"Bill R" wrote in message
...
Garrapata wrote:

Any competent picture viewer will have an option to reduce large images
to whatever size you want. If you refuse to take a minimal effort to
solve your problem you have no right to complain.

You are just another "newbie" who just doesn't get it. I have been
reading and posting in this newsgroup for over 12 years and it is just in
the past year or so that people (newbies) have become so inconsiderate as
to bash a poster who they don't agree with. There is no reason to post a
20 x 28 inch picture in a usenet newsgroup (and some are posting larger
pictures than that). The usenet binary newsgroups are for causal viewing,
not "full resolution" pictures. At one time we (the people that stated
this group) suggested that pictures be limited to 5 x 7". I think that is
still a reasonable size. If you want to post larger pictures, post them
on a web site (like I do).

Hmmm. I was not aware there was a FAQ or Charter for this group that limits
picture size although I've posted on and off here myself since 2000 or 2001
which makes me a newbie too. In general it probably is not true that most
usenet binary group viewers expect small pictures today. One of the most
active usenet groups, and one that I participate in fairly often is
alt.binaries.photos.original. That group does have a FAQ and although
members of the group are free to post whatever sizes they want, they are
encouraged to stay at or around 1024 pixels width. Some posters habitually
post there in sizes up to around 1600 and nobody really complains but
everybody would if they had to fiddle with decoding multi-part files. It's
pretty easy for a poster to downsize his images so that they can be viewed
in one fell swoop.
--
Pat Durkin