U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Gum website update

Re: Gum website update

"a private feud??" I have no earthly idea what you're talking about, Don. I really don't.

I thought it was very silly, a month or so ago, when you sent me a very scathing private email chastising me about not posting images to the list-- (a simple mistake I made purely by being careless and simply forgetting that you can't do that here)-- as though you were somehow personally offended by it-- which I didn't get at all-- especially since it had already been mentioned to me on-list (very nicely) by others, and I did apologize (on-list) for it. And then you felt the need to remind me again about it (on-list) for no reason that I could imagine-- which I found both really odd and off- putting, but "private feud??" You've created that out of whole cloth, I'm afraid. I can't even remember the last time I sent you an email off-list, to be honest.

On Sep 6, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Don Bryant wrote:


Why anyone would want to suffer with dial up speeds in the age of DSL is
beyond me. I know you can afford DSL so why bother with dial up.

As for Diana, she and I have had a private feud for a while and she
apparently wants to drag it I out here on the list.

I'm not in the mood to put up with it and I'm not.


-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 4:13 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Gum website update

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Diana Bloomfield wrote:

No, it really doesn't "all depend," Don. You show me a *flat* $10/ month
connection (and one that is more than a short-term introductory offer),
I'll be the first to step up and say I was wrong, and you're brilliant.
I'm here to tell you that you will *never* find a $10/month *flat rate*
for a
DSL connection-- not in *any* universe.

I haven't had dial-up in years, and would certainly give up using a
if I had to go back to one, so it's no big deal to me. I just think a
misleading statement like that ought to be corrected. So there. :)
I second the motion, Diana... and -- hey Don -- some things have to be
"taken seriously" or we're all captive consumers. I'd rather use a paper
cup and a piece of string than feel *compelled* to use anyone's "system."
And, for the record, I'm still on dial-up (nyah nyah), though I do have
another service I don't understand, but it seems to be a combo of Mac's
mail program and daughter's router. She's 2 floors overhead and both her
father and I (also visiting dignitaries) can log on for free with the
password, and "download" and "attach" to our heart's content.

But here's a question: When you say "download," do you mean download an
image onto your desktop, or just view the images on the website? In my
experience, viewing is different (immediate) from downloading.

I'll add BTW, that we used to have several possible wii hosts nearby, for
instance, "Two Big Fags" (or maybe that was "Three") and Apt 15, that
weren't password protected and very handy in emergencies, but now the
daughter's connection seems (knock-on-wood) trouble free.

HOWEVER, though it's handy for attachments, images, et al, that Mac Mail
program makes me want to sell my Mac stock... it's stupid beyond belief,
and beyond all patience, non-intuitive, clunky, clumsy, and generally
tiresome, awkward & annoying to use. If I had to do daily text on it, I'd
go back to snail mail. Pine on Panix is intuitive, efficient, logical,
simple and quick. (I'm told, btw, that techies use it -- it figures.) In
comparison every other mail program I've ever used is a kludge.


I will add that I have a lightening fast DSL connection here, but even
some websites that are posted here on this list are slow to download for
(not speaking of the two that were just posted, however). So unless it's
something I seriously want to view, I know I don't wait more than about 10

seconds, if that, for something to come up.  I move on (and I suspect
do as well). For those folks, I'd think about making your images smaller,
doing whatever it takes to shorten that download time. As usual, my 2

On Sep 6, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Don Bryant wrote:

That all depends Diana. But whatever! Complaining about download times is
passť. This is DSL universe now.

-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Bloomfield [mailto:dhbloomfield@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 11:58 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Gum website update


While I agree that DSL accounts are now relatively inexpensive, and I
could/would never go back to dial-up-- that $10 per month requires
that you are already a customer of whatever service is offering it
(AT&T, for instance), along with some other attached strings. There
is a "DSL lite," too, that is just as good as the regular DSL, in my
experience. But to say that you can get a DSL account "for as little
as $10 per month now" is slightly misleading. "DSL lite" costs are
probably closer to $25-30 a month; our regular DSL is closer to $40/
month. As usual, there are some additional hidden costs-- no matter
what service you're choosing.


On Sep 6, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Don Bryant wrote:


DSL accounts can cost as little as $10 per month now. Time to get off

Don Bryant

-----Original Message-----
From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 10:35 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Gum website update

Actually, just FYI, the second link has none of his tricolor gum work
on it that I can see, and the first link has an impossible download
time; I gave up after about 15 minutes as it was just started to
download the second image. So I may not use either link, but thanks
for the info regardless.

On Sep 6, 2008, at 12:09 AM, Katharine Thayer wrote:

Thanks, Chris!

On Sep 5, 2008, at 11:22 PM, Chris Nze wrote:

Just some link to keith taylor work


you can also add these one from livick even if he do not work any
more in gum


At 03:49 06/09/2008, you wrote: