Notice that the message you replied to is
clearly entitled repost, and was posted 30
minutes from the original post.

Your post quoted my message on the repost
where I said the first post had them grouped.
I had immediately reposted all 15 as individual
pictures.

The largest picture I posted today was 358 K,
the smallest 87K. 6 were between 120 and 157K,
6 were between 200 and 281 K, the other was
308 K.

I request that you look at the size of previous
pictures in this group. Individual pictures are often
in the MB range. Indeed, your post of a compass
plane on 2/20, for instance, was 900K.
2 of a belt sander on 4/6 were 380K each,
and 5 on 4/6 of your vise at almost 400K each.
My 2.97 MB total / 15 pictures gives an average
of 200K each.

Are you saying this is unacceptable to you?

Might I suggest that you just put me on your
kill filter and we can get along with woodworking?
-J


tiredofspam said:
Joe, please resize your shots before posting them.
They are BIG... and bulky.
On 6/5/2012 8:25 AM, Joe wrote:
Looks like the first post had them grouped.

"Joe" invalid wrote in message
.. .
Notice that the message you replied to is
clearly entitled repost, and was posted 30
minutes from the original post.

Your post quoted my message on the repost
where I said the first post had them grouped.
I had immediately reposted all 15 as individual
pictures.

The largest picture I posted today was 358 K,
the smallest 87K. 6 were between 120 and 157K,
6 were between 200 and 281 K, the other was
308 K.

I request that you look at the size of previous
pictures in this group. Individual pictures are often
in the MB range. Indeed, your post of a compass
plane on 2/20, for instance, was 900K.
2 of a belt sander on 4/6 were 380K each,
and 5 on 4/6 of your vise at almost 400K each.
My 2.97 MB total / 15 pictures gives an average
of 200K each.

Are you saying this is unacceptable to you?

Might I suggest that you just put me on your
kill filter and we can get along with woodworking?
-J

I am probably beating a dead horse here, but I will try to get through
somehow.

It doesn't matter how many K are in a picture. What matters is how big the
picture is when displayed at a normal resolution on a typical monitor. My
resolution is 125%, slightly bigger than normal. I was only able to see
about a quarter of most of the pictures that you showed. Which makes it
very difficult to figure out what you are showing.

Remember, this is not about customs, protocols or a ****ing match. It is
about communication. And if we can't see it, there is no communication.
You seem to very good at some things. Communication, not so much.

It is like those folks who post addresses on a Craig's list ad. They list
three streets. They are going by what is in their head. Nothing to do with
a map. You click on it, you ge a picture of Cuba and all of north america,
central america and a lot of south america. To give information in terms of
a map, you need to provide information that a map can read.

Same here, A picture is only informative if people can actually read it.
Instead of getting all hung up on procedures, files sizes, etc., post one of
the pictures to something and see if you can see it. If the resulting image
is too big, most people won't bother. Again, the criteria is communication.
If you can't communicate, we can only assume that you suffer from some form
of communication dysfunction.

On 6/5/2012 12:07 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:


"Joe" invalid wrote in message

The largest picture I posted today was 358 K,
the smallest 87K. 6 were between 120 and 157K,
6 were between 200 and 281 K, the other was
308 K.

Poor guy ... he's damned it does, damned if he doesn't. I was just glad
to see jpg's, even though I had to switch that window to the 24" monitor
to get the whole idea.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop