I can see I'm in the minority here, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway- I'm not
a fliker fan & I wouldn't the colabortive project to be the cause of folks
shifting away from the pdml list. My preference is for pdml to maintain its
independent state. I'll be home tomorrow. Posting from cell phon
I'm with Christine. Don't like flickr. The list has worked just fine without it
for more than a dozen years.
Paul
On May 24, 2011, at 11:13 PM, christ...@caguila.com wrote:
> I can see I'm in the minority here, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway- I'm
> not a fliker fan & I wouldn't the colaborti
On 25 May 2011 13:23, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I'm with Christine. Don't like flickr. The list has worked just fine without
> it for more than a dozen years.
> Paul
What has been in the past has been haphazard at best, image display
sites are maturing and if I never had to visit photo.net again I
I feel the same way abut flickr. To each, their own. That's the way it should
be.
Paul
On May 24, 2011, at 11:27 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 25 May 2011 13:23, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> I'm with Christine. Don't like flickr. The list has worked just fine without
>> it for more than a dozen year
Sorry, but I don't care much for flicker either.
Who owns what's posted there?
Regards, Bob S.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 25 May 2011 13:23, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> I'm with Christine. Don't like flickr. The list has worked just fine without
>> it for more than
christ...@caguila.com wrote:
I can see I'm in the minority here, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway- I'm not a
fliker fan & I wouldn't the colabortive project to be the cause of folks
shifting away from the pdml list. My preference is for pdml to maintain its
independent state. I'll be home t
Well said, Christine. I'm with you, Paul, Bob & Ann. I'll post my pix
to my own ISP where at least I know I own them until they're poached by
someone and I don't have to agree to any terms of use but my own. I
prefer the mailing list format rather than trying to browse a discussion
group onl
On Tue, 24 May 2011 23:16:31 -0500
Paul Sorenson wrote:
> If we start spreading ourselves too thin we lose the
> cohesiveness that makes the group special.
that'd be my main problem with flickr too. that it'd splinter the
discussions, fwiw, away from this list...
--
regards, subash
--
PDML
On May 24, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Subash wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 23:16:31 -0500
> Paul Sorenson wrote:
>
>> If we start spreading ourselves too thin we lose the
>> cohesiveness that makes the group special.
>
> that'd be my main problem with flickr too. that it'd splinter the
> discussions, f
Seconded.
Cheers
Ecke
2011/5/25 Paul Sorenson :
> Well said, Christine. I'm with you, Paul, Bob & Ann. I'll post my pix to
> my own ISP where at least I know I own them until they're poached by someone
> and I don't have to agree to any terms of use but my own. I prefer the
> mailing list forma
On 25 May 2011 04:13, christ...@caguila.com wrote:
> I can see I'm in the minority here, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway- I'm
> not a fliker fan & I wouldn't the colabortive project to be the cause of
> folks shifting away from the pdml list. My preference is for pdml to
> maintain its indep
Chris Mitchell wrote:
I don't like the Flickr idea either:
1. It would fragment discussion
2. I want to be in control of the way my images are presented
3. It's got a terrible interface - I just can't get on with it.
Nothing to stop people using it for presentation if that's their thing
of cour
Den 25. mai 2011 kl. 08.13 skrev Chris Mitchell:
> On 25 May 2011 04:13, christ...@caguila.com wrote:
>> I can see I'm in the minority here, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway- I'm
>> not a fliker fan & I wouldn't the colabortive project to be the cause of
>> folks shifting away from the pdml l
On May 25, 2011, at 1:19 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> On May 24, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Subash wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 May 2011 23:16:31 -0500
>> Paul Sorenson wrote:
>>
>>> If we start spreading ourselves too thin we lose the
>>> cohesiveness that makes the group special.
>>
>> that'd be my main p
On 2011-05-24 23:56, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
christ...@caguila.com wrote:
I can see I'm in the minority here, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway-
I'm not a fliker fan & I wouldn't the colabortive project to be the
cause of folks shifting away from the pdml list. My preference is for
pdml to maintai
On 25/05/2011 6:23 AM, Doug Franklin wrote:
I'm with the "Christine and Ann" faction here. I don't have a need, a
use, or any interest in PDML (or anything else) on Flickr.
Why don't we just put a copyright on "PDML" and be done with it?
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDM
On 2011-05-25 8:27, William Robb wrote:
On 25/05/2011 6:23 AM, Doug Franklin wrote:
I'm with the "Christine and Ann" faction here. I don't have a need, a
use, or any interest in PDML (or anything else) on Flickr.
Why don't we just put a copyright on "PDML" and be done with it?
Do you mean
(I'm coming into this discussion late)
Very close minded way of thinking...
The PDML is an aging & I suspect shrinking group. How many new, and
more importantly, active members do we see join each year?
This is possibly why the idea is so abhorrent to the old skool
PDML'ers. The "old boy" networ
On 2011-05-25 8:53, David Savage wrote:
(I'm coming into this discussion late)
Very close minded way of thinking...
Yup. I don't have a problem with change, I have a problem with Flickr.
With regards Flickr, I'm very closed minded.
--
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing
http://NutDrive
I'd be interested to know what exactly you have a problem with.
On 25 May 2011 21:00, Doug Franklin wrote:
> On 2011-05-25 8:53, David Savage wrote:
>>
>> (I'm coming into this discussion late)
>>
>> Very close minded way of thinking...
>
> Yup. I don't have a problem with change, I have a probl
I use flickr quite a lot. I'll happily accept whatever oddities it
might have over the stupid, smarmy, "advertisements in your face"
attitude of current photo.net any day.
In several years of using, admining groups on flickr, I have had no
incidences of any rights infringement, service has been al
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> In several years of using, admining groups on flickr, I have had no
> incidences of any rights infringement, service has been all but
> perfect, and the tools presented for doing image management are very
> good.
And they produce RSS fee
I believe the PDML has grown in recent years. Only listguy knows for sure, but
it seems we have a steady influx of new members.
I have no interest in flickr and, like others, will call it quits if the group
migrates there. BTW, I recently sold a dream cruise photo to someone who found
it on pho
As an ad guy, I can tell you that flickr is the favorite harvest site of art
directors looking for free comping photos. If the idea sells, they hire a
photographer to shoot something close to the stolen pic for production. I have
no problem with that, but I know that some here do. Of course, on
Here..Here!
Jack
--- On Wed, 5/25/11, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> From: Paul Stenquist
> Subject: Re: pdmlon flicker etc
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 6:44 AM
> I believe the PDML has grown in
> recent years. Only listguy knows for
David Savage wrote:
(I'm coming into this discussion late)
Very close minded way of thinking...
The PDML is an aging & I suspect shrinking group. How many new, and
more importantly, active members do we see join each year?
This is possibly why the idea is so abhorrent to the old skool
PDML'er
From: christine aguila
I can see I'm in the minority here, but I'll put my 2 cents in
anyway- I'm not a fliker fan & I wouldn't the colabortive project to
be the cause of folks shifting away from the pdml list. My
preference is for pdml to maintain its independent state. I'll be
home tomorrow.
From: Larry Colen
On May 24, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Subash wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011 23:16:31 -0500 Paul Sorenson
wrote:
If we start spreading ourselves too thin we lose the
cohesiveness that makes the group special.
that'd be my main problem with flickr too. that it'd splinter
the discussion
From: Paul Stenquist
I believe the PDML has grown in recent years. Only listguy knows for
sure, but it seems we have a steady influx of new members.
I have no interest in flickr and, like others, will call it quits if
the group migrates there. BTW, I recently sold a dream cruise photo
to someon
I think my Flickr PDML e-mail has been grossly misunderstood, so let
me clarify some things:
1) I am NOT advocating the the PDML be moved to Flickr; far from it!
The list is what it is (warts and all) and it should stay that way
until a large majority of users get fed up with it. I don't see that
On 25 May 2011 23:28, Miserere wrote:
> I think my Flickr PDML e-mail has been grossly misunderstood, so let
> me clarify some things:
>
> 1) I am NOT advocating the the PDML be moved to Flickr; far from it!
> The list is what it is (warts and all) and it should stay that way
> until a large major
On 25/5/11, christ...@caguila.com, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I can see I'm in the minority here, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway-
>I'm not a fliker fan & I wouldn't the colabortive project to be the
>cause of folks shifting away from the pdml list. My preference is for
>pdml to maintain its
On 11-05-25 11:28 AM, Miserere wrote:
[...] So please
continue your discussions and let me know if you reach an agreement.
In the context of the PDML, that's the classic definition of an
NP-complete problem.
-bmw
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinf
On 11-05-25 11:28 AM, Miserere wrote:
I think my Flickr PDML e-mail has been grossly misunderstood, so let
me clarify some things:
1) I am NOT advocating the the PDML be moved to Flickr; far from it!
The list is what it is (warts and all) and it should stay that way
until a large majority of use
On May 25, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
> On 11-05-25 11:28 AM, Miserere wrote:
>> [...] So please
>> continue your discussions and let me know if you reach an agreement.
>
> In the context of the PDML, that's the classic definition of an NP-complete
> problem.
Mark!
>
> -bmw
>
> -
On May 25, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Miserere wrote:
>
> 3) Larry, John Sessoms and Dave Savage seem to have understood what
> I'm after:There are a number of PDMLers that are also on Flickr, so
> why not give them the option to add their photos to the PDML group so
> anyone (whether they are on Flickr o
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
I prefer the
> mailing list format rather than trying to browse a discussion group online.
>
> The PDML is special and I believe it should remain an independent entity.
> If we start spreading ourselves too thin we lose the cohesiveness th
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
> Miserere, for all the reasons you stated above I'd say simply: carry on.
> The people who could benefit from using the Flickr "PDML" group will. The
> people who don't care to won't. The PDML email list itself will be
> unaffected. No damage
> I believe the PDML has grown in recent years. Only listguy knows for
> sure, but it seems we have a steady influx of new members.
>
> I have no interest in flickr and, like others, will call it quits if
> the group migrates there. BTW, I recently sold a dream cruise photo to
> someone who found
>
> As I understand it, the idea for a PDML group on Flickr grew out of
> Christine's idea for PDML collaborative projects. It would seem to me
> that having a common workspace for such collaborations would be useful.
>
it's for the people collaborating to decide how they want to use a common
wo
On 2011-05-25 9:06, David Savage wrote:
I'd be interested to know what exactly you have a problem with.
Broken trust: (a) "land grabs" on uploaded content ownership; (b)
implementing an API for third-party developers that didn't respect the
privacy settings of the users that posted the conten
ranklin"
Subject: Re: pdmlon flicker etc
On 2011-05-24 23:56, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
christ...@caguila.com wrote:
I can see I'm in the minority here, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway-
I'm not a fliker fan & I wouldn't the colabortive project to be the
cause of f
What do you mean? The person who took the picture owns them. Flickr
doesn't take anyone's copyrights.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Sorry, but I don't care much for flicker either.
> Who owns what's posted there?
> Regards, Bob S.
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:27 PM,
On 2011-05-25 15:05, Bob W wrote:
[...] I'd be highly unlikely to take part in any
discussions on Flickr.
Bingo! Community fragmentation.
It's not that anyone posts photos anywhere in particular. It's when the
discussions jump to the other venue or split between them.
I like the way the
On 2011-05-25 16:20, David Parsons wrote:
What do you mean? The person who took the picture owns them. Flickr
doesn't take anyone's copyrights.
Just like the furor over the third-party APIs, a bit of Google searching
will provide a much better report than I could manage. They were at one
t
Just about every website that you can post pictures to has the same
non-exclusive license agreement. If you want to post your pictures on
a photosharing website, you pretty much have to expect that the
pictures will be shared with other people. If that is a problem,
don't post pictures on Flickr
On 2011-05-24 21:34 , Bob Sullivan wrote:
Sorry, but I don't care much for flicker either.
Who owns what's posted there?
you own it, and you have very detailed control over licensing and
privacy; for example you can set some of your photos to various Creative
Commons licenses, and others to A
On May 25, 2011, at 4:43 PM, steve harley wrote:
> On 2011-05-24 21:34 , Bob Sullivan wrote:
>> Sorry, but I don't care much for flicker either.
>> Who owns what's posted there?
>
> you own it, and you have very detailed control over licensing and privacy;
> for example you can set some of your
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> And, as I mentioned earlier, flickr is the favorite hunting grounds of art
> directors the world over. Hell, I've even helped some of them hunt when we
> were pressed for time. Literally tens of thousands of comp ads have been
> built w
On 2011-05-25 13:05 , Bob W wrote:
If conversation about the pictures takes
place on Flickr then you have de facto split the PDML, since the PDML is
principally a discussion forum.
this is already happening -- as i have noted previously, i follow all
the PDMLers that i can via their blogs; i o
On May 25, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Paul Stenquist
> wrote:
>>
>> And, as I mentioned earlier, flickr is the favorite hunting grounds of art
>> directors the world over. Hell, I've even helped some of them hunt when we
>> were pressed for t
Godfey,
Your talking to an ex-ad agency executive and current freelance
photography professional.
This is an argument you ain't gonna win...
Regards, Bob S.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Paul Stenquist
> wrote:
>>
>> And, as I menti
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Paul Stenquist
>wrote:
>>
>> And, as I mentioned earlier, flickr is the favorite hunting grounds of art
>> directors the world over. Hell, I've even helped some of them hunt when we
>> were pressed for time. Literally tens of thousands
With all due respect, I don't give a goddam who I'm talking to, Bob.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Godfey,
> Your talking to an ex-ad agency executive and current freelance
> photography professional.
> This is an argument you ain't gonna win...
> Regards, Bob S.
>
> On
Godfrey isn't saying it doesn't happen. He's saying it doesn't matter. I quite
agree, but I know that the practice deeply offends some photographers. So,
essentially, there's no argument.
Paul
On May 25, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Godfey,
> Your talking to an ex-ad agency executiv
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>> And, as I mentioned earlier, flickr is the favorite hunting grounds of art
>>> directors the world over. Hell, I've even helped some of them hunt when we
>>> were pressed for time. Literally tens of thousands of comp ads have been
>>> b
That would be "to whom I'm talking."
On May 25, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> With all due respect, I don't give a goddam who I'm talking to, Bob.
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
>> Godfey,
>> Your talking to an ex-ad agency executive and current freelance
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Godfrey isn't saying it doesn't happen. He's saying it doesn't matter. I
> quite agree, but I know that the practice deeply offends some photographers.
> So, essentially, there's no argument.
I feel ripped off.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss M
On 25 May 2011 17:35, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> That would be "to whom I'm talking."
Nope, Godfrey is correct:
http://grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions2.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please vi
I'll leave the grammar discussion to you folks.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Miserere wrote:
> On 25 May 2011 17:35, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> That would be "to whom I'm talking."
>
> Nope, Godfrey is correct:
>
> http://grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions2.html
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discu
> > That would be "to whom I'm talking."
>
> Nope, Godfrey is correct:
>
> http://grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions2.html
>
it's probably 'who' rather than 'whom' that twisted Paul's panties. 'Whom'
is a relic of the case system that used to be part of English and is still
part of German.
On Wed, 25 May 2011 06:27:50 -0600
William Robb wrote:
> Why don't we just put a copyright on "PDML" and be done with it?
trademark
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above a
That's a matter of opinion. Standard usage still avoids ending a sentence with
a preposition, although some grammarians disagree. But that's not the issue.
The pronoun should be "whom" rather than "who," since it's used objectively
here. But I was just trying to respond with humor to a discussi
On May 25, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Bob W wrote:
>>> That would be "to whom I'm talking."
>>
>> Nope, Godfrey is correct:
>>
>> http://grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions2.html
>>
>
> it's probably 'who' rather than 'whom' that twisted Paul's panties. 'Whom'
> is a relic of the case system that u
> >>> That would be "to whom I'm talking."
> >>
> >> Nope, Godfrey is correct:
> >>
> >> http://grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions2.html
> >>
> >
> > it's probably 'who' rather than 'whom' that twisted Paul's panties.
> 'Whom'
> > is a relic of the case system that used to be part of English an
On 26 May 2011 05:36, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Paul Stenquist
> wrote:
>
>> Godfrey isn't saying it doesn't happen. He's saying it doesn't matter. I
>> quite agree, but I know that the practice deeply offends some photographers.
>> So, essentially, there's no argu
OK, question:
If I flickr poster puts a link on the list, can those here put
comments on the Flickr site if they click in?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:51 PM, David Savage wrote:
> On 26 May 2011 05:36, Matthew Hunt wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Paul Stenquist
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Godfr
Only if they have Flickr accounts, either free or paid.
On 11-05-25 8:36 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
OK, question:
If I flickr poster puts a link on the list, can those here put
comments on the Flickr site if they click in?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:51 PM, David Savage wrote:
On 26 May 2011
OK, no big deal there. As long as folks post to the list as well as
Flickr, not much has changed. Members can comment here or there.
Posters who don't put a link here (or check here for comments) may
get a smaller response. It's just an experiment, and if it doesn't
work we can hunt down those
Christine,
I'm with you!
I'm 502 messages behind and can't read this whole thread, but I =hate= flickr.
Its interface is the worst since MSDOS, the alternative views are slow,
navigation is difficult, and discussions are hard to follow.
So, I say FF! (not "full frame", but f*#@ flickr!)
Ric
On May 25, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Bob W wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it, the idea for a PDML group on Flickr grew out of
>> Christine's idea for PDML collaborative projects. It would seem to me
>> that having a common workspace for such collaborations would be useful.
>>
>
> it's for the people col
On May 25, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
>
> ... Amen. I've been on a lot of lists over the years. PDML works as is. The
> people who have been here long enough have seen it weather storms that would
> have killed many lists, like getting unceremoniously thrown off Pentax'
> servers
>Just about every website that you can post pictures to has the same
>non-exclusive license agreement.
Yummm, no, not true. Do the reading, including the history, not just "today's
spin".
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSC
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:38:25PM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote:
> >Just about every website that you can post pictures to has the same
> >non-exclusive license agreement.
>
> Yummm, no, not true. Do the reading, including the history, not just
> "today's spin".
Quite.
All hosting sites have ter
et] On Behalf Of
> Steven Desjardins
> Sent: 26 May 2011 01:44
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: pdmlon flicker etc
>
> OK, no big deal there. As long as folks post to the list as well as
> Flickr, not much has changed. Members can comment here or there.
> Posters who
From: John Francis
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:38:25PM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote:
> >Just about every website that you can post pictures to has the same
> >non-exclusive license agreement.
>
> Yummm, no, not true. Do the reading, including the history, not just "today's
spin".
Quite.
All h
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:29 AM, John Francis wrote:
> All hosting sites have terms and conditions that allow them to display the
> images
> (well, duh, you think, but ...), and to allow them to use the images, in
> context,
> to promote their own services.
>
> Flickr went a *lot* further than
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:25:08PM -0400, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:29 AM, John Francis wrote:
>
> > All hosting sites have terms and conditions that allow them to display the
> > images
> > (well, duh, you think, but ...), and to allow them to use the images, in
> > cont
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:38 PM, John Francis wrote:
> The current Flickr/Yahoo terms & conditions have very specific rules
> pertaining to Yahoo Groups and to audio/video/images. The original
> Flickr terms and conditions were a lot more like section (c) of the
> current ones, giving Flickr a p
Matthew Hunt wrote:
>OK, thanks, but was there any reason to believe that they crafted it
>maliciously, instead of it being a CYA approach? You need to be able
>to create derivative works to create thumbnails, etc. You may include
>an "any medium" clause, because you're backing on magnetic, optica
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 04:05:33PM -0400, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:38 PM, John Francis wrote:
>
> > While the license looked as though it was just boilerplate written
> > by lawyers to let Flickr create thumbnails, screenshots, etc.,
> > that's not what it said.
>
> OK, th
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:01 PM, John Francis wrote:
> Some of us just don't use Flickr because it doesn't offer us enough
> benefit (and because the interface sucks, but that's a whole other
> can of worms). That doesn't mean we all hate and despise Flickr.
Oh, sure, I find nothing unreasonabl
On Thu, 26 May 2011 12:59 -0400, "John Sessoms"
wrote:
> Some advice I got fairly early in my venture into on-line photography
> sharing - maybe even got it from here for all I know ...
>
> Don't post anything to *any* site on the internet unless you're prepared
> to give it away. Because that
From: Matthew Hunt
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:29 AM, John Francis wrote:
> All hosting sites have terms and conditions that allow them to display the
images
> (well, duh, you think, but ...), and to allow them to use the images, in
context,
> to promote their own services.
>
> Flickr went a
You don't even need to do anything active to get the pictures. Every
browser in existence that can display pictures has a cache where
pictures are stored.
I can't tell you how many times I trolled through my browser cache in
the early days looking for interesting animated .gifs from sites that
I
On Thu, 26 May 2011 18:13 -0400, "David Parsons"
wrote:
> You don't even need to do anything active to get the pictures. Every
> browser in existence that can display pictures has a cache where
> pictures are stored.
>
> I can't tell you how many times I trolled through my browser cache in
> the
er..that is, "Hear..Hear!"
Jack
--- On Wed, 5/25/11, Jack Davis wrote:
> From: Jack Davis
> Subject: Re: pdmlon flicker etc
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 6:59 AM
> Here..Here!
>
> Jack
>
> --- On Wed, 5/25
87 matches
Mail list logo
