Prev: Freeware EXIF Editor
Next: Stolen D300 shots salvaged.
From: N on 22 Dec 2009 22:01

"egbert_no_bacon" <egbert_no_bacon(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b51ec440-2613-4ec9-b27a-4bd225cd5095(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 23, 1:47 am, "N" <N...(a)onyx.com> wrote:
>> "egbert_no_bacon" <egbert_no_ba...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d19b27b9-989d-4e06-a778-2363a775c7d5(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 23, 1:21 am, "N" <N...(a)onyx.com> wrote:
>> >> "egbert_no_bacon" <egbert_no_ba...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:8d214b1a-ff96-4d71-a287-89f1241672ca(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Dec 23, 1:14 am, "N" <N...(a)onyx.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Surely, you can't be that ignorant.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > that link don't work
>>
>> >> I didn't post any links.
>>
>> > N View profile
>> > More options Dec 23, 1:14 am
>>
>> > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
>> > From: "N" <N...(a)onyx.com>
>> > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:14:58 +1100
>> > Local: Wed, Dec 23 2009 1:14 am
>> > Subject: Re: how come flickr has degenerated into such a crappy place?
>> > Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
>> > original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
>>
>> > "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > news:73b0acf1-
>> > c7e7-46f1-8de3-6687a80e5...(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Surely, you can't be that ignorant.
>>
>> > ---- the above is your own hand within anothers post as my reader
>> > tells me, and others also will read
>>
>> If you want to find valid URLs in newspost headers, you're off your
>> tree.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> are you saying, your post is invalid
>

The so called email address in the header is invalid.
I still don't know what link you're referring to.


From: NameHere on 23 Dec 2009 01:48
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
>will resort to 320x200 in the future.

Maybe because most people have found that the only sure-fire method do deny
theft of their photography is by using small image sizes and high JPEG
compression ratios. There's no other more effective method. Digital
watermarks are easily removed. Digimark, for one, being the largest scam
ever perpetrated on the unintelligent masses. Often included as a default
on the worst of editors available. PhotoShop being the biggest loser
application to do ever so, perpetuated by just as big of ignorant loser of
all.

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Freeware EXIF Editor
Next: Stolen D300 shots salvaged.