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

I am not an active participant in the list, but my biggest complaint
is the lack of digest mode. Seconded by the lack of some sort of
prefix on the subject line that identifies the source of the email to
the be from the list.

Shawn

"I wouldn't be surprised to find out that charcoal is better to heat
your house with too." -- Bobby Hill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 11:56 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 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
> 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 Sat Jul 24 22:22:42 2004