Here's why... Re: Why no Attachments?

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;>
Date: 07/24/04-09:56:51 PM Z
Message-id: <>

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, John Cremati wrote:

> It seems to me that a Photography list with out the ability to attach
> documents, photos ect is highly ineffective...

On the contrary, this list has been highly effective for 10 years, to my
knowledge one of the best going.

> .... Even with a dial up modem a
>*** small*** image file does not take long to load..Any one with Windows
98 or

And what about a ***large*** image file, which you boys with the computers
on steroids might just as well send... Or 20 on the same day?

> later has this capability... The few that do not want to download images or
> attachments is there any means by which they can automatically block the
> transmission...Why exactly do we not allow the attachments? If it is for
> just a few "lost souls" with dinosaur computers? For a very small amount of
> money they now are able to upgrade or purchase a new machine... Maybe it is
> time to reevaluate this?

John, I'm curious what you consider "a very small amount of money" to
purchase a new machine, and what makes you think everyone who wants to be
on this list has got it at the ready and wishes to allocate it that way.

More important, is this list about computers or about alternative
photography? If we are about "alternative photography", which can use the
simplest means -- say a pinhole camera out of an oatmeal box, and a few
simple chemicals spread on paper and exposed by the sun -- would we not be
hypocrites/elitists to require "upgrades" or "a new machine" to discuss

As for "re-evaluate", perhaps you might re-evaluate ..... As noted, I can
buy whatever #@$%^&*(*&^%$#@)!! computer I want.... but I don't feel the
need to enable every one of 600 people to send me pictures whenever it
enters their head. I have visited many websites of contributors to this
list, and expect to visit many more, but surely I speak for others besides
myself when I say I have no wish to be a captive audience.

That's not even to mention the possibility that the listserv may not be
able to handle that kind of volume...

Somehow to me, your message above has the ring of "let them eat
cake." Please think again,

Received on Sat Jul 24 21:57:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/13/04-09:01:12 AM Z CST