Intent to Flood - NASA Project Mercury

[J3]

This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
resolution I have been able to find

I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
of 380 MB

Enjoy

[Oviedo]

Please don't!

"J3" > wrote in message
...
> This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
> Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
> resolution I have been able to find
>
> I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
> JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
> untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
> There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
> of 380 MB
>
> Enjoy

[Jacques & Laurie[_2_]]

Please don't . . .

You do not respect anyone on this post, obviously.

Jacques

"J3" > wrote in message
...
> This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
> Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
> resolution I have been able to find
>
> I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
> JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
> untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
> There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
> of 380 MB
>
> Enjoy

[Richard[_7_]]

"J3" > schreef in bericht
...
> This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
> Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
> resolution I have been able to find
>
> I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
> JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
> untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
> There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
> of 380 MB
>
> Enjoy

Although the pictures were great in your last flood, I think (considering
all the comments to that one) a lot of people out there would appreciate it
much more if you just picked some nice stuff and post that here.
Anyway, I'd prefer you not flooding here. Thanks.

[JR[_2_]]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:02:38 -0400, J3 > wrote:

>This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
>Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
>resolution I have been able to find
>
>I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
>JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
>untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.

OTOH, if you post JPGs, if one is bad, only ONE is lost, instead of a
whole (or partial) pack...

[JRW]

Oviedo wrote:
> Please don't!
>
> "J3" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
>> Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
>> resolution I have been able to find
>>
>> I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
>> JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
>> untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
>> There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
>> of 380 MB
>>
>> Enjoy
>>
>
>
>
Please don't!

[SKUNK WORKS]

SEND THEM UP YOUR ASS THEN YOU WILL HAVE A FLOOD
"JR" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:02:38 -0400, J3 > wrote:
>
>>This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
>>Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
>>resolution I have been able to find
>>
>>I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
>>JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
>>untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
>
> OTOH, if you post JPGs, if one is bad, only ONE is lost, instead of a
> whole (or partial) pack...

[JRW]

JRW wrote:
> Oviedo wrote:
>> Please don't!
>>
>> "J3" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
>>> Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
>>> resolution I have been able to find
>>>
>>> I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
>>> JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
>>> untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
>>> There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
>>> of 380 MB
>>>
>>> Enjoy
>>
>>
>>
> Please don't!
As a suggestion: There is an* underused newsgroup* which still falls as
a "legal" place to post your flood.

*The newsgroup is: alt.binaries.pictures.misc*

Maybe this is a better alternative for your new and reposts that others
want, since you insist on posting high resolution photos.

Just a suggestion.

[Jon Anderson]

JR wrote:

> OTOH, if you post JPGs, if one is bad, only ONE is lost, instead of a
> whole (or partial) pack...

And I would add that I have downloaded thousands of jpgs and
have never ever gotten a 'bad' one.
I'd like to see the flood in native JPG also.

Jon

[Jack G[_2_]]

Why not post them to your own hard drive - you are the one who seems to want
them all... I am one of many who does not appreciate your flood here.

Jack G.

"J3" > wrote in message
...
> This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
> Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
> resolution I have been able to find
>
> I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
> JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
> untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
> There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
> of 380 MB
>
> Enjoy

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

DON'T!

"J3" > wrote in message
...
> This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
> Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
> resolution I have been able to find
>
> I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
> JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
> untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
> There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
> of 380 MB
>
> Enjoy

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

All comments to the proposed flood are against.

"J3" > wrote in message
...
> This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
> Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
> resolution I have been able to find
>
> I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
> JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
> untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
> There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
> of 380 MB
>
> Enjoy

[JR[_2_]]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:26:53 -0500, Sj > wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:02:38 -0400, J3 > wrote:

>One final word ... a friend of mine got a-hold of a wonderful
>calendar of ancient maps by well-known cartographers ...she
>started scanning them but soon found detail was lost when
>scanned at the dimensions/size we've gotten used to ... I
>suggested she not quit scanning but rather post one
>scan/day ...
>
>Needless to say, the ng is delighted, & it will take us about 2
>weeks to get the full calendar :)
>
>Sj

I'd like to see that. What ng is this please?

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:38:21 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>All comments to the proposed flood are against.
>
>"J3" > wrote in message
...
>> This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
>> Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
>> resolution I have been able to find
>>
>> I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
>> JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
>> untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
>> There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
>> of 380 MB
>>
>> Enjo
Why not post in jpg. You would have a lot less gripe about the rar
files. I also noticed a lot of bad filesin rar and having to repost
them.

[J3]

alt.binaries.pictures.aviation


On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:04:03 +0100, JR > wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:26:53 -0500, Sj > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:02:38 -0400, J3 > wrote:
>
>>One final word ... a friend of mine got a-hold of a wonderful
>>calendar of ancient maps by well-known cartographers ...she
>>started scanning them but soon found detail was lost when
>>scanned at the dimensions/size we've gotten used to ... I
>>suggested she not quit scanning but rather post one
>>scan/day ...
>>
>>Needless to say, the ng is delighted, & it will take us about 2
>>weeks to get the full calendar :)
>>
>>Sj
>
>I'd like to see that. What ng is this please?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Sj" > wrote

> a.b.pics.artpics
>
> it's for illustrative art & the ng prefers that
> photos be posted to a.b.pics.misc

That would be alt.binaries.pics.artpics for the first one. I guess my ISP
does not get the second one.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote

> That would be alt.binaries.pics.artpics for the first one. I guess my ISP
> does not get the second one.

Ooops. I posted too fast.

The full designation for the first one is:
alt.binaries.pictures.artpics

the second one is:
alt.binaries.pictures.misc
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:02:38 -0400, J3 > wrote:

>This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
>Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
>resolution I have been able to find
>
>I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
>JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
>untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
>There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
>of 380 MB

Jpegs individually posted would be preferred, so I can see what they
are like before getting the whole lot, but they will be appreciated
either way.

Ignore the moaners.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

In a transatlantic flight, a plane passes through a severe storm. The turbulence is awful, and things go from bad to worse when one wing is struck by lightning. One woman in particular loses it. Screaming, she stands up in the front of the plane. "I'm too young to die!" she wails. Then she yells, "Well, if I'm going to die, I want my last minutes on Earth to be memorable! I've had plenty of sex in my life, but no one has ever made me really feel like a woman! Well, I've had it! Is there ANYONE on this plane who can make me feel like a WOMAN??" For a moment there is silence. Everyone has forgotten their own peril, and they all stare, riveted, at the desperate woman in the front of the plane. Then,
a man stands up in the rear of the plane. "I can make you feel like a woman," he says. He's gorgeous. Tall, built, with long, flowing black hair and jet black eyes, he starts to walk slowly up the aisle, unbuttoning his shirt one button at a time. No one moves. The woman is breathing heavily in anticipation as the stranger approaches. He removes his shirt. Muscles ripple across his chest as he reaches her. He extends the arm holding his shirt to the trembling
woman, and whispers: "Iron this."

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

That's because the people shouting the loudest are the objectors.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:38:21 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>All comments to the proposed flood are against.
>
>"J3" > wrote in message
...
>> This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
>> Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
>> resolution I have been able to find
>>
>> I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
>> JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
>> untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
>> There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
>> of 380 MB
>>
>> Enjoy
>
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because they push back harder. -- Billy Connely

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
> That's because the people shouting the loudest are the objectors.

And they are in the majority.

[JR[_2_]]

>>>
>>>Needless to say, the ng is delighted, & it will take us about 2
>>>weeks to get the full calendar :)
>>>
>>>Sj
>>
>>I'd like to see that. What ng is this please?
>
>a.b.pics.artpics
>
>it's for illustrative art & the ng prefers that
>photos be posted to a.b.pics.misc
>
>Sj

Posts from BOXTOP? Got the maps, thanks for the heads up.

[hielan' laddie]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:02:38 -0400, J3 wrote
(in article >):

> This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
> Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
> resolution I have been able to find
>
> I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
> JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
> untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
> There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
> of 380 MB
>
> Enjoy

Thanks for the pix. I've got 'em all now.

[hielan' laddie]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:00:55 -0400, Alan Erskine wrote
(in article >):

> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That's because the people shouting the loudest are the objectors.
>
> And they are in the majority.
>
>

Nah. but who cares about your opinion? Certainly not me.

[Herman]

"hielan' laddie" > schreef in bericht
...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:00:55 -0400, Alan Erskine wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> That's because the people shouting the loudest are the objectors.
>>
>> And they are in the majority.
>>
>>
>
> Nah. but who cares about your opinion? Certainly not me.
>
Then why should anyone be interested in your opinion? Certainly not me.

[hielan' laddie]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:20:10 -0400, Herman wrote
(in article e.nl>):

>
> "hielan' laddie" > schreef in bericht
> ...
>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:00:55 -0400, Alan Erskine wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> That's because the people shouting the loudest are the objectors.
>>>
>>> And they are in the majority.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nah. but who cares about your opinion? Certainly not me.
>>
> Then why should anyone be interested in your opinion? Certainly not me.
>
>

I have no problem with that... 'cause _I_ am not the one attempting to
control what people post, when, where, and how. The opinions of those
misguided enough to both insist on using MSOE, and, more importantly, to
insist that all others live with the limits that MSOE has, are contemptible.
I do not respect them. I do not respect those who have them. I do not care
_what_ they say. I will not be moved. You no like? Me no care.

[Casey Tompkins]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:59:38 +0200, JRW > wrote:


>As a suggestion: There is an* underused newsgroup* which still falls as
>a "legal" place to post your flood.
>
>*The newsgroup is: alt.binaries.pictures.misc*
>
>Maybe this is a better alternative for your new and reposts that others
>want, since you insist on posting high resolution photos.
>
>Just a suggestion.

Does that mean hi-resolution photos are now off-topic?

I'm not being a smartass (except to suggest that maybe we should
rename the group a.b.p.aviation.low-res <g>), but first you have to
define high resolution. Bigger than your screen size? Bigger than
mine? What about someone with a 22" widescreen lcd? Are they
"standard" resolution?

Considering the number of, ahh... not completely state of the art
lurkers out there, what if someone else complains that anything
greater than 800x600 is hi-rez?

It boils down to "hi-rez is what I think it is," which gets
problematic.

How about J3 includes a special tag like "J3 flood," or "J3 winrar
post?" That would make it easy to filter out the post. Or you could
just killfile J3.

[Casey Tompkins]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:02:38 -0400, J3 > wrote:

>This weekend I intend on posting 334 images (324 MB) of NASA's Mercury
>Program. The quality of the images varies, but they are the high
>resolution I have been able to find
>
>I intend on utilizing the RAR and PAR method. While some may prefer
>JPG, I have chosen not to post JPGs. As some files are very large
>untilizing RAR & PARs allow the reciever to repair any fragment files.
>There will be 19 RAR files and 13 PAR (40%) PAR files for a total size
>of 380 MB
>
>Enjoy

Since this is only 324Mb <g>, I say yes. I'd love to see those.

If you don't mind a suggestion, might it be a good idea to add
something to your subject line for the post? Perhaps "J3 flood," or
"J3 winrar post." That way the easily-upset have a very simple method
to avoid being offended by your work. :)

[Casey Tompkins]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:21:44 -0500, Sj > wrote:

>'Cause I like people to LOOK at my scans, not just
>collect them for the sake of collecting ...
>
>When people flood, I generally ask them if they also
>race thru a museum to view everything ...
>
>To me, photos & scans are to be viewed, examined,
>enjoyed, savored ... flooding is counter to all of that ...
>
>I don't killfile but I will delete all your headers w/out
>d/ling ...

Gee, that wasn't so hard now, was it?

Sj, this may not have occured to you, but there are other reasons to
collect stuff like this that don't relate to "buy them, trade them,
get them ALL!" For example, if you are a modeler, any high-resolution
photo of a potential subject is always useful, even if you don't get
around to modeling that subject for a while.

Enjoy the herbal tea, your patchouli, and I'll send someone over to
wipe your fevered brow, while the rest of us grab the photos. :)

P.S. I don't even want to know how you "savor" a photograph, and I'm
not about to ask! Heh.

[Don Pyeatt]

"Casey Tompkins" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:59:38 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>
>
>>As a suggestion: There is an* underused newsgroup* which still falls as
>>a "legal" place to post your flood.
>>
>>*The newsgroup is: alt.binaries.pictures.misc*
>>
>>Maybe this is a better alternative for your new and reposts that others
>>want, since you insist on posting high resolution photos.
>>
>>Just a suggestion.
>
> Does that mean hi-resolution photos are now off-topic?
>
> I'm not being a smartass (except to suggest that maybe we should
> rename the group a.b.p.aviation.low-res <g>), but first you have to
> define high resolution. Bigger than your screen size? Bigger than
> mine? What about someone with a 22" widescreen lcd? Are they
> "standard" resolution?
>
> Considering the number of, ahh... not completely state of the art
> lurkers out there, what if someone else complains that anything
> greater than 800x600 is hi-rez?
>
> It boils down to "hi-rez is what I think it is," which gets
> problematic.
>
> How about J3 includes a special tag like "J3 flood," or "J3 winrar
> post?" That would make it easy to filter out the post. Or you could
> just killfile J3.
>


If J3 and his fellow marauders would simply post a thumbnail index of their
images, anyone could decide to D/L the files - or not. Surely with their
gargantuan IQs and geek skills, they can learn how to produce an index file.

gdp

[Casey Tompkins]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:32:03 -0500, "Don Pyeatt" >
wrote:

>> How about J3 includes a special tag like "J3 flood," or "J3 winrar
>> post?" That would make it easy to filter out the post. Or you could
>> just killfile J3.
>>

>If J3 and his fellow marauders would simply post a thumbnail index of their
>images, anyone could decide to D/L the files - or not. Surely with their
>gargantuan IQs and geek skills, they can learn how to produce an index file.
>
>gdp

Excellent suggestion, sir!

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Casey Tompkins" > wrote

> How about J3 includes a special tag like "J3 flood," or "J3 winrar
> post?" That would make it easy to filter out the post. Or you could
> just killfile J3.

Strangely enough, that approach has been used, quite successfully, in other
newsgroups.

I propose any picture (this is the sticky part, like you said) over 500KB
should have the letters HR, with a space on each side of them, as part of
the picture title.

Of course, that probably should remain as a guideline, so it does not kick a
picture 20 or 30 KB over the limit, when the other pictures of the series
are nicely under the limit, whatever size is agreed upon

Also, FL could be a designation for any group of pictures that is part of a
flood, defined as any group of pictures over (30 ??) pictures.

Just an idea that could help resolve the current strife.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:32:03 -0500, "Don Pyeatt" >
wrote:

>
>"Casey Tompkins" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:59:38 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As a suggestion: There is an* underused newsgroup* which still falls as
>>>a "legal" place to post your flood.
>>>
>>>*The newsgroup is: alt.binaries.pictures.misc*
>>>
>>>Maybe this is a better alternative for your new and reposts that others
>>>want, since you insist on posting high resolution photos.
>>>
>>>Just a suggestion.
>>
>> Does that mean hi-resolution photos are now off-topic?
>>
>> I'm not being a smartass (except to suggest that maybe we should
>> rename the group a.b.p.aviation.low-res <g>), but first you have to
>> define high resolution. Bigger than your screen size? Bigger than
>> mine? What about someone with a 22" widescreen lcd? Are they
>> "standard" resolution?
>>
>> Considering the number of, ahh... not completely state of the art
>> lurkers out there, what if someone else complains that anything
>> greater than 800x600 is hi-rez?
>>
>> It boils down to "hi-rez is what I think it is," which gets
>> problematic.
>>
>> How about J3 includes a special tag like "J3 flood," or "J3 winrar
>> post?" That would make it easy to filter out the post. Or you could
>> just killfile J3.
>>
>
>
>If J3 and his fellow marauders would simply post a thumbnail index of their
>images, anyone could decide to D/L the files - or not. Surely with their
>gargantuan IQs and geek skills, they can learn how to produce an index file.

Agreed - I use thumbsplus (free) to generate thumbnails. Then post 1
jpeg per article.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Sky have just won the rights to screen the first World Origami Championships from Tokyo.
Unfortunately it's only available on Paper View.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:49:16 GMT, Casey Tompkins
> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:59:38 +0200, JRW > wrote:
>
>
>>As a suggestion: There is an* underused newsgroup* which still falls as
>>a "legal" place to post your flood.
>>
>>*The newsgroup is: alt.binaries.pictures.misc*
>>
>>Maybe this is a better alternative for your new and reposts that others
>>want, since you insist on posting high resolution photos.
>>
>>Just a suggestion.
>
>Does that mean hi-resolution photos are now off-topic?
>
>I'm not being a smartass (except to suggest that maybe we should
>rename the group a.b.p.aviation.low-res <g>), but first you have to
>define high resolution. Bigger than your screen size? Bigger than
>mine? What about someone with a 22" widescreen lcd? Are they
>"standard" resolution?
>
>Considering the number of, ahh... not completely state of the art
>lurkers out there, what if someone else complains that anything
>greater than 800x600 is hi-rez?
>
>It boils down to "hi-rez is what I think it is," which gets
>problematic.
>
>How about J3 includes a special tag like "J3 flood," or "J3 winrar
>post?" That would make it easy to filter out the post. Or you could
>just killfile J3.

You don't need a special tag. He put the filename in the subject.
Filter on .rar or .par in the subject header.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change ready.

[Casey Tompkins]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:14:20 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Casey Tompkins" > wrote
>
>> How about J3 includes a special tag like "J3 flood," or "J3 winrar
>> post?" That would make it easy to filter out the post. Or you could
>> just killfile J3.
>
>Strangely enough, that approach has been used, quite successfully, in other
>newsgroups.
>
>I propose any picture (this is the sticky part, like you said) over 500KB
>should have the letters HR, with a space on each side of them, as part of
>the picture title.
>
>Of course, that probably should remain as a guideline, so it does not kick a
>picture 20 or 30 KB over the limit, when the other pictures of the series
>are nicely under the limit, whatever size is agreed upon
>
>Also, FL could be a designation for any group of pictures that is part of a
>flood, defined as any group of pictures over (30 ??) pictures.
>
>Just an idea that could help resolve the current strife.

Anything that allows freedom of choice while ensuring ease of
downloading/viewing is a step in the right direction... :)

It would seem there are "format warriors" who would prefer battle to
resolution, alas.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:14:20 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Casey Tompkins" > wrote
>
>> How about J3 includes a special tag like "J3 flood," or "J3 winrar
>> post?" That would make it easy to filter out the post. Or you could
>> just killfile J3.
>
>Strangely enough, that approach has been used, quite successfully, in other
>newsgroups.
>
>I propose any picture (this is the sticky part, like you said) over 500KB
>should have the letters HR, with a space on each side of them, as part of
>the picture title.
>
>Of course, that probably should remain as a guideline, so it does not kick a
>picture 20 or 30 KB over the limit, when the other pictures of the series
>are nicely under the limit, whatever size is agreed upon
>
>Also, FL could be a designation for any group of pictures that is part of a
>flood, defined as any group of pictures over (30 ??) pictures.
>
>Just an idea that could help resolve the current strife.

Nobody's gonna remember all that.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly long roll out after touching down.
San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right turn at the end of the runway, if you are able.
If you are not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway 101, make a right at the lights, and return to the airport."

[hielan' laddie]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:55:07 -0400, Peter Hucker wrote
(in article >):

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:14:20 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Casey Tompkins" > wrote
>>
>>> How about J3 includes a special tag like "J3 flood," or "J3 winrar
>>> post?" That would make it easy to filter out the post. Or you could
>>> just killfile J3.
>>
>> Strangely enough, that approach has been used, quite successfully, in other
>> newsgroups.
>>
>> I propose any picture (this is the sticky part, like you said) over 500KB
>> should have the letters HR, with a space on each side of them, as part of
>> the picture title.
>>
>> Of course, that probably should remain as a guideline, so it does not kick
>> a
>> picture 20 or 30 KB over the limit, when the other pictures of the series
>> are nicely under the limit, whatever size is agreed upon
>>
>> Also, FL could be a designation for any group of pictures that is part of a
>> flood, defined as any group of pictures over (30 ??) pictures.
>>
>> Just an idea that could help resolve the current strife.
>
> Nobody's gonna remember all that.
>

No-one's going to _care_ enough to remember all that.