long to reply.

Anyway, if 5 people (at least) want them, it doesn't matter how many
don't.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A single blonde pregnant girl goes to the grocery store. A couple that she knows notices she's pregnant.
The lady asks her, "Whose baby is it?"
The blonde says, "Well, I don't know they are going to do blood tests, but I think it's mine."

[®i©ardo]

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:00:15 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> When he initially asked, the first five responses were yes.
>> The first five; from then on, it was all people who didn't want J3 to post
>> in anything other than the normal formats for this group.
>
> Then they shouldn't take so bloody long to reply.
>
> Anyway, if 5 people (at least) want them, it doesn't matter how many
> don't.


Democracy takes on a whole new meaning.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:38:41 +0100, ®i©ardo > wrote:

>Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:00:15 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> When he initially asked, the first five responses were yes.
>>> The first five; from then on, it was all people who didn't want J3 to post
>>> in anything other than the normal formats for this group.
>>
>> Then they shouldn't take so bloody long to reply.
>>
>> Anyway, if 5 people (at least) want them, it doesn't matter how many
>> don't.
>
>
>Democracy takes on a whole new meaning.

So a TV channel shouldn't air anything unless more than 50% of people
want to see it?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Amanpreet was overheard at the hospital angrily say, "My wife just delivered twins!!!"
A passerby said, "So? You should be happy about that. Why are you so angry?"
"I want to know who the son of a bitch is that's the father of the second kid!"

[®i©ardo]

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:38:41 +0100, ®i©ardo > wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:00:15 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> When he initially asked, the first five responses were yes.
>>>> The first five; from then on, it was all people who didn't want J3 to post
>>>> in anything other than the normal formats for this group.
>>> Then they shouldn't take so bloody long to reply.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if 5 people (at least) want them, it doesn't matter how many
>>> don't.
>>
>> Democracy takes on a whole new meaning.
>
> So a TV channel shouldn't air anything unless more than 50% of people
> want to see it?

This is not a TV channel. If you're happy that the tail wags the dog, so
be it.
--
Moving things in still pictures!

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:39:47 +0100, ®i©ardo > wrote:

>Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:38:41 +0100, ®i©ardo > wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:00:15 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> When he initially asked, the first five responses were yes.
>>>>> The first five; from then on, it was all people who didn't want J3 to post
>>>>> in anything other than the normal formats for this group.
>>>> Then they shouldn't take so bloody long to reply.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, if 5 people (at least) want them, it doesn't matter how many
>>>> don't.
>>>
>>> Democracy takes on a whole new meaning.
>>
>> So a TV channel shouldn't air anything unless more than 50% of people
>> want to see it?
>
>This is not a TV channel. If you're happy that the tail wags the dog, so
>be it.

What makes you think each post has to be wanted by most of the group?
I doubt that is true of ANY post in here.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Very funny, Scotty... Now beam down my clothes!

[JRW]

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:39:47 +0100, &reg;i&copy;ardo &gt; ) wrote:



Peter Hucker wrote:



On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:38:41 +0100, &reg;i&copy;ardo &gt; ) wrote:



Peter Hucker wrote:



On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:00:15 GMT, "Alan Erskine" &gt; ) wrote:



"Peter Hucker" &gt; ) wrote in message ...



When he initially asked, the first five responses were yes.



The first five; from then on, it was all people who didn't want J3 to post in anything other than the normal formats for this group.



Then they shouldn't take so bloody long to reply. Anyway, if 5 people (at least) want them, it doesn't matter how many don't.



Democracy takes on a whole new meaning.



So a TV channel shouldn't air anything unless more than 50% of people want to see it?



This is not a TV channel. If you're happy that the tail wags the dog, so be it.



What makes you think each post has to be wanted by most of the group? I doubt that is true of ANY post in here.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. There is a big difference between a "few" photos and a flood of photos.
There were other newsgroup options available that would have been on-topic.
An almost disused newsgroup such as alt.binaries.pictures.misc would have been the perfect solution.
But what transpired was selfishness and I'll post them here, because I can and screw everyone else.
So I guess just for spite there will be more of this nonsense. The highland laddie will be at the top sining, I have "six month retention" so screw you all.
These guys never learned how to play in the sandbox. And will never learn. Good luck to them. What goes around comes around.....I can wait until sand gets kicked in their face...

[Lee[_2_]]

JRW > wrote in news:48a8a4d8$0$97802$dbd4f001
@news.wanadoo.nl:

> Thunderbird 2.0.0.16

Just think of the bandwidth saved if people would start
using a news-reader and quit using their browsers to
respond to NNTP postings. Or at least turn off
whatever button puts out the mark-up language.

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"JRW" > wrote in message
...
>The highland laddie will be at the top sining, I have "six month retention"
>so screw you all.
> These guys never learned how to play in the sandbox. And will never learn.

This is precisely why I've killfiled both "Hieland Laddie" and "Lee" - they
just won't learn and resort to insults and attacks against anyone who stands
up to them. They insult people by suggesting that, as they don't have the
latest 'Gee-Wizz" technology, they are mentally deficient.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:23:12 +0200, JRW > wrote:

>Peter Hucker wrote: On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:39:47 +0100, ®i©ardo > wrote:
>
>
> Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:38:41 +0100, ®i©ardo > wrote:
>
>
> Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:00:15 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:
>
>
> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
> When he initially asked, the first five responses were yes.
> The first five; from then on, it was all people who didn't want J3 to post
>in anything other than the normal formats for this group.
> Then they shouldn't take so bloody long to reply.
>
>
>Anyway, if 5 people (at least) want them, it doesn't matter how many
>don't.
> Democracy takes on a whole new meaning.
> So a TV channel shouldn't air anything unless more than 50% of people
>want to see it?
> This is not a TV channel. If you're happy that the tail wags the dog, so
>be it.
>
>What makes you think each post has to be wanted by most of the group?
>I doubt that is true of ANY post in here.
> You are comparing apples and oranges here. There is a big difference between a "few" photos and a flood of photos.
>There were other newsgroup options available that would have been on-topic.
>An almost disused newsgroup such as alt.binaries.pictures.misc would have been the perfect solution.
>But what transpired was selfishness and I'll post them here, because I can and screw everyone else.
>So I guess just for spite there will be more of this nonsense. The highland laddie will be at the top sining, I have "six month retention" so screw you all.
>These guys never learned how to play in the sandbox. And will never learn. Good luck to them. What goes around comes around.....I can wait until sand gets kicked in their face...

I say again. If you don't want J3's posts. Don't look at them.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

The dot over the letter i is called a tittle.