"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:ttop40d82d4j7k29msodrklpq3mjom2a5k@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:04:11 -0600, "Mike Raiford"
> <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> This is a newserver not a web server. Dear me, if this is how you
> start your rant you've already lost major respect-possibilities.

Hmm, Perhaps you may have noticed there are two interfaces: Web-based, and
newsreader-based, they're the same host name. I'm sorry if I confused you.

> I did not realise that the use of an FTP server made one's face go
> blue. Can you demonstrate this for me?

It's amazing how litterally children take things. Really.

> "Honestly" - the hallmark of a liar.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

> >1) You're being rude, and you continue to be rude on these groups,
> >disrespecting every single indvidual on here. You're a self-centered
> >foul-mouth twit.
>
> You know full well why I am rude. I have numerous (now) of my images
> adulterated by rude people. I also notice I am not the only person who
> get's rude treatment here. Read the following:

It was rude of you to post something so far out of convention for binary
images that people have to hunt around for another app or a plug-in to view
the image. I don't necessarily think re-posting the image in a format that
others can more readily view is rude. I think they were doing a service to
the community as a whole.

> > I've been lucky enough to get hold of a second flat-panel LCD monitor
for my
> > PC, but the colour profile is quite different from my main monitor. Does
> > anyone have any recommendations for getting them to match?
>
> You have to calibrate both, isn't that obvious?  The simplest way is
> to use

In your words: "Well, DUH!"

> whatever tool came with your graphics card or (if it was expensive)
> LCD
> display to do gamma correction.  That will get you somewhat close.
> However,
> for proper calibration you will need to rent (or buy, with serious
> ones
> starting not below US$200) an external calibration device.  It will
> build a
> color profile of your display, and then you of course need a graphics
> card
> (or display, if it was expensive) to make use of that calibration
> data.

Thorsten was being genuinely helpful, here.

> That first line just smacks of sheer rudeness. It's not obvious to
> some so try being a bit more generous in tone. What follows after that
> is some ridulous fob off with reference to some expensive equipment.

While I can agree that Thorsten is very direct, I'm hesitant to say he's
downright rude, I don't think he uses profanity as a way to respond to
others' posts.

> >2) JPEG2000 may very well be a better JPEG, obviously very few companies
and
> >individuals have adopted this format. People are having difficulties
viewing
> >the images.
>
> No, only the lazy ones and the unfortunate that have wandered into an
> unsupported format ghetto.

Geez.. I throw you a bone (or does the metaphor fly over your head, too?)
and this is the response? "Everyone's too lazy, wah wah wah!" You've been
spouting this repeately over and over, get some new material.

> >3) Someone, in a misguided act of kindness decided to post your image in
JPG
> >format so everyone can see it, since this is what you wanted, then why
whine
> >about it so much?
>
> Because it was and is an extremely rude thing to do. No permission was
> given to have this done. People are wasting even more HD by posting
> inflated badly-artifacted replicas of my work. They are ruining them
> in effect.

And, the act of kindness was misguided because it threw you on a tyrade. If
you're that concerned about quality, use PNG, it has the same bpcc as
JPEG2000, and is lossless, and -- GET THIS!! -- people in most browsers can
decode a PNG with no problem.

> Well, duh. I've already come to the conclusion that the 16-bit aspect
> of this is probably a non-starter.

I think banging your head against the compatibility wall is a bigger flaw
with your reasoning.

> The proper thing to do is let me post what I like within the
> guidelines. If necessary I will explain viewing solutions to those who
> reply that they cannot see the image. But more realistically, the FAQ
> perhaps needs updating to mention JPEG2000.

I think the proper thing to do would to post like you're part of the
community, which is what this newsserver is all about. In a community you
work together, find a common ground, and don't go against every sane person
in the group.

> The improper thing to do is repost my butchered work.

Nobody changed the image, just the format it was encoded in. Let me repeat:
NO ONE IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM ALTERED YOUR IMAGE FROM IT'S ORIGINAL FORM.
IT IS STILL YOUR ORIGINAL ARTWORK.

Post a reply to this message