Ok, I've had a few question lately posted at Rec Woodworking. Here are some
pics of what I've been working on. One of these might give a clue as to what
they are used for.

--
Paul O.

On 7/24/2011 3:21 PM, Paul wrote:
Ok, I've had a few question lately posted at Rec Woodworking. Here are
some pics of what I've been working on. One of these might give a clue
as to what they are used for.


1 Lubricant, 4 rechargeable batteries, 2 vibrating probes

--
Paul O.
"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
On 7/24/2011 3:21 PM, Paul wrote:
Ok, I've had a few question lately posted at Rec Woodworking. Here are
some pics of what I've been working on. One of these might give a clue
as to what they are used for.


1 Lubricant, 4 rechargeable batteries, 2 vibrating probes

Nothing as exciting as that.
I wonder why the pics aren't showing up for me, apparently they are there
for some of you.

Paul O.

"Paul" wrote:
Leon wrote
1 Lubricant, 4 rechargeable batteries, 2 vibrating probes

Nothing as exciting as that.
I wonder why the pics aren't showing up for me, apparently they are there
for some of you.

Paul O.
[cough]
Yes. The post "in toto" wont be accepted (or held for long)
by many servers as it is of the type "posted under headers".
The phrase is tech speak for the practice of attaching
binary (files) to a post in the same way one does for eMail.
Usenet does not work with such posts well, of that construction.
I have reposted them in the way I would recommend.
There is however a number of options.
Quite happy to demonstrate if need be.
george
--


PS: a note for "Dave"?
The Joke had me smiling. Again, there will be those that
will never get to see it as the file size is waaaaay tooo Large
for an article. At nearly 11000 lines it is well over the 10000
line limit set by RFCs (the 'rules' of Usenet).
Again, there are a number of options available to make
such material available to all.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:17:49 +1000, George Watson
-N0SPAM wrote:

PS: a note for "Dave"?
The Joke had me smiling. Again, there will be those that
will never get to see it as the file size is waaaaay tooo Large
for an article. At nearly 11000 lines it is well over the 10000
line limit set by RFCs (the 'rules' of Usenet).

Sure, I could've shrunk the filesize a little bit, but it just didn't
occur to me and I wouldn't have considered it warranted seeing as
there's such a small amount of posts in this newgroup.

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:17:49 +1000, George Watson
-N0SPAM wrote:

PS: a note for "Dave"?
The Joke had me smiling. Again, there will be those that
will never get to see it as the file size is waaaaay tooo Large
for an article. At nearly 11000 lines it is well over the 10000
line limit set by RFCs (the 'rules' of Usenet).

Sure, I could've shrunk the filesize a little bit, but it just didn't
occur to me and I wouldn't have considered it warranted seeing as
there's such a small amount of posts in this newgroup.

You are reading me wrong, Dave.. got nought to nothing to
do with this NG, at all. Yeh, sure, shrinking the file is one option.
There are others.
... never mind....
george

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:17:49 +1000, George Watson
-N0SPAM wrote:

PS: a note for "Dave"?
The Joke had me smiling. Again, there will be those that
will never get to see it as the file size is waaaaay tooo Large
for an article. At nearly 11000 lines it is well over the 10000
line limit set by RFCs (the 'rules' of Usenet).

Sure, I could've shrunk the filesize a little bit, but it just didn't
occur to me and I wouldn't have considered it warranted seeing as
there's such a small amount of posts in this newgroup.

You are reading me wrong, Dave.. got nought to nothing to
do with this NG, at all. Yeh, sure, shrinking the file is one option.
There are others.
... never mind....
george

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:46:20 -0400, willshak
wrote:

Some people have a limit on the amount of total download size for paid
newsgroup access, including me. I download a lot of pics from this
group, plus a.b.m.s, a.b.p.w, and a.b.p.m.

In this day and age I start to wonder why, but then I remember that
full access is not available to everyone and is not equivalent to
mine.

I pay an extra $15 a month for unlimited binary newsgroup downloads
from Agent Premium News where my downloading a number of 50 meg files
is passe. Obviously, binary newsgroup access is more of a priority for
me than others.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:17:49 +1000, George Watson
-N0SPAM wrote:

PS: a note for "Dave"?
The Joke had me smiling. Again, there will be those that
will never get to see it as the file size is waaaaay tooo Large
for an article. At nearly 11000 lines it is well over the 10000
line limit set by RFCs (the 'rules' of Usenet).

Sure, I could've shrunk the filesize a little bit, but it just didn't
occur to me and I wouldn't have considered it warranted seeing as
there's such a small amount of posts in this newgroup.

It has more to do with the people on dial up with no possibility of ever
getting a high speed connection. Other pay for the amount of material
downloaded.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:17:49 +1000, George Watson
-N0SPAM wrote:

PS: a note for "Dave"?
The Joke had me smiling. Again, there will be those that
will never get to see it as the file size is waaaaay tooo Large
for an article. At nearly 11000 lines it is well over the 10000
line limit set by RFCs (the 'rules' of Usenet).

Sure, I could've shrunk the filesize a little bit, but it just didn't
occur to me and I wouldn't have considered it warranted seeing as
there's such a small amount of posts in this newgroup.

It has more to do with the people on dial up with no possibility of ever
getting a high speed connection. Other pay for the amount of material
downloaded.

...this (discussion) is going completely off the rails in respect of
my original comment.
Can we just forget I even mentioned the post?
george

On 7/24/2011 5:01 PM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:46:20 -0400,
wrote:

Some people have a limit on the amount of total download size for paid
newsgroup access, including me. I download a lot of pics from this
group, plus a.b.m.s, a.b.p.w, and a.b.p.m.

In this day and age I start to wonder why, but then I remember that
full access is not available to everyone and is not equivalent to
mine.

I pay an extra $15 a month for unlimited binary newsgroup downloads
from Agent Premium News where my downloading a number of 50 meg files
is passe. Obviously, binary newsgroup access is more of a priority for
me than others.

Usenet-news.net sells access in blocks, use anytime, with no monthly
fee. $15 will get you 100 GB of downloads. Here are the current rates:
50 GB $ 12.00 0.24 USD/GB
100 GB $ 15.00 0.15 USD/GB
200 GB $ 22.00 0.11 USD/GB
500 GB $ 52.00 0.105 USD/GB
1024 GB $ 92.00 0.09 USD/GB

--
Paul O.
"George Watson" -N0SPAM wrote in message
...
"Paul" wrote:
Leon wrote
1 Lubricant, 4 rechargeable batteries, 2 vibrating probes

Nothing as exciting as that.
I wonder why the pics aren't showing up for me, apparently they are there
for some of you.

Paul O.
[cough]
Yes. The post "in toto" wont be accepted (or held for long)
by many servers as it is of the type "posted under headers".
The phrase is tech speak for the practice of attaching
binary (files) to a post in the same way one does for eMail.
Usenet does not work with such posts well, of that construction.
I have reposted them in the way I would recommend.
There is however a number of options.
Quite happy to demonstrate if need be.
george
--


Hmm, seems I used to post pics here doing what I did this time. But, guess
I need to know how it's done now.

Thanks,
Paul O.