On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:57:27 -0400, KG96 wrote
(in article <0001HW.C698546700048D25B019F96F@news.newsguy.com>):
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:56:01 -0400, Fishnet_Fred wrote
> (in article <a08575l4ubev2ps37049t5juv5a7omqgip@4ax.com>):
>
>> On 30 Jul 2009 11:06:12 GMT, DDMD <DDMD@DDMD@DDMD.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> I really think people posting RAR and PAR files is good for the group.
>>> Keeps things neater, giving us less to look through
>>> for what we want. But moreso than that, it keeps collections properly
>>> catalogued, and stops the problems with badly named
>>> files (mostly older sets, with filenames that don't represent the set
>>> number) and the hassle of trying to work out which files are
>>> from which set.
>>>
>>> Now that the links have been posted for MAC based RAR programs, hopefully
>>> it will continue and even expand to be used
>>> by all the posters, over time. :D
>>
>> It really doesn't matter to me how people post, I never knew there was
>> an issue with Macs n RaR's, but I'm glad there's a fix. If you put
>> every set in it's own folder, it is a lot easier to just bundle a
>> bunch of sets together.
>>
>> I probably won't post rars all the time, but for large posts they're
>> the only way to go.
>>
>> fred
>
> Fred...
>
> It's easier to view them as reg jpg's.
> Why bother to post rar's and par's then have to go into another program to
> see them.
>
> Recently you posted ChristinaUK.
> I never saw one of them. She is on the top 5 list of favorite women that I
> have seen here.
> I am hoping for a repost of those in the old fashion way.
> Thank you very much
>
> KG96
>
One more thing about rar's.
Each file is rather large, Some of us pay for a certain amount of MB's GB's
per month.
This may use up our monthly allotment.
Please rethink your reasoning.
I believe many people would agree with me.
Thanks for all the great posts you have done in the past.
I always appreciate what you post.
KG96
|
|