Among other things, IMBJR wrote:

>>>>You could save even more bandwidth by posting just a link to wherever
>>>>you choose to upload the file.
>>> 
>>> I'd still get some saying they could not see the file after following
>>> the link - so thanks for the suggestion, but it's not going to solve
>>> that particular problem.
>>
>>Wrong!
>>
>>Read my post again. I didn't suggest to solve *that* problem, but the
>>bandwidth problem (which is one of the reasons you're using JPEG2000, you
>>said). I really think you should read the discussion before you jump with
>>unrelated answers. ;)
> 
> Don't be silly. Your parroting back of my arguments just points you
> out as another one of the crowd hell bent on being obtuse for
> obtuseness sake.

Parrots are nice animals :)

Yes, poor me, I was being ironic. I had a very small hope you would 
understand how annoying some of your comments could be... However, the fact 
remains, I was referring to the possibility of saving bandwidth and storage 
space, and not to the "ease of use" of the format. And please, note that I 
have *not* insulted you, you have (tried to do so).

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message