Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.crafts.pictures:19951
Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!pull-news.sonic-news.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews!core-easynews-02!easynews.com!en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Willy Ewe <we@tinw.invalid>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.640
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.crafts.pictures
Subject: Re: Someone wanted Jenny Haskins .. Attn: Willy
Summary: The day you reach the belief the idiot ceiling is holding you down is the day an idiot falls through - the ceiling
References: <f4WdnZ6Fy43yr9PSnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <a8osk79jhgb6qro5ovvknc4mmuh0r3j2j8@4ax.com>
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 358
Message-ID: <OzR3r.127306$oV1.3495@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte Inc. http://www.forteinc.com/apn/
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:10:38 +1000
X-Received-Bytes: 22267
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:35:14 -0500, in alt.binaries.crafts.pictures
<nada@nada.com> gave us [tinu]:
>On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:13:04 GMT, LoveCorrie@best.net wrote in:
><f4WdnZ6Fy43yr9PSnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>On 29-Feb-2012, Willy Ewe <we@tinw.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Be aware the archive is charged with superfluous files, requiring
>>> hours of sorting to obtain working folders.
>>
>>I hear you load and clear about posting files in future using an archive
>>that is in smaller modules that can be combined in to a finished unit. I
>>will do some research on google to figure out how to do that.
>>
Fine, how you get there isn't of any real consequence.
Be aware though that many of the "tutorials" out there were not written
by Usenetizens, built by site 'gurus' selling their software - software which
in many instances is not Usenet friendly.
>>Regarding your comment << "Be aware the archive is charged with superfluous
>>files, requiring hours of sorting to obtain working folders">>
>>
>> I found the Jenny Hasking collection on a bit torrent site, and did spend
>> some time editing the file folder names and adding some pictures when found
>> easily. I did not spend any time editing the collection from what I
>> received other than to verify they were relevant as I was not personally
>> interested in these designs myself. I assumed that the end user could
>> spend their own time editing the file contents to suit themselves.
>
My comment was not directed at the design files themselves, nor indeed the
the jPEGS referring to those, albeit many of both are duplicated times over.. if you
had looked you would have seen subfolders which contain files that have no purpose
as information for the collector/sewer, again duplicated many times over.
>> personally am not prepared to spend hours editing the folders for someone
>> else's end use. If I am incorrect in this assumption, and if people
>> receiving these files don't won't them unless I have combed through them,
>> in future I will not post such collections.
>>
Myself I would be the last person to discourage smart posting. It is the case though
that whatever is posted gets archived, often regurgitated at another time.
Your torrent download being a proper example of just how trash gets distributed.
FYI?
Your post is a long way from being the first of what has been many examples in
this newsgroup. Now that the Netherlands servers have fell off Usenet I was hoping
the practice of uploading megaGigs of trash to this newsgroup would cease.
Your statement of good intent is far removed from my view of posting, and thus
possibly the focus of where we differ. You have my earlier example to peruse, I add
yet another with this post - which is an extract of your 'intent', rehashed in
accordance with established Usenet convention.
Usenet is not eMail nor is it "fileshares".. as many newbies would have it.
Usenet is not a Trading Post in which to make "big wappum".
Posting binary to Usenet forums requires work, my question to you Corrie, would
be "where piping (courier) is the only motivation, why post?".
Your 755MB reduced to just 43MB of useful files, 46MB archived... few have that
sort of bandwidth (700MB) to waste, particularly those with Scrooge-like husbands!
>>I would appreciate some guideance from other posters on what would be
>>satisfactory to the group
>
For the most part the posters of quality have left this group, the attrition paid when
newbies fail to listen, or worse, listen to the distractions of harpies who post
nothing but that "ark ark ark"- Message-ID: <6Bx3r.24380$s57.3630@newsfe11.ams2>
>I'm a newbie, so my ideas are only my opinion.
>
Tis what makes the World go 'round, but yes.. an informed opinion is
the optimum input. Not forgetting any education cannot be gathered without an
expression of what is not known, Corrie has ably opened the topic on that score.
>But perhaps each particular collection could have been posted separately?
>
It is the usual way, yes.
>Then we could only download the collections we would be interested in.
>
More often than not an upload occurs following a request.
Therefore the person building the post is focused on what was
asked for. So it happens that (often) posters provide an archive in the
manner of naming as Corrie has, and usually with an index file showing
the content.
--
we
<< JennyHask.Art_Nouveau_Series_Iris_Design.7z.001 >>
|
|