Re: JPEG fading and Sensor size
- From: Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:00:27 -0600
Zorba the Geek wrote:
"All Things Mopar" <nunofyour@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Xns97855CD494445ReplyID@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxToday Zorba the Geek commented courteously on the subject atWell seeing as you've asked, I can only offer the courtesy of a reply, whether you chose to read it or not. Personally I'm none of the above, but there do seem seem to be other categories of people on here, such as pedantic bores, newsgroup nazis and aggressive loud mouths. I note your quaint colonial variation of the English language, and therefore make allowances for it without commenting further.
hand
"All Things Mopar" <nunofyour@xxxxxxxx> wrote in messagepeople in this NG often tend to be of several categories:
news:Xns97854F5D45FD6ReplyID@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject atOh dear, another grey humourless being with a sense of
hand
Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photosWhere did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the
have such a short shelf life. You can slow the process
down somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic
fields emanating from your computer monitor and other
peripherals -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays
coming from the sun.
cereal box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later
JPEG scans into the present day, ditto for /all/ my
digitals since 2001. Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.
humour lobotomy!
elitists, morons who post OT crap to entice more morons to
reply, and trolls. Which are you? All of the above? In any
event, I tire quickly of crap on this NG that gets in the way
of its purpose. So, no, I have no sense of humor (there's no
"u" in "humor" where I live) when it comes to nonsense, and I
have even less when it comes to trolls - like you. Don't
reply, I won't see you anymore, troll.
I can understand people on here being tired of the vulgar spam, but occasional innocuous posts, that inject a rare moment of levity are surely harmless, unless of course you have some vindictive desire to deny the world a brief moment of light-hearted relief, by imposing your personal lack of humour on the whole group.
The problem is that many people find such 'levity' misleading, and confusing. Then those of us who are her to HELP spend months dispelling the negative effects of such a post. You might find it funny, and it might have been intended to be funny, but some users will find it just plain confusing, or worse, misleading.
It is not a matter of humor (or humour if you prefer), but of good sense, and propriety.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JPEG fading and Sensor size
- From: All Things Mopar
- Re: JPEG fading and Sensor size
- References:
- JPEG fading and Sensor size
- From: cjcampbell
- Re: JPEG fading and Sensor size
- From: All Things Mopar
- Re: JPEG fading and Sensor size
- From: Zorba the Geek
- Re: JPEG fading and Sensor size
- From: All Things Mopar
- Re: JPEG fading and Sensor size
- From: Zorba the Geek
- JPEG fading and Sensor size
- Prev by Date: Re: JPEG fading and Sensor size
- Next by Date: Re: JPEG fading and Sensor size
- Previous by thread: Re: JPEG fading and Sensor size
- Next by thread: Re: JPEG fading and Sensor size
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading