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

From: steves ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/25/04-02:42:21 PM Z
Message-id: <001b01c47287$eb76cf40$>

As I recall the no attachment policy was due to the many of us with slow and
small memory computers. It takes a very long time to download and open

The joys and problems are readily appreciated without looking at images.
Print quality cannot be shown very well as computer attachments.

Advice: Go to workshops and form local groups to criticize prints, and come
to the list with their comments to get additional opinions. That works.

S. Shapiro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 8:56 PM
Subject: Here's why... Re: Why no Attachments?

> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, John Cremati wrote:
> > It seems to me that a Photography list with out the ability to
> > 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
> > attachments is there any means by which they can automatically block
> > transmission...Why exactly do we not allow the attachments? If it is
> > 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
> it?
> 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,
> Judy
Received on Sun Jul 25 14:43:06 2004

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