some planes [55 of 56] "wlhj_clart035_wwllerawindtunnel.jpg" yEnc (2/2)

[no name]

[D Wright]

Here we go ....... getting flooded with that "yenc" crap again. Why
can't people who play with that stuff just submit a few good examples,
instead of dumping their entire portfolio? Not surprising the offender
doesn't have the stones to sign his/her name.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"D Wright" > wrote in message
...
> Here we go ....... getting flooded with that "yenc" crap again. Why can't
> people who play with that stuff just submit a few good examples, instead
> of dumping their entire portfolio? Not surprising the offender doesn't
> have the stones to sign his/her name.

I only take a couple minutes to add the name to the filter, then gone
forever...
--
Jim in NC

[hielan' laddie]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:42:27 -0400, D Wright wrote
(in article >):

> Here we go ....... getting flooded with that "yenc" crap again. Why
> can't people who play with that stuff just submit a few good examples,
> instead of dumping their entire portfolio? Not surprising the offender
> doesn't have the stones to sign his/her name.

Well, some of us might be able to repost 'em without using yENC... if we gave
a damn. Ain't gonna happen given the behaviour of certain anti-yENC clowns
around here. You don't see the pics. Pity.

[Mike the Brewer[_5_]]

"hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:42:27 -0400, D Wright wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Here we go ....... getting flooded with that "yenc" crap again. Why
>> can't people who play with that stuff just submit a few good examples,
>> instead of dumping their entire portfolio? Not surprising the offender
>> doesn't have the stones to sign his/her name.
>
> Well, some of us might be able to repost 'em without using yENC... if we
> gave
> a damn. Ain't gonna happen given the behaviour of certain anti-yENC clowns
> around here. You don't see the pics. Pity.
>
I can post perfectly good images which everyone can see without having to
decode, good quality can be posted these days in .jpg files without
resorting to some kind of encoding.........so why do
it?.......................................As my wise teacher said many years
ago "The bog mindles"

[Mitchell Holman[_3_]]

Sj > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:24:26 +0100, "Mike the Brewer"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:42:27 -0400, D Wright wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> Here we go ....... getting flooded with that "yenc" crap again.
>>>> Why can't people who play with that stuff just submit a few good
>>>> examples, instead of dumping their entire portfolio? Not
>>>> surprising the offender doesn't have the stones to sign his/her
>>>> name.
>>>
>>> Well, some of us might be able to repost 'em without using yENC...
>>> if we gave
>>> a damn. Ain't gonna happen given the behaviour of certain anti-yENC
>>> clowns around here. You don't see the pics. Pity.
>>>
>>I can post perfectly good images which everyone can see without having
>>to decode, good quality can be posted these days in .jpg files without
>>resorting to some kind of encoding.........so why do
>>it?.......................................As my wise teacher said many
>>years ago "The bog mindles"
>>
>
> All your posting software encodes ... MIME, UUencode, yEnc ...
>
> Most news readers will decode all of them ... it's just that MS
> does not support yEnc ...
>
> Years ago, Free Agent only decoded UUencode ... since many
> were posting in MIME, I moved the Agent ... when yEnc showed
> up, I upgraded to Agent 1.93 ...
>
> Sj


Xnews decodes them all.

And for free, too..........;)

[Morgans[_2_]]

> Years ago, Free Agent only decoded UUencode ... since many
> were posting in MIME, I moved the Agent ... when yEnc showed
> up, I upgraded to Agent 1.93 ...

Even though many cars are now equipped to burn gasoline or propane,
gasoline is the choice most people choose to use.

Then someone comes along and says that propane is the better fuel to use. I
give rides to people, only if they give me propane for the ride in my car.
There are people that give rides for the rider putting gasoline in their
cars.

Don't ignore the fact that most people still use gasoline in their cars.
You can't ignore that, or change it. They like the gasoline choice, and it
is easy to deal with. Some people can just barely figure out how to put gas
in their cars, and will not be bothered with another way to fuel their car.
It works like it is, so why try to fix something that isn't broken?

So the person getting the ride is given the choice of finding someone to buy
propane from, or to get a gadget that changes gasoline into propane, or to
just get a ride from someone who uses gas in their car, and forget about the
person that uses propane.

What would you do? How does this not compute for some people? Use
something that everyone can see, or just accept the fact that some people
are not going to use your (propane.)
--
Jim in NC

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:19:13 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>> Years ago, Free Agent only decoded UUencode ... since many
>> were posting in MIME, I moved the Agent ... when yEnc showed
>> up, I upgraded to Agent 1.93 ...
>
> Even though many cars are now equipped to burn gasoline or propane,
>gasoline is the choice most people choose to use.
>
>Then someone comes along and says that propane is the better fuel to use. I
>give rides to people, only if they give me propane for the ride in my car.
>There are people that give rides for the rider putting gasoline in their
>cars.
>
>Don't ignore the fact that most people still use gasoline in their cars.
>You can't ignore that, or change it. They like the gasoline choice, and it
>is easy to deal with. Some people can just barely figure out how to put gas
>in their cars, and will not be bothered with another way to fuel their car.
>It works like it is, so why try to fix something that isn't broken?
>
>So the person getting the ride is given the choice of finding someone to buy
>propane from, or to get a gadget that changes gasoline into propane, or to
>just get a ride from someone who uses gas in their car, and forget about the
>person that uses propane.
>
>What would you do? How does this not compute for some people? Use
>something that everyone can see, or just accept the fact that some people
>are not going to use your (propane.)

Can't resist the urge to point out the key word "give" in your post.
Folks who post here - especially those who post their own original
images - are giving them to us. If they use a bit too much tape on
the wrapping paper, you could always demand your free back... ;^}

That said, the general request here is that yEnc be avoided, and I
don'thave a problem with that.

Bob ^,,^

[hielan' laddie]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:24:26 -0400, Mike the Brewer wrote
(in article >):

>
> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:42:27 -0400, D Wright wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Here we go ....... getting flooded with that "yenc" crap again. Why
>>> can't people who play with that stuff just submit a few good examples,
>>> instead of dumping their entire portfolio? Not surprising the offender
>>> doesn't have the stones to sign his/her name.
>>
>> Well, some of us might be able to repost 'em without using yENC... if we
>> gave
>> a damn. Ain't gonna happen given the behaviour of certain anti-yENC clowns
>> around here. You don't see the pics. Pity.
>>
> I can post perfectly good images which everyone can see without having to
> decode, good quality can be posted these days in .jpg files without
> resorting to some kind of encoding.........so why do
> it?.......................................As my wise teacher said many years
> ago "The bog mindles"
>
>

Every single binary posted to USENET is encoded in some way. All of them.
It's just that MSOE knows about some encoding methods but not others, while
real NNTP clients know about the others.

If you don't wish to use yENC, that is of course your choice. I prefer to use
it. That is _my_ choice. You no like? Me no care.

[hielan' laddie]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:19:13 -0400, Morgans wrote
(in article >):

> What would you do? How does this not compute for some people? Use
> something that everyone can see, or just accept the fact that some people
> are not going to use your (propane.)

I would use what I want to use... and if someone else doesn't like it, well
either they can walk or they can do things my way. Pick one. I see no reason
to change.

[Gary R. Schmidt]

hielan' laddie wrote:
[SNIP]
> Every single binary posted to USENET is encoded in some way. All of them.
> It's just that MSOE knows about some encoding methods but not others, while
> real NNTP clients know about the others.
True.

> If you don't wish to use yENC, that is of course your choice. I prefer to use
> it. That is _my_ choice. You no like? Me no care.

Now if the programs that are used to *post* the yENC'ed images were to
adhere to NNTP posting RFC's, that'd be useful.

AFAICT, *none* of the yENC posting programs reliably "do the right thing."

And I'm not putting a stupid proxy between my newsreader and my NNTP
server just to be able to view mangled posts.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

[hielan' laddie]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:46:51 -0400, Gary R. Schmidt wrote
(in article >):

> hielan' laddie wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> Every single binary posted to USENET is encoded in some way. All of them.
>> It's just that MSOE knows about some encoding methods but not others, while
>> real NNTP clients know about the others.
> True.
>
>> If you don't wish to use yENC, that is of course your choice. I prefer to
>> use
>> it. That is _my_ choice. You no like? Me no care.
>
> Now if the programs that are used to *post* the yENC'ed images were to
> adhere to NNTP posting RFC's, that'd be useful.
>
> AFAICT, *none* of the yENC posting programs reliably "do the right thing."

In my experience yENC posts show up exactly as any other posts do. I usually
can't tell the difference... until someone complains that they can't read it
because they have chosen to not get one of the free or cheap utilities which
will decode yENC for them. At which point I laugh at them.

>
> And I'm not putting a stupid proxy between my newsreader and my NNTP
> server just to be able to view mangled posts.
>

1 you don't have to put any kind of a proxy between your newsreader and a
server to read yENC posts. You can get a real newsreader which will read them
directly, or you can download them as text and have a utility convert them
after the fact. And they are hardly 'mangled' if they are delivered properly
to those who have real newsreaders and/or decoding utilities.

The newsreader I first used would not decode _any_ binaries on its own; it
_did_, however, come with a Read Me which pointed me to where I could get
'helper apps' which _would_ decode binaries. And could be set up so that
binary posts would be automatically piped to those helper apps and decoded on
the fly. This was back in 1994. (It wouldn't post binaries, either... except
when encoded by those same 'helper apps'. It was free, the helper apps were
free, and it worked.)

But, hey, man, do what you want. You don't like yENC? Cool. Don't download
any yENC files. Kill all yENC posts. Ignore yENC posts. Whatever. That's
_your_ choice, on _your_ system. I simply don't care what _you_ want to do on
_your_ system. _My_ choice on _my_ system is to use yENC for every single
binary I post. _My_ system. _My_ choice. You no like? Me no care.

_You_ don't see all the posts, because _you_ don't want to use yENC. Carry
on, by all means. _I_ will continue to see all the posts, including yENC
posts. _I_ will post using yENC. And if you don't like it, that's just too
damn bad for you.

[Gary R. Schmidt]

hielan' laddie wrote:
[SNIP]
> 1 you don't have to put any kind of a proxy between your newsreader and a
> server to read yENC posts. You can get a real newsreader which will read them
> directly, or you can download them as text and have a utility convert them
> after the fact. And they are hardly 'mangled' if they are delivered properly
> to those who have real newsreaders and/or decoding utilities.
Yes, I *could* change, but why should I have to?

If the bloke who came up with yEnc had the sense to comply with the
various RFC's for Usenet news, these discussions would *never* happen.

And if something looks worth a view, I can always fire up bnr and try to
work out how to use it. :-)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

[hielan' laddie]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:01:20 -0400, Gary R. Schmidt wrote
(in article >):

> hielan' laddie wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> 1 you don't have to put any kind of a proxy between your newsreader and a
>> server to read yENC posts. You can get a real newsreader which will read
>> them
>> directly, or you can download them as text and have a utility convert them
>> after the fact. And they are hardly 'mangled' if they are delivered
>> properly
>> to those who have real newsreaders and/or decoding utilities.
> Yes, I *could* change, but why should I have to?

You don't. Carry exactly as you do. It will mean that you miss some posts,
but this is _your_ choice.

>
> If the bloke who came up with yEnc had the sense to comply with the
> various RFC's for Usenet news, these discussions would *never* happen.

Nah. If Mickeysoft had included a yENC decoder on their crap this would never
happen. The boys who did Thunderbird would have included a yENC decoder in
there, too, just because one was in MSOE... and between them, the presence of
yENC decoders in MSOE and Thunderbird would eliminate 99.999% of those who
complain about yENC 'cause they'd have nothing to complain about.

>
> And if something looks worth a view, I can always fire up bnr and try to
> work out how to use it. :-)

Your system. Your choice. If you don't want to view yENC-encoded posts, this
does not affect me in the least. My problem is when someone else tries to
tell me to reconfigure _my_ system for _his_ convenience. My system is
configured the way _I_ want it. If this causes problems for others, then
those others can:

1 use the various free or cheap methods to get around the problem

2 killfile me

3 post whinges, and thereby generate amusement.

Thank you for choosing option (3).

[hielan' laddie]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:01:20 -0400, Gary R. Schmidt wrote
(in article >):

> hielan' laddie wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> 1 you don't have to put any kind of a proxy between your newsreader and a
>> server to read yENC posts. You can get a real newsreader which will read
>> them
>> directly, or you can download them as text and have a utility convert them
>> after the fact. And they are hardly 'mangled' if they are delivered
>> properly
>> to those who have real newsreaders and/or decoding utilities.
> Yes, I *could* change, but why should I have to?

You don't. Carry exactly as you do. It will mean that you miss some posts,
but this is _your_ choice.

>
> If the bloke who came up with yEnc had the sense to comply with the
> various RFC's for Usenet news, these discussions would *never* happen.

Nah. If Mickeysoft had included a yENC decoder on their crap this would never
happen. The boys who did Thunderbird would have included a yENC decoder in
there, too, just because one was in MSOE... and between them, the presence of
yENC decoders in MSOE and Thunderbird would eliminate 99.999% of those who
complain about yENC 'cause they'd have nothing to complain about.

>
> And if something looks worth a view, I can always fire up bnr and try to
> work out how to use it. :-)

Your system. Your choice. If you don't want to view yENC-encoded posts, this
does not affect me in the least. My problem is when someone else tries to
tell me to reconfigure _my_ system for _his_ convenience. My system is
configured the way _I_ want it. If this causes problems for others, then
those others can:

1 use the various free or cheap methods to get around the problem

2 killfile me

3 post whinges, and thereby generate amusement.

Thank you for choosing option (3).

[Gary R. Schmidt]

hielan' laddie wrote:
{SNIP]
>
> 1 use the various free or cheap methods to get around the problem
>
> 2 killfile me
>
> 3 post whinges, and thereby generate amusement.
>
> Thank you for choosing option (3).
>
Nah.

It's *reading* the responses to the whinges that's the amusing bit :->'

Cheers,
Gary B-)

[flybywire]

could this be our right yenker

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/The-Man-with-No-Name-Posters_i1138838_.htm

Cheers

Mike
:0

"Gary R. Schmidt" > wrote in message
...
> hielan' laddie wrote:
> {SNIP]
>>
>> 1 use the various free or cheap methods to get around the problem
>>
>> 2 killfile me
>>
>> 3 post whinges, and thereby generate amusement.
>>
>> Thank you for choosing option (3).
>>
> Nah.
>
> It's *reading* the responses to the whinges that's the amusing bit :->'
>
> Cheers,
> Gary B-)

[hielan' laddie]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:02:46 -0400, Gary R. Schmidt wrote
(in article >):

> hielan' laddie wrote:
> {SNIP]
>>
>> 1 use the various free or cheap methods to get around the problem
>>
>> 2 killfile me
>>
>> 3 post whinges, and thereby generate amusement.
>>
>> Thank you for choosing option (3).
>>
> Nah.
>
> It's *reading* the responses to the whinges that's the amusing bit :->'
>

I try.

[John Crawford]

Yenc is suppose to save band width. No on my computer, all it does is
flood it with useless unreadable
garbage.

--
John Crawford


Everything I Like Is either immoral,
Illegal, or Fattening

[hielan' laddie]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:12:07 -0400, John Crawford wrote
(in article >):

> Yenc is suppose to save band width. No on my computer, all it does is
> flood it with useless unreadable
> garbage.
>
>

Then use your killfile. Problem over.

[Mitchell Holman[_3_]]

"John Crawford" > wrote in
:

> Yenc is suppose to save band width. No on my computer, all it does
> is
> flood it with useless unreadable
> garbage.
>


Yenc might make sense when posting songs or video
clips but when it comes to simple images I have never
seen a reason to depart from the jpeg format that
everyone can read and is comfortable with.

[Robert Moore]

Mitchell Holman >
> Yenc might make sense when posting songs or video
> clips but when it comes to simple images I have never
> seen a reason to depart from the jpeg format that
> everyone can read and is comfortable with.

JPEG is a file compression format, Yenc is an encoding
system. Most all of the Yenc encoded files that my
free newsreader, Xnews, receives are still JPGs.

Bob Moore

[hielan' laddie]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:50:40 -0400, Mitchell Holman wrote
(in article >):

> "John Crawford" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Yenc is suppose to save band width. No on my computer, all it does
>> is
>> flood it with useless unreadable
>> garbage.
>>
>
>
> Yenc might make sense when posting songs or video
> clips but when it comes to simple images I have never
> seen a reason to depart from the jpeg format that
> everyone can read and is comfortable with.
>

One more time:

Every single binary posted on USENET is encoded using some method or another.
If you post a .JPG, you are posting it using some encoding system, MIME, or
UUNET, or yENC or something else. You cannot just post a .JPG, USENET is a
text-only medium and binaries must be encoded so that they look like text or
they will not show up on USENET. You choose to encode using UUNET or MIME,
depending on the default setting of your NNTP client; almost all NNTP clients
decode MIME and UUNET and yENC. Some just decode MIME or UUNET. Some still
don't decode any of those formats at all and must rely on 'helper apps' to
decode binaries. (And to encode them for upload) When I first started reading
USENET, my NNTP client at the time did not decode binaries of any format; I
had to use a helper app.

The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE and
Thunderbird. MSOE users, in particular, insist that others not use yENC
because their client won't read it. I tell 'em to kiss my ass. If you want to
see _all_ the pics, use a client which will decode them, or get a helper app
which will do it for you. If you insist on doing neither, that is _your
choice_. You don't get to see certain pix. Like it or lump it.

[G Paleologopoulos]

"hielan' laddie" > wrote
...
>.................................
> One more time:
>
> Every single binary posted on USENET is encoded using some method or
> another.
> ....................................


May humbly suggest to a.b.p.a readers to check out "yEnc" @ Wikipedia and
also to check out the references contained in the article.
Opinions and conclusions will be per individual.
I offer none to the group.
My ***own*** is that yEnc is much-ado-about-nothing today, and non-standard
to boot.

[hielan' laddie]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:39:35 -0400, Sj wrote
(in article >):

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:52:51 +0300, "G Paleologopoulos"
> > wrote:
>
>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote
>> ...
>>> .................................
>>> One more time:
>>>
>>> Every single binary posted on USENET is encoded using some method or
>>> another.
>>> ....................................
>>
>>
>> May humbly suggest to a.b.p.a readers to check out "yEnc" @ Wikipedia and
>> also to check out the references contained in the article.
>> Opinions and conclusions will be per individual.
>> I offer none to the group.
>> My ***own*** is that yEnc is much-ado-about-nothing today, and non-standard
>> to boot.
>
> Agreed ... but used by many so one either decides to
> learn how to deal w/ it or ignore it ...

Exactly. If anyone doesn't like it, then simply killfile 'yenc' in the
headers and it's gone.

> yelling about it is
> like blowing in the wind ...

Let 'em yell. There ain't thing one they can do other than yell.

[the Legend of LAX[_2_]]

Actually, Thunderbird does do yEnc. Unfortunately, it only does files
that are properly formatted. I can usually see about half of all yEnc posts.



hielan' laddie wrote:
>
> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE and
> Thunderbird.

--
Dale G Elhardt
Cypress Ca
If you love something, let it go… unless you're in love with a helium
balloon. Those things don't come back, you know.
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=7702

[hielan' laddie]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:43:15 -0400, the Legend of LAX wrote
(in article >):

> Actually, Thunderbird does do yEnc. Unfortunately, it only does files
> that are properly formatted. I can usually see about half of all yEnc posts.
>
>
>
> hielan' laddie wrote:
>>
>> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE and
>> Thunderbird.
>
>

I stand corrected. That means that it's only MSOE that has the problem.

[The Raven[_2_]]

"G Paleologopoulos" > wrote in message
news:1251118387.485792@athprx03...
> "hielan' laddie" > wrote
> ...
>>.................................
>> One more time:
>>
>> Every single binary posted on USENET is encoded using some method or
>> another.
>> ....................................
>
>
> May humbly suggest to a.b.p.a readers to check out "yEnc" @ Wikipedia and
> also to check out the references contained in the article.
> Opinions and conclusions will be per individual.
> I offer none to the group.
> My ***own*** is that yEnc is much-ado-about-nothing today, and
> non-standard to boot.

Agreed. It's just another pseudo standard that few use. I hate it primarily
because it offers NOTHING any of the current encoding methods provide AND
that it has a tendency to be used for multi-part messages that invariably
are incomplete. In essence, it does nothing.

Remember (for those of you old enough) the wars over ARC, LZH, ZIP, RAR etc?
What a waste that was and we still came back to ZIP, one of the very first
standards. All the rest tried to be better but generally failed.

[The Raven[_2_]]

"Sj" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:12:10 +1000, "The Raven"
> > wrote:
>
>>"G Paleologopoulos" > wrote in message
>>news:1251118387.485792@athprx03...
>>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote
>>> ...
>>>>.................................
>>>> One more time:
>>>>
>>>> Every single binary posted on USENET is encoded using some method or
>>>> another.
>>>> ....................................
>>>
>>>
>>> May humbly suggest to a.b.p.a readers to check out "yEnc" @ Wikipedia
>>> and
>>> also to check out the references contained in the article.
>>> Opinions and conclusions will be per individual.
>>> I offer none to the group.
>>> My ***own*** is that yEnc is much-ado-about-nothing today, and
>>> non-standard to boot.
>>
>>Agreed. It's just another pseudo standard that few use. I hate it
>>primarily
>>because it offers NOTHING any of the current encoding methods provide AND
>>that it has a tendency to be used for multi-part messages that invariably
>>are incomplete. In essence, it does nothing.
>>
>>Remember (for those of you old enough) the wars over ARC, LZH, ZIP, RAR
>>etc?
>>What a waste that was and we still came back to ZIP, one of the very first
>>standards. All the rest tried to be better but generally failed.
>
> I disagree w/ you on this ... both rar's & zip's work nicely for
> me ...

Yes, Zip and RAR are common standards. ZIP predominantly for the MS based
systems (historically anyway). RAR tends to be non-MS specific, which I have
no problems with. Beyond these two all the other contenders for the file
compression crown have failed. Similarly, yEnc may offer some technical
benefit (no idea what) but it offers nothing practical that can't be
achieved by using default encoding methods.

> As for yEnc, unless someone complains about yEnc, I don't
> even notice its use, as my Agent deals w/ it seamlessly ...

Mine will now handle yEnc BUT, as 90% of the yEnc posts consist of missing
multi-part messages it's a mute point.

>
> And I'm not into DVD's, mp3's, warez, any of the big stuff ...
>

Same here.

[Dave D]

"hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:50:40 -0400, Mitchell Holman wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> "John Crawford" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Yenc is suppose to save band width. No on my computer, all it does
>>> is
>>> flood it with useless unreadable
>>> garbage.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yenc might make sense when posting songs or video
>> clips but when it comes to simple images I have never
>> seen a reason to depart from the jpeg format that
>> everyone can read and is comfortable with.
>>
>
> One more time:
>
> Every single binary posted on USENET is encoded using some method or
> another.
> If you post a .JPG, you are posting it using some encoding system, MIME,
> or
> UUNET, or yENC or something else. You cannot just post a .JPG, USENET is a
> text-only medium and binaries must be encoded so that they look like text
> or
> they will not show up on USENET. You choose to encode using UUNET or MIME,
> depending on the default setting of your NNTP client; almost all NNTP
> clients
> decode MIME and UUNET and yENC. Some just decode MIME or UUNET. Some still
> don't decode any of those formats at all and must rely on 'helper apps' to
> decode binaries. (And to encode them for upload) When I first started
> reading
> USENET, my NNTP client at the time did not decode binaries of any format;
> I
> had to use a helper app.
>
> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE and
> Thunderbird. MSOE users, in particular, insist that others not use yENC
> because their client won't read it. I tell 'em to kiss my ass. If you want
> to
> see _all_ the pics, use a client which will decode them, or get a helper
> app
> which will do it for you. If you insist on doing neither, that is _your
> choice_. You don't get to see certain pix. Like it or lump it.

I always figgured that those who insist on using yENC for pics were kinda
like those who put spoilers on the rear of their cars that won't go fast
enough to be of any value. Simply put for show, looks, and status....

DaveD
>

[Michael[_8_]]

"hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:43:15 -0400, the Legend of LAX wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Actually, Thunderbird does do yEnc. Unfortunately, it only does files
>> that are properly formatted. I can usually see about half of all yEnc
>> posts.
>>
>>
>>
>> hielan' laddie wrote:
>>>
>>> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE
>>> and
>>> Thunderbird.
>>
>>
>
> I stand corrected. That means that it's only MSOE that has the problem.
>
There is no problem with MSOE if you download OeyEnc Loader plugin from:
http://www.mutexed.com/code/OeyEnc/ either.
I've been using it for at least 3 years with absolutely no problem and 100%
success. Once you have installed it, you don't even know that it is there.
It's amazing how many of the detractors state that they refuse to download
anything from the web because of dangers, install any software that isn't on
MSOE or change anything on their computer from the original setup. Do they
ever run MS update (or even know what it is), run an antivirus and firewall
or anti-malware program. I wonder who they blame when their machine starts
doing strange things because its been hacked.
But the ones that make me laugh are the ones that can't see yEnc posts,
refuse to do anything about it but go on and on and on and on about it. It's
like a Monty Python argument sketch. I wonder what sort of aircraft these
people would fly? One with twisty wings made in 1904 I guess.
Or are they just Trolls?

Michael





.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[The Raven[_2_]]

"Michael" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:43:15 -0400, the Legend of LAX wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Actually, Thunderbird does do yEnc. Unfortunately, it only does files
>>> that are properly formatted. I can usually see about half of all yEnc
>>> posts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hielan' laddie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE
>>>> and
>>>> Thunderbird.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I stand corrected. That means that it's only MSOE that has the problem.
>>
> There is no problem with MSOE if you download OeyEnc Loader plugin from:
> http://www.mutexed.com/code/OeyEnc/ either.
> I've been using it for at least 3 years with absolutely no problem and
> 100% success. Once you have installed it, you don't even know that it is
> there.
> It's amazing how many of the detractors state that they refuse to download
> anything from the web because of dangers, install any software that isn't
> on MSOE or change anything on their computer from the original setup. Do
> they ever run MS update (or even know what it is), run an antivirus and
> firewall or anti-malware program. I wonder who they blame when their
> machine starts doing strange things because its been hacked.
> But the ones that make me laugh are the ones that can't see yEnc posts,
> refuse to do anything about it but go on and on and on and on about it.
> It's like a Monty Python argument sketch. I wonder what sort of aircraft
> these people would fly? One with twisty wings made in 1904 I guess.
> Or are they just Trolls?
>
> Michael

I'm using this and it works................BUT........only when all the
multi-part messages are available. For some reason yEnc posters love big
pics and small multi-part messages, end result is that enough parts always
go missing as to make the whole exercise a huge waste of time.

[Jacques[_2_]]

Looks like I started a YENc WAR here. I apologize! So stop it now, please!
This could turn out to be a day time soap opera with all it's drama and
stuff.

Please do not turn it into "As the Stomach Turns"

Jacques

[hielan' laddie]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:28:11 -0400, Dave D wrote
(in article >):

>
> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:50:40 -0400, Mitchell Holman wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> "John Crawford" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Yenc is suppose to save band width. No on my computer, all it does
>>>> is
>>>> flood it with useless unreadable
>>>> garbage.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yenc might make sense when posting songs or video
>>> clips but when it comes to simple images I have never
>>> seen a reason to depart from the jpeg format that
>>> everyone can read and is comfortable with.
>>>
>>
>> One more time:
>>
>> Every single binary posted on USENET is encoded using some method or
>> another.
>> If you post a .JPG, you are posting it using some encoding system, MIME,
>> or
>> UUNET, or yENC or something else. You cannot just post a .JPG, USENET is a
>> text-only medium and binaries must be encoded so that they look like text
>> or
>> they will not show up on USENET. You choose to encode using UUNET or MIME,
>> depending on the default setting of your NNTP client; almost all NNTP
>> clients
>> decode MIME and UUNET and yENC. Some just decode MIME or UUNET. Some still
>> don't decode any of those formats at all and must rely on 'helper apps' to
>> decode binaries. (And to encode them for upload) When I first started
>> reading
>> USENET, my NNTP client at the time did not decode binaries of any format;
>> I
>> had to use a helper app.
>>
>> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE and
>> Thunderbird. MSOE users, in particular, insist that others not use yENC
>> because their client won't read it. I tell 'em to kiss my ass. If you want
>> to
>> see _all_ the pics, use a client which will decode them, or get a helper
>> app
>> which will do it for you. If you insist on doing neither, that is _your
>> choice_. You don't get to see certain pix. Like it or lump it.
>
> I always figgured that those who insist on using yENC for pics were kinda
> like those who put spoilers on the rear of their cars that won't go fast
> enough to be of any value. Simply put for show, looks, and status....
>
> DaveD
>>
>
>

I have limited bandwidth. I see no reason to waste it unnecessarily catering
to luddites. yENC cuts the overhead by a considerable amount. In addition, my
outgoing connection is slow. Not using yENC means that I would take longer to
post. I would prefer to cut down on the time, not to increase it. Faster
connections are not available at my location, even if I were willing to pay
more for the connivence of luddites, which I'm not. Nor am I willing to move
to a location where I can get faster connections just so luddites can avoid
using an efficient method. I configure my system to suit my needs. If my
needs do not correspond to your needs, then by all means apply your killfile.
Do it now. Don't wait, as I am _not_ going to change.

[Michael[_8_]]

"Jacques" > wrote in message
...
> Looks like I started a YENc WAR here. I apologize! So stop it now,
> please! This could turn out to be a day time soap opera with all it's
> drama and stuff.
>
> Please do not turn it into "As the Stomach Turns"
>
> Jacques

Did you start the yEnc war? You must be a troll then......:-)
No war buddy, just some education needed to those who don't understand how
Usenet works.
But a word of advice, If you don't want it discussed, keep your fingers off
the keyboard.

Michael





.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Don Pyeatt]

"hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:43:15 -0400, the Legend of LAX wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Actually, Thunderbird does do yEnc. Unfortunately, it only does files
>> that are properly formatted. I can usually see about half of all yEnc
>> posts.
>>
>>
>>
>> hielan' laddie wrote:
>>>
>>> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE
>>> and
>>> Thunderbird.
>>
>>
>
> I stand corrected. That means that it's only MSOE that has the problem.
>



What problem?

[Don Pyeatt]

"hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:28:11 -0400, Dave D wrote
> (in article >):
>
>>
>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:50:40 -0400, Mitchell Holman wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> "John Crawford" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Yenc is suppose to save band width. No on my computer, all it does
>>>>> is
>>>>> flood it with useless unreadable
>>>>> garbage.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yenc might make sense when posting songs or video
>>>> clips but when it comes to simple images I have never
>>>> seen a reason to depart from the jpeg format that
>>>> everyone can read and is comfortable with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One more time:
>>>
>>> Every single binary posted on USENET is encoded using some method or
>>> another.
>>> If you post a .JPG, you are posting it using some encoding system, MIME,
>>> or
>>> UUNET, or yENC or something else. You cannot just post a .JPG, USENET is
>>> a
>>> text-only medium and binaries must be encoded so that they look like
>>> text
>>> or
>>> they will not show up on USENET. You choose to encode using UUNET or
>>> MIME,
>>> depending on the default setting of your NNTP client; almost all NNTP
>>> clients
>>> decode MIME and UUNET and yENC. Some just decode MIME or UUNET. Some
>>> still
>>> don't decode any of those formats at all and must rely on 'helper apps'
>>> to
>>> decode binaries. (And to encode them for upload) When I first started
>>> reading
>>> USENET, my NNTP client at the time did not decode binaries of any
>>> format;
>>> I
>>> had to use a helper app.
>>>
>>> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE
>>> and
>>> Thunderbird. MSOE users, in particular, insist that others not use yENC
>>> because their client won't read it. I tell 'em to kiss my ass. If you
>>> want
>>> to
>>> see _all_ the pics, use a client which will decode them, or get a helper
>>> app
>>> which will do it for you. If you insist on doing neither, that is _your
>>> choice_. You don't get to see certain pix. Like it or lump it.
>>
>> I always figgured that those who insist on using yENC for pics were kinda
>> like those who put spoilers on the rear of their cars that won't go fast
>> enough to be of any value. Simply put for show, looks, and status....
>>
>> DaveD
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I have limited bandwidth. I see no reason to waste it unnecessarily
> catering
> to luddites. yENC cuts the overhead by a considerable amount. In addition,
> my
> outgoing connection is slow. Not using yENC means that I would take longer
> to
> post. I would prefer to cut down on the time, not to increase it. Faster
> connections are not available at my location, even if I were willing to
> pay
> more for the connivence of luddites, which I'm not. Nor am I willing to
> move
> to a location where I can get faster connections just so luddites can
> avoid
> using an efficient method. I configure my system to suit my needs. If my
> needs do not correspond to your needs, then by all means apply your
> killfile.
> Do it now. Don't wait, as I am _not_ going to change.
>


I considered KF'ing you long ago but have not since you are the best
entertainment this group has ever had.

[Gary R. Schmidt]

hielan' laddie wrote:
[SNIP]
> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE and
> Thunderbird.
T'bird will handle *single* yEnc posts, but as multi-part yEnc posts
*are not formatted according the Usenet RFCs in regard to posting
format* it cannot handle them.

If the bloke who came up with yEnc had *not* been raised in the mould of
Microsoft and the "I'll do it *my* way, stuff any existing standards"
attitude they engage in, _none of these discussions would occur_.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

P.S. I am all in favour of reducing bandwidth requirements, but anyone
who can count beyond ten without taking their shoes off should realise
that a single post with 50Kb of encoded data uses less bandwidth than
five posts each with 10Kb of encoded data and associated glue.

[Michael[_8_]]

"Don Pyeatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:43:15 -0400, the Legend of LAX wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Actually, Thunderbird does do yEnc. Unfortunately, it only does files
>>> that are properly formatted. I can usually see about half of all yEnc
>>> posts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hielan' laddie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE
>>>> and
>>>> Thunderbird.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I stand corrected. That means that it's only MSOE that has the problem.
>>
>
>
>
> What problem?
>
The problem that MSOE doesn't decode yEnc without a helper.
Why what did you think he meant?

Michael





.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Michael[_8_]]

"Don Pyeatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:28:11 -0400, Dave D wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>>
>>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:50:40 -0400, Mitchell Holman wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> "John Crawford" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yenc is suppose to save band width. No on my computer, all it does
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> flood it with useless unreadable
>>>>>> garbage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yenc might make sense when posting songs or video
>>>>> clips but when it comes to simple images I have never
>>>>> seen a reason to depart from the jpeg format that
>>>>> everyone can read and is comfortable with.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One more time:
>>>>
>>>> Every single binary posted on USENET is encoded using some method or
>>>> another.
>>>> If you post a .JPG, you are posting it using some encoding system,
>>>> MIME,
>>>> or
>>>> UUNET, or yENC or something else. You cannot just post a .JPG, USENET
>>>> is a
>>>> text-only medium and binaries must be encoded so that they look like
>>>> text
>>>> or
>>>> they will not show up on USENET. You choose to encode using UUNET or
>>>> MIME,
>>>> depending on the default setting of your NNTP client; almost all NNTP
>>>> clients
>>>> decode MIME and UUNET and yENC. Some just decode MIME or UUNET. Some
>>>> still
>>>> don't decode any of those formats at all and must rely on 'helper apps'
>>>> to
>>>> decode binaries. (And to encode them for upload) When I first started
>>>> reading
>>>> USENET, my NNTP client at the time did not decode binaries of any
>>>> format;
>>>> I
>>>> had to use a helper app.
>>>>
>>>> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE
>>>> and
>>>> Thunderbird. MSOE users, in particular, insist that others not use yENC
>>>> because their client won't read it. I tell 'em to kiss my ass. If you
>>>> want
>>>> to
>>>> see _all_ the pics, use a client which will decode them, or get a
>>>> helper
>>>> app
>>>> which will do it for you. If you insist on doing neither, that is _your
>>>> choice_. You don't get to see certain pix. Like it or lump it.
>>>
>>> I always figgured that those who insist on using yENC for pics were
>>> kinda
>>> like those who put spoilers on the rear of their cars that won't go fast
>>> enough to be of any value. Simply put for show, looks, and status....
>>>
>>> DaveD
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have limited bandwidth. I see no reason to waste it unnecessarily
>> catering
>> to luddites. yENC cuts the overhead by a considerable amount. In
>> addition, my
>> outgoing connection is slow. Not using yENC means that I would take
>> longer to
>> post. I would prefer to cut down on the time, not to increase it. Faster
>> connections are not available at my location, even if I were willing to
>> pay
>> more for the connivence of luddites, which I'm not. Nor am I willing to
>> move
>> to a location where I can get faster connections just so luddites can
>> avoid
>> using an efficient method. I configure my system to suit my needs. If my
>> needs do not correspond to your needs, then by all means apply your
>> killfile.
>> Do it now. Don't wait, as I am _not_ going to change.
>>
>
>
> I considered KF'ing you long ago but have not since you are the best
> entertainment this group has ever had.
>
>
>
You need to get away from your computer more often :-)

Michael





.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[Don Pyeatt]

"Michael" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Don Pyeatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:43:15 -0400, the Legend of LAX wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>> Actually, Thunderbird does do yEnc. Unfortunately, it only does files
>>>> that are properly formatted. I can usually see about half of all yEnc
>>>> posts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hielan' laddie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE
>>>>> and
>>>>> Thunderbird.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I stand corrected. That means that it's only MSOE that has the problem.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What problem?
>>
> The problem that MSOE doesn't decode yEnc without a helper.
> Why what did you think he meant?
>
> Michael

How can that be a problem?

[Michael[_8_]]

"Don Pyeatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Don Pyeatt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:43:15 -0400, the Legend of LAX wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, Thunderbird does do yEnc. Unfortunately, it only does files
>>>>> that are properly formatted. I can usually see about half of all yEnc
>>>>> posts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hielan' laddie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Thunderbird.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I stand corrected. That means that it's only MSOE that has the problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What problem?
>>>
>> The problem that MSOE doesn't decode yEnc without a helper.
>> Why what did you think he meant?
>>
>> Michael
>
> How can that be a problem?
>
How can it not be a problem?





.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

[hielan' laddie]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:44:54 -0400, Don Pyeatt wrote
(in article >):

>
> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:28:11 -0400, Dave D wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>>
>>> "hielan' laddie" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:50:40 -0400, Mitchell Holman wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>> "John Crawford" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yenc is suppose to save band width. No on my computer, all it does
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> flood it with useless unreadable
>>>>>> garbage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yenc might make sense when posting songs or video
>>>>> clips but when it comes to simple images I have never
>>>>> seen a reason to depart from the jpeg format that
>>>>> everyone can read and is comfortable with.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One more time:
>>>>
>>>> Every single binary posted on USENET is encoded using some method or
>>>> another.
>>>> If you post a .JPG, you are posting it using some encoding system, MIME,
>>>> or
>>>> UUNET, or yENC or something else. You cannot just post a .JPG, USENET is
>>>> a
>>>> text-only medium and binaries must be encoded so that they look like
>>>> text
>>>> or
>>>> they will not show up on USENET. You choose to encode using UUNET or
>>>> MIME,
>>>> depending on the default setting of your NNTP client; almost all NNTP
>>>> clients
>>>> decode MIME and UUNET and yENC. Some just decode MIME or UUNET. Some
>>>> still
>>>> don't decode any of those formats at all and must rely on 'helper apps'
>>>> to
>>>> decode binaries. (And to encode them for upload) When I first started
>>>> reading
>>>> USENET, my NNTP client at the time did not decode binaries of any
>>>> format;
>>>> I
>>>> had to use a helper app.
>>>>
>>>> The two most prominent NNTP clients which do not decode yENC are MSOE
>>>> and
>>>> Thunderbird. MSOE users, in particular, insist that others not use yENC
>>>> because their client won't read it. I tell 'em to kiss my ass. If you
>>>> want
>>>> to
>>>> see _all_ the pics, use a client which will decode them, or get a helper
>>>> app
>>>> which will do it for you. If you insist on doing neither, that is _your
>>>> choice_. You don't get to see certain pix. Like it or lump it.
>>>
>>> I always figgured that those who insist on using yENC for pics were kinda
>>> like those who put spoilers on the rear of their cars that won't go fast
>>> enough to be of any value. Simply put for show, looks, and status....
>>>
>>> DaveD
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have limited bandwidth. I see no reason to waste it unnecessarily
>> catering
>> to luddites. yENC cuts the overhead by a considerable amount. In addition,
>> my
>> outgoing connection is slow. Not using yENC means that I would take longer
>> to
>> post. I would prefer to cut down on the time, not to increase it. Faster
>> connections are not available at my location, even if I were willing to
>> pay
>> more for the connivence of luddites, which I'm not. Nor am I willing to
>> move
>> to a location where I can get faster connections just so luddites can
>> avoid
>> using an efficient method. I configure my system to suit my needs. If my
>> needs do not correspond to your needs, then by all means apply your
>> killfile.
>> Do it now. Don't wait, as I am _not_ going to change.
>>
>
>
> I considered KF'ing you long ago but have not since you are the best
> entertainment this group has ever had.
>
>
>

Happy to be of service.

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:44:40 -0400, "Jacques" >
wrote:
>
>Please do not turn it into "As the Stomach Turns"

And here I thought the last four days on the throne and the visit to
the ER for dehydration was just food poisoning...

Anybody have Dr Kevorkian's phone number?

[Dave Kearton[_3_]]

"Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:44:40 -0400, "Jacques" >
> wrote:
>>
>>Please do not turn it into "As the Stomach Turns"
>
> And here I thought the last four days on the throne and the visit to
> the ER for dehydration was just food poisoning...
>
> Anybody have Dr Kevorkian's phone number?




He's off sick today...



--


Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dave D" > wrote

> I always figgured that those who insist on using yENC for pics were kinda
> like those who put spoilers on the rear of their cars that won't go fast
> enough to be of any value. Simply put for show, looks, and status....

<Chuckle>
Best summation of the whole subject I have ever seen!
--
Jim in NC

[Mitchell Holman[_3_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dave D" > wrote
>
>> I always figgured that those who insist on using yENC for pics were
>> kinda like those who put spoilers on the rear of their cars that
>> won't go fast enough to be of any value. Simply put for show, looks,
>> and status....
>
> <Chuckle>
> Best summation of the whole subject I have ever seen!

[Don Pyeatt]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
. 130...
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Dave D" > wrote
>>
>>> I always figgured that those who insist on using yENC for pics were
>>> kinda like those who put spoilers on the rear of their cars that
>>> won't go fast enough to be of any value. Simply put for show, looks,
>>> and status....
>>
>> <Chuckle>
>> Best summation of the whole subject I have ever seen!
>
>
>

A VolksyEnc !!!! Built with bailout funds no doubt.

gdp

[Anyolmouse]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
. 130...
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Dave D" > wrote
> >
> >> I always figgured that those who insist on using yENC for pics were
> >> kinda like those who put spoilers on the rear of their cars that
> >> won't go fast enough to be of any value. Simply put for show,
looks,
> >> and status....
> >
> > <Chuckle>
> > Best summation of the whole subject I have ever seen!
>

Looks like is going to flip upside down at any minute!

--
A man is known by the company he keeps- Unknown

Anyolmouse