"Johnny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 18:11:08 +0100, Mark wrote:

"Adrian Caspersz" wrote in message
...
For those of ye lookin at running costs...

Techmoan's Epson ET 7700 Ecotank review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMIl4TA7wYU

Pointless really when you can buy refillable cartridges and good quality
ink at a fraction of the cost.
That Epson would still need to be used regularly or the print head would
clog and worse the ink tubes leading to it.

Those objections might prove irrelevant to someone planning on saving
the costs of wallpapering their house by substituting the expensive
wallpaper with their collection of photo prints. :-)

Not realising they'd be faded away by the end of the week.
--
Dave W

I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same sentence these
days and of course use any make you like but not Epsom. the local tip is
piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark ones.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Dave W" wrote in message
news

"Johnny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 18:11:08 +0100, Mark wrote:

"Adrian Caspersz" wrote in message
...
For those of ye lookin at running costs...

Techmoan's Epson ET 7700 Ecotank review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMIl4TA7wYU

Pointless really when you can buy refillable cartridges and good quality
ink at a fraction of the cost.
That Epson would still need to be used regularly or the print head would
clog and worse the ink tubes leading to it.

Those objections might prove irrelevant to someone planning on saving
the costs of wallpapering their house by substituting the expensive
wallpaper with their collection of photo prints. :-)

Not realising they'd be faded away by the end of the week.
--
Dave W

On 16/06/18 16:35, Brian-Gaff wrote:
I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same sentence these
days and of course use any make you like but not Epsom. the local tip is
piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark ones.
Brian


Horses for courses. Epson printers will give you high quality prints but
if you let the heads get blocked they are dead.


--
Bernard Peek

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 16:35:21 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same sentence
these days and of course use any make you like but not Epsom. the local
tip is piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark ones.
Brian

I'd expect to see evidence of imprint marks from the soles of size 9
work boots on many of the 'broken' Lexmark printers (and probably
likewise the 'cheap' Epson printers[1]). :-)

[1] Actually (let's be all inclusive, why not?) and say *all* 'cheap'
inkjet printers. The ink jet 'principle' was a nice idea... in principle
but, in practice for occasional home use, it was one with a very obvious
and glaring flaw which I don't need to spell out to anyone who has ever
owned one.

--
Johnny B Good

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 16:35:21 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same sentence
these days and of course use any make you like but not Epsom. the local
tip is piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark ones.
Brian

I'd expect to see evidence of imprint marks from the soles of size 9
work boots on many of the 'broken' Lexmark printers (and probably
likewise the 'cheap' Epson printers[1]). :-)

[1] Actually (let's be all inclusive, why not?) and say *all* 'cheap'
inkjet printers. The ink jet 'principle' was a nice idea... in principle
but, in practice for occasional home use, it was one with a very obvious
and glaring flaw which I don't need to spell out to anyone who has ever
owned one.

Interesting. Epson have gone over entirely to inkjet printers.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 16:35:21 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same sentence
these days and of course use any make you like but not Epsom. the local
tip is piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark ones.
Brian

I'd expect to see evidence of imprint marks from the soles of size 9
work boots on many of the 'broken' Lexmark printers (and probably
likewise the 'cheap' Epson printers[1]). :-)

[1] Actually (let's be all inclusive, why not?) and say *all* 'cheap'
inkjet printers. The ink jet 'principle' was a nice idea... in principle
but, in practice for occasional home use, it was one with a very obvious
and glaring flaw which I don't need to spell out to anyone who has ever
owned one.

Interesting. Epson have gone over entirely to inkjet printers.

Weird, hadn't noticed that. Maybe its just the way the Japs do
things, make the brand specific to the type of product and so
do the lasers under the Brother brand instead.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 05:11:55 +1000, cantankerous geezer Rot Speed blabbered,
again:

Interesting. Epson have gone over entirely to inkjet printers.

Weird, hadn't noticed that. Maybe its just the way the Japs do
things, make the brand specific to the type of product and so
do the lasers under the Brother brand instead.

You HAD to **** also in this thread, eh, you incontinent cantankerous senile
geezer? BG

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On 16/06/2018 20:11, Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 16:35:21 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same sentence
these days and of course use any make you like but not Epsom. the
local
tip is piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark ones.
* Brian

*I'd expect to see evidence of imprint marks from the soles of size 9
work boots on many of the 'broken' Lexmark printers (and probably
likewise the 'cheap' Epson printers[1]). :-)

[1] Actually (let's be all inclusive, why not?) and say *all* 'cheap'
inkjet printers. The ink jet 'principle' was a nice idea... in principle
but, in practice for occasional home use, it was one with a very obvious
and glaring flaw which I don't need to spell out to anyone who has ever
owned one.

Interesting. Epson have gone over entirely to inkjet printers.

Weird, hadn't noticed that. Maybe its just the way the Japs do
things, make the brand specific to the type of product and so
do the lasers under the Brother brand instead.

Yeah like sweet biscuit are McVities and savoury ones are Jacobs (same
manufacturer).

--
Max Demian

In article , Max Demian
wrote:
On 16/06/2018 20:11, Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Johnny B Good
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 16:35:21 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same
sentence these days and of course use any make you like but not
Epsom. the
local
tip is piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark
ones. Brian

I'd expect to see evidence of imprint marks from the soles of size 9
work boots on many of the 'broken' Lexmark printers (and probably
likewise the 'cheap' Epson printers[1]). :-)

[1] Actually (let's be all inclusive, why not?) and say *all* 'cheap'
inkjet printers. The ink jet 'principle' was a nice idea... in
principle but, in practice for occasional home use, it was one with a
very obvious and glaring flaw which I don't need to spell out to
anyone who has ever owned one.

Interesting. Epson have gone over entirely to inkjet printers.

Weird, hadn't noticed that. Maybe its just the way the Japs do things,
make the brand specific to the type of product and so do the lasers
under the Brother brand instead.

Yeah like sweet biscuit are McVities and savoury ones are Jacobs (same
manufacturer).

when I was young these biscuits were made by separate companies. I even
knew a young lady from the McVitie family.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Bernard Peek wrote:

On 16/06/18 16:35, Brian-Gaff wrote:
I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same sentence these
days and of course use any make you like but not Epsom. the local tip is
piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark ones.
Brian


Horses for courses. Epson printers will give you high quality prints but
if you let the heads get blocked they are dead.



Not true but admittedly it takes a lot more time and effort then most people are prepared for
I won a bet a few years ago from a friend who had an Epson SX600 left in a loft for 4years unused
its still in use now in our pub and working fine

-

On 17/06/2018 00:15, Mark wrote:
Bernard Peek wrote:

On 16/06/18 16:35, Brian-Gaff wrote:
I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same sentence these
days and of course use any make you like but not Epsom. the local tip is
piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark ones.
Brian


Horses for courses. Epson printers will give you high quality prints but
if you let the heads get blocked they are dead.



Not true but admittedly it takes a lot more time and effort then most people are prepared for
I won a bet a few years ago from a friend who had an Epson SX600 left in a loft for 4years unused
its still in use now in our pub and working fine

I scrapped an Epson. It did good pictures, and wasn't too expensive to
run - but if I didn't use it for a month I was back to soaking the heads
in meths. Again.

I bought a laser in the end.

Andy

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
news
I scrapped an Epson. It did good pictures, and wasn't too expensive to
run - but if I didn't use it for a month I was back to soaking the heads
in meths. Again.

Our Epson suffered badly from that problem, and I set a weekly reminder on
my phone to print a Windows test page every week to stop the ink drying up.
That was with genuine Epson cartridges. Since I don't need accurate colour
rendition because I don't print photos, I decided to change to cheap clone
ink from one of the online cartridge companies. This ink has been much
better as regards clogging. However on the occasions when I have printed
photos (eg print of a web page or a PDF), the colours have been rather
garish - so the choice is accuracy with a tendency to clog up, or lower
quality but much less clogging.

I bought a laser in the end.

For B&W (eg letters) a laser is probably a better buy than an inkjet - no
streaky print if it's not been used for a while.

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
news
I scrapped an Epson. It did good pictures, and wasn't too expensive to
run - but if I didn't use it for a month I was back to soaking the heads
in meths. Again.

Our Epson suffered badly from that problem, and I set a weekly reminder on
my phone to print a Windows test page every week to stop the ink drying
up.
That was with genuine Epson cartridges. Since I don't need accurate colour
rendition because I don't print photos, I decided to change to cheap clone
ink from one of the online cartridge companies. This ink has been much
better as regards clogging. However on the occasions when I have printed
photos (eg print of a web page or a PDF), the colours have been rather
garish - so the choice is accuracy with a tendency to clog up, or lower
quality but much less clogging.

I bought a laser in the end.

For B&W (eg letters) a laser is probably a better buy than an inkjet - no
streaky print if it's not been used for a while.

What is the point of printing letters anymore ?

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
For B&W (eg letters) a laser is probably a better buy than an inkjet - no
streaky print if it's not been used for a while.

What is the point of printing letters anymore ?

For companies that need an "official", signed document. For companies that
do not provide an electronic means of correspondence or which only provide a
"Contact Us" web form: I find that an email or a written letter is harder to
ignore and more likely to elicit a response than a web form which I suspect
often gets redirected to /dev/null or else to a junior support sprog who
tries to palm you off with platitudes and who utterly fails to address the
points you raise.

This will change over time, though the signed letter for financial
authorisation may take a long time to be dragged into the 21st century. I
have savings with one company who will accept a fax of a signed letter in
lieu of it being sent by post, but will not accept an emailed scan of the
same letter. Work that one out! They are both images of the same written
document, just sent via different technology.

On 16/06/2018 21:16, charles wrote:
In article , Max Demian
wrote:
On 16/06/2018 20:11, Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Johnny B Good
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 16:35:21 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same
sentence these days and of course use any make you like but not
Epsom. the
local
tip is piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark
ones. Brian

I'd expect to see evidence of imprint marks from the soles of size 9
work boots on many of the 'broken' Lexmark printers (and probably
likewise the 'cheap' Epson printers[1]). :-)

[1] Actually (let's be all inclusive, why not?) and say *all* 'cheap'
inkjet printers. The ink jet 'principle' was a nice idea... in
principle but, in practice for occasional home use, it was one with a
very obvious and glaring flaw which I don't need to spell out to
anyone who has ever owned one.

Interesting. Epson have gone over entirely to inkjet printers.

Weird, hadn't noticed that. Maybe its just the way the Japs do things,
make the brand specific to the type of product and so do the lasers
under the Brother brand instead.

Yeah like sweet biscuit are McVities and savoury ones are Jacobs (same
manufacturer).

when I was young these biscuits were made by separate companies. I even
knew a young lady from the McVitie family.

Was she Nice?

boom boom

--
Oliver

NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote
NY wrote

For B&W (eg letters) a laser is probably a better buy than an inkjet -
no streaky print if it's not been used for a while.

What is the point of printing letters anymore ?

For companies that need an "official", signed document.

Havent come across one of those in decades now.

Makes more sense to print those down the library etc on the
very rare occasion where you come across one of those now.

For companies that do not provide an electronic means of correspondence

Havent come across one of those in much longer.

or which only provide a "Contact Us" web form: I find that an email

Which doesnt need anything printed.

or a written letter is harder to ignore and more likely to elicit a
response than a web form which I suspect often gets redirected to
/dev/null or else to a junior support sprog who tries to palm you off with
platitudes and who utterly fails to address the points you raise.

Written letters just get filed in the round filing cabinet under the desk.

This will change over time, though the signed letter for financial
authorisation may take a long time to be dragged into the 21st century.

Phone calls worked fine for share trading even in the 60s.

Even with buying houses etc, I didnt need
to print anything, the agent did that.

I have savings with one company who will accept a fax of a signed letter
in lieu of it being sent by post, but will not accept an emailed scan of
the same letter. Work that one out! They are both images of the same
written document, just sent via different technology.

Good reason to dump those dinosaurs.

I did have a couple of banks a few decades ago that dinosaury,
but havent come across one that dinosaury for decades now.

On 19/06/2018 10:53, Oliver wrote:
On 16/06/2018 21:16, charles wrote:
In article , Max
Demian
wrote:

Yeah like sweet biscuit are McVities and savoury ones are Jacobs (same
manufacturer).

when I was young these biscuits were made by separate companies. I even
knew a young lady from the McVitie family.

Was she Nice?

Maybe nice as the biscuit, i.e. boring.

--
Max Demian

On Monday, 18 June 2018 21:54:59 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 17/06/2018 00:15, Mark wrote:
Bernard Peek wrote:

On 16/06/18 16:35, Brian-Gaff wrote:
I think ink jet and cheap are two words not often in the same sentence these
days and of course use any make you like but not Epsom. the local tip is
piled high with cheap epson printers and broken lexmark ones.
Brian


Horses for courses. Epson printers will give you high quality prints but
if you let the heads get blocked they are dead.



Not true but admittedly it takes a lot more time and effort then most people are prepared for
I won a bet a few years ago from a friend who had an Epson SX600 left in a loft for 4years unused
its still in use now in our pub and working fine

I scrapped an Epson. It did good pictures, and wasn't too expensive to
run - but if I didn't use it for a month I was back to soaking the heads
in meths. Again.

I bought a laser in the end.

Andy

But laser printers for colour aren't very good for photographes unless you pay a fortune even then you;d be better off with an inkjet in most cases.
We have a rather nice one here we use a HP Designjet T790, you can get some amazing types of paper that can be used for posters, can even be folded and doesn't crease ideal for taking to events whereas previously you needed to roll them up.

On Tuesday, 19 June 2018 10:58:36 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote
NY wrote

For B&W (eg letters) a laser is probably a better buy than an inkjet -
no streaky print if it's not been used for a while.

What is the point of printing letters anymore ?

For companies that need an "official", signed document.

Havent come across one of those in decades now.

Most solicitors requre such things to be physically signed on paper.
For some things such as house deeds signing over ownership they DO NOT accept emails or even fax.
Selfies of you signing it aren't accdepted either you still need a witness..


Makes more sense to print those down the library etc on the
very rare occasion where you come across one of those now.

Yes plenty of places can print for you now.



or which only provide a "Contact Us" web form: I find that an email

Which doesnt need anything printed.

or a written letter is harder to ignore and more likely to elicit a
response than a web form which I suspect often gets redirected to
/dev/null or else to a junior support sprog who tries to palm you off with
platitudes and who utterly fails to address the points you raise.

Written letters just get filed in the round filing cabinet under the desk..

Depending on the contents the written letter might be as it was with the windrush files and should have been scanned or photographed in some way and stored.


This will change over time, though the signed letter for financial
authorisation may take a long time to be dragged into the 21st century.

Phone calls worked fine for share trading even in the 60s.

doesn't mean they do now.


Even with buying houses etc, I didnt need
to print anything, the agent did that.

The agent charges for such things or it's included in the costs.



I have savings with one company who will accept a fax of a signed letter
in lieu of it being sent by post, but will not accept an emailed scan of
the same letter. Work that one out! They are both images of the same
written document, just sent via different technology.

Good reason to dump those dinosaurs.

faxes are more difficult to fake, I wouldn't dump them, I'd rather they are careful than just accepting anyhting as proof.
It's not like emails are dufficult to forge.


I did have a couple of banks a few decades ago that dinosaury,
but havent come across one that dinosaury for decades now.

In article ,
NY wrote:
I scrapped an Epson. It did good pictures, and wasn't too expensive to
run - but if I didn't use it for a month I was back to soaking the heads
in meths. Again.

Our Epson suffered badly from that problem, and I set a weekly reminder
on my phone to print a Windows test page every week to stop the ink
drying up. That was with genuine Epson cartridges.

I've got an Epson XP-415. A few years old. It only gets occasional use -
sometimes only once a month or so. Not had a problem with it blocking,
unlike the previous Canon.

--
*He who laughs last has just realised the joke.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
I have savings with one company who will accept a fax of a signed
letter
in lieu of it being sent by post, but will not accept an emailed scan
of
the same letter. Work that one out! They are both images of the same
written document, just sent via different technology.

Good reason to dump those dinosaurs.

faxes are more difficult to fake, I wouldn't dump them, I'd rather they
are careful than just accepting anyhting as proof.
It's not like emails are dufficult to forge.

Faxes are dead easy to forge if you have the will and the intent. When I had
to fax a letter of authority to cash in some of my savings, I didn't use a
dedicated fax machine because I don't have one and I wasn't going to make a
special journey into town to pay to use the one in library. Instead I used
the fax modem in my laptop and "printed" a scan of the signed letter - I
faxed exactly the same scan that I would have emailed to them if they'd have
accepted emails: identical data sent by a different means.

If I'd had criminal intent I could have pasted a scan of someone else's
signature copied from a scan of another unrelated document - easier and less
obvious if you do it digitally rather than with scissors and glue :-)

I think companies only accept faxed authorisation on the incorrect
assumption that all faxes come from dedicated scan-and-fax devices, without
any intermediate computer process that could manipulate the scan.


The situation is even more absurd nowadays. As long as I email my signed
document to a financial advisor (whom I've never met, only corresponded with
by email) for him to forward to the share-dealing desk, it is accepted. If I
send the same scan directly to the dealing desk, it is not. Given that the
advisor has never met me or witnessed me sign anything, it's placing a
spurious level of trust on the route by which the document has been sent.

Not that I'm complaining. They have my postal address, email address and
bank details on file, and would almost certainly refuse to send money to a
different account unless I sent them a voided cheque as proof of owning the
account.

Having recently moved house, I've had to do a lot of changing of my address
on various companies' databases. Most will accept authorisation over the
phone (if it's membership of a society or subscription to a magazine rather
than anything financial) but some require me to write in. One would only
accept the authorisation if I quoted an ID that they posted to me old
address and which I then received via a Royal Mail redirection.

As with so many things, it's a trade-off between security to the company and
convenience to the punter.

In article ,
NY wrote:
Faxes are dead easy to forge if you have the will and the intent. When I
had to fax a letter of authority to cash in some of my savings, I
didn't use a dedicated fax machine because I don't have one and I
wasn't going to make a special journey into town to pay to use the one
in library. Instead I used the fax modem in my laptop and "printed" a
scan of the signed letter - I faxed exactly the same scan that I would
have emailed to them if they'd have accepted emails: identical data
sent by a different means.

If I'd had criminal intent I could have pasted a scan of someone else's
signature copied from a scan of another unrelated document - easier and
less obvious if you do it digitally rather than with scissors and glue
:-)

Unusual to accept any copy of a signature for anything vaguely important.
They might well accept a copy of the document with a real signature added,
sent by post, though.

--
*And the cardiologist' s diet: - If it tastes good spit it out.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 19 June 2018 14:05:58 UTC+1, NY wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
I have savings with one company who will accept a fax of a signed
letter
in lieu of it being sent by post, but will not accept an emailed scan
of
the same letter. Work that one out! They are both images of the same
written document, just sent via different technology.

Good reason to dump those dinosaurs.

faxes are more difficult to fake, I wouldn't dump them, I'd rather they
are careful than just accepting anyhting as proof.
It's not like emails are dufficult to forge.

Faxes are dead easy to forge if you have the will and the intent.

That's what I thought.


When I had
to fax a letter of authority to cash in some of my savings, I didn't use a
dedicated fax machine because I don't have one and I wasn't going to make a
special journey into town to pay to use the one in library. Instead I used
the fax modem in my laptop and "printed" a scan of the signed letter - I
faxed exactly the same scan that I would have emailed to them if they'd have
accepted emails: identical data sent by a different means.

I wouldn;t want to use a company that accepted such things for imporantn purposes, I;d prefer to actually have to post the item or have a signature witnessed.


If I'd had criminal intent I could have pasted a scan of someone else's
signature copied from a scan of another unrelated document - easier and less
obvious if you do it digitally rather than with scissors and glue :-)

Yep. so there's only one answer in these cases.


I think companies only accept faxed authorisation on the incorrect
assumption that all faxes come from dedicated scan-and-fax devices, without
any intermediate computer process that could manipulate the scan.

Well I'd assume if you know the fax number and the person you are recieving the fax from and it's something like a solicitors office then that would be be relatively safe as you could get in touch with the origanator of the fax.

But for a number of documents my solicitor emailed me the documents so I could read them and sent the orginals in the post which had to be signed and returned to the office in person. They do NOT accept facsimiles or emails of these.


The situation is even more absurd nowadays. As long as I email my signed
document to a financial advisor (whom I've never met, only corresponded with
by email) for him to forward to the share-dealing desk, it is accepted. If I
send the same scan directly to the dealing desk, it is not.

Maybe they think your financial advisor is a trust worthy source.

Given that the
advisor has never met me or witnessed me sign anything, it's placing a
spurious level of trust on the route by which the document has been sent.

That's your problem then or the way you want it done.


Not that I'm complaining. They have my postal address, email address and
bank details on file, and would almost certainly refuse to send money to a
different account unless I sent them a voided cheque as proof of owning the
account.

I was asked what bank account I wanted money transfered to, I assume they trust the person to give them the correct account details.


Having recently moved house, I've had to do a lot of changing of my address
on various companies' databases. Most will accept authorisation over the
phone (if it's membership of a society or subscription to a magazine rather
than anything financial) but some require me to write in.

Good for them I'd prefer that.

One would only
accept the authorisation if I quoted an ID that they posted to me old
address and which I then received via a Royal Mail redirection.

It's a bit like Aples two step authentication then a good idea I'd have thought.
How happy would you be if I emailed your bank telling them that you chnaged bank account details and all you money should now be transfered into my account.



As with so many things, it's a trade-off between security to the company and
convenience to the punter.


Yep, and I prefer security.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote
NY wrote

For B&W (eg letters) a laser is probably a better buy than
an inkjet - no streaky print if it's not been used for a while.

What is the point of printing letters anymore ?

For companies that need an "official", signed document.

Havent come across one of those in decades now.

Most solicitors requre such things to be physically signed on paper.

Yes, but they are the ones who printed what gets signed, not the signer.
So while it certainly makes sense for the solicitor to have a laser printer
that they use to print what gets signed, no need for the signer to have one.

And most of what gets signed on a piece of paper now
needs a proper witness etc, so you can't even claim that
its convenient to have a printer at home so you can print
what arrives electronically and post it back now.

For the very very few items where that is still needed,
it makes more sense to print it down the library etc
instead of having a laser printer at home for the very
very few occasions where you do need to do that now.

For some things such as house deeds signing over
ownership they DO NOT accept emails or even fax.

Sure, but in that case its the solicitor that prints it, not the signer.

Selfies of you signing it aren't accdepted either you still need a
witness.

So it makes sense for the solicitor to print it, not the signer.

Makes more sense to print those down the library etc on the
very rare occasion where you come across one of those now.

Yes plenty of places can print for you now.

or which only provide a "Contact Us" web form: I find that an email

Which doesnt need anything printed.

or a written letter is harder to ignore and more likely to elicit a
response than a web form which I suspect often gets redirected to
/dev/null or else to a junior support sprog who tries to palm you off
with platitudes and who utterly fails to address the points you raise.

Written letters just get filed in the round filing cabinet under the
desk.

Depending on the contents the written letter might be
as it was with the windrush files and should have been
scanned or photographed in some way and stored.

If they do that, they will keep the emails they receive too.

This will change over time, though the signed
letter for financial authorisation may take a
long time to be dragged into the 21st century.

Phone calls worked fine for share trading even in the 60s.

doesn't mean they do now.

But they dont even now require a snailmail letter.

Even with buying houses etc, I didnt need
to print anything, the agent did that.

The agent charges for such things
or it's included in the costs.

Still means that there is no need for the
buyer to print anything, the agent does that.

Or in our case, the solicitor actually shows up at the
auction in person with the printed paperwork which
the buyer signs once they have won at the auction.

Thats what happened with the one I bought and what
happened at the auction I attended last Saturday too.

I have savings with one company who will accept a fax of a signed
letter in lieu of it being sent by post, but will not accept an emailed
scan of the same letter. Work that one out! They are both images
of the same written document, just sent via different technology.

Good reason to dump those dinosaurs.

faxes are more difficult to fake,

Bull****. Particularly when few have a fax anymore so have
to take it to somewhere that still has a fax to send it.

I wouldn't dump them,

More fool you.

I'd rather they are careful than just
accepting anyhting as proof. It's not
like emails are dufficult to forge.

No difficulty forging what gets faxed either.

I did have a couple of banks a few decades ago that dinosaury,
but havent come across one that dinosaury for decades now.

In fact I did the last one by phone. Got them to setup and automatic
payment in full of the credit card balance every month from another
bank which pays a better interest rate on my substantial cash deposits.
Plenty let you do that with online forms now too.

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
I have savings with one company who will accept a fax of a signed
letter
in lieu of it being sent by post, but will not accept an emailed scan
of
the same letter. Work that one out! They are both images of the same
written document, just sent via different technology.

Good reason to dump those dinosaurs.

faxes are more difficult to fake, I wouldn't dump them, I'd rather they
are careful than just accepting anyhting as proof.
It's not like emails are dufficult to forge.

Faxes are dead easy to forge if you have the will and the intent. When I
had to fax a letter of authority to cash in some of my savings, I didn't
use a dedicated fax machine because I don't have one and I wasn't going to
make a special journey into town to pay to use the one in library. Instead
I used the fax modem in my laptop and "printed" a scan of the signed
letter - I faxed exactly the same scan that I would have emailed to them
if they'd have accepted emails: identical data sent by a different means.

If I'd had criminal intent I could have pasted a scan of someone else's
signature copied from a scan of another unrelated document - easier and
less obvious if you do it digitally rather than with scissors and glue :-)

I think companies only accept faxed authorisation on the incorrect
assumption that all faxes come from dedicated scan-and-fax devices,
without any intermediate computer process that could manipulate the scan.


The situation is even more absurd nowadays. As long as I email my signed
document to a financial advisor (whom I've never met, only corresponded
with by email) for him to forward to the share-dealing desk, it is
accepted. If I send the same scan directly to the dealing desk, it is not.
Given that the advisor has never met me or witnessed me sign anything,
it's placing a spurious level of trust on the route by which the document
has been sent.

Not that I'm complaining. They have my postal address, email address and
bank details on file, and would almost certainly refuse to send money to a
different account unless I sent them a voided cheque as proof of owning
the account.

Having recently moved house, I've had to do a lot of changing of my
address on various companies' databases. Most will accept authorisation
over the phone (if it's membership of a society or subscription to a
magazine rather than anything financial) but some require me to write in.
One would only accept the authorisation if I quoted an ID that they posted
to me old address and which I then received via a Royal Mail redirection.

As with so many things, it's a trade-off between security to the company
and convenience to the punter.

I did relatively recently have one bank, Citicorp, when I had managed
to have my account locked due to their stupidity, demand that I write
them a physical letter before they would unlock the account.

Just a week or so ago another which had also locked my account,
said that if I couldnt answer the security questions over the phone
call successfully, I would have to go in to the physical branch. But
I did get all but one question right. The one I didnt was the account
number. That banks has lots of different numbers, different one for
the account itself, for the debit card and also another security number
and it wasnt at all clear which number they were asking for.

I now have an extra field in my database with the name they use
for a particular number which should fix that problem if they dont
start calling a particular number by a different name later, which
is always possible.

On Tuesday, 19 June 2018 19:05:24 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote
NY wrote

For B&W (eg letters) a laser is probably a better buy than
an inkjet - no streaky print if it's not been used for a while.

What is the point of printing letters anymore ?

For companies that need an "official", signed document.

Havent come across one of those in decades now.

Most solicitors requre such things to be physically signed on paper.

Yes, but they are the ones who printed what gets signed, not the signer.

Which is why they send it through the post yes, that way they can charge for it too. Plus if the person signing the paper can print it they could also change it.



So while it certainly makes sense for the solicitor to have a laser printer
that they use to print what gets signed, no need for the signer to have one.

No need for a signer to own or have a pen either. There;s no reason for the signer to wear clothes either but that isnlt the point.



And most of what gets signed on a piece of paper now
needs a proper witness etc,

yes I know.

so you can't even claim that
its convenient to have a printer at home so you can print
what arrives electronically and post it back now.

Depending what it is, but most might prefer to print out a legal document than read it on their phone. I do and I highlighted any errors, and emailed the solicitor back expalining the any errors.



For the very very few items where that is still needed,
it makes more sense to print it down the library etc
instead of having a laser printer at home for the very
very few occasions where you do need to do that now.

So it;s always been that way even with typewriters for some they were
a worthwhile addition to their hone for others they were a waste of space.


For some things such as house deeds signing over
ownership they DO NOT accept emails or even fax.

Sure, but in that case its the solicitor that prints it, not the signer.

Yes so. Even if the solicitor prints it they ahve to send it too, whereas I can print it and read it before it arrives.

Apple don't send you their T&Cs as a printed document but you have to click to accept it, I doubt you've read those 20k odd words everytime up update.




Selfies of you signing it aren't accdepted either you still need a
witness.

So it makes sense for the solicitor to print it, not the signer.

Yes and that is what they do, what's your point, if you have one.



or a written letter is harder to ignore and more likely to elicit a
response than a web form which I suspect often gets redirected to
/dev/null or else to a junior support sprog who tries to palm you off
with platitudes and who utterly fails to address the points you raise..

Written letters just get filed in the round filing cabinet under the
desk.

Depending on the contents the written letter might be
as it was with the windrush files and should have been
scanned or photographed in some way and stored.

If they do that, they will keep the emails they receive too.

Emails didn't exist when the windrush arrived in the UK which arrived at Tilbury Docks, Essex, on 22 June 1948.
But they can't seemd to find the scanned versions if they did scan them.




Even with buying houses etc, I didnt need
to print anything, the agent did that.

The agent charges for such things
or it's included in the costs.

Still means that there is no need for the
buyer to print anything, the agent does that.

Irrelevent, as the buyer might want to print our things for themseles anyway.



Or in our case, the solicitor actually shows up at the
auction in person with the printed paperwork which
the buyer signs once they have won at the auction.

Yep, so hopefully the buyer has checked what the solicitors brings to the auction. The person buying at auction might want to print out the catalogue or just the pages they are interested in.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote
NY wrote

For B&W (eg letters) a laser is probably a better buy than
an inkjet - no streaky print if it's not been used for a while.

What is the point of printing letters anymore ?

For companies that need an "official", signed document.

Havent come across one of those in decades now.

Most solicitors requre such things to be physically signed on paper.

Yes, but they are the ones who printed what gets signed, not the signer.

Which is why they send it through the post yes, that way they can charge
for it
too. Plus if the person signing the paper can print it they could also
change it.

So you dont need a printer.

So while it certainly makes sense for the solicitor to have a laser
printer
that they use to print what gets signed, no need for the signer to have
one.

reams of your mindless silly **** flushed where it belongs

And most of what gets signed on a piece
of paper now needs a proper witness etc,

yes I know.

so you can't even claim that its convenient to have a printer at home
so you can print what arrives electronically and post it back now.

Depending what it is, but most might prefer to print
out a legal document than read it on their phone.

Makes more sense to read it on your computer or laptop.

I do and I highlighted any errors, and emailed
the solicitor back expalining the any errors.

Better to highlight the errors on the electronic document.

For the very very few items where that is still needed,
it makes more sense to print it down the library etc
instead of having a laser printer at home for the very
very few occasions where you do need to do that now.

So it;s always been that way even with typewriters
for some they were a worthwhile addition to their
hone for others they were a waste of space.

Even sillier than you usually manage with a printer used so rarely.

For some things such as house deeds signing over
ownership they DO NOT accept emails or even fax.

Sure, but in that case its the solicitor that prints it, not the signer.

Yes so.

So having a printer yourself is useless, ****wit.

Even if the solicitor prints it they ahve to send it too,

Nope, just have it there after the auction has
ended for the buyer to sign with a witness.

whereas I can print it and read it before it arrives.

Pointless printing it so you can read it.

You do that with usenet posts too do you ?

Apple don't send you their T&Cs as a printed document but you have to
click
to accept it, I doubt you've read those 20k odd words everytime up update.

I'm not actually stupid enough to print it and read it.

Selfies of you signing it aren't accdepted
either you still need a witness.

So it makes sense for the solicitor to print it, not the signer.

Yes and that is what they do, what's your point, if you have one.

That you dont need a printer, ****wit.

or a written letter is harder to ignore and more likely to elicit a
response than a web form which I suspect often gets redirected to
/dev/null or else to a junior support sprog who tries to palm you off
with platitudes and who utterly fails to address the points you raise.

Written letters just get filed in the round filing cabinet under the
desk.

Depending on the contents the written letter might be
as it was with the windrush files and should have been
scanned or photographed in some way and stored.

If they do that, they will keep the emails they receive too.

Emails didn't exist when the windrush arrived in the UK
which arrived at Tilbury Docks, Essex, on 22 June 1948.

So its completely irrelevant to what is being discussed, ****wit.

But they can't seemd to find the scanned versions if they did scan them.

Completely irrelevant to what is being discussed, ****wit.

Even with buying houses etc, I didnt need
to print anything, the agent did that.

The agent charges for such things
or it's included in the costs.

Still means that there is no need for the
buyer to print anything, the agent does that.

Irrelevent, as the buyer might want to
print our things for themseles anyway.

Only terminal ****wits like you are actually that stupid.

Or in our case, the solicitor actually shows up at the
auction in person with the printed paperwork which
the buyer signs once they have won at the auction.

Yep, so hopefully the buyer has checked
what the solicitors brings to the auction.

Yep, you are free to get an electronic copy of the
contract you will have to sign if you win the auction.

The person buying at auction might want to print out
the catalogue or just the pages they are interested in.

Only the terminal ****wits. The brochure describing the
property is always available at the inspections and at
the auction too.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:35:14 +1000, cantankerous geezer Rot Speed blabbered,

Only the terminal ****wits.

Good description of yourself, oh senile one.

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rot Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID: