On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 20:40:26 -0600, "Michael Raiford"
<mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>"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.

No confusion - I just wanted clarification. There's no point in
debating this issue if the facts aren't in from - I hope - the horse's
mouth.

>
>> 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.

Amazing how you will change the subject to avoid the issue at hand.

>
>> "Honestly" - the hallmark of a liar.
>
>*cough*bullshit*cough*

Now look who's using foul language? Such hypocracy I've come to expect
from this group.

>
>> >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.

Rudeness is a relative perception. When in argument with people, one
is bound to appear rude. Others here seem to have had no problem with
me at all and have even provided supporting views.

>>
>> 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. 

Making lazy people blink is rude? I think not. Dear me, anyone would
have thought I had posted something that was encrypted.

>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 doubt it. They were merely wasting space with duplicated images.

>
>> > 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!"

No. It's not duh. Some people really do not understand this. Don't cop
that attitude. Just because you are familar with it, does not mean the
man in the street is. 

>Thorsten was being genuinely helpful, here.

By mentioning an expensive solution. Well he may be made of money, but
for the hobbyist that's a lot of bread.

>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.

That's stopped - but you seem keen on using it.

"Thorsten is very direct" is smokescreen for "Thorsten is rude" -
plain and simple.

>> 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.

New material? You are too bizarre. The arguments do not change. Why on
Earth would you expect them too? I shall stick to the point, thank you
very 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.

You must be joking. PNG is way to bulky. Keep up with the previous
posts on this.

>
>> 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.

There's no compatibility problem. There are solutions to the viewing
problems. People are just too lazy to get off they behinds and use
them.

>
>> 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.

Don't kid yourself that this is a community. A community happens in
"meatspace", face to face, in real buildings with real progress. This
is merely a exchange of data.

>
>> 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.

Stop your shouting, it's pointless. The image was changed - it had
artifacts added to it that were not there before.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message