Cost of toner

[Arthur Entlich]

Yes, the HP 2003 Annual Report is on line, and no, I don't have the URL
at my fingertips. I went to HP's website and I went to their investor
area, and I dug it up. It is also not presented as I did. They have it
broken down by quarter, so I added together all the quarters for the
year '03, for both revenues and profits in each division or sector of
the company to come up with the numbers I did.

I never stated that John Wright was wrong (excuse the pun). Bob simply
expressed the numbers based on revenues, which might have been what he
had readily available. I have no reason to assume Bob was trying to
mislead anyone.

The truth is, even my numbers may not show the complete picture. Let's
say HP loses money, once shelf space fees, advertising, design,
shipping. instruction manual creation and translation, etc and other
manufacturing costs are taken into account with the printers, scanners
an digital cameras themselves. If one removes the the hardware and
potential losses they may involve from the "Printing and imaging"
division, the ink and toner and consumables may actually have a vastly
higher profit margin still.

So, what do we conclude? HP is charging too much for the ink and toner
they sell? Well, yes, but that's only part of the story, isn't it? The
whole business is a entity. If everyone stopped buying HP ink and paper
and toner and used third party product, HP might possibly go under, but
before doing so, they would have to restructure their pricing.

Right now, pretty much everything HP sells, be it computers, scanners,
digital cameras or printers, is with one thing in mind. Hardcopy output
that uses paper and ink and toner. What is HP advertising (at least in
North America?) Color photo output. So, they are selling their
scanners, and printers and digital cameras and maybe even computers as
potential "lost leaders" so they can sell ink and toner and paper.
Although I personally do not like this business model, from a strictly
environmental aspect, if there was no longer a demand for the ink and
toner and paper, HP would revamp their pricing structure.

And I only choose HP as an example. Other companies that sell ink and
toner and paper do the same thing.

Regarding the merger in the computer divisions with Compaq, I agree it
was a bad move. Then again, so did almost everyone who had personal
investments involved. The vote was pushed the other way by
institutional investors and a few very heavily held owners.

Oh, as to 5% page coverage. I have seen examples of 5% page coverage.
It is basically a letter page with about 1/3 of the total page surface
covered with 12 point courier font. It isn't much. You know, it is
interesting, I tried doing a Google search for 5% ink coverage examples,
both by web and images, and came up empty. You would think there would
be several examples. The best I could do is find a block of black
equivalent to 5% of a page, but that doesn't really tell you much as to
how type looks on a page.

And finally, John Roth. gee, doesn't everyone know what a great CEO he
was, I think he won CEO of the year before Nortel stock crashed and
burned. Of course, by then, he had sold off most of the millions of
shares he had received in options while he was CEO.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Although the sardonic tone of your postings might prove entertaining to
some, they do not particularly inspire those who might have the answers
you seek to wish to engage in providing them to you, which seems, in the
long run, to be somewhat self-defeating, if indeed it is answers you are
actually after. A modicum of civility and respect toward the people you
address might have proven to be much more useful in accessing the
information you claim to be seeking, and your apparent presumption that
there are lines drawn in the sand, which forces people's allegiances to
uni-dimensional roles leaves very little room for discourse.

Further, since you find published materials to be at least potentially
untrustworthy, why do you bother to ask for references and URLs, when
your intent is to brand them as incomplete or less than forthright, anyway?

It's a cleaver "Catch 22" you have spun, but it leaves very little point
in trying to offer additional input.

Art

 

[John McWilliams]

Although the sardonic tone of your postings might prove entertaining to
some, they do not particularly inspire those who might have the answers
you seek to wish to engage in providing them to you, which seems, in the
long run, to be somewhat self-defeating, if indeed it is answers you are
actually after. A modicum of civility and respect toward the people you
address might have proven to be much more useful in accessing the
information you claim to be seeking, and your apparent presumption that
there are lines drawn in the sand, which forces people's allegiances to
uni-dimensional roles leaves very little room for discourse.

Further, since you find published materials to be at least potentially
untrustworthy, why do you bother to ask for references and URLs, when
your intent is to brand them as incomplete or less than forthright, anyway?

It's a cleaver "Catch 22" you have spun, but it leaves very little point
in trying to offer additional input.

You have expressed far more diplomatically than I the essence of "GP's"
posting "style".

I also hope others won't waste their time trying to explain things to him.

 

[Mushroom]

GP, I'm getting sick of your holier than thou attitude which denigrates
the very people who spend their own time here trying to help people like
you. Therefore, pay a little attention to those who are here, accept
that you may not get all the information you want and live with it.

Toner standards are NOTORIOUSLY difficult to define as so many variables
can lead to differing results. Paper type, paper size, air humidity,
temperature, differing coverages etc. It has taken ages tof the
manufacturers to agree to a standard against which they can be measured.
Read the following and be educated. Come back later without the attitude
if you need further questions answering.

Press Rlease from ISO, OEMs Support New ISO Standard (7/1/2004)

Canon, Epson, Hewlett-Packard and Lexmark announced their support of the
new International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard,
ISO/IEC 19752, for monochrome toner cartridge yield in monochrome laser
printers. The companies are leading proponents of industry standards and
believe a single, rigorous, worldwide ISO standard to measure monochrome
toner cartridge yield will help customers more objectively and
accurately evaluate printer and print cartridge yield.

The new ISO standard for monochrome toner cartridge yield clearly
defines the key attributes that affect yield and applies robust
statistical analysis so all manufacturers can utilize the same
methodology when measuring yield. For instance, instead of testing a
couple of cartridges on a single printer, this standard requires that at
least nine cartridges be tested on a minimum of three separate printers.
Rather than taking the average of the yield of the nine cartridges, a
robust statistical method is used to calculate the lower 95 percent
confidence bound. This more accurately represents the potential customer
experience by taking into account manufacturing variations in the
performance of the cartridges and the printers. Until now, printer
manufacturers have used a variety of methodologies to measure toner
yield, making it challenging for customers to accurately compare yield
measurements from leading suppliers.

Canon, Epson, HP, and Lexmark have supported and acted as key
participants in ISO's development of an industry standard for
determining toner cartridge yield for monochrome laser printers. These
companies believe the standard's robust criteria and consistency, ISO's
unbiased and global approach, and the industry-wide participation in
developing the standard will result in significant benefits for
customers and the printing industry alike. The new standard can be used
to evaluate OEM (original equipment manufacturer) remanufactured and
refilled toner cartridges.

"ISO's voluntary standards must be robust to endure the rigorous
processes that ensure they meet the requirements of businesses and their
customers worldwide and the designation of 'ISO International
Standard'," said Roger Frost, ISO Press and Communications Manager.
"Developed by experts from organizations throughout the world in the
sectors that will put them to use, the standards represent an
international consensus on state-of-the-art solutions for technological
and business challenges."

"The new ISO standard for determining monochrome toner yield puts a
solid foundation in place to evolve standards for color laser and inkjet
technology," said Mogens Molgaard Jensen, Executive Vice President of
Canon Europe and Head of Consumer Imaging for Canon Europe, Middle East
and Africa.

"This new standard should be a call to action for the printing industry
to support and adhere to these new, rigorous testing methodologies to
measure monochrome toner cartridge yield, and also seek to formulate
similar standards for color cartridges," said Seiichi Hirano, director
and chief executive of the Imaging and Information Products Operations
Division, Seiko Epson Corp. "Widespread adoption will ensure customers
have access to yield information they can rely on when making the
purchase decision."

"Customers can be assured that companies who support and adhere to the
new ISO standard are using the most robust testing criteria available
for determining monochrome toner printer yield," said Pradeep Jotwani,
senior vice president of Supplies, Imaging and Printing Group, HP.
"However, yield is only one among many factors in the overall costs of
printing. To get the best overall value, we advise our customers to
consider reliability, productivity, quality, speed, and ease of use as
well."

"Lexmark actively supported the development of the ISO standard for
monochrome toner print cartridge yield (for monochrome laser printers),"
said Paul Rooke, Lexmark executive vice president and president of its
Printing Solutions and Services Division. "We believe ISO's unbiased,
global approach will result in significant customer and industry benefits."

ISO is an internationally recognized organization that has successfully
developed many important and broadly used standards by working closely
with standards organizations around the world and from all parts of the
printing industry to arrive at unbiased, robust, reliable standards on
behalf of customers.

Following are key provisions of the ISO standard for monochrome toner
cartridge yield:

Technically Robust Testing Criteria

Standard test document: Use of a standard page printed in a controlled
environment with printer default settings.

Number of cartridges tested: A minimum of nine of each cartridge is
tested until they stop printing, allowing reliable estimates of lowest
predicted yield with 95 percent statistical confidence.

Source for cartridges: Cartridges and printers used represent those
available to customers on the open market.

Clear, objective, end-of-life criteria: Determines cartridge yield
through measurements that establish an end-of-life criterion.

Number of printers: A minimum of three cartridges are tested on three
different printers to avoid bias due to printer variability.

Controlled environment: Printing environment is controlled and
consistent because temperature and humidity variations affect yield.

Objectivity: Because of worldwide and industry-wide participation, the
testing criteria reflect objectivity in developing a reliable and
rigorous standard.

Consensus-Driven International Standards

Canon, Epson, HP, and Lexmark, along with other OEMs, are also working
with the ISO cartridge standards committee to develop a similar standard
for color inkjet cartridges and printers as well as color laser
cartridges and printers. These standards are expected to be complete in
late 2005.

Details of the ISO standard can be accessed on the ISO Web site at
www.iso.org/iso. The ISO homepage is www.iso.org.

 

[GP]

Although the sardonic tone of your postings might prove entertaining to
some,

Gee, Art! Maybe it you stopped top posting, as it has often been suggested, I
might get to know which passages you'refering to as sardonic.

Of course, yes, I'm sometimes ironic as there's absolutely no way I will get
an HP representative not-speaking-for-his-employer to agree that his company
is playing the ink game. In such circumstances, itony gets faster to the point.

A modicum of civility and respect toward the people you
address might have proven to be much more useful in accessing the
information you claim to be seeking, and your apparent presumption that
there are lines drawn in the sand, which forces people's allegiances to
uni-dimensional roles leaves very little room for discourse.

If you want to get technical information from Bob Headrick, no problem. He'll
provide the best he can, err... unless, maybe, if it's about fixing a 10 years
old printer. There, I don't know. As an HP representative
not-speaking-for-his-employer, he'll even send you an 8 x 10 print free of
charge over the Atlantic (This means irony. Do you really believe Bob is
using his own money to send prints all over the world?)

But, however courteous I'd be, there's absolutely no way I'll get him to admit
Joe Average will never print close to 450 pages from an ink cartridge and that
HP is playing the ink game by misleading him into believing that 5% coverage
is approximately equivalent to what he usually prints.

It might be that Joe Average won't reproduce in-house the precise optimal
laboratory settings, but it surely is that, instead of reading on-screen and
saving the files, Joe prints a lot of material from the net and it's full of
graphics. Joe will end up paying at least twice what HP pretends his costs
will be.

I'm sorry, Art, but this stupid game pisses me off. And so does cutting the
cartridge capacity by 20% and hiding the fact under the /Related product/ tab.
I find this is an invitation to irony.

Further, since you find published materials to be at least potentially
untrustworthy, why do you bother to ask for references and URLs, when
your intent is to brand them as incomplete or less than forthright, anyway?

Hey, I did find that HP's annual report was not GAAP compliant. I did get the
10k report and I did find that HP was being sued for offering half-empty --
half-full? Ok, half-full! -- cartridges with its printers. That was
interesting. I never said this was not trustworthy information. Maybe some
investors, as you once were, will also get some useful information from this.

GP

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Regarding top posting, it has only been suggest by one person here that
he has a problem with it, and I have no intention of changing my posting
habits, anyway. I have top posted for over 10 years, probably much
longer than most people have been on the internet, and I've perhaps
received 5 complaints in all that time about it. In general, it would
appear, the value of my postings make any extra effort someone might
perceive due to my top posting worthwhile.

You use of irony (and some is just sardonic) is misdirected in this
case. If you used enough of the wits that you employed in your sardonic
comments (and don't think I don't see them peppered throughout your
postings) you'd come to both recognize and respect the position some
contributors need to work within to offer their help here. I have
friends and acquaintences who have different faiths or depth of faith
than I do. I don't necessarily agree with their belief system, but I
fully comprehend that they live and function within it, either as a
choice, or as a way of life that came from their upbringing. I can
respectfully disagree with their POV, sometimes I can even challenge it,
when appropriate. However, I don't need or desire to be mocking or
disrespectful about it. People are multifacited and complex, and I
don't assume, and have not found that just because they hold a certain
set of beliefs means thay are necessarily not worthwhile knowing and I
certainly can be both civil and respectful to them, regardless.

In this case, I know this person in other settings, and know him to be a
decent and caring person, who gives of himself, well beyond anything
expected from him due to his employer. I also understand within his
function in this newsgroup he has certain allegences he must maintain,
and I think he does a great job of being helpful while functioning
within that space.

If you have a problem with starter cartridges (I just bought a
Konica-Minolta laser printer for a specific use which also came with a
starter cartridge, and I know for a fact Samsung, Brother, Lexmark and
others do so as well with their monochrome and color laser printers)
then you can certainly sue over them, start a class action, write a
letter to the companies, complain on newsgroups, or take multiple other
actions to resolve your "bladder" issues. But, you are barking up the
wrong tree, and I don't know how many more ways I can state it.
Misdirected, inappropriate attacks and complaints are not only not
effective, they are distructive to others and don't advance your cause.

I am NOT defending any of these companies for the business models they
use. Not in the slightest. But with people reacting as you show
yourself to here, I'm almost embarrased to be seen on the same side as
you are.

I do not comprehend how the tact you have taken in regard to the
directed "irony" advances your cause. It's a bit like going up to
someone who is very overweight and telling them they are fat, and
thinking you have helped resolve the crisis of overeating in the US.

Art

 

[Dewi]

Regarding top posting, it has only been suggest by one person here that
he has a problem with it, and I have no intention of changing my posting
habits, anyway. I have top posted for over 10 years, probably much
longer than most people have been on the internet, and I've perhaps
received 5 complaints in all that time about it. In general, it would
appear, the value of my postings make any extra effort someone might
perceive due to my top posting worthwhile.

You use of irony (and some is just sardonic) is misdirected in this
case. If you used enough of the wits that you employed in your sardonic
comments (and don't think I don't see them peppered throughout your
postings) you'd come to both recognize and respect the position some
contributors need to work within to offer their help here. I have
friends and acquaintences who have different faiths or depth of faith
than I do. I don't necessarily agree with their belief system, but I
fully comprehend that they live and function within it, either as a
choice, or as a way of life that came from their upbringing. I can
respectfully disagree with their POV, sometimes I can even challenge it,
when appropriate. However, I don't need or desire to be mocking or
disrespectful about it. People are multifacited and complex, and I
don't assume, and have not found that just because they hold a certain
set of beliefs means thay are necessarily not worthwhile knowing and I
certainly can be both civil and respectful to them, regardless.

In this case, I know this person in other settings, and know him to be a
decent and caring person, who gives of himself, well beyond anything
expected from him due to his employer. I also understand within his
function in this newsgroup he has certain allegences he must maintain,
and I think he does a great job of being helpful while functioning
within that space.

If you have a problem with starter cartridges (I just bought a
Konica-Minolta laser printer for a specific use which also came with a
starter cartridge, and I know for a fact Samsung, Brother, Lexmark and
others do so as well with their monochrome and color laser printers)
then you can certainly sue over them, start a class action, write a
letter to the companies, complain on newsgroups, or take multiple other
actions to resolve your "bladder" issues. But, you are barking up the
wrong tree, and I don't know how many more ways I can state it.
Misdirected, inappropriate attacks and complaints are not only not
effective, they are distructive to others and don't advance your cause.

I am NOT defending any of these companies for the business models they
use. Not in the slightest. But with people reacting as you show
yourself to here, I'm almost embarrased to be seen on the same side as
you are.

I do not comprehend how the tact you have taken in regard to the
directed "irony" advances your cause. It's a bit like going up to
someone who is very overweight and telling them they are fat, and
thinking you have helped resolve the crisis of overeating in the US.

Art

Yes, that's fine

 

[GP]

Regarding top posting, it has only been suggest by one person here that
he has a problem with it, and I have no intention of changing my posting
habits, anyway. I have top posted for over 10 years, probably much
longer than most people have been on the internet, and I've perhaps
received 5 complaints in all that time about it. In general, it would
appear, the value of my postings make any extra effort someone might
perceive due to my top posting worthwhile.

If top posting is against nettiquette, there must be some sensible reasons to
it, don't you think? And the most evident is that if you post below the text
you're answering to, it's easier, quicker, to see if you're indeed addressing
the matter at hand or are just surfing on your looney's thoughts.

It's easier to check if any question that was raised is left answered.

In your last message I answered, I didn't answer one of the questions you
raised because I was fed up checking what you were refering to. This might
happen more often.

You use of irony (and some is just sardonic) is misdirected in this
case. If you used enough of the wits that you employed in your sardonic
comments (and don't think I don't see them peppered throughout your
postings) you'd come to both recognize and respect the position some
contributors need to work within to offer their help here. I have
friends and acquaintences who have different faiths or depth of faith
than I do. I don't necessarily agree with their belief system, but I
fully comprehend that they live and function within it, either as a
choice, or as a way of life that came from their upbringing. I can
respectfully disagree with their POV, sometimes I can even challenge it,
when appropriate. However, I don't need or desire to be mocking or
disrespectful about it.

Faith is one thing, running a crocked business, another.

If you have a problem with starter cartridges (I just bought a
Konica-Minolta laser printer for a specific use which also came with a
starter cartridge, and I know for a fact Samsung, Brother, Lexmark and
others do so as well with their monochrome and color laser printers)
then you can certainly sue over them, start a class action, write a
letter to the companies, complain on newsgroups, or take multiple other
actions to resolve your "bladder" issues.

Making the people aware that they must check what they're getting from HP is a
lot more efficient than your suggestions here. I don't believe it has to do
with my bladder issues.

If people here and in the stores would have brought to my attention the fact
that HP has changed a lot since the coming of La Fiorina, I would, at least,
have been more attentive to the costs of consumables.

Not setting the facts straight produced a lag that benefits some companies'
treachery. You now know that if I'm commenting on HP it's both because I
bought an HP printer and because it's an american company whose reputation is
ruined by a careless CEO, and that's the way too many of ours companies have
disappeared or have become lame ducks.

I may comment on Samsung if you wish. I bought a SyncMaster 950p monitor more
than 3 years ago and am totally satisfied with it.

GP

 

[John Beardmore]

Regarding top posting, it has only been suggest by one person here that
he has a problem with it,

Make that two.

and I have no intention of changing my posting habits, anyway. I have
top posted for over 10 years, probably much longer than most people
have been on the internet,

So does being silly a long time make you sensible ?

and I've perhaps received 5 complaints in all that time about it.

This is six then.

In general, it would appear, the value of my postings make any extra
effort someone might perceive due to my top posting worthwhile.

Maybe, but making them easier to follow would enhance them further.


Cheers, J/.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

1: No chance I'm changing my posting style, so don't waste your fingers.

2: The sooner you get fed up with answering my posts (and maybe sooner)
the sooner I can get back to posting answers to printer questions.

3: Just because something is traditionally done in a certain manner
doesn't prove it to be best, it may just be... tradition. I have been
known to eat my salad with a meat fork (since I don't eat meat), it has
yet to cause me undue harm I am aware of.

4: I think you may have misunderstood my point. I am not objecting to
your expressing your complains about HP in this forum, by any means. I
mainly deal and own Epson printers (in inkjet format) and HP and others
in laser. I am very critical of certain aspects of Epson design, and
corporate culture and have stated so many times on this and other public
forums. I am talking about target practice. Shooting the guy setting
up the targets for you is not going to be well appreciated, and will
probably just either kill the guy or make him unwilling to service your
need for targets any more.

If you wish to challenge HP, their product, their business model, their
CEO, then do so. I believe legitimate arguments will be both tolerated
and cause reflection.

Taunting an individual who is here on his own accord to help people in
an area he knows about, which happens to be HP printers, and expecting
him to engage in a battle you are presenting regarding HP is unfair to
that person and silly on your part. Most of us are forced, on some
level, to make sacrifices in our work position. Very few people can
feel 100% integrated with the work they do. If, as part of a sense of
fair play, a person chooses to give of his own time to help others in an
area he is knowledgeable as a result of his work place knowledge, I do
not feel it is appropriate to taunt him nor to expect him to thwart his
employer by criticizing them. That is unrealistic. It also may be that
we are not privy to the full scope of the picture.

Compared to top posting, that behavior can be considerably more boorish
and less fruitful.

Art

 

[Dewi]

3: Just because something is traditionally done in a certain manner
doesn't prove it to be best, it may just be... tradition. I have been
known to eat my salad with a meat fork (since I don't eat meat), it has
yet to cause me undue harm I am aware of.

He has a point ;-)

 

[Arthur Entlich]

No, actually, being sensible (and a pretty good source for valuable,
accurate, information) a long time makes me sensible. ;-)

Art

 

[GP]

1: No chance I'm changing my posting style, so don't waste your fingers.

In my last message, I posted a gif of the part of the RFC 1855 about top
posting. You know what's an RFC and since you pretend you've been on the
newsgroups for ten years, what you really mean is you're an idiot.

Because, this is as much a matter of liberty as it would be for a fool to
pretend that driving his car on reverse all the time is a matter of liberty.

So, you're really a damned idiot? All your pretention to having some technical
merit is pure bullshit?

Here's the url, once again:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

Which means: The Internet Engineering Task Force, Request For Comment document
1855.

Search on:

If you are sending a reply

GP

 

[Ron Cohen]

If Art is an idiot, what does that make you? He's proven his expertise time
and again here and on other forums. Where have you been when it comes to
providing useful advice and assistance? Your language and name calling says
more you than it does about those you are attacking.

 

[JP]

Whine, whine.

In my last message, I posted a gif of the part of the RFC 1855 about top
posting. You know what's an RFC and since you pretend you've been on the
newsgroups for ten years, what you really mean is you're an idiot.

Because, this is as much a matter of liberty as it would be for a fool to
pretend that driving his car on reverse all the time is a matter of
liberty.

So, you're really a damned idiot? All your pretention to having some
technical merit is pure bullshit?

Here's the url, once again:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

Which means: The Internet Engineering Task Force, Request For Comment
document 1855.

Search on:

If you are sending a reply

GP

 

[GEO Me]

So, you're really a damned idiot? All your pretention to having some technical
merit is pure bullshit?

Top posting, or bottom posting, Arthur's postings are worth reading,
which is not what can be said about your postings.


Geo

 

[John Beardmore]

No, actually, being sensible (and a pretty good source for valuable,
accurate, information) a long time makes me sensible. ;-)

Art

Yes. Posting valuable contributions and top posting aren't mutually
exclusive, though my own view is that top posting does make stuff harder
to read, and it seems a shame that some people don't ever seem to get
the hang of that.

When I came to the Internet out of the world of BBSs, I thought the
amount of duplicated text in follow-up messages was a huge waste, but I
came to realise that interspersing text from old messages and comments
to that text, made close analysis of what was being written much easier
and faster which added a lot of value, so my views changed as I learned.

You may have some reason for the die hard top posting stance, but I'm
sure curious to know if it's a good one, or just simple "don't waste
your fingers" defiance of the bulk of the community.


J/.

 

[GP]

Yes. Posting valuable contributions and top posting aren't mutually
exclusive, though my own view is that top posting does make stuff harder
to read, and it seems a shame that some people don't ever seem to get
the hang of that.

When I came to the Internet out of the world of BBSs, I thought the
amount of duplicated text in follow-up messages was a huge waste, but I
came to realise that interspersing text from old messages and comments
to that text, made close analysis of what was being written much easier
and faster which added a lot of value, so my views changed as I learned.

From the moment I got to the BBS in 1990, interspersing seemed to me like a
most valuable tool in argumentation. The electronic medium is a wonderful tool
to get fast to the point. It shares the advantages of both the permanence of
writing -- scripti manent! -- and the swiftness of speech.

But some senile dimwits or kids raised with an Mbox and a Playstation as
nannies, will rather not get to the point. They just want to express whatever
stupidity crosses their ding-a-ling mind, repeat it ad nauseam to get a
hard-on and present it at the top level as if it was icing on the cake. They
just don't care to answer.

You may have some reason for the die hard top posting stance, but I'm
sure curious to know if it's a good one, or just simple "don't waste
your fingers" defiance of the bulk of the community.

With what you explained in the preceeding paragraph, why not call it plainly
defiance of common sense? So, how do you expect top-posters to explain their
point beyond "not waisting their fingers" ? Clearly, it's their brain that's
already waisted.

Poor Entlich thinks a multi-million dollar CEO is really there to help salvage
HP, then sells his shares when, most probably, their price will raise for a
year or two while La Fiorina cashes in on HP's reputation. After four
consecutive power outages, he doesn't think about saving more often. Getting
his kicks out of seeing prints come out of a printer, he accuses you of being
an amateur of "la giglée" (quick sexual intercourse) for not feeling the same.
Etc.

So, should you expect any discussion that makes any kind of sense from this
guy? Even references to RFCs won't move him. He thinks he's brighter than the
whole Internet Engineering Task Force!

Yes, he can send you, just you, of course, a document explaining how to unclog
an Epson printhead. It might work, I don't know. As for the rest... it's plain
redneck stubbornness in idiocy all the way.

GP

 

[John Beardmore]

John Beardmore wrote:

With what you explained in the preceeding paragraph, why not call it
plainly defiance of common sense?

I wrote what I wanted to write. No more no less.

I am keen that all posters make best use of the net, but I don't feel
the need for holy war.

So, how do you expect top-posters to explain their point beyond "not
waisting their fingers" ? Clearly, it's their brain that's already
waisted.

Like I said,

"Posting valuable contributions and top posting aren't
mutually exclusive".


Regardless of how you feel about it, they can make a contribution of
value. If you don't take the trouble to read it, that's your loss, as
well as to some extent theirs.

Poor Entlich thinks a multi-million dollar CEO is really there to help
salvage HP, then sells his shares when, most probably, their price will
raise for a year or two while La Fiorina cashes in on HP's reputation.
After four consecutive power outages, he doesn't think about saving
more often. Getting his kicks out of seeing prints come out of a
printer, he accuses you of being an amateur of "la giglée" (quick
sexual intercourse) for not feeling the same. Etc.

I wouldn't know...

So, should you expect any discussion that makes any kind of sense from
this guy?

....But your blood pressure seems to be the main casualty.

Even references to RFCs won't move him. He thinks he's brighter than
the whole Internet Engineering Task Force!

No. Though he may think that top posting works well because if
everybody does it, the fresh content is always at the top of a message,
and the parts of the thread history that previous posters have deemed to
preserve will fall away below it.

Personally I think that's very wasteful of space and doesn't encourage
close analysis of the text, but we are all entitled to our opinions.

Yes, he can send you, just you, of course, a document explaining how to
unclog an Epson printhead. It might work, I don't know.
Indeed.


As for the rest... it's plain redneck stubbornness in idiocy all the
way.

That maybe a contributing factor, but sometimes stubborn people are
really valuable, and while debates about what is best practice may be a
good thing, vituperative back biting is less productive, so please don't
try and enlist me to your cause.


Cheers, J/.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Actually, I do have a number of reasons, and it has nothing to do with
defiance.

Although I use a function email address in my postings, I find many
people do not, so not knowing if yours works, I have posted this here.

However, I do not wish to prolong this thread here, as it's O.T., so if
you'd be kind enough to email me with a "real" address I can correspond
to you with, I'd be happy to explain my logic.

Art