Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scirtp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd
From: todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.misc,net.flame
Subject: Re: USENET frowning upon graphics in signatures
Message-ID: <502@scirtp.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 14:41:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: scirtp.502
Posted: Fri Oct 18 14:41:56 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Oct-85 05:58:02 EDT
References: <491@scirtp.UUCP> <454@bdmrrr.UUCP> <524@phri.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.news:4095 net.misc:8710 net.flame:12415

> > Boy I'm with you Todd.  Signature files with graphics help me recognize
> > those who posted articles.  [...] I don't understand how USENET got the
> > idea that net news readers find graphics offensive.

Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy:
> 	A picture may indeed be worth a thousand words, but keep in mind
> also that they cost about the same to transmit!  

A thousand words cost as much to transmit as an 8 line sig?
Do graphics run like mollases through the phone lines or something?

> As annoyed as I am (as a
> news reader) at cute pictures taking up 8 lines at 1200 baud, I'm even more
> annoyed (as a system administrator) at the disk space and phone time they
> take to store and transfer.

Graphics are no different than any other form of communication on the
net; they can convey useful information or they can be a total waste
of time. So why decide that they are informationally empty and erradicate
them?
   |||||||  __  No-o-o-o-o Mr. System Administrator! Don't delete me!!
   ||/ \|| /
   [ O-O ]       Todd Jones
    \ ^ /        {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd      
    | O |
    |___|        SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.